Loading...
PZC Minutes 081908:l Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission =�'` Meeting Minutes for August 99, 2008 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public C o L o R n o o Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road WORK SESSION (5:OOpm — 5:30pm) Description: Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:40 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Evans disclosed a potential conflict with Item VII, Timeshare East Sketch Design Review. V. Consent Agenda 6 Approval of the July 15, 2008 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Prince made a correction to the last bullet point of Other Business, to restate that what he said was "blight", and not "abandoned". The correct legal description will also be mentioned for this item. Commissioner Struve made an additional correction: Item VIII, "the new trees will be planted as soon possible' to correct "as close as possible." Commissioner Goulding moved to approve the consent agenda, as amended. The motion passed unanimously. VI. Final Design Review 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 the discussion items from the July 15, 2008 Sketch Design review meeting. Jared continued to discuss the report, and clarified the recommended motion. Bill Nutkins, representing TAB and Associates, presented a new drawing to the Commission showing a complete building elevation as viewed from the public right-of-way. He discussed changes to the Landscape Plan since first review. Commissioner Green questioned what changes have taken place, if any, since Sketch Design review. Bill responded that the entrance has been modified in response to comments received with respect to the roof form above the garage. The square footage has been reduced since sketch design as well. Commissioner Goulding questioned if there was a way to ensure that the trees will be varied sizes, instead of all either 6' evergreens or 2" aspen trees. Todd cautioned that the height of the structure was close to the absolute maximum allowable height, and that he did not want to see the applicant back in months with a requested change. Commissioner Green questioned why the limits of disturbance were shown so far east of the house. The applicant responded that this was due to the steepness of the lot, and the finished grade contours dictate the limits of disturbance boundaries. Action: Commissioner Goulding moved to approve the Final Design plan for Lot 113, with staff conditions 1-4, and the condition that the additional landscaping comments related to tree size and rabbit brush numbers be incorporated into a new landscape plan; and the light fixture will be resubmitted to staff for approval. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimously. VII. Sketch Design Review Timeshare East Property Location: Lot 1, Riverfront Subdivision / 42 Riverfront Lane Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner Jim McIntyre, Starwood Vacation Ownership Description: Sketch Design application for the 'Timeshare East' property. The design includes two buildings separated at grade: Building East (E), and Building Riverside (R). There are 74 units proposed in the two buildings. The East building is the taller of the two building and includes 58 2 -bedroom units, each with the ability to have a lock -off unit. The Riverside building is positioned between the East building and the Riverfront recreation path. This building contains the remaining 16 2 -bedroom units, also with the ability to have lock -offs. There is no Commercial land use proposed with this phase of development. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. He highlighted the height, uses, and overall design of the two buildings. Staff pointed out the specific guidelines from the Riverfront Guidelines that specifically discuss Lot 1, the subject lot. Matt also pointed out the encroachments onto neighboring lots. Commissioner Green asked if the mock-up is apart of this application, or if it is a separate issue. Staff pointed out that these are two separate issues that deal with the same property. Commissioner Prince clarified that Timeshare West is the building directly to the west of the Westin Building. Commissioner Roubos asked Staff about their lot coverage table. Staff clarified that if this project were approved as submitted there would only be 0.25 acres of remaining building footprints for future development on Lots 5, 6, and 7. Commissioner Green asked for clarification on the encroachments. Matt Pielsticker went through the reduced plan sets to point out the sheets and where the encroachments were on the roof plans. Jim McIntyre, Starwood Vacation Ownership (SVO), clarified the mock-up issue. He clarified that the request was made of East West Partners and not SVO. He also clarified that they had no opinion on whether it should be moved or not. Commissioner Green stated that this is a discussion that should occur after the application is discussed. Jim McIntyre stated that for final design he, will ensure that there are no building encroachments. He also discussed the identical materials proposed. Between the Hotel and Timeshare building there are over 40 different materials, colors, and textures and more variation could be visually chaotic. He also wants to state that the building designs help their clients understand that the two buildings