Loading...
PZC Minutes 051600Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 16, 2000 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:06 PM II. Roll Call Commissioners Klein and Fehlner were not in attendance. Commissioner Fehlner joined the meeting after Roll Call at 6:10 PM III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Lot 43, Block 4, Schifanelli's 4 -Plex, Wildridge, the applicant is deleting the item from the agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest None V. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the May 2, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sipes moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Commissioner Karow seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VI. Final Design Review A. Lot 15, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: Four -plex Applicant: Bob Mach Owner: Claus Holm Address: 2170 Saddleridge Road Ruth Borne, Assistant Director of Community Development, gave the Staff presentation. She stated that the applicant clarified some of the discrepancies from previous submittals which included revising the retaining walls and revising the grading plan. The drainage into the garage has been addressed. The boulder retaining wall on the northeast corner must be located outside of the 50 -ft. easement. Applicant, Bob Mach, was present. He declined to make a presentation. Commissioner Macik commented in general, it seems most of the concerns we talked about last time have been covered. He is still concerned with the roof design. He agreed with Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Karow commented that the application still does not meet Design Review considerations. The retaining wall supporting the hammerhead encroaches into the 50 -ft. Slope Maintenance and Snow Storage Easement. He questions the building height and requests clarification prior to making any recommendation for approval. Commissioner Fehlner joined the meeting at 6:10PM. She stated she would abstain from Lot 15, Block 1 currently being reviewed. Commissioner Karow further stated his main concern is with respect to the massing, height, orientation to the street and quality of materials. This location is extremely prominent and anyone driving into Wildridge will see this project first. This 4 -Plex will be very tight on this site. We need to see a model for this key site. Commissioner Head agreed; he would like to see a model. He is also concerned with the retaining walls. Commissioner Sipes asked Mr. Mach what the slopes of the crickets are. Mr. Mach approached the podium and stated it is a shallow cricket and the material is not yet determined. Cricket will be as steep as possible. Commissioner Sipes stated in walking the site today, he observed that this lot is very exposed and is concerned with the project meeting the design criteria. The existing height calculations are very close to the allowed maximum. Chairman Evans stated that the applicant has addressed several of the concerns outlined in previous meetings. The grading on the northeast units is incorrect - the existing grade is 46, not 48 directly under the gable. Determining height is measured from the ridge elevation to the proposed or existing grade, whichever is more restrictive. Depending on where you measure, the unit is half a foot over 35 ft. He is concerned with Design Review Criteria Number 1 regarding the rock retaining walls; Number 4, design of site grading and drainage to minimize the impact to adjacent sites; and Number 6, the appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. The applicant is not meeting the proposed review criteria. Minutes of P &Z Meeting May 16, 2000 The applicant stated that it is not up to this Board to make sure that the building does not go over the height. It is at the time of the ILC. Chairman Evans stated it is in our guidelines to ask for a model for a 3 -Plex or larger and within our jurisdiction to make sure the height is within the guidelines. Mr. Mach stated it is not your right to determine if the height is over from reviewing the site plans. Chairman Evans said you could take it up with Town Council to make sure it is in our jurisdiction. We cannot approve plans that show you are over the height requirement. I'm talking about the main ridge. The guidelines say you have the right to go to 35 ft. per the Town's measurement. Commissioner Sipes stated it is within our right to deny the application based upon compliance with the Design Review Criteria. Chairman Evans cautioned Mr. Mach to advise his client that however this motion turns out, any changes they may make that affect the exterior of this building must be approved either by Staff or by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Karow asked about the landscaping plans. Mr. Mach said I think that is up to the Board's discretion. The trees are shown; there are 13 trees over 6 ft. and 13 under 6 ft. Commissioner Karow stated he is not supporting the applicant's landscaping plan based on Design Criteria Numbers 4, 5 and 6. Commissioner Sipes asked whether the hammerhead would be deleted. Mr. Mach said yes, it seems the hammerhead does not work. The driveway will work much better without it. Chairman Evans commented that he would like it specifically stipulated that all areas of disturbance outside of the formal landscaping plan be re- vegetated at Town's requirement of 3 sagebrush for every 100 ft. of area. He stated he is not in support of this proposal. Commissioner Karow moved to deny the Final Design application based on the applicant's failure to meet Design Review Criteria 4, 5 and 6. Mr. Mach asked for a review of Numbers 4, 5 and 6. Commissioner Karow read the specific criteria. No second was made. The motion failed. Commissioner Sipes moved to recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. Revise retaining wall supporting the hammerhead to eliminate encroachment into the 50' Easement and provide for adequate maneuvering; 2. Submit detail of retaining walls with the Permit; 3. Ensure grading plan and elevations are all consistent upon application of Building Permit plans; Minutes of PU Meeting May 16, 2000 4. Revise grading /drainage plan to accommodate drainage away from the building on the west end of the project; 5. Revise application of stone on the east and west elevations; 6. Add stone at each unit on the northwest corner; 7. All areas of disturbance will be re- vegetated at the Town's current standard of 3 sagebrush for every 100 sq.ft. of disturbed area; 8. Identify the slope of the cricket and material on the Building Permit drawings. Commissioner Macik seconded the motion. Chairman Evans stated he does not see how we can vote for a project that is over the allowed height. A condition of approval must be that the east unit be lowered an amount such that it complies with the 35 -ft. height restrictions. Commissioner Sipes amended the motion adding: 9. The applicant resubmit to Staff with a solution to trim height out of the eastern most unit at a minimum such that it's not as indicated on the site drawings over the allowable height. Commissioner Macik seconded the amended motion. The motion passed 3 -2 with Chairman Evans and Commissioner Karow opposing and Commissioner Fehlner abstaining. B. Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: Four -Plex Applicant: TAB Associates Owner: Andy Schifanelli Address: 5113 Longsun Lane Item B was removed from the agenda. C. Lot C, Avon Center Subdivision Project Type: Time -Share & Employee Housing Phase 1A -1C Project Name: Mountain Vista Applicant/Owner: Vistana, Inc. Address: 0160 Beaver Creek Boulevard West Applicant handed out a packet containing OZ's responses to the Staff Report. Ruth Borne made the Staff presentation stating Lot C is applying for Final Design approval for133 time -share units, 20 employee housing units, 374 parking spaces and 4 Minutes of P &Z Meeting May 16, 2000 retail space. Consistent with previous work sessions, the applicant has revised the time -share entry, revised the planter detail increasing the planter box dimensions, revised the clock detail, added corrugated metal in place of the Galvalume siding, more columns and architectural detail have been added on Benchmark Road. There is no split face masonry being proposed. The applicant has addressed some of the conditions contained in the Staff Report. Staff recommends all of the items remain as conditions. Tom Oberyermer presented the OZ team: Jim McKnight, Jeff Edwards with Vistana, Ann Webb and Alexander Sheykhet. Tom Obermeyer outlined the most current revisions: 1. Corrugated metal siding, instead of the Galvalume. 2. The clock was redesigned. 3. The entry to time -share is similar to the entry arch on West Beaver Creek. 4. The planter on employee housing is redesigned and redetailed. 5. The detail for seating in the pedestrian area has been provided. 6. The additional cut sheets are for other area lighting and are a supplement to the lighting package. Chairman Evans said he has a concern about getting an actual mockup on colors and materials for final approval. We need something for the file to show what is being approved; specific drawing identifying colors and materials and their location on the building. The clock blends with the building now. Commissioner Sipes is concerned with the reflectivity of the corrugated metal. He cautioned that the mockup should have all of the elements of the building present: window trim, all the siding materials, railing and stone. Commissioner Macik stated that he preferred the Galvalume, but the corrugated is OK. Everything else looks great. Commissioner Head commented that adding six inches to the planting beds would be more beneficial to the plant material. Commissioner Karow stated he supports Staffs recommended motion. Commissioner Sipes moved to recommend Final Design approval of Lot C with the following conditions: 1. All development shall occur consistent with the requirements of the PUD Site Development Plan and Development Agreement adopted by Town Council on February 22, 2000 via Ordinance 00 -02; 2. Final design approval conforming to all conditions of the PUD will be required for Phase 1 B and 1 C; Minutes of P &Z Meeting May 16, 2000 3. The access agreements must be approved prior to issuance of a Building Permit 4. The Stormwater Storage and Pollution Control Facilities Agreement on Town property must be submitted and approved by Town Council prior to issuance of any construction related permit including excavation or Building Permit; 5. A master sign program must be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on or before September 1, 2000; 6. The colors, materials and paving materials are not approved. The Planning & Zoning Commission must approve all colors and materials by an on -site mockup of the colors and materials on or before September 1, 2000; 7. Provide roof detail and elevations of all the roof elements — specifically the elevation of mechanical equipment and the elevator shaft to ensure compliance with height restriction and impact from off -site views; 8. Provide detail of bus stop consistent with Town standards; 9. Revise pool equipment enclosure with more detail; 10. Provide all lighting cut sheets; 11. Provide detail of sculpture area and seating; 12. Ensure all parking aisles are 24'0" wide and the parking space dimensions comply with Town standards; 13. The West Beaver Creek Blvd. and delivery entrances are required to have a 13'6" vertical clearance; 14. All sidewalks must be 8'0" wide — the revised planter appears to be 5'0" in width thereby diminishing the sidewalk width — clarification is required; 15. All entrances must comply with the 4% grade requirement for the first 20'0 ". (Information submitted indicates parking structure deck surface is approximately 2.5 feet above indicated driveway grade in West Beaver Creek Blvd. surface parking entrance. This must be clarified prior to issuance of any permit, i.e., permit for work within the public right -of -way.) Commissioner Fehlner seconded the motion. It passed unanimously. Commissioner Fehlner gave her good wishes to the applicant. A recess was called at 7:14 PM. The meeting resumed at 7:22 PM. VII. Work Session A. Cottonwood PUD Lots 1, 2 and 3 — Wildwood Resort Subdivision Project Type: PUD Application Project Name: Cottonwood PUD Applicant/Owner: Ray Nielson — Fieldstone Development The Staff presentation was made by Ruth Borne. The applicant is proposing a new PUD for Wildwood Resort, which was previously approved in 1985 and has now expired. The new name for the project is Cottonwood. The property owner is the same as in 1985. The proposed density for this project includes a total of 65,000 -sq. ft. of Minutes of P &Z Meeting May 16, 2000 commercial space, 120 dwelling units or 260 hotel units, along with 110 residential units and a 10- bedroom lodge. Staff is concerned with this project primarily because of the wildlife interests and the existing wetlands, which is part of the Buck Creek Riparian Corridor. There are many issues with the existing soils and the wildlife concerns, which are outlined in the report and are attached to the Staff Report. In addition, the parking that the applicant is proposing is less than the Code requires for the Town of Avon. This project is entirely self- contained. Another concern is the amount of development proposed above the existing pond; we recommend no development occur on that portion of the property. Supporting the existing infrastructure in the Town of Avon is a concern. The impact of this project on the infrastructure is not yet disclosed and the applicant has not addressed it. Staff is concerned the amount of density proposed will adversely impact the streets and road and infrastructure. Commissioner Karow asked how this project complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Mike Matzko, Director of Community Development, responded that the project generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. The project is not intended to compete with Town Center; density should be somewhat lower. Applicant, Ray Nielson, approached the podium and gave his presentation. This parcel is slightly less than 16 acres and includes Lots 1, 2 and 3. Basically 2.45 acres are delineated as wetlands and the number of building envelopes shown do not disturb any of the existing wetlands or the large stands of trees on the site. Half of that 16 acres would be undisturbed open space and the building envelopes comprise 6.6 acres of the site. The previous zoning and intensity of uses is similar. Lot 1, is a little over 2 acres and the primary location for the commercial and hotel uses —this is the urban portion of the project. Location access indicates it is an appropriate use of the site. It is close to 1 -70 with easy access to the freeway. We would put 70 -80% of the parking underground. The site plan is proposed with Lot 1, a 5 -story building and a 4 -story building, surface parking for 75 -80 parking spaces, and provisions for the Town's Information Center. Building Envelope 2 is an office building directly connected to Building 1. The upper building Envelopes 6 and 7 translate into 10 units per acre. Building Envelopes 6 and 7 will be accessed through the existing road. They are proposing the removal of 1,800 sq. ft. of wetlands for this access. The rest of the project does not get within 10 ft. of the wetlands. In terms of building heights, this is a good site because it does not block anyone's view. The site ascends as you go up to the northeast. Shadow casting is contained on the site. With regard to the wildlife issues, the applicant can comply with the report. The soils and geologic report have some large issues to be resolved. Minutes of P &Z Meeting May 16, 2000 Envelopes 6 and 7 have the best location for housing relative to the natural topography and will not be touching the wetlands except to gain access. All sewer lines and utilities are existing. He commented he is looking for thoughts and feedback on the proposal. Commissioner Karow commented the density seems too high for the area; it really seems the lower half of the site seems to be developable. Staff recommends no development on Envelopes 6 and 7. The employee housing on Metcalf Road must be approved prior to making any concessions. The underground parking is encouraged with higher- density uses. A 4 and 5 -story building seems appropriate, but the farther up you go on the site, the less appropriate development is. Commissioner Macik stated he is generally in favor of developing the whole property, even 6 and 7, but with reducing density as you go up especially in 5, 6 and 7. In 1, 2 and 3 the density looks fine. I would be in favor of the project with the reduced densities on 5, 6 and 7. In general it would fit that topography a little better. Commissioner Sipes stated he has a lot of problems with this proposal. He is not in favor of splitting the PUD process. He wants to see a development plan. We did it for Lot C and the Confluence and don't think we should have. We said no to Lot 61. 