Loading...
PZC Minutes 071508Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission 7ti Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2008 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public C o L 6 a, o o Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road DOLA Planning & Zoning Commissioner Training (5:00 pm - 6:00 pm) Training course intended for new Planning and Zoning Commissioners with Andy Hill from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) and held in the Council Chambers. Open to the Public. WORK SESSION (6:05pm — 6:35pm) Description: Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public. REGULAR MEETING Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:38 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Lane. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest. V. Consent Agenda O Approval of the July 1, 2008 Meeting Minutes • Approval of Landscaping Plan for Lot 81 B, Block 4, Wildridge o Condition: 2 trees at bottom of the proposed stairway will remain, and the stairway will be redrawn to avoid disrupting these mature trees. Commissioner Green moved to approve the consent agenda, as amended, and Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 6-0 vote. VI. Sign Design Application -The Gates Property Location: Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire / 38390 Highway 6 Applicant: Michael Matthews /Owner. CSC Land, LLC Description: A building mounted sign made of PVC with Acrylic Cutouts. The sign measures approximately 40 square feet in area. Discussion: Jared Barnes presented the sign design and Staff's report. Commissioner Goulding questioned the color codes depicted in the drawings, and how they relate to the colors applied to the building. Staff responded that no color samples have been provided, but that the colors on the sign were to match the colors on the building. Michael Matthews of La Joya Construction, representing the owners of the property, explained the sign construction method and the fact that the colors are identical to those used on the building. He explained that the sign is constructed from a PVC block, and the lettering is laser - cut out of the block. A smooth matte finish will be applied to the sign. Commissioner Green requested a color rendering of the building, with the sign applied on the elevation, and a sample of the material. Commissioner Evans would like proof that PVC is an acceptable, durable material, which will withstand Ultraviolet effects. Commissioner Goulding questioned how the vinyl on the sign looks, and he is becoming comfortable with the aluminum cutout. Action: Commissioner Green moved to table until such time a color rendering and sample can be provided for review. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. VII. Sketch Design Review — Residential A. Old Trail Duplex Property Location: Lot 91, Block 1, Wildridge / 2470 Old Trail Road Applicant/ Owner: Philip Masten Description: Sketch design review of a duplex on Old Trail Road, near the intersection of Draw Spur. The structure totals approximately 7,500 square feet. Exterior building materials include: stucco, heavy timber beams, cedar accents, stone veneer siding, and stucco siding. A similar design was reviewed at the March 18, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker presented staff's report, highlighting the compliance with the Zoning Code and noncompliance with select Design Guidelines requirements. Michael Pukas stated that the building is stepped more than previous, and that the design complies with the Design Guidelines. He also stated that the height is incorrect in the report. Matt Pielsticker stated that the appearance is of 40 feet even though it is in compliance with no heights larger than 35 feet. Commissioner Evans commented that it appears the grading has been addressed. He stated that the elevations still appear to be extremely repetitive. He specified that there are locations where the design needs elements that are missing in order to remove the repetitive designs. The north elevation needs more work on breaking up the massing. Commissioner Green questioned the location of the southern unit's parking spaces. Michael Pukas responded that the spaces were in front of the garage doors. Commissioner Green asked how the roof height relates to the neighboring properties. He was concerned about how this design would fit in with the existing neighborhood. Phil Matsen responded that the heights are by no doubt going to be higher than the adjacent properties. Staff commented that they would check to see if the approved plans are available to determine roof heights on adjacent properties. Commissioner Green commented that it appears there is nearly 100 percent site disturbance, and he has concerns about that amount of disturbance. Commissioner Prince asked that a greater variety between the two halves of the duplex could be made to create a better architectural design. Commissioner Roubos, agreed with Commissioner Prince. Commissioner Struve wanted more differentiation, and felt that could be achieved through varying materials. Commissioner Goulding appreciates the architectural He also had concerns about the amount of grading house to have the appearance of a two story hous