Loading...
PZC Minutes 022096Record of Proceedings Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Regular Meeting The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jack Hunn at 7:30 p.m., February 20, 1996, in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. New Commissioner Tim Losa was sworn in by Town Clerk Patty Neyhart. All members were present except Sue Railton. Members Present: Jack Hunn Tim Losa Buz Reynolds, Jr. Rhoda Schneiderman Beth Stanley Henry Vest Staff Present: Karen Griffith, Town Planner Jacquie Halburnt, Recording Secretary George Harrison, Assistant Planner Steve Hodges, Community Services Officer Mike Matzko, Director of Community Development Additions and Amendments to the Agenda None Conflicts of Interest None Consent Agenda The following item was scheduled on the Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the February 6, 1996 Meeting Minutes Motion Commissioner Vest made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Schneiderman and the motion carried unanimously. Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 Final Design Review A. Lots 41-43, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Street Address: 0380, 0360, 0288 W. Beaver Creek Blvd. Project Type: New lighting plan Owner/Applicant: Eric Hill, Architect George Harrison reviewed the project. He stated the new lighting plan was designed to replace the existing parking lot lights at Beaver Creek West. Mr. Harrison stated the lights were not sodium as indicated in the Staff report, but rather a 100 watt metal halide. He stated the lights were very similar to the Town's lights. Commissioner Schneiderman asked what the Town wattage was and Mr. Eric Hill responded that he thought they were 150 watts, metal halide. Mr. Hill stated their bulb wattage would be lower than the Town's wattage. Chairperson Hunn asked Mr. Hill to describe the existing lighting system that would be replaced. Mr. Hill stated they were five feet ballards that shine light into a reflector and then down onto the surface and the lights were fluorescent. Mr. Hill stated that 25 of the proposed replacement lights were 10 foot poles, compared to the Town's 15 foot poles. He stated their lights were a little smaller and about 50% less bright. Commissioner Schneiderman stated she thought they were taking an unobtrusive type lighting that can not be seen from anywhere and replacing it with twice as many lights and more noticeable fixtures. Mr. Hill stated the reasons for change were for safety reasons and to fit in with the Town of Avon. He stated the lighting now was, at best, dangerous. Chairperson Hunn stated it appeared there was a concentration of lights where the entrance met the parking lot and asked if it could be reduced by one fixture. Mr. Hill stated they could easily lose some fixtures. Chairperson Hunn clarified that it was Beaver Creek West's intention to have lower wattage lights than the Town and Mr. Hill concurred. Mr. Hill stated the lowest wattage metal halide they could buy was 100 watts. Mr. Hill stated they chose the smallest pole they could buy and the color would be the same green as the sample he passed around to the Commission. Mr. Mike Bennett, Beaver Creek West manager, stated that on July 4, 1995, a woman from West Vail cut through their property, fell down and sued them. He stated they felt they needed to address the safety issues so people could see where they were walking and also address security issues by lighting up the four corners. Commissioner Schneiderman stated she thought they did not need so many fixtures. Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Reynolds asked which way the swans faced and Mr. Hill stated they all faced toward the parking lot, away from the building. Chairperson Hunn stated that they were presuming that the Town of Avon's lights were 150 watts. He stated if the Town's lights were 100 watts, he would be concerned that there would be too much light. George Harrison stated that he had the Town of Avon design guidelines and it called for 100 watt metal halide, but he had no idea if that was what was actually installed. Commissioner Schneiderman labeled the light plan exhibit "A". Motion Commissioner Schneiderman made a motion to approve the lighting plan for Lots 41-43, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Eliminate 5 fixtures per exhibit "A". 2. Verification of wattage in the existing Town of Avon fixtures is necessary. If the Town of Avon wattage is 150 watt - 100 watt is approved. If Town of Avon fixture is not 150 watts, the plan must be brought back to the Commission for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Stanley and the motion carried unanimously. B. Lot 49, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Street Address: 4620 North Point Project type: Residential Duplex Owner/Applicant: Sierra Construction, Inc. Applicant: Ed Small Consultant: Jerry Rosencranz & Jeff Swanson, Full Spectrum George Harrison reviewed the project. He stated the applicant described the design style as a "mountain living" design with mixed materials of wood and stucco. He stated Staff was in favor of approval with minor modifications. The first was the width of the throat of the driveway needed to be brought back inside the right of way. Secondly, the grading in the north east corner behind unit B and the retaining wall needed to be worked out by the applicant. Commissioner Losa asked Staff why there were two front setbacks and two side setbacks instead of a front and back setback. Mr. Harrison stated because it was a corner lot. Commissioner Losa was concerned that it might have an impact on neighboring lots. Karen Griffith stated she agreed with Commissioner Losa that the rear setback was defined as the opposite of the front setback; however, historically, Staff had interpreted that when one had double street frontage, both lot lines had front setback requirements. Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 She continued that when one looked at the definition of a lot line front, it meant the property line dividing the lot from the street. Ms. Griffith stated that when Staff does the code update, this issue was something already listed for clarification. The applicant, Mr. Ed Small, stated that he thought there was an error in calculation regarding the amount of landscaping and the lot actually was 31% landscaped; however, if there was a problem, they would correct it. He stated regarding the retaining wall for the B unit, they would stairstep the stones back. Commissioner Reynolds asked if the unfinished area downstairs would be used for bedrooms. Mr. Small stated that was correct and they did not intend on making the building more than a duplex. Mr. Small presented color samples and pictures of another duplex with the same color scheme. Commissioner Schneiderman stated there needed to be a total of six evergreen trees. Chairperson Hunn stated the proposed light fixture would cast a lot of light out and the 100 watt bulb would be viewed as very bright from a neighboring property. He asked if they had considered an alternate fixture that would cast light down. Mr. Small stated they would consider any fixture that the Commission approved; however, they chose the proposed fixtures because of the rippled glass and consequently it was a downward application. He stated the fixtures were very elegant and he could take the Commission to a property to view them. Chairperson Hunn stated if they lowered the wattage of the bulb it might meet their requirements. Mr. Small stated no problem and he did not think they ever used 100 watt bulbs anyway. Chairperson Hunn asked about meter locations and stated the Commission desired that they chose disguised locations. Mr. Small stated they would be enclosed. Commissioner Losa stated he was concerned with the window wells and thought they would make the grading worse at the corners where the retaining wall was. Mr. Small stated that in all fairness the window wells were a necessity and not something for which they had a choice. He stated the flow line would go back into a swell and into the backyard and grading would not be an issue. Commissioner Losa stated he was concerned because the width of the window wells were not shown on the grading plan. Mr. Small stated he would get a cut sheet if Commissioner Losa wanted to see how the window well worked. Mr. Small stated that they would have to put a ladder in the window wells because it was totally underground. Commissioner Vest asked the size of the soffet. Mr. Small stated he thought it was 16" overhangs. Commissioner Vest also asked if the east unit roof sheds onto the garage and asked if they would do any gutter work. Mr. Small stated it faced due South and thought it would get good drainage. He also stated that if the clients had problems, they would go Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 5 back and address them. Commissioner Vest asked about a small patch of stucco on backside of the north elevation where it was all siding. Mr. Small stated it was an architectural thing and could be changed if necessary. For the garage doors; Mr. Small stated they would use either Renaissance 2000, rough tex or raised panels. Chairperson Hunn asked about the gas fireplaces. Mr. Small stated they were direct vent and the vents would be at least 7 feet off of the ground. Motion Commissioner Schneiderman made a motion to approve the residential duplex for Lot 49, Block 3, Wildridge subdivision with the following conditions: Staff recommendations 1-4. 