PZC Minutes 011910j • . $*M
Timeshare East
..• . 3. .. f. 1: .. . .11 11 .'.
Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street
Property Location: Lot 1, Riverfront Subdivision / 42 Riverfront Lane
Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner: Starwood Vacation Ownership
Description: Review of new conceptual design sketches for the Timeshare East development. At the
December 15, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the applicant was directed to revisit
the north east building elevations and provide new concept drawings for additional feedback.
Matt Pielsticker introduced the item and recapped what occurred during the December 15, 2009
Commission hearing, specifically: the design elements of the proposed Timeshare East building the
Commission asked to be revisited during this work session.
Aleksandr Sheykhet, part of the design team representing Stanwood Vacation Ownership (SVO),
addressed the Commission and handed out materials with an explanation of their contents. The new
materials include a document titled "Meeting Minutes/Action Plan" consisting of a matrix listing thirteen
(13) "Problems/Items" identified by the Commission during the December 15, 2009 hearing, the
applicant's "Proposed Solution" to each one, and a corresponding "Deadline" for resolving each of the
identified issues. The second new piece of material is an "11x17" plan booklet titled "P&Z Revisions"
dated January 19, 2010 containing new elevations, renderings, partial site plans, and various studies
developed to address the issues raised by the Commission at the December 15, 2009 hearing.
Joseph Gamb, also part of the design team representing SVO, went on to clarify some of the details
related to the use of stone on the lower building closest to the river and answered questions from
Commissioner Green regarding exact locations of exterior stone veneer applications in each
alternative study.
Commissioner Struve commented that the major roof form looks better and more broken -up than
before. He also complimented the architectural study, or treatment, done on the east elevation to
create a more pedestrian -level scale.
Commissioner Green voiced a concern over the use of applications to the building itself in the form of
add-on fagade treatments rather than making significant changes to the mass of the structure. In
particular, the significantly sized wall on the east elevation is too large for the entrance of the project.
Joseph Gamb replied that the density, bulk and mass of the structure are fixed by the pro forma and
contractual agreement with their partner.
Scott Prince asked about the appearance of the project from the road and whether guests of the hotel
will get confused over where to check-in if the entrance of the TSE project is too pronounced.
Commissioner Green asked whether some of the bulk and mass could be shifted around among the
two substructures. Joseph Gamb responded that they've tried to shift floors around to change
proportions and their financial partner will not agree to changes to the form of the project as set by the
PUD development plan. What is depicted by the PUD plan and physical model is what their financial
partner agreed to in their contract.
Discussion then ensued among the applicant, Commission and staff over what was approved via the
PUD and what is still open to the Commission's discretion for requiring design modifications. Staff
clarified the bulk, mass, and general form of the buildings is set by the PUD with specific language
and plans.
Commissioner Goulding asked whether it was possible to add a bump -out to the east elevation in
order to better break up the appearance of the monolithic, large sheer wall upon entering the project
to the east. Joseph Gamb responded that their pro forma could not absorb any additional costs and
that doing anything such as adding superficial space or mass would still be merely an architectural
applique as discussed earlier.
The Commission asked for clarification about the entry feature on the north elevation and whether
roof overhangs are allowed to encroach into the setbacks. Staff replied that the PUD allows for
certain encroachments into setbacks at various fixed locations on some of the buildings across the
entire development site, but any encroachments other than those described would require a PUD
amendment Wor variance application.
Staff then provided the approved, recorded PUD plan and corresponding architectural guidelines and
the language specifically addressing the acceptable articulation methods for breaking -up the mass of
the structure's easternmost wall plane.
Commissioner Roubos asked where the setback encroachment was occurring on the property and the
applicant showed everyone on the plans where the roof eave along the proposed arcade encroached
into a side setback area but in conformance with the PUD.
The Commission then deliberated and stated their positions on the proposed design scenarios and
architectural studies presented during the work session. The Commission thanked and complimented
the applicant for the efforts exhibited in their new design studies reviewed during the work session.
The applicant received direction to return with a final design proposal that meets the design guidelines
established by the approved PUD plan.
REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:10
H. Roll Call
All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioners Green and Lane.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
The other business item has been tabled to a future meeting.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Anderson stated that he had a conflict of interest on Item VI.
V. Consent Agenda
O Approval of the January 5, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner
Prince seconded the motion and it was passed 5-0.
VI. Timeshare East Final Design Review
Property Location: Lot 1, Riverfront Subdivision / 42 Riverfront Lane
Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner: Starwood Vacation Ownership
Description: Final Design review 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. This application was tabled from the December 15, 2009
meeting; and again from the January 5, 2010 meeting.
Discussion:
Action: Struve tabled to 16th of February. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion. It
passed 4-0.
VII. Other Business
® P&Z Questionnaires to be discussed at the next meeting
VIII. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:20.
Approved on February
W. Todd Goulding
Chairperson
Phil Struve
Secretary