Loading...
PZC Minutes 06-21-2011 (2)w ftvLL LU I. Call to Order (5:OOpm) Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2011 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building I One Lake Street The meeting was called to order at 5:02 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Losa. III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Clancy is recusing himself on Item VI. Commissioner discussion ensued regarding the objectivity of Commissioner Anderson's review. Commissioner Anderson decided to review Item VII after the Commission determined that he could review the application. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the June 7, 2011 Meeting Minutes Action: Commissioner Clancy moved to approve the consent agenda as modified. Commissioner Prince seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. VI. Special Review Use— PUBLISHED PUBLIC HEARING Beaver Creek Rodeo Property Location: Lot 1, Filing 1, Village at Avon Applicant. Jean Dennison, Beaver Creek Resort Co. / Owner. Traer Creek —L2 LLC Description: Review of a SRU permit to allow outdoor amplified sound for the Beaver Creek Rodeo on the property on Thursday's from 5:00 pm until 8:00 pm during the summer months until August 18th. Discussion: Commissioner Struve questioned if complaints were received from other departments. Jean Dennison stated that she was here to answer questions. Commisisoner Struve commented that Lot 61 was approved for temporary parking in the winter and questioned why the rodeo is back on the Village at Avon property. Commissioner Prince questioned if 7 events in the calendar year 2012 was sufficient. Jean Dennision responded affirmatively. Commissioner Prince clarified that the Staff Report should be reflective of the 3 years the Rodeo has taken place on the site. The Public Comment was opened. The Public Comment was closed, due to no comments. 1IPagc Commissioner Struve stated that the event was a great event and reflective of the character of the valley. Commissioner Anderson stated that he lived in Chapel Square adjacent to the Rodeo and that he heard the events, but due to the time the noise ceased he was supportive of the application Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve Resolution 11-07. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. VII. Final Design, Special Review Use, Alternative Equivalent Compliance, and Sign Design — PUBLISHED PUBLIC HEARING Wal -Green's Pharmacy Property Location: Lot 2, Sun Road Subdivision; 15 Sun Road Applicant. Brandt Marott, Trinity Development Group I Owner. Vincent Riggio, Trinity Sunroad-LLC Description: Brandt Marott of the Trinity Development Group, Inc., representing Vincent Riggio of Trinity-Sunroad-LLC, the Owner, has submitted a Final Design application for a new commercial building on Lot 2, Sun Road Subdivision, also described as 15 Sun Road. Also a Special Review Use, Alternative Equivalent Compliance, and Sign Design applications were submitted. The proposal is to demolish the existing Denny's building and replace it with a new structure which is to be occupied by Wal -Greens pharmacy with a drive-through window. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker overviewed the project timeline, the site characteristics, and the proposed applications. He overviewed the conformance with and conflicts with the West Town Center Implementation Plan. Commissioner Struve questioned if the drive-through was not supported due to conflicts with the new code, while previous approvals were granted under the old code. Commissioner Prince further questioned the use of the new code standards when reviewing the SRU for the drive-thru. Matt Pielsticker overviewed the submittal timeframes of each application and what regulations were applicable to each application. Commissioner Green wanted clarification on the various applications and their respective applicable codes. Matt Pielsticker overviewed the applications and which "codes" were applicable to each application. Commissioner Minervini questioned if the same regulations were used when the Sketch Plan was reviewed in January. Matt Pielsticker stated that the SRU was not applied for so it was not reviewed. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Sketch Plan review was more of a comment period and no formal motion was made during that review. Commissioner Green stated that comments were made on the drive-thru. Commissioner Clancy questioned if each item was up for separate approvals. Matt Pielsticker responded affirmatively, but stated that the Final Design can't be approved without approval of the SRU, which can't be approved within the approval of the AEC. Commissioner Clancy questioned the reliance of the SRU on the AEC and vice versa. Matt Pielsticker commented that the SRU is required for drive-thrus and that the design of the drive-thru on the site plan necessitated the need for the AEC. Commissioner Anderson questioned the number of compact parking spaces, commenting that they seemed high. Matt Pielsticker stated that the old code allowed for a maximum of 30% of the total spaces be compact. Commissioner Anderson questioned the code sections that the applicant is requesting relief from through the AEC for the drive-thru. Matt Pielsticker responded by highlighting the sections from the Development Code and stated that all of the applicable review criteria was 2 1 P a g e reviewed, but these were the sections where conflict occurred. Commissioner Green stated that he wanted the sections from the old code that supported the new code sections. Matt Pielsticker passed out copies of the Design Guidelines that overviewed site layout. Sally Vecchio overviewed the applicable codes and guidelines that pertained to each separate application. She also discussed the alternative site design