edesign and the improved and site disturbance. He instead of a three story landscaping. wanted the house. He mentioned that as viewed from the road grade the building would stand approximately 40-45 feet above. Phil Matsen commented that the roofs are most likely going to be significantly larger than adjacent buildings. Action: No Action is required for a Sketch Design Plan. B. Speculative Residence Property Location: Lot 113, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2070 Beaver Creek Point Applicant., TAB Associates / Owner: BBG Investments, LLC Description: Sketch Design review for a single-family residence on a Beaver Creek Point property. The structure measures approximately square feet and will utilize wood siding, stone and stucco on the exterior walls. Discussion: Jared Barnes presented staff's report, and highlighted some potential conflicts with the Guidelines; particularly grading outside of the property and he cited site coverage concerns. Commissioner Green wanted clarification to the site coverage concerns. Jared responded that at sketch design only conceptual plans are presented without site coverage calculations, and at Final Design these numbers must be confirmed. Bill Nutkins, of Tab and Associates, presented the design to the Commission. The structure is approximately 5,000 square feet, plus about 900 square feet for garage space. Bill presented that the site coverage is approximately 25% as shown. The site grading outside of the property lines should not be a concern since the owner of this property is the same as Lot 112. Mr. Nutkins explained that the desire is for a cohesive grading and blending of the two properties. Bill mentioned that the main level is a walkout, and views can be captured towards Game Creek Bowl and Beaver Creek. Commissioner Struve questioned how similar or dissimilar this design is to Lot 112, the neighboring property. Bill explained that this is a ranch style with similar materials; however, the massing and orientation have been differentiated between units to address this particular concern. Commissioner Goulding is comfortable with the structure design and massing, however, would like to see a larger site and landscape plan to see the context with Lot 112. Commissioner Struve is worried about the massing and the room over the garage; and the resulting roof height of that element of the design. Commissioners Roubos and Prince were both comfortable with the design as presented. Commissioner Green wants to know what the stamped concrete wall below the patio is on the downhill side of the project. Mr. Green felt that a site section could be helpful to understand the site design. Commissioner Evans had no further comments. He did mention that the room above the garage, as viewed from the street, was somewhat awkward. Action: No action necessary for a Sketch Design Plan VIII. Main Street Preliminary Design Description: The Engineering Department and the consultants from the Main Street Design Team presentation of the preliminary design of the new Main Street to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and comments. Discussion: Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer, explained the background and meetings to date for this project. He then introduced Kristin Cypher of the Britina Design Group. Commissioner Goulding questioned the expected outcome of tonight's meeting and the desired feedback. Kristin explained that she wanted to understand the Commission's review of the design plan as it relates to the feedback already received in the previous stakeholder and public meetings. Kristin explained that this design is part of a larger West Town Center, and the decision to create a Main Street is a response to the Investment Plan. A physical and on-line survey has been conducted. Over forty members are included in the stakeholder group, and two stakeholder meetings have been conducted. Kristin explained that the approved Investment Plan identifies five (5) centers within the confines of Main Street. The Stakeholder meeting broke into five groups to study each of the five 'centers' in further detail, and the results were then presented to the entire group. Kristin highlighted each of the five 'centers' to the Planning Commission: Eastern Gateway (public entrance area), Lettuce Shed Lane (focal point and pedestrian gateway), Season's/Sheraton Plaza (the vessel like gathering area), Library/Recreation Center Plaza (movement transitioning, entering space), and Nottingham Park Gateway (connecting, entering, and performing area). Two design distinct themes were then presented: 'Theme A' and 'Theme B'. Theme A invoked a symbolic, playful, narrative, swirling nature. Storytelling and experiential attributes of Theme A were presented with images on the PowerPoint presentation. Kristin presented conceptual 3-D images of how the spaces might feel like at the pedestrian level. Ms. Cypher presented the reasoning behind design Theme B, and explained how it is more of a civic, geometric feeling option. Colors and movement are a large part to this design theme, including an iconic, crisp form. The entrance to the district and the two entrance options were explained; either a straight shot from Avon Road, or a deliberate right hand turn onto Main Street off Benchmark Road after the bend in the road. After the two design themes were presented to the stakeholder and public groups, a green sticker dot was offered to vote for which theme was preferred. Written comments could also be left on the plans. The majority of the group members chose Theme A, while some elements of B were sought for the final design. The miscellaneous general comments from the 7.9.08 stakeholder meeting and 7.10.08 public meetings were presented to the Commission. In both meetings, Theme A was preferred. Commissioner Evans explained that the Planning Commission is the design review board, and therefore additional meetings will be required prior to adoption. Eric Heidemann offered the way Staff has envisioned the process. Specifically, the Investment Plan has been approved, and is an approved document by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Much like the Lake Street design process, a direction was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a final construction document was then approved by the Town Council. The item was opened for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Green began the review, and felt that a hybrid of Theme A and Theme B was ultimately the desire. The vehicle pedestrian interface was a difficult subject, and vehicles should not be included on Main Street. He liked the tree connection along the Seasons building. His concern was with the amount of commercial space introduced into the streetscape. Given the evolving conditions that will take place with tenants and building improvements along Main Street, Mr. Green feels that the interaction between commercial uses and the public realm must be addressed. Commissioner Green liked option A as it approached Nottingham Park, and also liked how some kind of water feature could gracefully drop down into the Park. He questioned what would happen in the areas of the future Town Hall buildings north and south in the interim period. Commissioner Roubos is in general agreement with all of the comments made from the public meetings. She asked about the art pieces and how those would be approved by the town. She also made comments and questioned if it is possible for this to be a vibrant place during the winter. Commissioner Struve commented that he preferred Theme B; and that it is a higher and better design. He stated that he would prefer any gateway to be pedestrian oriented. He commented that Boulder's mall has an issue with trees overtaking the pedestrian mall. He wanted to ensure that this project would not have a similar issue. Commissioner Struve thinks that the greater public needs to be involved in this project, and not solely the immediate stakeholders. Commissioner Goulding commented how he appreciates the different design theme than the main streets seen in Eagle and Vail. He wanted to see vehicles removed from the Main Street area. He also wanted to understand how energy would be infused into this area during the winter time. He commented that snow melt is essential to this design functioning. Commissioner Prince stated that he appreciates both designs and would prefer a mix of the two. He stated that snow melt and environmentally aware design contradict each other. Commissioner Evans wanted to see items that children could climb on such as boulders. He stated that snow melt is essential to vehicular traffic on Main Street, but he was not and is still not in favor of vehicles on Main Street. IX. Harry A. Nottingham Park Master Plan Update Property Location: Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Description: The Vail Architecture Group will present findings and recommendations from the community charrettes and surveys. Discussion: Matt Gennett highlighted what Pedro and Sherry Dorward would present. The six primary zones of the park would be presented tonight for Commissioner feedback. On August 5`h, a final plan will be presented to the Commission. On August 25th, the final review with the Town Council will be held, prior to handing off to Staff. Pedro Campos explained that he wanted to better understand the Commission's stance on existing/proposed conditions, by zone. The zone areas were highlighted individually in detail. Pedro highlighted Zone A, the terminus of Main Street. He explained that the continuation of some sort of path and visual connection from Main Street through the field space would be a detriment to the park and has been considered sacred by some. The interface between Lake Street and the park must be more linear and sweeping. Zone B, the lake edge along the railroad, has potential for art placement along the fence line. In addition to the function of this zone, additional lighting and formal seating areas can be incorporated into this zone. Commissioner Prince questioned if the railroad fence was pushed back as far as possible or not. Pedro explained there is a substantial grade difference after the fence, and there is an agreement in place with the Railroad restricting a major variation from current conditions. Pedro presented the existing and envisioned conditions for Zone C, the playground, irrigation ditch, and group picnic and barbeque area. Zone D is the passive recreation space wrapping the entire north side of the lake. The edge of this zone must be defined, and care must be taken with the existing mature trees in this area. A new concept for the bike pathin this zone will be presented in the final park plan. Mr. Campos stated that demonstration gardens could also be introduced in Zone D. Commissioner Evans felt that gardens of this nature should be co -located near the playground equipment. Zone E concepts include a small bandstand and possibly adding onto the existing pump house at the edge of the lake. The location of a 'main stage' is a moving target, and feedback is sought for this type of use and its possible location. Pedro continued to explain Zone F and its constraints. This area will undoubtedly be staged last, and therefore the schematic ideas are extremely preliminary in nature. A possible multi-purpose structure was envisioned by the consultant team. Commissioner Evans would like to see some iteration of the lighting standard started with the transit center continued into the park. Commissioner Roubos desired a softer entrance to the park off Main Street. Commissioner Goulding explained that the edge on the railroad tracks might need to be more permanent, possibly a structure of some kind, since there is nothing that is going to happen along this edge anytime in the near future. He also expressed the desire to see increased activity in the area where the existing pavilion is and the area included on the north side of the field. Commissioner Struve felt that the survey reflected the true value the community has with the park, and leaving the park the way it is today. X. Avon 21 PUD Zoning Application — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK -3, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 62, 68, and 182 Benchmark Road Applicant / Owner.- Brian Judge, Orion Development Description: The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the owner of the property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision on a new development site comprised of the properties listed above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC). The proposed PUD is envisioned to be a contemporary mixed-use development including retail space, office space, residential and lodging uses in three new buildings to be located on the site. This item was tabled from the July 1, 2008 meeting. Discussion: Matt Gennett explained the results from the last meeting. A letter from Lynn Morgan, Wildridge resident, was received by Staff and is now a part of the record. This is the forth meeting reviewing this project. Matt clarified that review Criterion #1 was already been reviewed. The Staff report outlines the remaining 11 review criterion for review of this application. Pedro Campos, representing the owners of the property, explained his understanding and desired outcome of this meeting. His team would like to hear from the Commission regarding the 11 remaining criterion. Matt Gennett started to introduce each review criteria, starting with Criterion #2. Commissioner Roubos read an excerpt from the East Town Center Plan as it relates to architectural theme. She felt that the extensive use of flat roofs, and resulting box -like look of buildings, appears to conflict with the Guidelines in place. Commissioner Roubos read design recommendations from the East Town Center District Plan. Brian Judge, Orion Development, approached the podium to clarify what he heard regarding building height and what was being proposed. Commissioner Evans explained that if a developer came in to redevelop an existing Town Center lot, that the entire building could not approach 80'. Commissioner Roubos explained her concern with the box -like forms presented. Commissioner Prince also felt that the appearance was of a flat roof, even though there was a minimal roof pitch shown on the plans. Pedro explained that they were trying to produce a highly energized pedestrian experience with this project. Commissioner Struve felt that he was not seeing the intent of the East Town Center District Plan reflected in the building forms shown. Matt Gennett read Criterion #3: "Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation." Looking at surrounding development, there is no cohesive network of existing buildings. Commissioner Green felt that this project would have a significant impact on neighboring properties, and design compatibility is not the entire issue here. Commissioner Evans framed the review criteria. The Commissioners were in agreement that Criteria #3 is not applicable and/or this criterion is captured within Criteria #1 and #2. Staff highlighted Criterion #4, including uses, locations and densities envisioned. Staff would like additional clarification as to phasing, trip generation, and the traffic analysis since these items are directly related to this Criterion. Commissioner Green wanted to understand Staff's interpretation of this criterion. For example, are the uses on the first level compatible to the existing neighboring land -uses? Mr. Gennett responded that density, uses, and the increased level of activity should also be looked at in detail as they relate to the possible future neighboring redevelopment projects. A financial model must be reviewed before this criterion can be reviewed