are related. Jim McIntyre also believes that the Hotel is to be the grand statement on the site, while the SVO buildings are intended to flank, support, and enhance the hotel so that the entire PUD area comes across as a good composition. Chuck Madison, East West Partners, stated that the original PUD review contemplated that these three buildings, Timeshare East, Timeshare West, and the Westin Hotel, are to be the village center while rest of the buildings are to be a departure from the architecture seen on the buildings. Commissioner Roubos questioned the meaning of the 'village center' comment made by Chuck Madison. Mr. Madison responded that the village center is to be meant in the context of a similar architecture vernacular and roofing materials. Commissioner Prince asked if the two Timeshare buildings are intended to be identical or similar. Chuck and Jim both responded that the detailing is the same and colors are the same but due to the massing they will appear different. The use of stone on the east and north sides of Timeshare East will help create differentiation between the two buildings. Commissioner Green asked staff if they evaluated the parking for this lot with comparison to the PUD. Staff said they did and it is currently in compliance. Chuck Madison stated that the site coverage numbers are the first time he had heard of it. Matt Pielsticker responded that it was more intended to inform the Commission of the buildout process and how much site coverage is left for the PUD. Commissioner Green thanked staff for bringing that information forward. Commissioner Lane stated he has no issues with the architecture and colors that are provided; he stated that his concern is going to be the materials. He went further and questioned the use of a six story stone element. He said that he would prefer that the stone be carried through out the bottom two stories of the building instead of carried up six stories on one element. He clarified that this comment was only an opinion. Jim McIntyre stated that a majority of guests would be accessing these buildings through an underground passage for check-in purposes. Commissioner Lane questioned the fiber cement board material on the north elevation. He also asked if the metal material used on Timeshare West is used on this building. Alexander Sheykhet responded that the board is not metal and that the metal material is used in the reveals and between windows. Commissioner Lane stated that he would like to see the materials play out better, and he would like to see the colors applied to each elevation at Final Design. Commissioner Prince stated that he has no comments. Commissioner Roubos stated that the building appeared to be an apartment building. She stated that she can't see the variations on this building. Jim McIntyre stated that she should be able to visualize that when they submit for final design. Commissioner Roubos said that when she views this design the word 'monotonous' comes to mind. Commissioner Struve said he would not be in favor of this design if it bookended (along with Timeshare West) the Westin Hotel, but he would be in favor of the design bracketing the Westin Hotel. He also said the entry on the north elevation needs to be more prominent. He also commented on the flatness of the river building elevations, and the roof plans. Jim McIntyre stated that they originally had more variations, but were directed by the master architect that it needed to be simplified. Commissioner Struve also commented that the chimneys appeared to be out of scale on the River Building. Commissioner Prince questioned the distance from the River Building to the bike path. Aleksandr said that he would check to see and report back. Commissioner Goulding commented on the architectural hierarchy. He was sensitive to the architectural character due to the prominence of these buildings as viewed from Avon Road and 1-70. Commissioner Goulding also commented there has been no discussion with respect to LEED, and the need for an effort for LEED qualification. He commented that he would allow staff to provide him with compliance confirmation of the requirements of roof plane variation. He also stated that these buildings are not overly attractive and appear to be monolithic. He stated that the East building appears to be very monolithic. Commissioner Goulding stated that he would have concerns if the exact same materials and colors were made in the same manner. He stated that the East Elevation doesn't give him that "Wow" factor that makes a person want to enter this project. He stated that the massing of all elevations need to be studied as they do not appear to have a great amount of variation — especially the East and North elevations. Commissioner Green stated that he agrees with Commissioner Goulding's comments. He clarified comments made earlier that the two Timeshare buildings can be complementary but certainly not identical. He also stated that color isn't the only item that differentiates two buildings. He commented that the entry elevation, from Avon Road, does lacks a great amount of interest. He stated that the elements on that elevation appear to be generic and do not provide much uniqueness. Commissioner Green wants to see how all three of these buildings come together. He stated that three dimensional views would be a great addition to this review. Commissioner