Loading...
PZC Minutes 011696Record of Proceedings Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Regular Meeting The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jack Hunn at 7:37 p.m., January 16, 1996, in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. All members were present except Sue Railton. Chairperson Hunn stated that Bill Sargis had resigned from the Commission. Members Present: Jack Hunn Buz Reynolds Rhoda Schneiderman Beth Stanley Henry Vest Staff Present: Karen Griffith, Town Planner Jacquie Halburnt, Recording Secretary George Harrison, Town 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 items were scheduled on the Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the January 2, 1996 Meeting Minutes B. Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision; Satisfaction of conditions to bring back landscape plan Project Type: Single family Owner: Tommy Ambrosio Applicant: Tommy Ambrosio Address: 2631 Beartrap Road Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 C. Lot 49, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: Modification of roof material on duplex Owner: MVM Development Applicant: Todd Morrison Address: 5161 Longsun Lane George Harrison explained the consent agenda. He stated the applicant for Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision wanted to replace his already approved Juniper Pine trees with Cottonwood trees and the applicant for Lot 49, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision wanted to replace his already approved cedar shake roofing material with a composite roof material. The applicant, Ward Morrison, was present to show the Commission the different roof materials. Motion Commissioner Schneiderman made a motion to approve the consent agenda and it was seconded by Commissioner Vest. The motion carried unanimously. Final Design Review A. Lots 45/46, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision; Falcon Point II Project Type: Rezoning, PUD and Final Design of 36 timeshare units Property Owner: Points of Colorado, Inc. Applicant: Larry Doll of Points of Colorado, Inc. Property Address: 0320 & 0340 Benchmark Road Chairperson Hunn began the meeting by stating that procedurally the project was back before the Commission at Town Council's request. He stated the Commission's role was to recommend an action to Council. He continued that the project was previously denied by Commission and then Council heard the matter and had seen new information. He stated Council tabled it because they wanted Commission to see the new information. Karen Griffith remarked that because the project was referred back to the Commission by Council, an additional Public Hearing was not publicized. She stated that Chairperson Hunn, at his discretion, may want to open a Public Hearing and take the information under advisement. Ms. Griffith briefly reviewed the staff report. She stated the building height had not been changed, there was a new flat roof design, the underground parking was the major revision that the Commission had not seen, a widened landscape area, added additional Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 plant material, the requirements for snow storage were decreased because of the underground parking, setbacks were not changed, and the SE building presented a 5 foot setback instead of the standard 7 '/2 foot setback. Ms. Griffith indicated that if the project was approved, a pollution and storm water control plan, and grading plan revisions were still needed to be approved by the Town Engineer for the project. She also stated a condition of approval would be that all parking lot spaces meet the Town requirements for size. Staff recommended that per Council's request, Commission review the revised site plan and determine if it addressed both the adopted design review criteria and reasons for denial on December 19th. Commissioner Schneiderman asked about the height of the 25 -foot wide berm. Ms. Griffith stated it was 3 feet. Commissioner Reynolds asked if the density allowed when the original project was fractionalized was grandfathered into the whole property even though it was not developed. Ms. Griffith clarified that the whole property included lots 45 and 46. She stated there were 31 units allotted to each lot and then through the fractionalization, Falcon Point converted the 31 units to 60 units of which they have 58 on Lot 45. Ms. Griffith stated that if one would go with what was in the books right now, without the rezoning, they could build 91 units; however, with the rezoning to PUD, it was Staffs interpretation that the original development rights do not automatically transfer and that the new project would be re-evaluated based on the design review criteria. Chairperson Hunn stated that he intended to include public comment as part of the procedures; therefore, the Commission would hear the applicant's presentation, public comments, the Commission would review the project, and then a decision would be made. Mr. Larry Doll presented the project. Mr. Doll began by extending his apologies to Chairperson Hunn and Commissioners Vest and Stanley for attempting to contact them to notify them of a 45 -foot barrier that had been erected to indicate the height of the proposed building and affected views. He stated did not mean to do anything that was not proper. Mr. Doll stated that from the first meeting in March of 1995, they had hoped to work closely with Staff, Commission, and Council to develop a first class project and every change that had been made was a result of their suggestions. He reviewed Staff s conditions for approval from the December 5, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and indicated they had met all of the conditions except for study by the Town Engineer. He next referenced the Staff s conditions for approval from the December 19, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and indicated they had all been met. Mr. Doll stated their commitment for 36 underground parking spaces added $450,000.00 to the project and eliminated any profit off of five units, but he emphasized they were still willing to do it. He next wanted to review a supplement on cost analyses. Commissioner Schneiderman stated the supplement meant nothing to her as one commission member and would not enter into her decision-making