that moved the building closer to the southeast corner of the lot. Commissioner Anderson questioned if that information was provided in the packets. Commissioner Green pointed his fellow commissioners to the proper location for the alternative site layout. Commissioner Struve questioned the alternative design and why there was no road cuts on Avon road. Staff responded that an engineering review would have to take place for any potential curb cut on Avon Road. Discussion ensued regarding the existing curb cuts on Avon Road. Commissioner Green questioned which Design Review guidelines were used in the review of this application. Matt Pielsticker stated that the entire Commercial Design Guidelines were used, but he highlighted the sections that pertained to the site design and orientation. Commissioner Minervini questioned the use of the multiple codes and if the PZC can revert to a single code for the review of the entire application. Commissioner Green stated that the Community Development department had determined that the multiple codes were necessary. Commissioner Green further commented that it was not the PZC's authority to overturn the decision of the Director, but the PZC can make findings that would charge the Town Council with reviewing that decision. Commissioner Struve commented that regardless of the code the PZC has the same purview to review the applications. Sally Vecchio stated that under the old code drive-thrus were permitted as an SRU. Under the new code drive-thru's are no longer allowed in Town Center West as an SRU. Commissioner Prince questioned if the applicant was advised that a SRU was necessary in August. Sally Vecchio stated that the applicant was informed under the old code that a SRU was required and was informed again after the Sketch Review that a SRU was required. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Design Guidelines did not specifically state that buildings must front the street and he wanted language that supported that Staff comment. Sally Vecchio cited sections from the West Town Center Implementation Plan. Matt Pielsticker also discussed the sections of the new code that pertained to drive-thrus. Commissioner Struve questioned the location of Avon Town Square development. Matt Pielsticker stated that was the Slifer, Smith, and Frampton building. Dominic Mauriello presented the project team. He commented that the application for the Sketch Plan envisioned the SRU and that he wasn't allowed to submit for an SRU application until the Final Design plan was submitted for. He further stated that the Table of Allowed Uses, from the Avon Development Code, does allow for retail establishments with drive-thrus and that the WTCIP did not allow for drive-thrus. Dominic Mauriello presented the comments received from the PZC during the Sketch Plan review and how the design has addressed those items. He further stated that the old code required a sign application at the time of a final design application. He commented that this seemed out of order and that a sign application shouldn't be reviewed until after the Final Design had been approved. Brandt Marott presented the proposed design. He discussed the alternative design that would force the building to front on Avon Road and Sun Road. He compared the Sketch Plan elevations and materials to the Final Design elevations and materials. He further commented on how much the landscape plan adds to the overall design of the site and building. 31 Page Commissioner Green questioned the smooth stone material and if there was scoring in between each black. Brandt Marott responded that there would be. Commissioner Prince questioned the plan for delivery trucks. Dominic Mauriello stated that there was an increase in traffic, but even with the increase Sun Road still functioned at a Level of Service "A° Dominic Mauriello discussed the WTCDIP and its focus on the Main Street area and lack of consideration for the Sun Road, Post Office, and Residential areas that are included in the WTCDIP boundary. Dominic Mauriello commented on the pedestrian movements through town center. He further discussed the lack of convenient parking and its effect on business, especially in front of the Sheraton. Commissioner Struve corrected Dominic Mauriello's comment by stating that the parallel parking spaces were added to reduce the size of W. Beaver Creek Blvd and help connect the two sides of the West Town Center District. Dominic Mauriello discussed the applicability of the WTCDIP and the application of the new code to the SRU application. He commented on the lack of the staff report to comment on the drive-thru standards from the Development Code. He further discussed the AEC application and his determination that the AEC is not necessary or applicable. He discussed each reviewable criteria and commented that his application complies even though he doesn't think the standards apply. The Public Hearing was opened. Sara Trischler questioned when the proposed design would break ground if approved? Brandt Marott stated that April 2012 was the anticipated date. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Anderson questioned the alternative design (building moved towards the southeast corner of the lot) and if it was studied with the building rotated 90 degrees. Brandt Marott stated it was reviewed, but highlighted the difficulties. Commissioner Minervini questioned if the drive-thru was a "make or break" item. Dominic Mauriello stated it was. Commissioner Minervini questioned the percentage of buildings without drive-thrus. Brandt Marott stated that there were Walgreen buildings that didn't have a drive-thru, but they were a small percentage. Commissioner Green questioned the percentage of sales that the drive-thru created. Brandt Marott stated that 70 percent of all sales are related to prescriptions. He further stated that 60+ percent of all prescription sales were related to the drive-thru. Commissioner Green questioned the "alternative design° and what code violation the applicant cited. Dominic Mauriello stated that it was parking, but only approximately 5 spaces. Commissioner Green questioned the landscaping proposed on the CDOT right-of-way and if there were any approvals similar to this. Sally Vecchio stated that there were none and that the Town could not consider the proposed landscaping on that property. Commissioner Green questioned the number of jobs generated by Walgreen. Dominic Mauriello stated that it would be similar to Denny's, but he didn't have those figures. Sarah Trischler commented that there were 28 employees at Denny's. Commissioner Green questioned Dominic Mauriello's comments of unique and current needs of the community that this proposal uniquely addresses. Commissioner Minervini questioned the xeriscaping and roof pitch issues and questioned if they had been resolved. Dominic Mauriello stated that the roof pitch issues have not been addressed, but can be. 41Page Commissioner Minervini questioned the lack of compliance with the roof pitches and xeriscaping portions of the Design Guidelines. Dominic Mauriello stated that they haven't had time to address the comments of the Staff. Commissioner Struve questioned the issues with the roof pitch by overviewing the applicants stance that flat roofs are allowed and the 2:12 roof is the only issue. Matt Pielsticker cited the Design Guidelines that the 2:12 roof pitches are less than the 4:12 allowed and that the flat roofs are discouraged. Commissioner Green stated that this complex application has brought forth a multitude of planning issues that have been adopted through various planning documents by the Town. He further stated that findings are of paramount importance for a motion of any direction. Commissioner Minervini would generally like to welcome the Walgreen's project and he feels it would be positive for Avon. He further stated that he is personally confused with the compliance issues and what issues were code and which were guidelines. Commissioner Prince stated he is of the opinion that the SRU should be reviewed under the "Old Code" due to the applying for the entire project at sketch prior to the adoption of the new code. Sally Vecchio stated that the application was applied for in August, but wasn't activated until January. She stated that there was no "Old Code" to apply when the SRU was originally applied for. Commissioner Prince stated that the applicant was rushed into applying prior to the adoption of the new code and that this project was complex and needed time to prepare a full application. Commissioner Prince stated that the site planning issues are paramount. He stated that without on -street parking the street fronted building isn't the best option. He stated that the position of the proposed building is the best when viewed from the highway and Avon Road because you will not be viewing a surface parking lot. He commented that the proposed application is the highest and best use for the property. Commissioner Prince further stated that the WTCDIP was focused on the Main Street area and that they should not apply to the proposal. He stated the application is in compliance with the Design Guidelines. He stated that the project is similar to the Vail Fire House which the entire Commission would probably view as a good project. Commissioner Prince stated that the drive-thru works and that it doesn't detract from the design and it does appear to be in a functional location. He also commented that he appreciated the applicant making modifications from the Sketch Design application. Commissioner Clancy stated that he was struggling with rendering a decision due to the various codes and contradictions that were presented. He also felt that the drive-thru was a positive addition. He commented that additional time to review the application would benefit himself in providing a thorough review. Commissioner Anderson stated that he would like to further discuss the points on both sides regarding the drive-thru. He felt the design aspects of the building and the location on the site were acceptable and agreed with Commissioner Prince on this aspect of the review. He commented that there was plenty of allowable building height to modify the roof pitches to 4:12. Commissioner Anderson commented that the limited signage was acceptable and appreciated how "Walgreens" was limited to the east elevation. He commented on the FAR and multiple uses conflicts with the codes. He would like to further discuss those issues. He feels that there is plenty of room and an architect can properly design residential units on the upper level. Commissioner Anderson commented that the proposed setback was a positive along Avon Road. He commented that the vehicles and pedestrians next to a tall building would be 5 1 P a g c congested in this location. He commented that this approval could be precedent setting since it is the first building to be designed since the WTCDIP was adopted in 2007. Commissioner Anderson commented that the snowmelt on the north side makes sense, but the limited amount of pedestrian activity would render the snowmelt unnecessary. He also felt the snowmelt wasn't necessary on the south side due to the solar gain. He also questioned how the proposed design with snowmelt would be difficult to gain LEED certification. Commissioner Struve stated that the SRU should be reviewed under the old code. He stated that flipping the parking from the front to back, makes the building's design focused on the back instead of the front. He stated that a drive-thru is needed and will be accepted by the citizens of the town. He further