Prince really wants to focus on the elevation of the buildings as viewed from Avon Road. Commissioner Lane questioned the finish materials for the Fireplace vents. The applicant stated that they would be painted to match adjacent materials. Action: No formal action necessary as this is a Sketch Review. The Commissioners then discussed the Mock-up issue. Commissioner Green asked his fellow Commissioners whether it can be removed or moved. Commissioner Goulding stated that if there are areas of the Mock-up that have been applied to the building he would be fine for the Mock-up to be removed if all the materials have been applied to the Timeshare West building. Commissioner Struve will not vote to remove the Mock-up for the Timeshare West building. He is fine with removing the Lodge and the Westin mock-ups, but he would only support a move to the Mock-up for Timeshare West. Chuck Madison requested that he be allowed to talk with his team and have this discussion Tabled and discussed at a later meeting. Action: The Commission took no formal action with respect to the Mockup. VIII. Harry A. Nottingham Park Master Plan Property Location: Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Description: Pedro Campos, representing Vail Architecture Group, is presenting the Draft Harry A. Nottingham Park Master Plan. The plan outlines future work and timelines for improvements to Nottingham Park as well as current costs associated with those improvements. Discussion: Commissioner Evans asked what the current status is and what the goals of this meeting are. Matt Gannett stated that Pedro Campos will be walking the Commission through the Master Plan and that the goals are to get a recommendation for the Master Plan areas and what the future plans for improvements are. Pedro Campos, Vail Architecture Group (VAg), outlined the proposal and what he wanted from this meeting. He asked for approval of the direction the plan is heading and the hierarchy of the proposed improvements. Sherry Dorward stated that she wanted to ensure that all proposed improvements are wanted and that the proposed five year timeframe is acceptable. Sherry Dorward and Pedro Campos outlined the proposed zones and stated that the zones were broken up due to common uses. Pedro Campos stated that Zone A is the Common Green. He presented a sketch of the envisioned improvements. Commissioner Prince questioned the rotary shown on the sketch near the Recreation Center. Justin Hildreth commented that the rotary is contemplated in the West Town Center Plan, but is not a part of the current Lake Street Improvements. He went further to state that a future Recreation Center Master Plan would propose improvements in that specific area. Pedro Campos presented the proposed Main Street Extension sketch and the Sport/Special Event Area sketch. He pointed out that the Special Event Area contemplated a few more buildings of a similar character that could help enhance the lake edge. Pedro Campos presented the sketch for the Lake Edge and Path. Sherry Dorward stated that this sketch would be best envisioned where the sand beach currently sits. Pedro Campos presented the second sketch for the Lake Edge. Here he highlighted the paths more high speed use and its meandering qualities. Commissioner Prince asked if the trees were intended to be planted throughout the edge between the path and the fence. Sherry Dorward responded that plantings would be placed in scattered spaces, but not throughout because there could be locations where a new fence could be highlighted. Pedro Campos presented Zone C. He stated that one good option would be to move the current playground facilities to the east toward the Recreation Center. Commissioner Evans questioned the need for the second proposed play area in Zone D. He asked that a greater amount of equipment be placed on the east side and that it be focused in one area. Commissioner Struve stated that due to the phasing this does have to be an immediate decision and the decision could be delayed. Pedro Campos stated that these comments were contemplated and that maybe and alternative playground area would be a better option. He presented a few options including one that incorporated the ditch, another which was theme oriented, another was a winter used park, and the final was a climbing space. Pedro Campos also stated that this area could be focused for a younger age group. Commissioner Prince, Roubos, and Evans all stated that the letter submitted by a home owner of one of the neighboring properties wished for the second (western) play area to be removed. Commissioner Green stated that this area should be primarily used for open space, but a secondary play area use. Pedro Campos stated that portals or gateways are a needed asset to signify entrance into the park. He showed a few sketch options of what these entrance gateways could be. Zone E was presented next and Pedro Campos highlighted the future need for facilities for this park. He stated that due to the existing buildings in this area, that this would be the most functional space for the need for improved facilities. Pedro Campos followed with a brief overview of Zone F. Sherry Dorward stated that this is a much later zone and the zone would be redeveloped to highlight a two path system. The final zone, Zone H, was presented as a future redevelopment site with many