2. For clarification, there will be a total of six (6) evergreen trees. Seconded by Commissioner Vest and the motion carried unanimously. C. Lots 45/46, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek; Falcon Point H Project Type: Rezoning, PUD and Final Design of 20 timeshare units Owner: Points of Colorado Applicant: Larry Doll of Points of Colorado Address: 0320 & 0340 Benchmark Road Karen Griffith explained the project. She stated this was a new submittal after their previous submittal was denied in January. She stated the new proposed building had the following changes to the Falcon Point side: it was scaled down to 20 units when 36 were proposed before, it was moved to the north side of the site, there were 35 feet in between the proposed building and the recreation center, 59 feet to the northern property line, 100 feet to the nearest condominium at Beaver Creek West, the plan features underground parking with two aisles and 31 spaces, and it included a twenty foot landscape area in front of the building which helped to screen the underground parking down ramp. She continued that on the Lakeside Terrace portion, they had increased from 3 duplexes to 4 duplexes. Karen Griffith explained the existing density that was approved for the site versus the density they were proposing. Karen stated that there were originally 31 development rights for Lot 45 and in 1985, the applicants applied through the process called fractionalization to reconfigure the 31, 3 -bedroom units for the Falcon I property to 60, 1- 2- and 3 -bedroom units. Ms.Griffith stated that Lot 46 continued to have the 31 development rights and with the existing fractionalization there were 91 units, with a density of 37.75 units per acre. She continued that if one took the 60 units already approved for Lot 45 and add 20 units per Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 6 acre, there were 17 units per the RHD zoning allowed on Lot 46, which was a density of 31.9 units; therefore, 37.75 were allowed per the original development rights and those rights exist today. Ms. Griffith stated that with the rezoning, the rights didn't necessarily follow through when comparing the proposal to the existing zoning because the density overall with the existing 60 existing Falcon Point units was 31.9. She stated they were proposing 35.7 and if one took the Falcon I project on its own, the density was 37. Ms. Griffith continued that the proposed increase in density was 31.9 units per acre using existing RHD of 20 units per acre on Lot 46, considering they were already had 60 on Lot 45. She stated that the existing Falcon Point was 37 using the existing development rights of 37.75. Chairperson Hunn stated there appeared to be different ways to look at it and asked if their proposal resulted in 86 units. Ms. Griffith replied yes, 86 units including the existing Falcon Point units, 20 proposed time shares, and 8 proposed duplexes. Chairperson Hunn stated that depending on which set of rules were applied, they would be comparing the 86 units to either 77 units or to 91 units. Ms. Griffith stated that was correct. Ms. Griffith then reviewed the Staff Memo and review criteria. Ms. Griffith stated Staff was recommending approval with nine conditions as outlined in the Staff Memo. Commissioner Schneiderman asked if #6 of the Staff conditions should have said "Lot 2" and Ms. Griffith stated yes. Mr. Larry Doll presented the project. He stated he thought Ms. Griffith did an excellent job when she explained the fractionalization. He stated that it had been a difficult process to get to an acceptable project and there had been a conflict between neighbors and friends. He stated that the project was not typical because an infill always impacted a neighborhood. He continued the first plan submitted was overly ambitious and obstructed views. He stated the new proposed downscale project met the majority of the objections. Mr. Doll stated he worked with Mike Bennett, Beaver Creek West Manager, to send out letters to Beaver Creek West's Board of Directors outlining the project and site plans in an effort to better communicate. Mr. Doll stated on the proposed grade, on the north elevation the building was 55.8 feet, on the south elevation it was 55.8 and on the east and west elevations it was 58.2 feet. Commissioner Schneiderman clarified that Falcon Point I is higher than the proposed Falcon Point II. Mr. Doll stated they proposed iron railing to break up the building by a solid stucco walk followed by a steel railing and would do the same thing on the back of the building. It was their intention to replace the decks at Falcon Point I when funds become available so they would match. Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 7 Mr. Stuart Ohlson, project architect, reviewed the colors and materials chosen for the proposed building. He stated the stone was very similar to the stone used for Falcon Point I. Mr. Doll stated there had been one change in the floor plan. He stated they were trying to put a 4 person jacuzzi on the decks, but in further review, there would be a problem sanitizing the jacuzzis each week for new guests. He stated they will now incorporate a 2 person jacuzzi in the master bath. Public Hearing Chairperson Hunn opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Kail Christensen, unit owner at Beaver Creek West since December, talked with Mr. Mike Bennett about the possibility of another development before he bought his unit. However, he stated he was under the impression that through the PUD process, the height restriction would be 41 feet and he was concerned that the building would be 58 feet. Mr. Christensen stated that there are 20-40 people, some with skis, on their road at any given time. He stated they needed an