Loading...
PZC Minutes 03-01-2005 (2)141 W, Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes C O AVON March 15t, 2005 5:00 pm — 5:30 pm Commission Work Session I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm II. Roll Call All Commissioners in attendance. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Item XII was moved to consent agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Bob Trueblood declared a conflict with Item XII. Tim Savage declared a conflict with Item IX and Item XI. V. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the February 15"', 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes B. Item XII — Lot 45C, Block 2, WR — Other Business — Minor Project Appeal Approved with a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Smith and Savage abstaining. VI. Discussiorrw;th Mayor Wolfe The Mayor followed up from discussion at P&Z and Council joint work session, discussing the meeting proceedings from the joint P&Z and council work session. Mayor Wolfe discussed the condemnation proceedings and the agreement that the Council had was that once the owner of the property was advised of the condemnation procedure, that the Town would inform Lot 61 and P&Z. The condemnation proceedings had nothing to do with the entitlements for Lot 61, based on the existing entitlements they could submit a design application to the Commission. The format of the joint work session was discussed with respect to the audio and room configuration. Commissioner Trueblood voiced that the chambers should be brought into the 215` century with new technologies. The mayor explained the possibility of feeding live video to Channel 5 so that when somebody recluses himself or herself they could still see what was happening. Commissioner Karow explained that more advanced notice of work sessions would result in better cooperation and attendance. Meeting at the table should also provide a better environment for creative thinking. Commissioner Karow discussed the new Council and the need for continued dialogue to better understand the ideas and direction of Council. The interpretation of codes and guidelines must be discussed for clarification on items such as fencing and lighting for a better product in the end. Mayor Wolfe responded with the need for a Public Benefit when reviewing special uses and variance applications. Commissioner Didier would like to see more joint meetings in order to improve dialogue. Mayor Wolfe explained that policies such as lock offs need to be brought up from P&Z. Commissioner Struve brought up the issue of forgiveness versus permission and the need to address it in a positive way. Mayor Wolfe responded that compliance deposits might be a tool to explore to ensure compliance, since most times there are repeat offenders. Chairmen Evans discussed that the meeting minutes from P&Z reflected the Commissions frustrations more than anything. Executive sessions should be held without any Town staff or Commissioners. The role of P&Z has changed and will continue to change. Mayor Wolfe highlighted 7 items that he had taken notes on including: the need for a better joint meeting venue, executive session attendance and communication following these sessions, more advanced notice for joint meetings, the need for continued dialogue between Council and P&Z, more interplay on new ordinances, and compliance deposits and the need to explore whether or not they are appropriate. VII. Minor Project — Windows/Addition Property Location: Lot 38, Block 32, Wildridge Subdivision/4560 Flat Point Applicants/Owners: Susan & James Dreisbach Susan and James Dreisbach submitted a Minor Project application to change the roof pitch on a portion of a roof at their duplex. This change in roof pitch would facilitate the addition of additional windows and may enhance their views facing south. The roof pitch would change from a 6:12 pitch to a 2:12 pitch for an area measuring approximately 275 square feet. The Residential Design Guidelines do not support 2:12 pitch roofs. The Commission discussed the pitch, and discussed the use of other materials and at least a 3:12 pitch roof for this application. The applicant, Susan Dreisbach, discussed goals of the remodel with the Commission and appreciated their input. The Commission was concerned with the pitch and the materials, suggesting that a 3:12 metal roof application would be more appropriate and create a better accent to the home. The applicant said that they would rework the proposal with the Commission's input. The item was tabled (unanimously) to allow the applicant time to address the concerns and submit a revised drawing. VIII. Sketch Design Property Location: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540 Beaver Creek Blvd. Applicant/Owner. Davis Partnership Architects/Daniel Ritsch The applicant, Davis Partnership Architects, is proposing a multi -family project on this lot. Two options have been submitted for review. Option 1 is proposing 19 units (13 dwelling units and 6 accommodation units). Option 2 is proposing 13 dwelling units. The applicant would like feedback on the concept plan prior to initiating a zoning application for either option. Ken Kovalchik presented the options submitted by the applicant in the staff report. He