Loading...
PZC Packet 01-20-2009 (2)1, � ", 1 i Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission AVO Meeting Agenda for January 20, 2009 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public c o o R A D O Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street EXECUTIVE SESSION (5:00pm — 5:20pm) — CLOSED TO PUBLIC Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice from the Town Attorney pursuant to C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) concerning revisions to Chapter 17.14 Vested Property Rights of the Avon Municipal Code. WORK SESSION (5:20pm — 5:35pm) — OPEN TO PUBLIC I. Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. REGULAR MEETING (5:35pm) I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the January 6, 2009 Meeting Minutes • Resolution No. 09-01, A Resolution Recommending Approval of the PUD Application for Red House Annexation Lots 1 & 2 — heard on January 6, 2009 VI. Sign Application Maximum Comfort Sign Property: 411 Metcalf Rd / Lot 13, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Michael Charles, Maximum Comfort Pool & Spa / Owner. Maximum Comfort Pool & Spa Description: A new sign face is being proposed for an existing sign location. The sign is made of Fiberboard and measures thirty-two square feet. VII. Other Business Vlll. Adjourn Posted on January 16, 2009 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • Avon Public Library • On the Internet at htto://www.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions #; ri AVON C O L O R A D O Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2009 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) I. Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. II. Western Sage PUD Monument Sign Approval — Questions Discussion: George Ruther and Jay Peterson, separate oWners`of Sage PUD, asked for a clarification on the conditionfof approval Commission meeting since they were not able to attend.`Mr. Pet4kr for why they want something indicating their road.is private and 1 regulations and design guidelines gives them jurisdiction to regulate Evans told the applicants that if they are noYhappy about the Con could go appeal it to Council. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at II. Roll Call All Commissioners III. Additions and,Amendments to the There were rio additions or amendments to during 5:30 pm. roperty in the Western made at the previous 'explained the rationale allothing in the sign content. Commissioner nission's.decision they ;ria or findings to go with Item A from the meeting 16, 2008 meeting minutes, which are to be acted Commissioner Struve's 'recollectiori of this item was that there were no other similar properties wifh.the.wording "Private) Drive!' Commissioner Green recalled that since the sign expressed the projectname and address numbers, the design of the sign was in compliance with the Guidelines Green citied the finding that there was concern for exclusivity instead of the inclusionaryNnat re of/the Wildridge subdivision. Commissioner Green also stated that the sign area is\a vls`ual cue that distinguished this enclave of properties from others. Commissioner Goulding highlighted the fact that the applicant's representative did not oppose the decision at<the meeting on December 16th, and the applicant was directed to work with Staff to put the numbers back in the sign design. This was to be a Staff reviewable design modification not subject to Commission review. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the December 16, 2008 Meeting Minutes — with modifications raised by Commissioner Struve. Vi. • Resolution No. 08-09, A Resolution Recommending Approval of the Swift Gulch Rezoning Application — as heard on December 16, 2008 Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the Consent Agenda, and Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion. It was approved with a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Roubos abstained from voting due to her absence at the December 16, 2008 meeting. PUD & Preliminary Subdivision: Red House Annexation Parcel — (CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING) Property Location: Lots 1-2, Red House Exemption Plat / 38361 Highway 6 Applicant: Rick Pylman, Pylman and Associates / Owner: Vail Corporation Description: The applicant and property owner, the Pylman of Pylman and Associates, is proposing a new development site currently located in unincorporated Limited (CL) under the County's zoning regulations Commission, this item was tabled from the Decei Commission hearing. Discussion: Rick Pylman made a last meeting. The widening of the bridge found to be infeasible at i Vail Corporation," represented by Rick Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Eagle County, and zoned Commercial After review and comments from the nbe'r-.16, 2008`Planning and Zoning the from the was explored by the ap�plicanf and'the Town Engineer, but was resent. The building envelope will be highlighted on the PUD Development Plan; essentially, the fron, envelope. _ Rick Pylman continued by exploring`th demand created by the