Loading...
PZC Minutes 120407Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 4, 2007 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road REGULAR MEETING Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Goulding. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Consent Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Evans revealed conflict with Item VII, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Folson Annexation Parcel / Highway 6 & 24. V. Consent Agenda O Approval of the November 20, 2007 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Green motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda with Commissioner Foster seconding the motion. The motion passed 5 — 0 with Commissioner Lane abstaining due to absence from the meeting. VI. PUD Amendment / Hamel — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road Applicant: Land Planning Collaborative /Owner: Frank Hamel Description: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, from the current zoning entitlements of three (3) duplexes, three (3) single-family homes (or 1 duplex and 1 fourplex, respectively); to five single-family residences. The five newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes, ECObuild Standards, and restricted to a maximum of 5,000 square feet of interior space for each proposed home. This application was tabled from the June 19, 2007, July 17, 2007, September 4, 2007, and November 6, 2007 meetings. Matt Pielsticker presented staff's report to the Commission. Tambi Katieb, applicant, began his presentation from the podium with items for discussion regarding the Lot 37 neighbor and review of the retaining walls with a single access point and mitigation of appearance. Mr. Katieb continued with review of Commissioner comments from previous meetings and revealed changes to the Lot 38 home site to appease Lot 37 owner by shrinking home's size (from 5,000 sq ft to 4,000 sq ft), distance from home to 70 feet from the original 35 feet, reduction of building height from 35 feet to 32 feet, to turn around and lights to neighbor's windows to be addressed by landscaping to minimize intrusion to neighbor. Sandra Mendonca, Civil Engineer of Record for this project, approached the podium to provide explanation of the retaining wall design. Discussion continued on the designs being presented, potential products to be used, and the number of borings done on the site. Gerald Miramonte, Miramonte Architects, approached the podium to discuss the site disruption and began with presenting Retaining Scenarios of 1 access point with 5 homes, next was the 3 access point scenario in a duplex concept with 880 feet of retaining wall with 300 feet being 15 to 25 in height. Mr. Miramonte continued with the pros and cons of both concepts. Mr. Katieb returned to the podium to present visual retaining/cut slope of various properties in Wildridge as well as some in Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch. Commissioner Green commented that there were significant costs associated with the retaining walls in Bachelor Gulch and was concerned with the wall assemblies being of quality construction. Commissioner Evans voiced concern with costs of the retaining going out of control and requiring a completion bond. Mr. Katieb provided that their budget provided for the worse case scenario financially for the walls. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Scott Rella, 5024 Wildridge Road, commented that the applicant had made significant changes in the current submittal to relieve intrusion to his home, commented that a duplex would block his view, single family would be further away, and recognizes that it is a tough lot. Commissioner Struve commented that views are not protected in the Guidelines. John Sullivan, Longsun Lane resident, commented from the podium that the single family homes would be more acceptable than the duplexes but voiced concern with the entrance as presented and believed that the three entrance concept was more acceptable. Mrs. Sullivan commented from the audience that the duration of building the homes of 6 years was too long. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Evans commented that he had not seen the concept of a 4-plex on Lot 39. Mr. Katieb responded that they were not proposing a four plex and public comment was to avoid a 4-plex on that lot. Mr. Miramonte commented that the 4-plex would be very long; two floors would be buried due to the steepness of the site. Commissioner Struve voiced that eventually all lots in Wildridge will be built, appreciated the work done to date, and how the sight lines would be addressed and conditions need to be written by the applicant. Commissioner Foster commented that the road thru Lot 39 needed to be addressed; retaining walls need more focus and needed to be convinced the road was the best case scenario. Commissioner Smith stated that a 4-plex would not work, had concerns with the road and that the Commission needed to be convinced it would be visually appealing. Commissioner Lane appreciated the changes made, were good, but of the two options, one was good and the other bad, but preferred to see what else could be designed with the current entitlements. Commissioner Green commented if this proposal was the right concept for this site, 5 single families versus 6 -multi family, impact of the driveway across open space that can not be mitigated, use of landscaping to buffer, and concerns with designs. Commissioner Evans revealed that the PUD is brought to the attention of the Commission to demonstrate a better solution (better use) for a site and that the guidelines mention the diversity of homes, voiced the need for smaller duplexes and single-family homes. Commissioner Green motioned to approve Item VI, PUD Amendment / Hamel, Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040, which is the 5 single family residences as revised as of the date of this meeting with