in full detail. Pedro explained that his team is struggling with the Transportation Master Plan that is currently underway and how it may or may not affect this project. His team is concerned with this study. Mr. Gennett re -iterated that Criterion #5 is not applicable. The Commissioners were all in agreement. He continued to outline Criterion #6, "Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community." Given the lack of information related to drainage and snowmelt, etc. presented at this stage of development, and the fact that this is scrape and entire redevelopment; this criterion would largely be dealt with at a design review stage of review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Evans felt that Criterion #6 is less applicable, since the overall aesthetic value of the community is dealt with looking at some of the other review criteria. All of the Commissioners agreed that this Criterion is either not applicable or dealt with in other criteria. Matt Gennett presented Criterion #7, the transportation impacts this project may present. He directed the Commission to the Engineering comments attached to the Staff report. This Criterion could possibly be dealt with at the next meeting. Commissioner Evans pointed out the comments received from Jennifer Strehler, Public Works and Transportation Director, and how the bus system in this area would match the current level. Chairman Evans felt that the level of demand, above what existing TC zoning could experience, should be accounted for and addressed with this application. Matt Gennett presented Criterion #8, "Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function." He commented that these items would be discussed at a greater level during the Sketch Design and Final Design reviews. Commissioner Prince commented that it appears there is a limited amount of natural features. Commissioner Evans stated that representations are made for mature trees, but in reality those plantings are much smaller. How can we ensure that the plantings are what have been represented throughout the public process? Commissioner Goulding would prefer to see a full landscape plan to clarify the intent of the landscaping and open space provided by the proposed project. Matt Gennett presented Criterion #9, the potential phasing plan and its functionality. Commissioner Roubos questioned what would be provided by Stan Bernstein at the next meeting. Matt clarified that his presentation would focus on the financial implications of the proposed phasing, but there are other issues that need to be addressed in the interim. Commissioner Goulding wanted to ensure that current businesses are retained during the phasing and that the town is ensured that all phases will be complete — avoiding a Cascade ruins possibility. Commissioner Green would like to see a timeline to attach dates to all phases from beginning to completion. Commissioner Goulding clarified his comments and stated that he wanted a commitment from the applicant that if a phase is begun then it will be complete, and what are the public benefits provided at the completion of each phase. Matt Gennett presented Criterion #10, the adequacy of public services. He commented that most of these comments have been provided to the Commission in this or previous Staff reports. Matt clarified that the Water rights would be provided prior to final plat acceptance. Commissioner Goulding asked that this criterion be clarified for each issue to ensure that the Commission can adequately find compliance. Pedro Campos stated that many of the comments presented by Public Works and Engineering are currently being addressed and hopefully will be able to be resolved by the next meeting. Matt Gennett presented Criterion #11, the adequacy of the roads and streets proposed by the PUD. Commissioner Green wanted to know when the roads and streets will be agreed to be provided by the developer for the benefit of the town. Matt Gennett responded that it would be agreed upon with the Subdivision Improvement Agreement at a later review stage by Council. Matt Gennett presented Criterion #12, the compliance with the public purpose provisions. Matt highlighted each subsection of this criterion. Commissioner Evans asked if the realignment of Main Street could be achieved without the need for a rezoning and if so, would this truly be a benefit to the public and town. Mr. Gannett responded affirmatively. Commissioner Evans continued to comment that this criterion cannot be discussed without being able to review the financial models. Commissioner Goulding asked Staff to provide him with a clear list of items where the PUD application deviates from zoning. He wants this information so that he can properly assess the need for public benefits. Chairperson Evans opened the Public Comment portion of the meeting. Seeing that there were no comments he closed the Public Comment portion of the meeting. Action: Commissioner Green moved to table, Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with a 6-0 vote. XI. Other Business None XII. Adjourn Commissioner Goulding moved to adjourn at 11:00pm. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion, and it passed with a 6-0. APPROVED: Chris Eva Chairpers Phil Struve Secretary