1 do not want to go back to that fragmented approval process. The project is not consistent with the neighborhood. This is not the Town Center; it is on the outskirts of Town. You mentioned there is quite a bit of open space there, but it is fragmented and speaking to the wildlife report, fragmented open space is of no use to the wildlife. It is a sprawl -type development where some impact is happening to the entire site. That open space is much less valid. The wildlife report recommends seasonal wildlife enclosure because it is so important to the winter range wildlife. Encroachment on these ranges in the entire valley is getting worse and worse. I am not in favor of any impact to wetlands. The pond has at least three seeps that go into it that I know of. Concentrate the development to the south and leave the whole northern end undisturbed. Commissioner Fehlner commented she concurs with Commissioner Sipes' comments. Additionally, if you do a 4 -5 story building which puts you into underground parking, I don't know how you can do that without impacting the wetlands underground. I would like to see more information on the other building envelopes and the underground impact. You stated that you are not impacting the wetlands, but then you said you are in 5, 6 and 7. I'd like more clarification on this and the wildlife corridor. Chairman Evans stated he agrees in general with Commissioners Sipes and Fehlner. In general, I am not in favor of a fragmented process. Our guidelines call for a development plan as part of the PUD process, it does not talk to two separate stages. We specifically said we were not going back to the fragmented process as we did on Minutes of P &Z Meeting May 16, 2000 Lot C and the Confluence. You should be prepared to bring in development plans as part of the PUD process. I'm concerned with the traffic and infrastructure impacts. Is the infrastructure in place to support this PUD? Mike Matzko responded, we don't know as to the impacts yet from Engineering. Chairman Evans said he is not in favor of transferring employee housing to another location even if is by the same developer. An integrated mix of employee housing makes more sense instead of off -site. With regard to the soil report, overfilling the site to encourage settlement for eight months on site is not supported by our regulations. The wildlife report states on page 3, there are no habitats of threatened or endangered species on site or in adjacent areas that development or the use of the property would jeopardize. But it continues to say this is elk winter range and critical habitat for both elk and deer. It talks about bear habitat and strict restrictions for dogs. This is an important wildlife impact. Wildlife impacts from your own report are negative and in conflict. I would rather see the density increased on Envelopes 1, 2 and 3 and eliminated on 4, 5, 6 and 7. Envelopes 6 and 7 have no business with development on them based upon the wildlife and wetland impacts. Open space is useless to the wildlife because it is fragmented. I would like to see low density on Envelope 4 such as single family and duplex homes. Concentrate density on the south end rather than spread out the density. Commissioner Head stated he agrees that development be restricted on Envelopes 5, 6 and 7. There is no way to avoid fragmenting the landscape in that area. He would like most of the development to occur on the south end of the property. The applicant stated that the better location for the wildlife is further up the valley where the bridges were created for migration. This project is in the Core, adjacent to the Town proper and is appropriate for development. I will get more clarification on the wildlife issues. Everybody uses this site; everybody walks their dog there. It is not a pristine site; it is a disturbed site. The property has been significantly disturbed. It was intended for development. The open space is significant there. The large trees and the pond are going to remain the same. The less significant areas are where we are proposing development. We want to be sensitive to the site. I will take your comments to heart and analyze everything to see if there is a way to address your concerns. Commissioner Sipes responded to applicant's comment that this is adjacent to the Town and is in the Town Core. Neither are supported by the Comprehensive Plan. It is not next to the Core. The Comprehensive Plan clearly requires that the surrounding neighborhood be taken into account. Minutes of P &Z Meeting May 16, 2000 Three Commissioners stated they did not support splitting this process into two steps. Commissioner Sipes stated that we couldn't give away specific items without seeing the development plans and what they refer to. The Zoning Code specifically requires a development plan in order to get approval. We need to see what development is occurring on this site as a whole. Mike Matzko commented Town Council has agreed to look at the off -site employee housing. The applicant stated that they are trying to get the employee housing accomplished before this development starts. He can address massing, impact to infrastructure, height, and setbacks without development plans. Commissioner Fehlner commented she would like to visit the site. Asked applicant if he could stake the site. She stated a development plan to me is not Final Design plan, by definition in the Zoning Code. Applicant stated he could go back and develop some criteria. VIII. Other Business Ruth Borne advised the Commissioners there would be a Public Meeting on Nottingham Road Improvements, Wednesday the 24th at 5:30 PM in the Town of Avon Council Chambers. A. Staff Approvals: presented by Ruth Borne 1. Lot 76, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 2481 Drawspur Road Buffalohead Townhomes Roof material change 2. Lot 76, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 2355 Old Trail Road Mountain Shadows Condominium Exterior color change 3. Lot 46 -A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 2410 Saddleridge Loop Exterior color change 4. Lots 46 & 47, BMBC 410 Nottingham Road Nightstar Modifications to Approved Plans 10 Minutes of P &Z Meeting May 16, 2000 5. Lot A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Bob's Place Exterior Deck Approval 6. Lot 40, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Exterior Color Change Savage Residence IX. Adjourn Commissioner Fehlner made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Karow and unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 8:47 PM. Respectfully submitted, Cecelia Fenton, Recording Secretary APPROVED: June 6, 2000 Chris Evans Chairman Andrew Kar w Secretary 11 Minutes of P &Z Meeting May 16, 2000