Loading...
PZC Minutes 04-19-2005Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting VON Minutes C 0L0RAO0 April 19, 2005 5:00 pm - 5:30 pm Commission Work Session I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were in attendance. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Item VII, Minor Project — Addition of Outdoor Deck, Property Location: Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Applicant., Nova Entertainment LLC, d /b /a Loaded Joe's and Item XI, Final Design - Commercial Remodel, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision /77 Metcalf Rd, Applicant. Evans Chaffee Construction were moved to Consent Agenda. Resolution 05 -05 was placed back on the regular Agenda for Commission review. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Evans disclosed conflicts with Item VIII, Final Design — Wells Fargo Drive Thru, Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision; Item IX, Master Sign Program — Amendment, Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision; and Item XI, Final Design - Commercial Remodel, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision /77 Metcalf Rd. Commissioner Karow voiced a conflict of interest with Item X, Chateau St. Claire on -site mockup, Property Location: Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision /38390 Hwy 6 & 24. V. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the April 5th, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. B. Item VII, Minor Project — Addition of Outdoor Deck, Property Location: Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Applicant: Nova Entertainment LLC, d /b /a Loaded Joe's. C. Item XI, Final Design - Commercial Remodel, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision /77 Metcalf Rd, Applicant. Evans Chaffee Construction. Commissioner Didier motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda and Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. All commissioners were in favor with Commissioner Evans abstaining due to a conflict of interest. VI. Comprehensive Plan Update — (Public Hearing] Description: The Planning and Zoning Commission to reviewed section 4 of the draft Comprehensive Plan. This section includes the Subarea Planning Principles and Recommendations and Regional Goals and Policies along with associated maps. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Pat Dawe, RNL Design, gave a presentation on the sections under review. Comments from the Commissioners included that the Avon Town Center was being addressed in the Town Center Plan. Commissioner Karow voiced concern with the 36" overhang on commercial structures and believed that it was addressed in commercial design guidelines. Mr. Dawe responded it was a good point and the built to line seemed not to be appropriate in the Comp Plan as it was too detailed. Dominic Mauriello, approached the podium, to comment that build to lines and setbacks should be included in design guidelines. Mr. Dawe felt the Comp Plan should not contain such specific comments as built to lines and setbacks. Chris Ekrem, questioned the boundaries of the Town Center. Avon Center on the East and the park on the west, per Pat Dawe. Brian Sipes, Town Councilman, commented that build to lines are planning principles and mentioned that these were outline tools. Mr. Dawe commented that a vision statement was necessary for the Town. Commissioner Evans voiced that there is an 80 -foot height restriction within the Town Center and there is a need to distinguish what is current and what is desired. Commissioner Evans continued that perhaps the rear area of City Market could house a parking structure and the parking lot in front of Chapel Square could be transitioned into a town square /park scenario in reference to the subarea and the references to height of 1 to 3 story building. Councilman Sipes was questioned by Commissioner Evans regarding the transition of the Chapel Square parking area to an activity zone. Mr. Dawe said the comments were encouraging for designing a vision for the Town. Subarea 3 is the Confluence and Mr. Dawe commented on the necessity for allocating view corridors with the Confluence structure and the benefit of transporting over the tracks, along with preservation of the river and its banks. Commissioner Evans voiced that the Comp Plan is an indicator of the wants of the Town of Avon such as the access to Beaver Creek Village. Subarea 4 is the Avon Road Corridor. Commissioner Evans commented that this road currently separates East and West Avon and that a future vision would demonstrate the need for Avon without an East or West. Subarea 5 is Nottingham Park Area. Conversation revolved around the Municipal Building being on valuable land for Avon, area could be redeveloped as greater recreational area and Councilman Sipes voiced that in concept the Town Hall as a civic heart of the town and should remain so with its uniqueness. Larry Brooks, Town Manager, stated that there are multiple buildings for various purposes that could be consolidated giving greater use of the parklands. Commissioners Evans and Savage voiced that an amphitheater