alternate route to get the bus stop or it would be unbearable with another development. Mr. Mike Bennett, Beaver Creek West Manager, stated he was concerned with their development approach because his plans showed that Lot 45 and Lot 46 were separate square lots. He proposed that on Lot 1 (of the proposed subdivision) he would like to see the units per acre around 40. He stated he thought they were leaving a too small of an area to be a lot in RHD zoning. He stated that if part of Lot 46 was absorbed into Lot 45, and the lot line was redrawn, he was uncertain if any development rights spilled over into part of Lot 46, or if the 31 units were for the entire Lot of 46 or just part of it. Chairperson Hunn closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Reynolds stated he felt the same concern for the density. Commissioner Stanley asked if the back entrance was the only entrance into the unit. Mr. Doll stated there were also individual entrances to each unit. Mr. Doll stated there was a 5 foot sidewalk to the bus stop for Falcon I, II, and Beaver Creek West. Chairperson Hunn asked if there would be a curb and gutter between the sidewalk and road. Mr. Ohlson stated yes and it would direct water either to the Lakeside lot or the Falcon I lot. Commissioner Stanley asked how wide the road was. Mr. Doll stated the road was built on the Falcon Point Lot and Beaver Creek West's parking was in the road easement on their side. He stated it was two full lanes with a 25 foot open driveway. Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 8 Commissioner Stanley stated that she felt the same about the height of the building, where it sat, how it drew attention to itself, and didn't conform to the other buildings around it. Mr. Doll stated there were certain restrictions they had to build within and did not have the flexibility one might normally have. Commissioner Reynolds stated that a 60 foot building would cause a shadow effect on the access easement between the two buildings and was concerned with ice buildup. Commissioner Reynolds stated they would not have problems with the existing setup because the buildings don't shadow the road in a east -west situation like the proposed building would. Mr. Steve Lidden, manager of Falcon Point I, stated that the area was dry by 2 p.m. everyday. Mr. Doll stated that it was his understanding that if they approved the PUD zoning with 20 units at Falcon Point and 4 at Lakeside Townhomes, it could not be changed. Commissioner Vest stated that he did not think it should be a factor if there were a lot of pedestrians in the road because that was the way it would always be in this resort community. Commissioner Vest stated he was interested in the walkway that Staff recommended eliminating and wondered how they would get people from Falcon Point I to the Recreational Building. Mr. Doll stated that he remembered a discussion 10 years ago and the walkway was a requirement of the Commission, but his records only go back 5 years. He stated the owners of Falcon Point I might object to its removal because they had become accustomed to it. Commissioner Vest said the last few times he went there, there were always people in the walkway. Mr. Doll stated that if it was a landscaping issue, he would be willing to submit a landscaping plan to make it more eye appealing from the park. Commissioner Vest stated he remembered his last comment from the last meeting that the building was in the right place, but it no longer was in that place. He stated he understood they had shrunk the building in half, but they had to maintain units which meant being at 58 feet high. He also stated that he thought if one looked from the park, it was a better solution than the original, very dense proposal. Commissioner Schneiderman stated she viewed it as a new application and was not thinking of "what was". She stated that site plan wise, it was good. She stated she had not heard anyone mention architecture and that bothered her. She stated by putting in total underground parking, keeping a 20 ft. landscape section between the building and the road, and doing the interior courtyard were great, but she did not think they had redesigned the building to fit the smaller space. She stated she thought they should use up some of the courtyard space to redesign the building and it would be good for everyone if the building came down one floor. Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Losa stated that he thought it was a good project for the community. He stated the front of the building had repetitive elements and suggested dropping the plate line on the roof down and hip the corners to break up the roof line. He addressed the Plaza in between the two buildings by saying it was a great concept, but it was also a public area on the same level as some of the units and there was not much of a buffer between them. Chairperson Hunn asked if the ramp at a 10% grade into the garage was heated. Mr. Doll stated yes. Chairperson Hunn also asked if 18 feet in width was adequate for two way traffic. Mr. Ohlson stated yes. Chairperson Hunn stated a 20 foot clear dimension would be more typical of a two-way traffic dimension. Karen Griffith suggested taking some spaces out and allowing more room for cars backing out. Chairperson Hunn stated that in this open air structure, ventilation came from the space between the deck and grade and asked if they had planned on using anything to close off the visual image of the garage in that area. Mr. Ohlson stated that screening or an acceptable device would be highly desirable to keep the snow and kids out of the area. Chairperson Hunn stated the depth of the facia appeared to be thin. Mr. Ohlson stated it was 8-10 inches. Chairperson Hunn stated a thicker facia might give more strength to the roof element. Chairperson Hunn stated he thought the differences between the current application and the previous one were significant and commended the applicants for addressing the Commission's concerns. He stated that Beaver Creek West was a 4 -story building and they were proposing a 5 -story building. He stated that if there was a way to make the proposed building 4 stories it would complete the transition of scale in terms of both height and footprint. Chairperson Hunn stated it was the Commission's job to determine if the project was an increase or a decrease in density. He stated it was important to determine if there was an increase of 9 units or a decrease of 5 units. Karen Griffith stated it was unclear and presented a letter sent to her by Harvey Deutsch. She stated that the letter raised the point that legally, Lot 46 has 31 units per acre allocated to it and Mr. Deutsch wanted to make sure the record reflected that he had not lost those units. Ms. Griffith stated she thought that since this was a PUD, it was the Town's responsibility through the review process to set the appropriate density. Ms. Griffith stated there were two ways to look at it. The first would be that as of today, 31 development rights existed for Lot 46; therefore, 91 development rights could be associated with the property. Chairperson Hunn stated he thought some of the development rights went away when they created a PUD to create the duplexes. Mr. Griffith stated no, that it was all done as part of the same ordinance. Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Reynolds stated that he thought the density was just too much for that area and there weren't any other projects that had that much density other than the Christie Lodge. Ms. Griffith stated Staff recommended final design approval because it seemed redundant to come back and look at the same building again. Commissioner Vest stated he thought the building was tall and would rather see a mountain style with overhangs, shadow lines, etc... Mr. Ohlson stated he was not in the business to design ugly things and was working with what was presented to him. He stated he thought it would turn out to be a handsome form with articulated surfaces and contrasting colors. He stated he did not think people would feel it was a massive, tiresome, boring building. Commissioner Schneiderman stated that while she approved the concept of the site plan, she did not feel comfortable separating the design review from the site plan because they could not achieve a cohesive interesting building with the very regular footprint. Chairperson Hunn stated he thought they should take some action, even if it was to table it. Commissioner Vest stated he was in favor of the new project with one story less than what was presented. Commissioner Stanley stated she did not have a problem with the building itself, but did not like the height. She suggested taking a floor off of the building. Commissioner Losa stated that if they lost the top floor, or part of it, it might help to break down the scale and appear less massive. He stated they had an opportunity to step up the building. Mr. Doll stated they wished to have the project tabled and would try to address the height and economical feasibility. He stated they would try the step approach suggested by Commissioner Losa to pick up one or two of the top floor units. Commissioner Schneiderman stated that 3 out of 6 Commissioners had a problem with the density at 20 units. Motion Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to Table the rezoning, PUD, and final design of Lots 45/46, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek subdivision. Seconded by Commissioner Schneiderman. Mr. Matzko asked if there would be a suggestion to the Council to delay the first reading for two weeks as well. Chairperson Hunn stated that procedurally he would see it go Meeting Minutes February 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 11 through first reading, back to Commission, then back to Council. Ms. Griffith recommended leaving it up to Staff to recommend to Council, to which Chairperson Hunn agreed. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business None Adjournment Commissioner Reynolds a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Commissioner Stanley and the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueline Halburnt Recording Secretary 11. . vat / \/ -- 1