specifically discussed the design and zoning issues, mentioning that one option would require a zoning variance and staff would find no 'hardship' case for this proposal. Ken also reviewed the proposed stacked underground parking spaces on Option 2. Ken then reviewed Option 1, reviewing the increased density request and the addition of 'hot beds/accommodation units' on the property, which would require a rezoning application. The rezoning application would require a PUD for this option, since no zone district has the density requirements as requested. Also, staff believes the massing and density of this option is not compatible with the adjacent properties. Chairman Evans requested to clarify the requirement of the setback provisions, stating that at least 9 parking spaces (including underground spaces) would be infringing on the front setback and require a variance application or rezoning. Scott Nevin, the applicant, wanted to understand the desire and need for accommodation units in the Town of Avon. The applicant was interested in providing 'hotbed' units, such as hotel units (accommodation units) and that the units might be sold and then put into a pool to be rented. The applicant mentioned that the accommodation option was not the first option to be pursued. They looked at one building with thirteen units and looked at the previously approved 13 -unit design. He mentioned that the issues in the 1998 proposal were related to massing and the visual impacts of the parking structure. The applicant wanted to reduce the impact of one building on the site and preserve the views from Alpenflora and Buck Creek. They will be able to meet the parking requirements of Option 2 after removing the encroachments in the setbacks and double stack garage spaces. They do believe that the 2 building scenario is the appropriate one for the site, reducing the massing appearance from the south side of the site. Application tried to maintain views from Alpenflora and buck creek condos. Daniel Ritsch, owner, mentioned that they are hoping to raise the design standards for the area. He also mentioned that breaking the project up into 2 buildings creates an upscale feel for the project, and maintains view corridors for the neighboring properties, preserving views to Beaver Creek Resort. Would like to be adaptive to needs of Avon with this project. Daniel discussed future development in Avon and the enormous potential for the Town. Consideration to demographics and the size of units was taken. Chairman Evans discussed the setback encroachments and the parking issues with the applicant. Chairman Evans did not feel that parking could be accommodated on site. Chris Klein, owner on West Beaver Creek Boulevard, asked that the massing be reduced and that compatible rooflines be used with this site to Alpen Flora and Buck Creek Condominiums. He lives in a duplex in the area and believes the density is too much for this lot, and that the majority of residents are primary homeowners. He asked that the type of density be reduced. Commissioner Savage believes that the massing might be appropriate with two building envelopes, and said that the parking requirements must be complied with. The two curb cuts add value to the property only. He is supporting Option 2 only, and the Commission concurred with this approach, as Option 1 is not acceptable. Adequate parking will be a serious issue and would not support any less than 32 parking spaces total for the project. Mr. Trueblood said the massing appeared to be too much for the site, and is curious to see what a single building option would look like. Commissioner Struve agreed on the parking issue, and did like the architectural details but not the massing on northern building. He said that the south (duplex) building could be angled differently to meet the neighbors concerns. Commissioner Smith voiced the same concerns with perceived massing, parking issue, and second building. Commissioner Karow reiterated the use of one structure to be stepped on the site achieving the same goals and assimilating the project to neighboring properties. Space 9 through 17 currently in front setback and the tandem spaces are not supported. The minimum parking needs to be supplied and more than the minimum will add value to the project. Commissioner Karow mentioned that one curb cut would be allowed and the minimum parking requirements are not enough. Chairman Evans agreed with his Commissioners thoughts, and mentioned that the Council direction is to hold applications to the highest standard, in this case making sure that the property relates to adjacent properties. He mentioned that the entitlements do not allow or encourage the applicant to put the building massing lot line to lot line, and that the appearance of the building from the south elevation will be massive and read like 70-75 feet in height. He did believe that the design details and materials were creative, however ridgelines need to be broken up and stepped down. Commissioner Didier also believed the massing was too much and that the building could be shorter and less intrusive. Commissioner Karow believed the architectural character was very well done, and wanted the applicant to realize that. The applicant suggested a massing model showing