might be more valuable to the Town than having the municipal center. Larry Brooks continued that recommendations to seize parkland for recreation might be more viable to the Town as a general statement. Subarea 6 and the parking lots would benefit from screening per Commissioner Savage. Commissioner Evans suggested that all recommendations presented need to be included when the Comp Plan is reviewed by Town Council such as the Subarea 9 being increased in square footage to accommodate residential commercial, as an example. Subarea 12 regarding the railroad corridor was discussed along with an historical discussion regarding the intergovernmental agreement relative to a corridor for transit valley wide. Subarea 16 is Nottingham Road residential area, north side of 170. Dominic Mauriello commented that the area that could use incentives, greater density and as a view corridor off of 170, could use redevelopment with greater architectural enhancement. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED VIII. Final Design — Wells Fargo Drive Thru Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Applicant. Greg Gastineau Description: The applicant is proposing a final design for a canopy and associated drive through lanes for a drive up banking facility. The proposed drive through would be located on the former "chapel" site, behind the City Market grocery store. All materials and colors of the canopy would match the existing building to the south (Lot 22 -A), and the bank would occupy the entire first floor of the building. The sketch plan was reviewed at the Commission's February 15th, 2005. Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report. Greg Gastineau, Timberline Commercial Management, approached the podium with comments on the Staff Report. He began with Page 3, Building Design, 3rd bullet point — "Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest', that the statement "there are no flat roofs on the building" is incorrect and continued that there are prominent flat roofs all on the frontage of the building and the design for the drive thru is meant to be an extension of that flat roof canopy and the reason it was proposed. Mr. Gastineau believed a sloped roof is a "failed" alternative as it would create problems with the second floor band of windows and would be inconsistent with Chapel Square. It would present problems with snow collection sliding off the canopy and creating a dangerous condition for vehicles entering or exiting the canopy. Mr. Gastineau continued by addressing the Staff Recommendations. He clarified Item 5; voiced that the transformer landscaping must meet Holy Cross requirements and they would not permit the screening of such from path of travel via painting or landscaping and revisited Item 8 regarding the sloped roof option. Commissioner Savage questioned the run off of exterior drains on flat roofs and could not see the area of runoff. Mr. Gastineau commented that the owners would prefer that it be hard piped and run into a sewer drain. Commissioner Savage revealed no problem with the flat roof and agreed with the danger a sloped roof may cause with the cars and that it is consistent with other flat roofs in the area. Commissioner Savage continued that he would like to see some language that specifically addressed the drainage issue and that drainage is not going to drain onto a the driving surface. Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Savage's comments and questioned the drive thru not having "arches ". Mr. Gastineau responded that the option was explored with the architect and it was determined that with varying vehicle heights, it was best to maintain a consistent height across the path of traffic. Commissioner Didier commented that the flat roof was consistent with other roofs. Mr. Gastineau interjected that the pitched roof's angle does not relate to anything within Chapel Square. Commissioner Didier continued that there were to be 15 parking places and saw only 12 on the drawing but commented that he didn't believe this was an issue. Eric Heidemann clarified some items in the conditions. He began by revealing that the intent of the landscaping condition was to be placed outside of the easement and he understood that as long as the utility company had access to one side of it, there should be no objection by said company. Commissioner Karow questioned the two trees to be removed and Mr. Gastineau responded that they would be relocated. Commissioner Karow commented that he was in agreement with Commissioner Savage's assessment. Commissioner Savage motioned for approval of Item VII, Final Design — Wells Fargo Drive Thru, Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with staff recommendations #1 through #4, eliminating recommendation #5, adding to recommendation #6 "to the extent allowable by Holy Cross ", and eliminating recommendation #8 in its entirety. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Commissioner Karow mentioned that in his assessment of the plan, there were two different east canopy elevations being proposed and that a specific reference to the flat roof might be warranted. Commissioner Savage made an adjustment to his motion that in condition #8, the flat roof option will be utilized. Commissioner Smith seconded the revised motion. All commissioners were in favor and the motion carried unanimously. IX. Master Sign Program - Amendment Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Applicant. Greg Gastineau Description: The applicant, Greg Gastineau, is proposing signs for Wells Fargo in Building C of Chapel Square. There are seven proposed signs total; two building mounted signs and five directional (freestanding) signs. The two building mounted identification signs are constructed with pan channel lettering and each measure 11' x 4' -8" (approximately 51 square feet). The directional signs are staggered on the property and are constructed with aluminum and acrylic materials. These signs stand on a 4" x 4" aluminum support post approximately 7 feet tall. Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Greg Gastineau, Timberline Commercial Management, approached the podium and commented that he was presenting the wishes of Wells Fargo Corporate. He continued that since they will be a 24,000 sq ft tenant, they were requesting an amendment to sign program. Commissioner Didier voiced that there were too many signs, with his main concern being the other tenants that may leased the building in the future and sign b and c were too many. Commissioner Smith commented that the poles needed to be reduced in height and Mr. Gastineau replied that the height was relative to the amount of snow accumulation. Commissioner Smith questioned the square footage of the signs and the response of 111 square feet was too much. Per Eric Heidemann, the signage should be 72 sq feet. Commissioner Struve mentioned that the directional signs were okay, but 7 feet was too tall and the base should be rock like that shown on the building, and sign A is too large. Commissioner Savage believes it is inconsistent with the Chapel Square Sign Program. Commissioner Karow agreed with the rock base and the square footage does not comply with the sign program. Commissioner Struve motioned to deny Item IX, Master Sign Program — Amendment, Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, as items 1 -6 do not comply with the design criteria, Commissioner Savage seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. X. Chateau St. Claire on -site mockup Property Location: Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision /38390 Hwy 6 & 24 Applicant. Ivins Design Group Description: The applicant requests an extension of the April 301h deadline to prepare an on -site mock up for the Gates PUD project. The requirement for the on -site mock up was a condition of approval for pervious site design modifications. A preliminary panel design has been submitted for review by the Commission prior to construction on -site. Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Memo. Mike Stornello, CSC Land, approached the podium to comment on the staff's memo. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission requested modifications to the original plan and he understood that he agreed to begin a collaborative meeting to design the mock up panel but not to construct it. Mr. Stornello would like to get Commission comment on the materials for the building tonight and provide a mock up panel by July 1St. Commissioner Evans requested the panel to have a two -foot return on the left side to include the eave. Commissioner Didier commented that he wanted to review the railings and that they may be split. Commissioner Savage questioned the decision of colors and Mr. Stornello commented that the site mock up was to reflect the colors per past meeting directives. Ron Wood, CSC Land, commented on the materials anticipated being used, framing will be in September and mid November will use the materials with final items applied in December. Commissioner Smith encouraged Mr. Stornello to get the mock up materials as early as possible. Third Tuesday in June, 6/21, is the latest date for the mock up presentation to the Commission. XII. Approval of Resolution 05 -05 Commercial Design Guidelines Amendments. This item was unanimously approved at the April 5th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting after holding a public hearing. Commissioner Karow voiced concerns regarding Heading B - Building Massing, last sentence of paragraph needed definition and how one could interpret a light and airy space. Item 5, last sentence, use the word transition instead of erode. The use of mirrored windows was raised and it was prohibited under the heading of windows. Item 8 regarding roofs was to have varied roof lines and questioned the meaning and application. Commissioner Evans suggested a rewording. Commissioner Karow had difficulty with the word `activate'. Tambi Katieb suggested that this issue be reviewed again by staff and rewritten along with illustrations. Commissioners agreed to evaluate this issue at the next meeting. Adjourn Commissioner Didier motioned to adjourn; Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans / `�. Chairman /j Terry Smith�� Secretary