process whether a project was profitable or not Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 and she did not think it was appropriate. Mr. Doll stated it was included to dispute the misconception that Time -Share units made a lot of money. Chairperson Hunn stated that instead of reviewing the supplement, Commission stipulated that they acknowledged Mr. Doll's concern. Mr. Stuart Ohlson, project architect, presented the changes that had taken place since their meeting with Town Council and pointed out the result of the parking structure. Mr. Ohlson showed a display of the revised layout. He stated the parking structure had sprinklers, but no natural ventilation. Mr. Ohlson referenced a letter written by Mr. Eric Hill that Mr. Mike Bennett presented to the Commission at the last Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. He paraphrased the letter as saying that the height of the proposed building would block all southern views from Phase 4 and Phase 2 and Beaver Creek West, that the scale of the proposed project did not fit or complement the adjacent Falcon Point I building and the solid monolithic massing of the proposed building did not attempt to step back from the adjacent building. Mr. Ohlson stated that he felt the comments were disquieting because they thought those were all the items they were successfully addressing. In order to soothe his dismay, Mr. Ohlson had asked an Asst. Professor at the University of Colorado to give his objective opinion on the quality of the urban space. Mr. Ohlson then passed out the letter to the Commission, Staff, and members of the public. Larry Doll presented a copy of a section of the comprehensive map for the Town of Avon that depicted Beaver Creek West, Nottingham Park, and Falcon Point to comparatively show the masses of the existing vs. the proposed buildings. Chairperson Hunn asked Staff if the process was a rezoning process, not a design review process. Karen Griffith stated that it was a PUD and building design was included. Commissioner Reynolds complimented the building itself and stated that unfortunately it was in a tight spot. He stated the major issues were density, the curtain effect, and traffic. He stated the parking lot was full both of the times he stopped by the area. He stated he felt it was the same as the building the Commission looked at originally, but his major concern was density and did not think that anything they could show him on their boards would change that fact. Mr. Doll stated they looked at reducing the project by 4 units (2 on each side), but since they had decided to commit to underground parking, it just wasn't economically viable. Mr. Doll stated they spent a lot of money to get certified engineering drawings to show site lines so they could put to bed what would happen to the views. He also discussed the computer simulated picture that illustrated what the views would be. He stated he did not know how to give the Commission a more realistic view of what it would look like with the proposed building. Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 5 Mr. Doll addressed his concerns on misrepresentation regarding communication with Mr. Mike Bennett of Beaver Creek West. He stated they have met three times to find a resolution. Mr. Doll stated what Mr. Bennett's board wanted in terms of changing the orientation of the building, he, in good conscience, could not do. Mr. Doll presented information on Beaver Creek West that addressed the neighborhood as a residential community. He stated 80 units were owned by out-of-state residents, 25 businesses or corporations own units (19 have multiple owners, 1 unit has 5 different owners), and over 100 units participate in the rental program. He stated it is a second home, rental home community and it is not an ownership residence. He stated it is a successful commercial property. Public Hearing Chairperson Hunn opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Brett Heckman, attorney for Beaver Creek West, stated that the Commission had already ruled on the application and the fact that it was back before the Commission required public notice. In response to former Commissioner Sargis's comment that he did not have evidence of the economic effect on Beaver Creek West due to view obstruction, Mr. Heckman presented a letter from the Eagle County Appraiser that he claimed stated unequivocally the historic devaluation of 10-15% per unit due to view obstruction. He stated he appreciated all of the work the applicants had done, but he agreed with Commissioner Reynolds that the applicants had side stepped the issues important to the Commission. Mr. Heckman stated that all the computer-generated photos did not compare to visiting the site and the 45 -foot barrier erected by the applicant was 15 -foot short of the 60 -foot building height. Mr. Heckman stated that their conversations with the applicant were unavailing at best and there were no conversations or negotiations regarding density or mitigating the problem with view corridors. Mr. Heckman referenced the Staff memorandum that listed the PUD design criteria. He stated the applicant was asking for double the density, it obstructed views as the tallest building, it altered the character of what the town looked like from the park, the use was time-share, and there was currently a lawsuit because the road maintenance agreement between Beaver Creek West and Lakeside Terrace does not work. Mr. Heckman stated that if the project was approved, he hoped the applicant would have to comply with the road maintenance agreement. Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 6 Mr. Mike Bennett, General Manager of Beaver Creek West, discussed the obstructed views. He stated that whether someone bought to live in or bought for a vacation home, one becomes a member of the community, takes pride in that and does have some expectations. Mr. Bennett stated that many people had said to him "You had to know something was going to be built there." He stated that after 6 weeks of looking at the project, he finally realized that the reason he was so bothered was because he always knew something would be built on Lot 46. He stated the proposed building was built primarily on Lot 45. He continued that Lot 45 was built out with 31 units around 1980, it was then fractionalized 2:1 to allow 60, so Lot 46 had 30 more units. He stated he believed they should be able to develop Lot 46, but Lot 45 was built out to the maximum. He stated lots were zoned to protect adjacent property owners' property rights and if they allowed the transfer of the development rights to Lot 45, everyone's expectations would go out the window. Mr. Jack Garland, resident for 15 years, owner at Beaver Creek West for 9 years, stated he had expectations when he bought his unit and felt like he was moving into a residential area. He stated it was a family environment and he valued that kind of feel to the neighborhood and he thought a time-share unit was completely different from how the lot was zoned. Mr. Harvey Deutsch, owner of the Lakeside Terrace property, stated that when he bought his property, it was totally open space, no recreation center, library, post office, proposed hotel next to it, etc... He stated the character of the neighborhood now was urban with 3 and 4 story buildings and a bus service and that the proposed area was part of the core. He stated that all of the information he heard from Mr. Heckman and Mr. Bennett was wrong and there must be two Beaver Creek Wests. He stated the building was sold to investors based upon a short-term rental program (2 night minimum) and was operated as a hotel with the management company getting 35% for renting. He stated 60 person buses filled with the Oklahoma Ski team was not what they had contemplated in the neighborhood when they talked about duplexes. Mr. Deutsch referenced the lawsuit regarding the road maintenance agreement and stated the problem was that they were told Beaver Creek West was a long-term rental, but Beaver -Creek West's use was so intense that he feels Lakeside Terrace's fair share should be reduced. In closing, Mr. Deutch reiterated his support for the project. Chairperson Hunn asked Staff to clarify the building height. Karen Griffith responded that the north elevation was 55 feet tall to the top of the roof. She stated the site sloped down to the back of the building and her recollection of the building height on the parkside was 60 feet. Ms. Patti Dixon, homeowner on the lake in Avon, stated she was concerned with the view corridor going down the road and from the park. She also stated that the Town doesn't allow that much density in the core and she was concerned that they would allow it there. Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 7 She stated she didn't think it mattered if residents of Beaver Creek West were there one day or one week or all year long, their rights needed to be protected. Ms. Maryann O'Brien, Beaver Creek West owner, stated that she did not see similarity between her and a time share owner because her terms of investment use were entirely different. She stated she was concerned with density and traffic. Ms. Patricia Swanson, homeowner at Beaver Creek West, stated she was appreciative of the Town's envisionary Master Plan, which was one of reasons she decided to buy at Beaver Creek West. Her husband, Mr. Swanson, concluded by stating that he was concerned with the density. Larry Doll stated he wanted to clarify the building height and density. He stated the parkside was 60 feet and the front of the building that would block views was 45 feet with the new flat roof design. He stated that if you want beachfront property you pay the price to buy on the beach. He stated the lot was for sale for two years before they bought it and if the Town wanted to increase the park, he asked why they did not buy the lot, if Beaver Creek West was so worried about their views, why did they not buy it? Mr. Mike Cloutis, attorney for the applicant, stated he could not let the casual misstatements and misinformation pass from the Beaver Creek West people. He referenced Mr. Heckman stating the building was 60 feet, Mr. Cloutis stated it was 45 feet. Mr. Heckman stated that it was the tallest building, Mr. Cloutis stated it was not. Mr. Heckman stated the density was twice what was allowed, Mr. Cloutis stated it was not; And, lastly, Mr. Heckman stated the computer aided design was not accurate, Mr. Cloutis stated it was more accurate than taping paper on photos. Mr. Cloutis asked if anyone doubted that their computer aided design was accurate. Commissioner Schneiderman stated she doubted strenuously because she was there and determined that the view would be less than was depicted in the photo. Holly Parker, Director of Operations for Falcon Point, stated there are two types of views and she wasn't certain everyone was always talking about the same views. Once again, the building height was discussed. Chairperson Hunn stated that if they were measuring the building to determine if it was in a maximum height as determined by a zoned district, they would look for the most restrictive condition and the Commission would call the building a 60 foot building. He further stated that for view analysis, it was appropriate to simulate what the angle would be from any vantage point. Mr. Bennett stated he still thought they should build on Lot 46. Mr. Doll stated they decided to build on Lot 45 so they could move everything forward and put the parking lot in a better location. Chairperson Hunn closed the public hearing. Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 8 Karen Griffith addressed Mr. Heckman's comment that the meeting was not advertised as a public hearing. She stated that the Town Attorney addressed the issue at the last Council meeting and his answer was that no additional hearing notices were required. Chairperson Hunn stated that part of the Commission's responsibility was to ensure that the project would be in conformance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Karen Griffith stated the project was in the Nottingham Park Residential planning area and the plan does not designate density of development, only residential development and Staff determined it was in conformance. Commission Review Commissioner Schneiderman stated on the plus side, she thought the courtyard effect brought a cohesiveness to the area, and the underground parking and additional landscaping and berming were good. She stated that her problem was not density, but the building itself because it was massive and not interesting. She stated she thought the density could have been helped by a more sensitive plan and moving the building. Commissioner Vest stated that he was in total conformance with Commissioner Schneiderman. He stated he did not completely agree with Commissioner Reynold's density problem. He stated that as he had seen the project three, four, and five times, more issues came to the table each time and on his last walk through he noticed the fact that the SE corner of the building was 5 -feet from the pedestrian path. Commissioner Vest stated he had hoped the side wings would come down one floor off of the building. Commissioner Stanley stated she agreed with Commissioners Schneiderman and Reynolds, but disagreed with Commissioner Vest in that she did not consider it part of the town core. She stated she had driven and walked around the area several times and determined that it was just going to be a massive building. She also stated that she thought the applicant had done wonderful things in response the Commission's requests. Commissioner Vest stated he thought it was the smartest orientation that they could have and it was the only way to develop that particular site. Commissioner Reynolds stated everyone had already heard his comments. Chairperson Hunn pointed out that the PUD section of the zoning code started out by saying that PUD zone district was intended to provide flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; therefore, it was Commission's charge to ensure the project was the most appropriate use. The section continued with - the density allowed on the property would be determined in compliance with the design criteria in subsection H (which was in the staff memo). Chairperson Hunn stated that there was a balance that needed to be found between a development right and a property right and they should have expected some development Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 9 to take place. He stated the applicant was asking for an increase in density and that impacted the adjacent properties, so if they anticipated further development and that it would infringe on their views, was the increase in density unnecessarily blocking more of their views? Chairperson Hunn stated that when he looked at the history of the property he saw a long history of accommodations to the owners and developers of the property, i.e., fractionalization, doubling density, and approval of time shares. He stated he thought the PUD rezoning was a step in the right direction. However, he stated he had a hard time feeling this rezoning would be the most appropriate use for the site and felt it went back in the wrong direction, and did not view it as favorable in the trade-off process. Motion Commissioner Schneiderman made a motion to recommend to Council to deny the PUD rezoning application for Lots 45/46 based on noncompliance with PUD design criteria 17.20.110 H, 42, 3, 6, and 8. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Commissioner Schneiderman asked if the trailers they were shown for Swift Gulch were white with green trim? Chairperson Hunn stated that a one year temporary approval with conditions was given and it did not appear that those conditions were being met. Chairperson Hunn suggested that staff review the conditions and determine if they were being met. Commissioner Vest stated the Recreation Center needed to be painted. Commissioner Schneiderman stated it was too late because it had been sealed. Mr. Matzko stated he had heard the comment, "If the outside looked like the inside it would be much better." Commissioner Reynolds stated that the inside was painted with an epoxy, which would peel in sunlight, but if they could put additional non -watered-down sealers, it would look fantastic. Chairperson Hunn stated that the general consensus of the public was that the building was not finished, i.e., must have run out of weather, didn't paint it, someone will paint it in the spring. Mike Matzko stated if the Commission felt so strongly about the issue that it would be most effectively communicated directly to the Council. Chairperson Hunn stated he attended the last Council meeting to express the Commission's feelings about Tract Y and Council went forward and granted the approval with a 12 month time restriction after which it would revert back to open space zoning if a full development plan had not been presented and approved. Chairperson Hunn stated he would be attending the next few Council meetings as a concerned citizen and urged other Commission members to do the same. Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 10 Chairperson Hunn asked about the Comp Plan meeting. He indicated he did not hear about it and asked Staff if they wanted the Commission at those types of meetings. Mr. Matzko apologized for the failure to better notify Commission and stated they should not have to find out about it in the newspaper. Commissioner Schneiderman asked if neighborhood meetings were discussed at the Comp Plan meeting. Mr. Matzko stated that it should be presented to Council directly because it doesn't seem to work going through Staff. Commissioner Reynolds stated that on a day when the roads were pretty slick, he stopped (using his plow) by a warehouse and asked if they could figure out a different time of day to get the trucks in there? He stated they basically replied they could do anything they wanted anytime they wanted. Commissioner Reynolds suggested recommending to Council that they have a delivery time posted on Metcalf Road because he expects Wildridge to continue to develop over the next few years. Chairperson Hunn agreed and stated they should also widen the road. Commissioner Schneiderman stated she never sees the Police by Avon Auto Body anymore waiting to catch speeders on Metcalf Road. Commissioner Reynolds stated he thought the Police Department was understaffed. Chairperson Hunn mentioned the vacancy on the Commission and asked Staff what the time frame was to fill that vacancy. Mr. Matzko stated he was uncertain, but thought it could be filled by February. Adjournment Commissioner Reynolds moved to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Commissioner Schneiderman and the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueline Halburnt Recording Secretary Commissi S. Railton R. Schneiderman Date1p q Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 11 B. Stanley H. Vest