potential uses. Sherry Dorward presented the proposed phasing plan. Eric Heidemann asked that the Commission to focus on the phasing and priorities. Commissioner Evans stated that he feels that Zones A and C should be the top priorities given the proximity to other current and near future public improvements. Commissioners Green and Roubos agreed with Commissioner Evans' comments. Commissioner Roubos also stated that she felt as though Zone C would be the highest priority. Commissioner Goulding pointed out that a new Pump House facade is an improvement that is a lower priority, but within a high priority zone. He would suggest that within specific Zones, the list of improvements be further prioritized to help Staff and Council budget for construction. Paul Anderson, Avon Resident, asked if a dog park was left out of this park. Sherry Dorward stated that the dog park was left out of the plan due to the high intensity of other uses. Action: No formal action is necessary. This plan will be presented to Council at their August 26`h meeting. IX. 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 comprised of three new buildings configured and designed as a contemporary, mixed-use development including retail space, office space, residential and lodging uses. This item was tabled from the August 5, 2008 meeting, following the review of the financial analysis performed by Stan Bernstein and Associates. Discussion: Pedro Campos began his presentation by reviewing Criteria number 2, the conformity with the overall design theme of the Town, sub -area recommendations, and design guidelines of the Town. He explained that there is no unified design theme for the Town. Commissioner Goulding brought up the notes from the July 15, 2008 meeting regarding this review criterion. He cited conflicts with specific elements of the East Town Center (ETC) District Plan that were brought forth at previous hearings. Commissioner Evans was in agreement that the application appeared to conflict with the ETC plan. Brian Judge approached the podium to address the Commissioner comments. He explained that there are clearly variations between this proposal (i.e. roof pitches) and the adopted guidelines of the Town. He felt that this all comes down to tradeoffs in the end. Mr. Judge requested feedback on the specific criteria, instead of 'agreeing to disagree' on this criterion. Pedro continued the presentation by beginning to step through the individual planning principles from the ETC Plan. Commissioner Struve explained the background and development of the ETC Plan, and the intentional 'scaling down' of this district compared to the West Town Center and Main Street area. Pedro responded that the buildings do step back, consistent with the recommendations borne out of the ETC plan. He showed on the building elevations where the buildings intentionally step back on the second, fourth, and sixth floors. Brian Judge explained his philosophy behind the sense of place created by this development, and its relationship to surrounding developments, both existing and potential future redevelopment. He explained his frustration that after six public meetings, he is finally starting to hear comments for the first time. Commissioner Evans opened the meeting for public comment. No comments were received. Commissioner Goulding reviewed his notes. He pointed out, for example when looking at criterion number two, there are apparent discrepancies related to height, form, affordable housing, views and implementation when the proposal is compared to the design guidelines. Mr. Goulding highlighted his concern with the affordable housing mitigation. These are not deal killers, he said; however, he wanted to better understand the benefits. Brian Judge explained that they were requesting approximately 99 additional dwelling units; therefore, approximately 12% of the additional units requested would be "professional's units." Mr. Goulding continued by narrowing down his perceived public benefits with this development: a redevelopment of a much needed area of Town, some affordable housing mitigation, the creation of a public plaza, and the realignment of the public way. He did not feel that the benefits presented outweighed the other potential impacts. Mr. Goulding voiced concern with the lack of compliance with staff's (Public Works and Engineering) concerns that were already raised, the potential phasing, tenant relocation, and the general construction impacts to the Town such as tower cranes and contractor parking. He did not feel that these impacts have been adequately addressed. Commissioner Struve highlighted his primary concerns: height, mass and articulation, low pitched roofs, phasing, the disruption to the other Town business and residents, and the lack of attainable housing. Commissioner Roubos was in agreement with Commissioner Goulding with the opinion that parking, height, massing, density, rooflines, preservation of view corridors, employee housing, phasing, precedent to other redevelopment, and existing businesses are all ongoing issues. She disagreed that the roofline is not flat as represented. Ms. Roubos felt that these issues have been expressed at past meetings and this was not the first time these issues were raised. She disagreed with the applicant. Commissioner Prince expressed a concern with the flat appearance of the roofline. He felt that planning principles were the focus up to this meeting. Commissioner Prince echoed the other Commissioners' concerns that were already raised. He liked the feel of the pedestrian plaza and mall space; however, the overall height of the structures remains a great concern. Commissioner Lane voiced concerns with the phasing and attainable housing.'