surrounding properties may be helpful and the Commission agreed. Ken Kovalchik clarified that the applicant should submit another sketch design with the massing model, taking into consideration all comments of the staff and Commission. Chairman Evans encouraged this approach to the applicant. IX. Sketch Design — Duplex Property Location: Lot 68, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/4223 Wildridge Road West ApplicantlOwner. Stephen Turner The applicant is proposing a duplex on this 5.24 -acre property. The lot is a steep downhill lot on Wildridge Road West and faces the June Creek Drainage on the western border of the Wildridge PUD. As proposed, the property would be accessed through an access easement on the developed property to the south (Lot 69). Building materials include stone, timber, and stucco. Matt Pielsticker presented the staff report. Bobby Ladd, the architect, discussed the staff issues. He mentioned that they are working on correcting the plans according to the issues presented by staff, and they will provide details as requested. Commissioner Didier clarified the lock -off being proposed, and that the applicant plans show a 'stairs to apt'. Commissioner Karow encouraged the applicant to park beyond the minimums required in the Town Code, particularly knowing that guest/rental bedroom parking will be an issue. Commissioner Trueblood said the design complied with the criteria for sketch plan, and Commissioner Karow agreed however noting the items that staff has identified. Commissioners Struve and Smith agreed with the design discussion. X. Sign Design — City Market Property Location: Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/72 B.C. Place Applicant: Dave Betts, Store Manager The applicant, Dave Betts — Store Manager, is proposing an advertisement sign near the main entrance to the City Market grocery store. The sign measures 30 square feet (5' x 6') and consists of wood, metal, and glass. This sign is strictly for advertisement and includes an area for current sales at King Soopers/City Market stores. Matt Pielsticker presented the staff report. The applicant was not in attendance. Commissioner deliberation agreed with the criteria and staff recommendation presented. Commissioner Karow and Chairman Evans agreed with the staff recommendation and said that the quality of the sign was not in compliance with the sign code, and the sign should remain inside the store. Commissioner Smith motioned to deny the Sign application based on the criteria of the Sign Codr:, particularly Criteria 1, 3 and 5, and Commissioner Karow seconded. The motion passed unanimously. XI. Final Design — Single -Family Property Location: Lot 76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5651 Wildridge Road East Applicant/Owner. AJA Studio PC/Ray Verlinde The applicant is proposing a single-family residence on this duplex -zoned .55 -acre lot. The sketch design was reviewed by the Commission at their December 7,2004 meeting. The proposed residence has a maximum building height of 32.5'. The proposed materials include stucco finish, wood siding, asphalt shingles and corrugated metal roofing, and stone veneer. Ken Kovalchik presented the staff report. The applicant, Andrew Abraham, said he would answer any Commission concerns. Commissioner Struve thought that the details of the building proposed complied with the guidelines. Commissioners Smith and Karow agreed, and Commissioner Karow mentioned that the condition on a new lighting fixture should be deleted as the fixture submitted complied with the Lighting Ordinance. Commissioner Karow and Chairman Evans suggested that the landscaping plan was inadequate and the number of trees should be doubled and new materials introduced. The applicant suggested he would resubmit the landscaping plan for review by the Commission. Commissioner Karow motioned for approval, deleting condition #1 and adding °Landscaping plan not approved, a new adequate landscaping plan must be approved by the Commission prior to issuance of a T.C.O.° in its place, also adding all conditions 2 through 7 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Didier seconded the motion. Discussion by Commissioner Trueblood on 'adequacy' of landscaping plan. Motion passed unanimously. XII. Other Business Property Location: Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2520 Old Trail Applicant/Owner. Bob Mach Bob Mach submitted a Minor Project to eliminate the wrap around portion of a deck and to reduce the size of the deck on the house (currently under construction) by approximately 126 square feet. This application was denied at the Commission's February 15, 2005 meeting and was appealed to the Town Council. The Council remanded the decision back to the Commission for further review in order for the applicant to explore alternative design solutions. Mr. Mach has resubmitted with another design option for the west elevation of the structure. This item was moved to consent agenda. XIII. Adjourn Commissioner Savage motioned to adjourn; it was seconded by Commissioner Didier. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35pm. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Planner APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman J. /kt� Terry Smith Secretary