project. Brandt for Avon as $94K, and median income needs assessment stating^that 63% of were available. affordable to he Brandt presented' priced from 120% or setbacks and stream setbacks will form the building 'ho s hg.options which/resulted from the employee Narott'explained that;the average household income for Avon is_$65K�He then highlighted the housing enters would purchase a deed restricted home if it lap,, found in the Avon housing stock is for homes between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). is to purchase and re -sell two units to be issioner Evans requested clarification as to what range of AMI affordability the units be p ru chased froBrandt responded that the units would be purchased from the 180% AMI `pncem�,bracket, and.then "bought down". Mr. Marott continuedrith the sustainability strategies, including: energy conservation, water conservation, material resources, and river ecology. The team is concentrated on these four focus areas, however,)the owner is placing emphasis on the river ecology as the focus for moving forward. More,information and detail will be provided in the future. Gary Brooks, Alpine' Engineering, approached the Commission to discuss crosswalk materiality. Hebexplained that the Avon Road and Highway 6 crossings would be constructed identical to the existing Avon Road crosswalks in both materials and design. Gary mentioned that the Highway 6 crosswalk is subject to CDOT approval, and as such, may be hindered by snow removal operations. If CDOT does not approve the raised crosswalks, the applicant remains committed to the original striping and signage proposal. Mr. Brooks explained the rationale for widening the river path connecting the kayak put -in and take-out from 3 feet to 3.5 feet. It was mentioned that it will be further widened where possible, with a 3.5 foot minimum width, and it will be a fill project instead of cutting into the riprap under the bridge. With respect to the architectural style of the project, Rick Pylman explained that the OZ sketch was made part of the record at the last meeting and after speaking with Staff this could be 0�0 considered binding. Matthew Gennett reaffirmed that the design sketch would be encapsulated within recommended condition #6 of Staffs report. Rick continued by highlighting the benefits of the project, including: annexation into the Town; 2% Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT), which should equate to approximately $400,000; improved pedestrian connectivity across Highway 6 and Avon Road; mitigating greater than 100% of the employee housing demand; and, the improved kayak park access for boaters. Commissioner Goulding questioned the sustainability aspect of the project and how the desire of the Commission from the last meeting was for a simple formula or measurable way to look at the reduced energy use of the buildings. 1^� A larger discussion continued around the sustainability strategy'and possible ways to condition the sustainable intention of the applicant. If the property were entitled and sold, the Commission would like the assurances that the project will-trulydive-up to what the applicant is representing. Commissioner Evans opened the hearing for public cO'&M `merit. Brian Judge, 90 Benchmark Road, commented on'the application. From,his understanding of the application and annexation, the Commission may want- to explore theNifferences or additional impacts this project would bring%if'it was going through the County/process, as opposed to coming through the Town process. '\ \ /Z -k% j Mr. Judge explained that the river setbacks would use, and the housing impacts would1be different th Additionally, the Town has less stri the County. He would like to see th would be required if the project was With no other input, Commissioner Rou "ECO -build" stan`dai apparent shortfalls % themselves out.of all their comment that it woul is unaware outlined i feet with the County, a less intensive `the County as well. is ni g ;er quirements when compared to a similar number and type of units that Commissioner Evans. nice tolrequire an applicant to meet or beat at that would entail. the details of ECO -build, and some of the )le, an applicant could effectively buy-out ed,that the sustainability issue be brought back to the Commission to the time of_Sketch Plan review. Commissioner Roulios'continued'by stating that she felt the project is too dense for the properry.� She stated that the majority of the public benefits are commendable, but stated that the pedestrian crosswalks are necessary and shouldn't be viewed as a public benefit. Commissioner•Struve appreciated the progress and the responses to Commissioner concerns. He still doesn't understand all of the Public Benefits and their relation to what the necessary improvements are and what actual benefits are. Commissioner Goulding was disappointed that the Town Staff did not do more to encourage the applicant to embark on a feasibility study for the widening of the bridge to connect this project to Avon. He likes the sustainability condition as suggested by Staff, and the Attainable Housing mitigation is satisfactory. Commissioner Struve questioned the sidewalks as depicted on the landscape plan. Rick Pylman stated that the image was incorrect and that the sidewalks would be setback from the roadway as presented earlier. Commissioner Prince did not feel that the kayak park access needed to be widened more than the 3.5 feet proposed. He went on further to state that a pedestrian bridge would be the most ideal pedestrian access to the rest of the Town. He did feel that the pedestrian connection is necessary and feels that this applicant should have been involved in the feasibility of this concept. Eric Heidemann explained the workings of the URA and how this property would not realistically be a part of the District. He also stated that improved connectivity is important to the Town, but Staff determined that it is not the sole responsibility of this developer. Commissioner Prince asked if the Town was receiving ample space to better the pedestrian connectivity surrounding the bridge. Staff answered Commissioner Prince's question in the affirmative. Commissioner Prince stated that he had concerns that a $50,000 buyadown would do enough to make units Attainable to the AMI ranges that were proposed, He wanted to see a greater buy -down per unit to ensure attainability. Commissioner Lane stated that he was happy with the Attainable Housing mitigation plan as proposed. He also was comfortable with the pedestnan�4acces`s,\but would like to see the specifics of the sustainability at the Sketch Design phase ofthis project. Commissioner Green questioned the number of units onnthe property. Rick Pylman stated that they were proposing 15 dwelling units. Commissioner Green stated that approximately 13% of the proposed units were being mitigated by tAe,Attainable Housing program./'� Commissioner Evans stated that the footprints andAesign inte t were acceptable. He stated that the 6 or 7 items that needed to be addressed were addressed. He would prefer that the Attainable Housing program brought the units into the,100% to 120% AMI range. He stated that this is a small project, and therefore, the publicNbenefits are adequate. He also commented that one of the public benefits not,discussed was,t� �nveyance of the riverfront land to the Town of Avon at the Town's request. Commissioner Goulding apologized to Staff for misinterpreting the comments made by the applicant with regard to ttie-possible feasibility a pedestrian connection across the bridge. Action: Commissioned r Goulding made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council with the following conditions: Condition #1: as written, with -additional langau ge stating a minimum width of 3.5 feet and wider in areas for oas`sina will'be.Drovided.---lV Condition #3 Th&IwOattainable�units to be provided by the applicant shall be placed on the market at the 120%Nto 1'40% AMI selling range, and be bought from the 160% to 180% buying range•,•and, the idea is not to buy from the 160% AMI range then sell at 140% of the AMI — the bare minimum buy -down should not be used. as written. Condition #7-"Thejriew planned crosswalk improvements are to match the Hurd Lane crosswalk design. at a minimum. Condition #8 JFThe applicant will provide detail of significant improvement in Energy `Conservation, Water Conservation, Material Resources, River Ecology over standard building practices at the Sketch Review phase of this project. Matthew Gannett suggested adding the finding that the application substantially complies with the twelve (12) applicable PUD Design Criteria (17.20.110(h)). All Commissioners were in agreement. Commissioner Green seconded the motion with Staff's added finding. Commissioner Green asked if the findings outside of the 12 PUD criteria are also met, including the 13% of units proposed to Attainable Housing proposed. I VII VIII Commissioner Goulding agreed to the modifications to the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business • ZAC members —meeting near the end of January to review the Diagnostic. • There will be an update concerning the "Tract B Wildridge Joint Work Session" at the January 27 Council meeting. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 PM. Approved on January 20, 2009: g TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 0 K C O L O R A D O RESOLUTION No. 09-01 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPLICATION FOR THE RED HOUSE ANNEXATION LOTS 1 & 2, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, the Vail Corporation, represented by Rick Pylman of Pylman and Associates, has applied for a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and concurrent Annexation for the "Red House" Exemption Plat, Lots 1 & 2, Eagle County, Colorado, pursuant to Section 17.20.110 of the Avon Municipal Code (AMC); as presented in the original application dated September 26, 2008; WHEREAS, on December 2, 2008, the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended Approval of the proposed amendment to the 2006 Town of Avon Comorehensive Plan, specifically related to, and consistent with the this PUD Zoning application; WHEREAS, Pursuant to the pertinent noticing procedures required by law, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held public hearings on November 18, 2008; December 16, 2008; and January 6, 2009 - at which time the applicant was given an opportunity to present a proposal for a new PUD and hear feedback from both the Commission and members of the public, in addition to the written comments from Staff regarding this PUD request; WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission was provided with Staff Reports at each of the aforementioned hearings which included pertinent support materials and which provided a thorough analysis of the technical zoning information as it relates to the applicable twelve PUD Design Criteria found in Section 17.20.110(h), AMC; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the following criteria when evaluating this application: 1. Conformance with the 2006 Town of Avon Comorehensive Plan Goals and Objectives. e 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, the 1 sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town. 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. 4. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases. 10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. 11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. 12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code (as follows): Zoning applications i'1 The Town shall consider the following public benefit criteria when evaluating zoning applications: (1) The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. (2) Approval of the zoning application provides long-term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights. (3) The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents, and; WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing at their January 6, 2009 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission made the following FINDINDS with respect to the subject application (pursuant to Section 17.20.110(h) of the Avon Municipal Code): 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds this application in compliance with the PUD Review Criteria outlined in Section 17.20.110(h), AMC; and 2. The applicant has proposed 13% of the proposed units as affordable, satisfactorily addressing the Town's attainable housing component. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby makes a recommendation of APPROVAL to the Avon Town Council for the PUD application for Red House Annexation Lots 1 & 2, Eagle County Colorado, subject to the following CONDITIONS: 1. The property owner shall design and construct, at its sole expense, the path improvements along the riverside shore, as described in the letter from Rick Pylman of Pylman & Associates dated December 10, 2008 and depicted on { the revised plans (Attachment Q. The path shall be a minimum of 3.5 feet in width, with wider areas provided where possible; and the improvements reviewed and approved by the Town and completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy; 2. The property owner shall convey to the Town, in fee simple, the River Tract, , as more specifically described in Attachment E (Conceptual Parcel Plan). The River Tract shall be conveyed prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. The property owner shall provide an affordable housing plan, which provides for a minimum of two deed -restricted, two-bedroom offsite units. The units will be bought in the price range affordable for a household earning between 160% and 180% of the Area Median Income (AMI), and the units will be sold at a price for a household earning between 120% and 140% of the AMI. The bare -minimum buy down will not be utilized (i.e. buy at 160% of the AMI, and market at 140% of the AMI); The terms and conditions of the housing plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Council concurrent with the approval of the Annexation and Development Agreement; 4. A minimum aggregate of fifteen (15) Single Family Equivalencies (SFEs) shall be conveyed to the Town, in accordance with Chapter 16.24 of the Avon Municipal Code; 5. The form and content of the PUD Development Plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to Council review; 6. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this application and in public hearings shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval; 7. At a minimum, the new planned crosswalk improvements are to match the Hurd Lane crosswalk design at Avon Road; and 8. The applicant will provide detail of significant improvement in Energy Conservation, Water Conservation, Material Resources, and River Ecology above and beyond standard building practices at the Sketch Review phase of this project. 4A ADOPTED AND REAFFIRMED THIS 20t° DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 Signed.