the following conditions: that the new design language presented tonight by the applicant which includes height restrictions on Lot 38E and square footage restrictions reduced to 4000 square feet and building envelop revisions, square footage revisions and building height revisions be included in the Final Plat Amendment that goes to Council, that there be a separate design review of the driveway prior to the acquisition of a grading permit and, at that time, the applicant will bring in at that time a full Soils and Engineering Reports and a full and complete landscape plan for how to mitigate that driveway and that within the PUD, the applicant institutes stronger dust control measures for the project than are currently in the existing Town of Avon Guidelines and it will be the burden of the applicant to help address that and it will be addressed with staff, and the revisions on Lot 38 E and those changes to be worked through with staff prior to submittal to Town Council. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 — 2. VII. PUD Amendment — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Folson Annexation Parcel / Highway 6 & 24 Applicant: Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC / Owner. Craig Folson Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a 106 unit condominium building, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. In addition to the condominium building, there would be up to 8 units (4 of which will be deed restricted) in either: duplex, triplex, or fourplex configuration further east on the property. The site is immediately east of the 49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek condominium project. Matt Pielsticker reviewed the Staff Report with the Commissioners. Commissioner Struve questioned staff on the canyon effect definition and was negatively responded by Mr. Pielsticker. Greg Macik, VAG, gave historical background on site and building changes in area, height and massing on this project to date. Mr. Macik continued by describing the projects current presentation, its heights, parking, public benefits, canyon effect, restaurant, conservation easement potential and potential affordable housing. Commissioner Foster questioned the special car parking situation, Commissioner Green questioned the affordable housing with Larry Vineyard responding that the units would be sold to the HOA. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bette Todd, Canyon Run resident, approached the podium and requested the Tom Hix letter dated October 18, 2007 be part of the record. Ms. Todd continued that the area was a geologic hazard and pointed out the hazards and its need for mitigation, commented on the height of the retaining walls where some areas are 60 to 90 feet in height and 30 feet from the road, mentioned that this building comes in one foot shorter than those in the Town Center, commented that a 300,000 sq ft building still was very large, massing was twice the size of the Gates project, and with the Gates created a very straight line on Highway 6, not what the Comprehensive Plan had in mind, remarked that Mr. Folson knew of the true potential of this site development and the development should be sensitive to the topography and the wildlife and less dense than proposed. Ms. Todd continued with comments regarding height and the truth about the heights. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Struve questioned other public comments with a negative response. Commissioner Foster voiced that it was not the responsibility of the Commission for the financial viability of the project, biggest problem was the exceeding height limitations, 3000sq ft affordable housing units was too large with 1500 or 1800 sq ft units would be big enough. Commissioner Lane commented that the surface parking was not good, did not think that registering for LEED was not enough, retaining walls were to large, cut too far in and violating the hill too much, building not appropriate for the site. Commissioner Green commented that 3000 sq ft was huge for the housing, opportunity to increase the density, concerned with the visibility of the retaining walls, canyon effect and the Comp Plan with its intent to create a significant entry into Avon. Commissioner Green continued with questioning movement of the building to the east, expressed that surface parking be eliminated, issues with retaining walls, proximity to Gates. Commissioner Struve revealed that the Comp Plan was met by the Gates, expressed issues with the roof line and the building was too tall, retaining walls needed to be set back and not so apparent, affordable housing of 3000 sq ft being cut in half would afford more units, important to have a good connection to the Town and expressed that a tunnel or bridge was not the answer, prove the articulation was really there in the building it might be a good project. Commissioner Smith agreed with her fellow commissioner regarding the size of the affordable housing, the retaining walls needed to be addressed in some manner, height was a concern. Commissioner Lane voiced that the LEED thing does not show its intent by the developer. Tab Bonidy, VAG, responded to Commission concerns by commenting that a trench would be created, and retaining walls would be heavily landscaped. Eric Heidemann voiced that the applicant needed direction on the restaurant and its surface parking, was there a preference by the Commission? It was a huge stumbling block for the Planners along with the height. Commissioner Struve motioned to table Item VII, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Folson Annexation Parcel / Highway 6 & 24. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 1. VIII. Other Business ® Resolution for the next meeting regarding new housing policy. IX. Adjourn Commissioner Foster motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Green seconded. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary