Loading...
PZC Minutes 10-04-2011 (2)Work Session (4:OOpm) Lot 61 conceptual design plans Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 4, 2011 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street Description: Design proposal to construct a mixed-use development with lodging and commercial uses on Lot 61 in the West Town Center District. Sketch plans and elevations will be provided to the PZC before the meeting. Discussion: Commissioner comments included: Commissioner Prince • Concerned over the long linear roof line • The architecture is a different style than that of surrounding properties • Proposed colors are not found in nature and the developer should look at other recent approvals for ideas. • _ The area and size of Lettuce Shed Lane building encroachment is not justified. • Not.convinced with the proposed parking on the north side of the site. • First impressions of the building are key, especially when approaching the east elevation Commissioner Struve • In agreement with Prince's comments. • No parking should be on Town owned potential park land (Main Street). • Main Street is not committed to vehicular traffic in current plans. • No mountain architecture with overly flat surfaces. • Colors need to be addressed. • Large wall face on north east side is offensive. • Smaller footprint with more floors is his preference. Commissioner Losa • Lettuce Shed Lane concept from Main St seems to have been an afterthought. • He is not overly concerned with a portion of the building extending over this area, so long as it is done well. • Air rights over the Transit Station are a great idea given the southern orientation. • Guest access towards the mountain for skiing may be more important than the restaurant for the SW corner of the building. Main St should be auto accessible and utilize parallel spaces to narrow down the road. • Parallel spaces should be on both sides of the road in the future. • Preference is for circulation all on-site. • Architecture and colors can use a little work but not overly concerned at this point. Commissioner Clancy • PZC spent a lot of time with the pedestrian mall improvement plan and now parking is shown on previously pedestrian areas. Still trying to get arms around the new concept. 1 1I'agc • Less pavement would be an improvement. • More mountain architecture influences should be looked at and work on the colors. Commissioner Anderson • Articulation needs to be added to the roofline to break up the continuous line. • East elevation is bold, and will make a statement as approaching the property. • Colors need to be worked on. • Material selection needs to use Mountain styles. • Questioning the public benefits of the project. • With regards to parking, more plaza space in Area III would be an improvement. • Parallel parking on each side of the road could be a good design solution to keep spaces. • His first preference would be for pedestrian only on mall • What is the public benefit of Lettuce Shed Lane encroachments? Commissioner Minervini • Is the project truly "mixed-use" for the sake of being mixed-use or would it be better off strictly timeshare building? • He is fine with preserving Lettuce Shed Lane and Main St for public use. Commissioner Green • Concerned with parking on Main St. and Area III • Entrance feature is interesting, but could get worked out more • Mountain flavor could be added to the architecture • Questioning whether or not the restaurant is located on the correct side of the building. • Prefers the developer Pay -in -lieu for the restaurant parking instead of building it on site. • Lettuce Shed Lane air rights are bothersome, however, the height may be too low over Lettuce Shed Lane given what is happening directly to the west with the Seasons building. • If the proposal was really dynamic that may mitigate using the air rights over Lettuce Shed Lane. • Adding some bold colors is not necessarily bad if done well. -Regular Meeting - I. Call to Order (5:OOpm) The meeting was called to order at 5:16 pm. II. Roll Call All commissioners were present. III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Losa stated that he had a conflict on Item VI, due to his firm, Zehren Associates, being the applicant. Commissioner Anderson stated that he had a conflict on Item X, due to himself and his firm being the civil engineer. The Commissioners accepted the conflicts of interest from Commissioners Losa and Anderson. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the September 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes 21Page Action: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Commissioner Prince seconded the motion and it passed 5-0, with Commissioners Losa and Struve abstaining due to their absence. VI. PUD Amendment— MAILED/PUBLISHED PUBLIC HEARING Buck Creek PUD Property Location: Lot 1A, Buck Creek Subdivision / 50 Walking Mountains Lane Applicant. Pedro Campos, Zehren Associates /Owner. Eagle River Fire Protection District Description: Amendment request to allow the roof overhangs of two buildings to encroach into the front and side setbacks of Lot 1A, Buck Creek Subdivision. Additionally, the request seeks approval to construct a foot path within portions of a platted 30' Riparian Buffer Zone. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker presented the staff report and overviewed the proposal. Commissioner Prince questioned the stream setback and if the building would encroach if no stream setback was present. Pedro Campos stated that the roof overhang encroached into the building setback, not the stream setback. Commissioner Anderson questioned if the overhangs only encroached into setback or easements. Matt Pielsticker stated that it was only setbacks. Commissioner Struve questioned the path material. Matt Pielsticker stated that information was not proposed. Commissioner Green questioned the extent of the encroachment and if there was a precedent for the encroachment. Matt Pielsticker responded that it was not specified, but it was a general encroachment. Pedro Campos overviewed the proposed PUD amendments. The Public Comment portion of the meeting was opened. The Public Comment portion of the meeting was closed due to a lack of comments. Commissioner Anderson stated he had no issues with the proposal. Commissioner Clancy stated that the application is in conformance with the review criteria. Commissioner Prince agreed with the previous Commissioners comments. Commissioner Minervini had no additional comments. Commissioner Struve asked that the path on the west side of the administration building be vacated. Commissioner Green had no issues with the proposal. Pedro Campos provided clarification on pedestrian access, but stated that there was no access across the parking lot. Action: Commissioner Prince moved to approve Resolution 11-10. Commissioner Clancy seconded the motion and it passed 6-0 VII. Special Review Use — PUBLISHED PUBLIC HEARING Mountain Montessori School Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 77 Metcalf Rd Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG /Owner. BBG Holding Corporation Description: Amendment to the Mountain Montessori School's Special Review Use approval, from a two year time period to an approval with no time limitation. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker overviewed the history of the Montessori school. 31 Page Commissioner Struve questioned if the use was added to the IC zone district would it be available for all buildings with this zoning. Matt Pielsticker responded affirmatively. Commissioner Minervini questioned why this use is recommended for approval by staff, even though it is not allowed by zoning. Sally Vecchio stated that a previous Planning Director determined it could be allowed as an SRU and that each subsequent Director has honored that interpretation. Commissioner Losa questioned if there were any issues with the use. Commissioner Green questioned the language of the SRU code and if there was language that encouraged uses in perpetuity. Sally Vecchio stated that the code allows the PZC to enact any conditions and timelines as they see fit. Commissioner Prince questioned the requested duration of the SRU approval. Dominic Mauriello overviewed the preferred options for Mountain Montessori: 1. No timeframe; or, 2. Table to allow for a zoning change. Commissioner Struve questioned the timeframe and other specifics of the approval for Walking the Dog. Commissioner Losa stated that the tenant cannot control the entire building or site and therefore potential for future issues could arise. Commissioner Struve stated that he would prefer the application be tabled and the use be allowed in the zone district. Matt Pielsticker stated that it would still have to be reviewed by the PZC if it was allowed as an SRU. Commissioner Struve stated he would be in favor of a 10 year approval tied to the owner of the business. Commissioner Minervini stated he is in favor of tabling. Commissioner Prince stated that the 10 year approval is warranted. Commissioner Clancy agreed with Commissioners Prince and Losa. He felt that the 10 year timeframe would be acceptable to him. Commissioner Struve stated that the State Day Care License Board continually reviews the permit. Commissioner Anderson stated that a 10 year approval is acceptable and that would still leave the door open to the zoning change. Commissioner Green stated that he would not approve this SRU into perpetuity. He stated that a timeframe isn't necessary if there are appropriate conditions attached to the SRU. The Public Comment portion of the meeting was opened. Dominic Mauriello requested a tabling. The Public Comment portion of the meeting was closed due to a lack of comments. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to table the SRU. Commissioner Minervini seconded the motion and it passed 7-0. VIII. Special Review Use — PUBLISHED PUBLIC HEARING Walgreen's Pharmacy Drive Through Property Location: Lot 2, Sun Road Subdivision / 15 Sun Road Applicant., Dominic Mauriello, MPG/ Owner Trinity-Sunroad, LLC Description: Amendment to Walgreen's drive through Special Review Use approval, from a two year time period to an approval with no time limitation. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker overviewed the staff report. 41Page Dominic Mauriello highlighted the request and stated that he would prefer Staff recommended condition #2 including the verbiage "1 year" or "per code". Commissioner Minervini questioned if other items were sold from the Drive-thru. The Public Comment portion of the meeting was opened. The Public Comment portion of the meeting was closed due to a lack of comments. Commissioner Anderson stated that he would support the Drive-thru in perpetuity with the Applicant recommended modification to condition #2. Commissioner Clancy stated that he agreed that there should be no time limit. Commissioner Prince stated that the SRU should be in perpetuity due to the capital expense. He suggested that condition 2 be struck in its entirety. Commissioner Minervini questioned the language of condition #2. He favored that language similar to condition 2 be approved, specifically "Walgreen's or their successor ceases to use the drive-thru as a pharmacy for a period of 60 days." Commissioner Struve stated that the "successor" language was a good addition. He felt that tying the approval to the Pharmacy use was good. He also felt that a 1 year period was an appropriate timeframe. Commissioner Losa agreed with Commissioner Prince that condition #2 wasn't necessary. He stated that the Code already addressed the change of ownership and use. Commissioner Green stated that he was not in favor of the removal of Condition #2. He felt that 60 days was too short and 1 year was too long. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve Resolution 11-08 with the following amendment: Condition 2 be modified to: "If Walgreen's or it successor Pharmacy ceases operation of the Drive through window for a period of more than 1 year, the permit shall be deemed expired." Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion and it passed 7-0. IX. Final Design — Follow-up to Conditions of Approval Walgreen's Pharmacy Property Location: Lot 2, Sun Road Subdivision / 15 Sun Road Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG / Owner: Trinity-Sunroad, LLC Description: The Final Design for a Walgreen's Pharmacy was conditionally approved on June 21, 2011 by the PZC. This design review is intended to address the outstanding conditions of approval related to roof pitch, lighting, and landscaping. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker overviewed the conditions of approval for the Final Design. He further discussed the proposed modifications, highlighting the proposed lighting for the entire project and the roof slopes. Commissioner Struve questioned the requirement for the sloped roofs, if it was for weather or architecture. Matt Pielsticker stated that it was mainly architecture. Commissioner Minervini asked about the Dark Sky society and its impact on the Dark Sky Ordinance. Dominic Mauriello discussed the PZC conditions of Final Design approval. Brandt Marrott discussed the proposed solutions to the conditions of the approval. Commissioner Struve questioned if a LED bulb could be placed in the Munich fixture. 51 Page Commissioner Prince questioned the location of the proposed light fixtures. He also questioned the 3 fixture poles. Brandt Marrott clarified that the symbol may be misleading and that all proposed fixtures have a single head. Matt Pielsticker stated that the plans can be reviewed to ensure that the plans correctly represent the comments by Brandt Marrott. Brandt Marrott discussed the roof forms. Commissioner Struve questioned if the proposed modifications would affect interior use. Brandt Marrott responded that it would not. He further discussed the landscaping modifications, signage, and the signage lighting. Dominic Mauriello stated that they would like condition #2 removed. Commissioner Green questioned the height of the light poles. Brandt Marrott stated they are about 23 feet. Commissioner Green questioned if the applicant looked at LED lights that have the same fixture look to the Town of Avon installed fixtures. Brandt Marrott stated that the proposed fixtures appear to be compatible with the Town Fixtures and that LED lights weren't available for that particular fixture. Commissioner Clancy questioned the slope of the shed roofs around the building. Brandt Marrott stated that they were 4:12. He also questioned if there was only a single monument sign. Matt Pielsticker questioned if the applicants were acceptable with all of Condition #1 (a, b, and c). He also questioned the material of the signage. Commissioner Losa stated that he preferred the Munich style lighting. He also agreed with the articulating of the parapet wall. Commissioner Struve stated that the Munich style fixture is preferred. He preferred the original or hybrid roof plans. Commissioner Minervini stated that he appreciates Walgreen's design efforts feeling like this is a Flagship mountain architecture design, but also understands that there will be more bites at the apple until the final approval is granted. Commissioner Prince stated that he prefers the AST1 fixtures. He likes the landscaping and would prefer the applicant also pursue the CDOT landscaping. Commissioner Clancy stated that the lighting is fine and the landscaping meets the requirements. He does feel the East elevation addresses the code requirements and that the other elevations need a similar amount of work. Commissioner Anderson stated he prefers the Munich style fixture. He likes the mix of roof forms proposed. He stated that he feels sheet 3 addressed the comments from the previous review. Commissioner Green stated that the long unbroken ridges are an issue. He stated at the previous review there were so many topics being discussed that he appreciates another bite at the apple. He commented that the East and North elevations are the level of quality that he is expecting. He stated he prefers LED fixtures, but would prefer and option that is more similar to the Munich style. Commissioner Clancy questioned the light fixtures above the windows. Action: Commissioner Prince moved to the proposed the Final Design modifications with the following conditions: 1. Remove condition #2; 2. The roof changes as proposed on page 3 of the proposed plan sets are approved. 3. Approve using a Munich style light fixture. 6 1 P a a e 4. Encourage applicant to research an LED version of that style. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion and it passed 5-2. X. Major Design and Development Wildstar Property Location: Lot 9, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision / 1015 W Wildwood Road Applicant: Michael Pukas, MPP Design Shop / Owner. WildAvon Enterprises Description: A development proposal for four (4) single-family residences accessed off a private court drive. The proposed residences will be approximately 2,700 to 2,800 square feet and primarily finished in stucco with wood siding accents. The proposed four (4) single- family residences will be located on the same lot and accessed off the same drive and the existing three (3) single-family residences. Discussion: Jared Barnes presented Staffs report and highlighted the site features and constraints with developing this phase of the project. Commissioner Prince asked why this would be a condominium type subdivision. Jared