- Chair igned:Chair Attest: Secretary Date: Date: TOWN OF AVON AVON SIGN DESIGN C O L O R A D O January 20, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date Project type Legal description Zoning Address Introduction January 20, 2009 New Sign Face for an Existing Sign Lot 13, Block 1, BMBC I/C 411 Metcalf Rd Michael Charles, representing Maximum Comfort Pool & Spa, Inc., is proposing a new sign face for an existing ground mounted freestanding sign. The proposed sign face is rectangular in shape and measures approximately thirty-two (32) square feet in area. The proposed sign face will be affixed to the existing freestanding sign for the previous tenant. The sign is to be constructed out of fiberboard and contain the company's logo and name of the business. Attached to this memo are a Vicinity Map (Exhibit A), picture of the proposed sign (Exhibit B), and site plan of the sign's location (Exhibit C). Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Sion Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing this application: 1. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be constructed and the site upon it is to be located. The materials for the proposed sign are appropriate and suitable for this type of use. The materials proposed are a fiberboard sign affixed to a wood sign structure. Since the sign was approved prior and the applicant is only proposing to replace the face of the sign, Staff has determined that the sign material is acceptable. 2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements. The neighboring properties have similar uses, but most buildings are more oriented towards the street and have building mounted signs. This sign is oriented towards the street. Since this sign location was already approved for a previous tenant, Staff determined that it is acceptable. 3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement. The Sign Code encourages "quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass -faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 13, Block 1, BMBC — Maximum Comfort Pool & Spa Sign f1 July 15, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3 J lighting, are encouraged." This sign is made of Fiberboard which is not specifically T addressed as an acceptable sign materials in the code. Fiberboard is a durable material and should be acceptable due to the previous sign that was approved at this location. The sign structure is made of wood and is not a quality material, but once again it was previously approved and therefore is acceptable to Staff. 4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property. The sign will be visable from Metcalf Road. The applicant has not proposed any landscaping around the sign that would make it more attractive. Staff recommends that the applicant provide landscaping around the base of the sign to help lessen the visual impact of the sign on the passing vehicles that travel along Metcalf Road. 5. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired. There should be no monetary or aesthetic values impaired with the proposed signage. 6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with the Sign Code, and are appropriate for the project. The type, height, and size of this sign comply with the Sign Code. As stated earlier the quality of the sign does not comply with the Sign Code, but Staff does find the sign materials acceptable due to the sign's location and its previous approval. The Sign Code does state that landscaping is required for all freestanding signs in a minimum of five (5) lineal feet around the perimeter of the sign. Staff recommends that the applicant comply with this regulation and provide Staff with a landscaping proposal for approval and installation around the sign. 7. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. The primary orientation of the proposed signage is to automobile traffic, which is appropriate given the location of the sign along Metcalf Road. Recommendation Staff recommends CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the Sign Design application for the Maximum Comfort Pool & Spa sign on Lot 13, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision as submitted. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the Sign Design application for the Maximum Comfort Pool & Spa sign on Lot 13, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with the following condition: 1. The applicant provide a Landscape Plan to staff for approval and installation no later that Spring of 2009. And with the following findings: 1. The sign design application meets the intent of the Sign Code, Title 15.28." Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 tl� Lot 13, Block 1, BMBC — Maximum Comfort Pool & Spa Sign Jury 15, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3 AM If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748.4023 or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, J arnes Planner I Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Vicinity Map - Lot 13, Block 1, BMBC Exhibit ® Residential Streets JAVON Property Boundaries 4% I M ROAD- R.O.W. n 1 --OHF- — J- """*-fav-�'—` '�;.— ---t- :• _`• ;-� ^�; • ..... 7A .1:1:1: of aaa i �. '•. : :1:1' .1 1 .iaa:l: : .taa'-Inini'I:l: .;;x•1:1:1' :1'1'1:1:1:1:1 'la :t•t.0 't' '1'1 a.l 'I'I:I:IJ.CI'Ct .i:I 1:1:1:1 1:1:►:1 •1: {:I �a'I:1'1'1:ta' Citi :1:1x:1: ZZ L 1' 1 I