Loading...
PZC Minutes 03-21-2006 (3)VON. Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meet Marching 211nutes 2006 C O L O R A D O Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm. H. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. V. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the March 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Struve commented on Item VIII B and that the motion for this approval was passed by a 3-2 vote, not a 6-0 vote. The motion to approve with the correction was passed 5-0, with Commissioners D'Agostino and Evans abstaining due to their absence at the March 7th meeting. VI. PUD Amendment / Wildridge - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 44 & 45, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5123 & 5129 Longsun Lane Applicant: Sam Ecker/Owners: Sam Ecker, Bruce & Susan Baca Description: A request for an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for three (detached) single- family residences in place of two duplex structures. This amendment would permanently reduce the density for the properties by one dwelling unit. A new lot would be created for the third single-family residence and the vehicular access to the new lot would be accessed from Wildridge Road East. Also being reviewed is a Preliminary Subdivision application. Avon Town Council, at their January 24, 2006 meeting, remanded this application back to the Commission for reconsideration. Matt Pielsticker presented staffs report and the new information included in the packet since last review on March 7, 2006. The applicant provided a new PUD site plan, with added note referring to non -developable area proposed. Staffs aerial photo lot comparison showing remaining development rights was presented as requested by the Commission. Commissioner Green questioned the public benefit criteria. Eric Heidemann clarified that it is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate what the public benefit is to the Town. Other possible lot configurations similar to this application were explored by the Commission referring to the Block 4 aerial photo prepared by staff. The revised PUD submittal shows a %= acre of non -developable area and further restricts the possible third single-family home in size. Sam Ecker, applicant, approached the podium after handing out additional information. Another PUD approval, Western Sage, was discussed and the fact that there was no public benefit in that PUD. Other recent duplex developments were discussed and their large square footages. Sam Ecker further discussed open space and how the non -developable area proposed would be handled in the future. The original intent of the Wildridge PUD was mentioned, and the emphasis on large open spaces. Precedence was brought up by the applicant as was mentioned in the previous meeting. The applicant discussed public benefits such as protecting view corridors, a reduction in density, and less traffic on Longsun Lane. Commissioner Buckner liked the idea of 3 single -families instead of further developing as duplexes. Commissioner D'Agostino questioned why this application is being proposed and what could happen with further development on Lots 44 and 45. Commissioner Savage mentioned the square footage cap on Lot 44B and felt that three single - families would be better'visually' as two duplexes. Savage was in support with a reduction in square footage for 44B. Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Savage and the size of 4,500 sq. ft. as discussed at the previous meeting would be more appropriate. Ecker responded with the language of Note 5, and that he would take the Town of Avon reference off the plat if desired. Commissioner Struve brought up precedence and the appearance of three single -families opposed to two duplexes. Wildlife passage was noted. Commissioner Struve also mentioned that there is no contiguous open space with this proposal. Commissioner review continued with Commissioner Green commenting on why this application is in front of the Commission — as a result of Lot 44A and how they originally developed. Commissioner Green agrees that reducing density is positive and re -reviewed the potential benefits of approving this submittal. Commissioner Evans felt that this would set a 'dangerous' precedence for future development and redevelopment. The citing of existing developments on the property was reviewed and how Lot 44A was built as a single-family with no clear intention of turning into a duplex in the future. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Phil Matsen, Wildridge developer, resident, and owner of Lot 40, approached the podium and felt that it would 'open a can of worms' aside from benefiting exclusively some of the neighboring properties. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Savage moved to approve the amendment with the stipulation that the third single- family home be limited to 4,500 square feet excluding the garage. Commissioner Buckner seconds the motion. Discussion ensued as to what the public benefits are and what findings could be made if the motion to approve was voted on. Open space and precedence were discussed at length after motion was made. Findings added to motion included 2 -acre size of both lots were unique and the added driveway curb cut access to third lot was a benefit. Motion dies with 3 in favor and 4 opposed. Commissioner D'Agostino moved to re -affirm Resolution 05-14, recommending denial of the PUD amendment for Lots 44 and 45, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision to Town Council. A finding was added to the motion that the applicant has not proved the hardship warranted for third single-family residence. Commissioner Green seconds the motion. Roll call taken and all Commissioners in favor except for Struve, Savage, and Buckner. Motion passed with a 4-3 vote. VII. PUD Amendment I Sheraton Mountain Vista - PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision/140 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard Applicant/Owner. Points of Colorado, Inc Description: A request for an amendment to the Lot C PUD to modify the existing property rights and zoning for Lots 2C, 3, 4, and 5 (Phase 1C). This application proposes to eliminate a 125 -room hotel and increases the number of time-share units in the project's last phase of development. Eric Heidemann explained that the applicant has requested tabling, and that this was noticed as a public hearing, therefore a public hearing must be held. Also, the Commission should keep the packet documents for review at future meetings. There was no public input. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Smith moved to table this application for a PUD Amendment to Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Commissioner Green seconds the motion and all Commissioners were in favor. The motion passed with a 7-0 vote. VIII. Landscaping/Lighting/Mockup Design —The Gates Property Location: Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision/38390 Hwy 6 & 24 Applicant. Ivins Design Group Owner. CSC Land, LLC Description: Steven Heinen of Ivins Design Group has supplied information for final review of a revised landscaping plan, lighting plan, and revised mockup elevation. All design related issues for this project must be approved no later than May 31, 2006 as required by the restated development agreement. Matt Pielsticker presented staff's report and brought the Commission up to date with the outstanding design issues remaining for the project. There is a deadline of May 31, 2006 for all final design issues to be resolved and approved. Tonight the applicant is seeking feedback on the revised mockup design before further construction, and also seeking approval of the revised landscaping and lighting plans. The applicant, Steven Heinen with Ivins Design Group made a presentation. The changes to the mockup design were outlined, including: hardi-board width was changed to % inch as requested and roofing material was clarified. Commissioner D'Agostino questioned the roofing material and secondary roof material. The Commission desired the secondary roof material be displayed on the revised mockup. Steven continued with the design changes proposed for the mockup: rough sawn wood for decking, gutter material and color— prefinished copper, new proposed stucco color for base stucco, solvent based stain in place of water -base stain. Revised stucco color pallet was presented to the Commission for review and all Commissioners felt the new color compared with Stucco Color #1 was acceptable. Commissioner Evans explained code requirements and the timber accents, and suggested omitting fire retardant treated wood above third story since it is not a code requirement. Commissioner Evans suggested approaching William Gray the Chief Building Official to see if that would be acceptable. Commissioner Evans questioned the headers above windows and felt they may benefit from extending two inches past top of windows for accent purposes. Commissioner D'Agostino asked if the thicknesses of the coin and base on the mockup design were what were proposed, or if it was what is on the mockup as constructed. She felt that more relief may benefit this detail. The mockup construction was more preferable with coin and base than the design plans indicated. Commissioner D'Agostino questioned the soffit material and it's scored finish — what does it look like? Steven explained it would be more of a wood grain look and texture than seeing individual lines. Commissioner Green was concerned with the proposed light fixtures and the clear glass finish. He suggested non -clear glass to make the fixtures work as more of a glow with non -clear glass, possibly more translucent than opaque. Commissioner D'Agostino questioned the finish of light fixtures. Matt Pielsticker clarified that it would be a darkened bronze finish on poles and fixtures. The applicant provided new photometrics which included the type FFF fixture, and clarified that the 6616 model would be used in all 'FFF' applications. Frosted glass or some other kind of non -clear glass was highly recommended. Commissioner Struve would like frosted or toned down glass and appreciated the mockup. Commissioner Green moved to approve the Landscaping Plan and Lighting plans (with non -clear glass), with subsequent review of the revised mockup for final approval of the materials and colors. Commissioner Smith seconds the motion and the motion carries with a 6-0. Commissioner Struve obtained due to being out of room at the time of the motion. IX. Final Design Plan - Duplex Property Location: Lot 40, Block 4, Wildridge / 5070 Wildridge Road East Applicant/Owner. Phillip Matsen Description: This is a final design review for a duplex located on Wildridge Road East. The building would total over 10,000 square feet (including garages) and proposes stone, stucco, wood siding (horizontal and vertical), and asphalt shingles. There is an existing single-family home to the east and open space to the west and south. The Commission reviewed a sketch plan for this structure at their February 21, 2006 meeting. The staff report was presented by Matt Pielsticker. Changes since sketch design were outlined and staffs recommendation for a tabling was presented in order for the applicant to address the massing and site disturbance proposed for this duplex. A color board was distributed for Commissioner review. The applicant and owner, Phil Matsen, answered questions from the Commission. The illegible plans were discussed. Phil discussed the sizes of the two units with one just over and one just under 4,000 livable square feet. Phil discussed the changes since sketch review including: Keystone block wall in front of the home, turnaround space added with hammerhead, landscaping in front of retaining wall, reworked back elevation, chimneys added, proposing limits of disturbance shown on sheet A1.2 instead of sheet A1.1, one block wall instead of the two-tiered option, fixed plan inaccuracies, unit B 3nd floor where horizontal siding and belly band were added, stone carried around to die in the inside comers, unit A's North elevation 3`d floor horizontal siding added, popout on unit B with stone wainscoat, and shed roof added as well as horizontal siding. Commissioner Evans discussed retaining wall again and asked applicant what he preferred. One wall design was preferred, with a small batter. Commissioner Evans continued with review and agreed with adding new materials and all changes appeared to have benefited this project. Commissioner review continued with Savage and he was in agreement with the comments from Chris Evans. Commissioner D'Agostino appreciated the further delineation of materials and questioned the deck detailing. Rough saw cedar with 8 x 8 cedar posts and 2 x 6 cross members and cap, and 2 x 6 pickets. After further consideration, Phil Matsen felt that what is on plans would be more acceptable for the deck pickets. The trim details were clarified by the applicant. Commissioner Buckner questioned the comer boards and the board on batten detail. He felt that this was overall a good house, and wanted clarification on the roof plan and gables on the North elevation. Clipped gables were commented on and that it should be all or none since they are not big detail statements. The entry to Unit A and address location should be moved. The applicant responded to the Dutch hip detail and felt that they were there to add character, and Commissioner Buckner did not feel they were appropriate. Commissioner Smith commented on the site disturbance and that it should be contained. Commissioner Struve agreed with all of the changes made since sketch design, and that the wall design with caps looked good. He also appreciated positive attitude with house. Commissioner Green commented on Versa -lock wall system and whether there is a footer for that wall. Commissioner Green also referred to sheet A1.2 and the floor plan and focused on unit B's deck 4 on the side patios and that it should be further utilized and/or capitalized on. Green continued with comments: Dutch hips, illegible landscaping plan, the entries looked weak and could have stronger statements, truss design, and that the colors can not be approved off a photocopied page. The Commissioner took to the side conference table to review the large (30" x 40") plan set for further clarification on the site plan and landscaping plans. The Commissioner reconvened and continued discussion on the landscape plan and the edges of the disturbance should be treated specially to help the hard edge look that would result with just native grasses. Commissioner Green moved to table the application in order to see real life color samples and for the site plan to be re -worked to reflect changes. Commissioner D'Agostino seconds the motion. The motion failed 4-3. Commissioner Struve moved to approve with the condition added that no parking in the public right-of-way, the colors would be approved by staff with real samples, and that the landscaping be feathered on the edges of disturbance. An additional condition that the deck details be reviewed by staff was added. Commissioner Savage seconds the motion and the motion passed unanimously with 7-0 vote. X. Sign Design - Wells Fargo Drivethrough Property Location: Lot 22AB, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 245 Chapel Place Applicant: RMD Sign Company Description: This is a sign design application for two freestanding directional signs associated with the Wells Fargo Drivethrough bank, and directional canopy signage on the east elevation of the canopy. Freestanding signs would stand 66" tall and would have a textured aluminum base to match color and texture of building's stucco. Staff presented a brief review of the application. Lighting was questioned and whether it should be tabled in order for the applicant to be present. The Commission agreed with staff that the two signs could benefit from dropping one foot in height. Commissioner Buckner moved to approve with the four listed staff conditions in the report and all were in favor. Application approved with a 7-0 vote. XI. Other Business A. Parking variance for Tract Y withdrawn XII. Adjourn Commissioner Green motioned to adjourn. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:35 pm. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Planner I APPROVED: Chris Evans Vice Chairman Phil Struve Secretary t� �