` He voiced concerns with phasing and massing. He questioned whether or not written design guidelines specifically tied to this development are appropriate. Matt Gennett explained that this is a typical requirement for Planned Unit Developments. Commissioner Lane liked the 'flavor' of the depictions, but would like a verbal background. Commissioner Green did not have issues with the architecture, but continues to struggle with the scale of the development as it relates to surrounding development and existing businesses. Under Land Use, the scale and intensity of development is a struggle to agree with under these circumstances. When the ETC plan was developed, the tenant size mix of local businesses in the area was focused upon and this proposal might lose some of the tenant mix currently available in the area. Mr. Green continued to explain his perceived conflict with the policy that is to "ensure each development contributes to a healthy jobs balance mix for the Town." Another cited policy that Commissioner Green felt this application conflicts with is "to promote a wide range of residential uses." He stated that if you consider condo-tels and timeshare, fractional units, and 12 professional units a wide range than yes, you would meet this criterion. He did not feel that this development met this specific requirement. Mr. Green continued to point out that "vertical and horizontal mixed use to respond to changing market conditions." In concept this is mixed use. But when you look at the sustainable model, this plan might meet today's needs, but fails to deal with future land use desires in 30 years. Commissioner Green continues to struggle with how to get around the public benefits of the project, in relation to the character of the Town of Avon. He questioned whether or not the character and height of the development is compatible with existing and planned uses, and the image of Avon. Commissioner Green continued to highlight the workforce housing program, and the struggle to properly address this issue. He felt that the architecture and density could probably be dealt with, but the other issues remain. Mr. Green felt the public benefit is the issue at hand. Commissioner Evans did not agree with the comment made by Commissioner Green that the architectural approach was appropriate. Commissioner Evans reiterated all of the previous concerns raised by the Commission including phasing, the financial aspects related to phasing, and employee housing. He felt that it lacks adherence to the Town's vision of height, bulk, massing, and use of flat roofs. The residential impacts, traffic study results, and the ratio of public benefits are all concerns. Commissioner Evans went through all of the Comprehensive Plan's Goals and made the determination of either conformance or not. Goal A.1 Collaborate with Eagle County, adjacent municipalities, and other agencies to implement this plan and to ensure Avon's needs and goals are being met - Does not meet. Goal B.1 Provide a compact urban form - Yes, this application appears to meet. Goal B.2 Provide a distinct physical and visual separation between Avon and its surrounding communities that preserves the natural beauty of the surrounding mountains and the Eagle River valley— No. Goal CA Provide a balance of land uses that offers a range of housing options, diverse commercial and employment opportunities, inviting guest accommodations, and high quality civic and recreational facilities, working in concert to strengthen Avon's identity as both a year- round residential community and as a commercial, tourism and economic center.— he did not feel that the range is there. Goal C.2 Ensure that Avon continues to develop as a community of safe, interactive, and cohesive neighborhoods that contribute to the Town's overall character and image.— this does not meet this goal based on the ETC plan. Goal C.3 Use mixed-use development to create a more balanced, sustainable system of landuses — this application meets this goal. Goal CA Encourage sustainable commercial development that enhances Avon's overall economic health, contributes to the community's image and character, and provides residents and visitors with increased choices and services — Until we see a functional phasing plan, this application does not contribute to the economic health of the Town. Goal D.1 Ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with existing and planned adjacent development and contributes to Avon's community image and character— based on the ETC plan, Commissioner Evans felt that this application does not comply. Goal D.2 Create community gateways and streetscapes that reflect and strengthen Avon's unique community character and image— this application does meet this Goal. Goal D.3 Develop new and continue to enhance existing cultural and heritage facilities, events, and programs that strengthen Avon's community character and image — he felt that this Goal is not applicable. Goal E.1 Ensure that there is a positive environment for small businesses— Commissioner Evans felt that this application utterly failed to demonstrate compliance with this Goal. Goal F.1 Achieve a diverse range of quality housing options to serve diverse segments of the population — fails to meet. Commissioner Evans felt that Goal G.3 is not applicable, but that it does meet Goal G.4 and Goal G.5. Goal H.1 Protect Avon's unique natural setting and its open spaces. — in some aspects it does meet this Goal, but due to the proposed height it may not meet this in other areas. Goal 1.1 Provide an exceptional system of parks, trails, and recreational programs to serve the year-round leisure needs of area residents and visitor— he feels that plaza could be considered open space and therefore could meet this. Goal 1.2 Coordinate and collaborate with surrounding jurisdictions and agencies to develop seamless recreational opportunities — not applicable in his mind. Goal J.1 Utilize this comprehensive plan in all town dealings including capital planning, operation/maintenance of facilities, and programming of events — he noted that applicant states that the proposal meets this Goal. Goal J.2 Ensure cost effective provision and development of public facilities and services. — Commissioner Evans felt that this Goal is addressed with the Engineering Staff's concerns. He continued to review the 12 PUD review Criteria and the redevelopment standards based on current zoning. Commissioner Evans felt that, in the end, Criteria 2 Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the town — this application does not meet; Criteria 3 Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation — does not meet; Criteria 4 Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity— meets. Criteria 5 Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed — is not applicable, Criteria 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 — appears to meet; Criteria 7 A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the town transportation plan — yes; Criteria 8 Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function — yes; Criteria 9 Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases— Does not meet the intent, based on the financial model produced at the last meeting; Criteria 10 Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection — not demonstrated yet; Criteria 11 That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD — until traffic study is complete and engineering signed off it has not been met; Criteria 12 a) The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve - there isn't anything that could not be achieved that the current zoning already permits; Criteria 12 b) Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights - does not meet; Criteria 12 c) The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents - yes, based on plaza and roadways; however, the zoning application is not necessary for these improvements. In total, Commissioner Evans felt that the application conflicted with 8 of the 12 mandatory PUD review criteria. Matt Gannett recommended tabling to the September 16th meeting instead of the September 2nd meeting to give the applicant adequate time to provide outstanding information, such as architectural design guidelines, and to respond to technical concerns raised by other department; and to give Planning Staff time to review such material. Brian Judge explained his frustration with the process, the comments received, the lack of direction throughout the process, and the inability to complete his slide presentation. Action: Commissioner Green moved to table the application to the September 2nd, 2008 meeting in order to further discuss the comments. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and all commissioners were in favor. The motion passed unanimously with a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Goulding was absent. The motion and resulting action were then further discussed. Mr. Judge did not feel that he could cure all of the issues that were expressedduring the public hearing by the September 2nd meeting. He requested a vote at this time and to reconsider the motion. Commissioner Evans questioned his fellow Commissioners to see if anybody would like to entertain a reconsideration of the action to table. Commissioner Green motioned to reconsider the motion that had already been approved. The motion was seconded, and the motion to overturn the previous motion to table passed with a 5-1 vote. A discussion continued relating to the ability to vote on the application tonight, and bring forth a resolution memorializing the comments made during the hearing. New Motion: Commissioner Roubos made a motion to recommend DENIAL of the PUD, as submitted, to the Town Council based upon the findings that this application does not meet the 12 PUD Criteria listed in 17.20.110 (AMC), with further documentation to be provided at the September 2nd meeting via resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. The motion to DENY passed with a 5-1 vote. X. Other Business • Community Survey to be handed in by Friday. • Thursday Open House for Main Street Design • Water District and painting • PUD Process discussion • Evans may be late or absent for the September 2, 2008 meeting XI. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:45pm. APPROVED on eptem er r08: Chris Green 1 Phil Struve Vice Chairperson Secretary