Barnes responded that the newly created lots would not meet minimum zoning standards. Jared Barnes went through the code requirements related to Landscaping and why the applicant is proposing an AEC application. Commissioner Prince asked if there have been cases where trees have been allowed in the snow storage easements. He also questioned the lack of landscaping to east of Buildings 5, 6, and 7. Commissioner Prince questioned if the guidelines specify a difference between permanent and drip irrigation. Jared Barnes responded that permanent irrigation is limited to 20% of the landscape area, and there is a specified time -frame (2 years) for temporary irrigation. Commissioner Green questioned how the new process works and what the options should the Commission act on this application. Jared Barnes explained that the options are the same as a Final Design Review. Michael Pukas explained the rationale behind the design of the structures as it relates to the current economy and product on the market. He went through the AEC requests and the building design and materials. The goal of the design was to have low maintenance buildings. He went through each building design. Commissioner Green asked how the design has changed with these buildings. Michael Pukas responded that the same materials were used wood siding and stucco, asphalt shingles. He also stated that the coloring helped tie the project together. Commissioner Losa questioned Building 4's site in the interim. Michael Pukas stated that Building 4 has been addressed on the grading and drainage plan. Michael Pukas stated that they intend to design and build Building 4. Commissioner Clancy stated he was okay with the AEC application for the separation because of the approval for Phase I. He also stated he follows the logic on the AEC for the landscape units, and agrees that bicycle parking is more suited to a multi -family unit project. He also commented that the architecture is consistent with what we see in that neighborhood. Commissioner Prince is okay with the AEC application. Regarding landscaping, the east side needs additional landscaping and he recommends strategically placed trees on east edge. He did state that the proposed Landscaping has fruit bearing trees, those should be replaced with non -fruit bearing trees. He stated the design fits the overall theme of the existing three homes that are under construction. He did comment that Building 5 could use additional wood accents. 71Page Commissioner Minervini stated this is a terrific project given the current economy. He did comment that some screening on the East side of Buildings 5, 6, and 7 should be part of this application. Commissioner Struve commented if the approved 13' building separation worked for the first three Buildings then the proposed14' is acceptable. He disagreed with Commissioners Prince and Minervini that trees should be added to the east of buildings 5, 6, and 7. He stated the lack of hillside stability on east side is a problem for plant material. He commented that the proposal includes lots of asphalt and it would be nice to have some of the proposed asphalt in Phase II removed. Encourage the applicants to look at Building 1's use of materials as the builder mills beetle kill. He commented that should be looked at for these homes. Commissioner Lose commented on the AEC application. He was not finding a hardship with the proposed building separation. He preferred that Staff have the final decision on additional landscaping to the East side of Buildings 5, 6, and 7. He stated that Building 5's lack of wood seems awkward. He stated that Building 6's south elevation has an awkward step with materials. Commissioner Green likes the landscape plan's lack of sod and use of native materials. He stated that it is dangerous for the PZC to mandate trees on the backside of Buildings 5, 6, and 7. He stated that he takes no exceptions to three AEC applications. He does have concern with the architecture and colors. He stated that he agrees with the Building 5 materiality comments from the other commissioners. He likes the variation in housing types to add character of each unit. Michael Pukas commented that there is a type of crabapple tree that might not flower and that is what he is proposing. He also commented that planting on the East side of Buildings 5, 6, and 7 is prohibited by Staff. Michael Pukas brought additional AEC request, the garage fagade alteration, to the commission's attention in order to expedite the approval of this code variation for the 2' step back on all garage doors. A lengthy discussion ensued with regard to the intent of the garage door recess requirement and how it should be handled in the instance of this application. Action: Commissioner Clancy moved to approve the application with the three staff recommended conditions and the following conditions: 4. If building 4 isn't permitted in three years, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted to staff to include landscaping in the building 4 area; 5. All fruit bearing trees, as indicated on Sheet A1.2, shall be replaced with non -fruit bearing trees. 6. Add materiality and contrast to Building 5, specifically wood siding. The AEC application also be modified to move the garage doors for all four units towards the drive by two feet, as submitted on October 4, 2011. This modified AEC application is approved with the condition that Brown garage doors, similar to the color renderings, be used and with the finding that the decks above the garage and the roofs of the front entrance elements shall be construed as a porch that mitigate the garage doors. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. XI. Other Business XII.Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9pm. 81 Page APPROVAL SIGNATURES: Chris Green, Chairperson S�ott Prince, Secretary 9113age