commented that a drive-thru can help reduce exposure, by not forcing people to leave their vehicles running while going inside to pick up a prescription. He commented that snowmelt on the south side was good due to it helping impaired people access the building. Commissioner Struve stated that the lighting needs to be improved. He doesn't like internally illuminated signs and would prefer signs and lights that meet the WTCDIP. Commissioner Struve stated that during the WTCDIP discussions talk was that W Beaver Creek Blvd was a barrier and there was limited comments on the this area. Commissioner Green commented that the roof slopes need to be addressed, the heavy timbers could be "heavier". He further stated that the canopy awning appears to shed on the people entering the building. He commented that the tower's appear to be contrived. He further stated that the need for a monument sign isn't there due to the amount of signage on the building. He felt the overall architecture could still be brought up a notch. Commissioner Green stated that his recollection of the WTCDIP was that W Beaver Creek Blvd needed to become less of a barrier and increase pedestrian activity. He stated that there were comments that fronting the building on the street would create another Alpine Bank. He stated that the architecture of that building is lacking because they don't provide access to the sidewalks. If this building were to follow the same design there may be a dual access or at least designed to better address the pedestrian than the Alpine Bank building did. Commissioner Green stated that because the emphasis of the WTCDIP was on Main Street doesn't mean this property is excluded. He stated that all of the new documents mean that the Town is looking for a different track and that there is resistance from the development community to the plans. He further stated that because this site is currently auto oriented, doesn't mean that a new design should be equally as auto oriented. He agreed with Commissioner Anderson's comments that FAR and a mix of uses has not been addressed by the application. He stated that he is struggling with determining that the proposal complies with the guidelines. Staff commented that FAR was not in the new Land Use Code. Commissioner Anderson questioned Commissioner Green's hesitations and lack of compliance with the Guidelines. Commission Green stated that he felt this design still hasn't address the pedestrian oriented town that the approved Comprehensive Plan, WTCDIP, and Development Code promote. Commissioner Struve commented that allowing the building positioned closer to the highway, would allow a future common parking lot between the bank, Post Office, and the Walgreens. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to accept the design including the drive-thru with further review of lighting that is less industrial and more fits with Town west standards, with further review of signs that are not internally illuminated. 61Pau e Matt Pielsticker commented that only the "Walgreens" sign is internally illuminated the "W signs are externally illuminated, but Dominic Mauriello stated that they haven't gotten to the level of design with all signs, that they feel comfortable with. Commissioner Struve clarified that the monument sign be externally illuminated. Dominic Mauriello commented that the sign is not internally illuminated, but instead back lit similar to the Seasons Building signs that were recently approved. Commissioner Struve commented that the Christy Lodge monument signs have up lighting and that they look better than the reverse pan channel sign proposed. Commissioner Green recapped the motion made by Commissioner Struve. Commissioner Struve also added the condition that the applicant further address the 12:2 roof. Commissioner Anderson questioned if there were any findings included in the motion. Commissioner Struve stated that the findings were: 1. All these issues were examined at Sketch that they all fall under the same application; and, 2. That the pedestrian access is direct Commissioner Prince questioned if a finding should be included that the current siting of the building is the best. Commissioner Struve stated that he didn't want to include a finding that a future combined parking area be included. Commissioner Green questioned if there was a finding that the proposal is in compliance with the WTCDIP. Commissioner Struve stated that an additional finding is that the project is in compliance with the outlying areas of the Town Center West Plan. Commissioner Struve also added a condition that the landscaping on the north side be brought onto the property from the CDOT right-of-way. Commissioner Prince questioned how a finding can be included to address the drive-thru. Commissioner Struve responded by saying his first finding sufficiently addressed the drive- thru, by stating it was reviewed at Sketch and is part of the base package. Commissioner Prince questioned if there was a SRU required? Commissioner Struve stated that there wasn't a SRU required at Sketch. Both Matt Pielsticker and Commissioner Prince stated that an SRU was always required, the only difference is if an AEC would be required. Commissioner Struve added a finding that the applicant has addressed the issues of the SRU and that it meets the requirements and guidelines. Commissioner Prince questioned if Dominic Mauriello's slide that addressed the SRU criteria could be attached to the motion. Commissioner Struve responded negatively. Commissioner Prince seconded the motion. Commissioner Green asked that the findings be expanded if the motion goes through, because he felt that they were not sufficient due to the precedent setting nature of this approval. Commissioner Clancy stated that he is inclined to agree with the motion, but given his lack of experience he was not comfortable voting for or against the proposal without further time to review the contradictions presented by staff and the applicant. Commissioner Prince would like to receive a copy of the presentation to assist him if formulating his findings. Commissioner Struve stated that the commission should get through the vote and then address the findings. Commissioner Anderson questioned how the findings will be adjusted after the vote. Commissioner Struve stated that the findings can be addressed at any point and that they are inherent inside the vote and support the vote. 71 Page Jared Barnes stated that once the motion is made with its conditions and findings and subsequently approved, that is the motion that is moved forward. He further stated that the only way to address those conditions and findings would be to reopen the review of the entire proposal. Commissioner Green agreed with Jared Bames' statement and requested, as Chairman, that the findings be spelled out in the motion. Commissioner Green recapped the motion with conditions and findings. Commissioner Prince questioned if Staff would prepare a recommended motion based "on the direction the PZC is heading. Commissioner Green stated that Staff has provided a recommended motion and findings and that the PZC is dissenting from that recommendation therefore the PZC needs to formulate a motion and findings on its own. Dominic Mauriello commented that a Resolution, similar to the one approved for the BC Rodeo, would benefit the PZC in summarizing their approval. Sally Vecchio stated that a Resolution would not be appropriate for this application, due to the call-up timing outlined in the code. Dominic Mauriello clarified that he was stating that the PZC could table the application tonight and in 2 weeks present a resolution or strong motion with findings, but he is perfectly happy with the PZC muscling through a motion tonight. Commissioner dialogue ensued regarding the necessary votes to approve. Commissioner Struve added the finding that the drive-thru meets the SRU requirements and development standards of §7.28.040(e). Commissioner dialogue ensued regarding the decision of the Director to process an application under certain review processes. Commissioner Prince suggested that a finding be included that states the PZC were reviewing the SRU application under the old code. Sally Vecchio clarified that the PZC was reviewing the SRU under a non -existing code. Commissioner Struve stated that he is making a decision that he is not going to review an application under the old and new codes and that he is reviewing the entire application under the old code. Commissioner Prince stated that he agrees with all conditions and findings that have been added through the discussion. Commissioner Struve called the question that the discussion end and that a vote take place. Commissioner Green summarized the motion as follows: The PZC accepts the design including the drive-thru with the following condition: 1. Further review of lighting that is less industrial and more fits with Town West standards; 2. Further review of signs that are not internally illuminated, specifically the monument sign be externally illuminated; 3. The applicant further address the 12:2 roof; and, 4. The landscaping on the north side be brought onto the property from the CDOT right- of-way. And the following findings: 1. All these issues were examined at Sketch that they all fall under the same application; 2. That the pedestrian access is direct; 3. The project is in compliance with the outlying areas of the Town Center West Plan; 4. The applicant has addressed the issues of the SRU and that it meets the requirements and guidelines; and, 81 Page 5. The drive-thru meets the SRU requirements and development standards of §7.28.040(e). The motion passed 4-2. VIII. Text Amendment to Avon Development Code — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Description: Amendment to §7.16.100(f), Development Review Procedures, ADC, for the purpose of clarifying the duration of a Special Review Use permit approvals. Discussion: Sally Vecchio presented the code amendments. She discussed the options that are presented with the tabled items. Commissioner Anderson questioned the proposed resolution. Sally Vecchio stated that there was general consensus that Item VII be removed so that was that suggestion. Commissioner Anderson questioned why the PZC was removing their power to approve longer SRUs. Sally Vecchio stated that the Town Council has already approved the 2 year limitation and that Clarion Associates felt that a re -review was beneficial. Sally Vecchio stated that the Staffs presentation is not to change the fundamental issue, but rather to clarify the language to remove confusion. Commissioner Struve stated that the other aspect was that continued SRU approvals should reconsider the zone district instead of asking for continued SRU approvals. Commissioner Struve stated that he wasn't sure if the 2 years was a proper timeframe. The Public Hearing was opened. Dominic Mauriello stated that there was another way of thinking of these approvals. He stated that the approvals could be allowed permanently or with timeframes. Commissioner Struve stated that it removes the ambiguity of getting sued. The Public Hearing was closed. Action: Commissioner Prince moved to approve Resolution 11-06, with option 2 and striking vehicle drive-thrus. Commissioner Clancy seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. IX. Other Business Commissioners Minervini and Anderson will not attend the next meeting. Bike Path design and trail building day. X. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 pm. APPROVAL SSIIGNATURES: CCS Chris Green, Chairperson Scott Prince, Secretary 91 Page