Loading...
PZC Minutes 080701 (2)Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting August 7, 2001 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Macik. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda None IV. Conflicts of Interest None V. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the July 17, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Karow moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Klein seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with Chairman Evans abstaining. VI. Variance A. Lot 30, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Project Type: Automatic Carwash Applicant/Owner: Steve Grow Address: 710 Nottingham Road This is a public hearing. Public comments will be taken after presentations by Staff and the applicant. Tambi Katieb, Planner, gave the Staff presentation and comments as stated in the Staff Report dated August 1, 2001. He said the applicant was submitting a request for a conveyor type carwash that required two variances; one for the rear setback and one for the east side setback. Commissioner Klein asked Staff to clarify which elements encroach beyond the property line for construction. Norm Wood, Town Engineer, said in order to avoid over excavation to construct the rear retaining wall, they will be using soil nailing to maintain the vertical face. Applicant, Steve Grow, gave his presentation saying they will be encroaching beyond the property line only during construction and will return disturbed land back to its original condition. He clarified that the water recycling storage is underground. Regarding Staff Comment Number 1, he did not think Staff has demonstrated a negative effect on adjacent uses and structures in the vicinity. The only structural habitable space in the rear setback is the approximate 100 square foot employee break room. This represents a minimal portion of the building. The second floor is within the building envelope. Chairman Evans said the discussion should focus on the hardship that would constitute the granting of a variance and not a step-by-step response to the Staff Report. The applicant said the reason they went to a rear setback variance was because they felt with the projected improvements to Nottingham Road, the Commission would not be in favor of a front setback variance. We have now come to the conclusion that we would like to change our request for a rear setback to a front parking setback variance. We then could pull the building 10 feet forward and eliminate the rear setback variance. If you look at the adjacent neighbors, they both received front parking variances. He said he realizes he has not applied for the front setback but wanted to know if it could be addressed tonight. Chairman Evans said it would be premature to discuss that variance request since it has not been applied for or reviewed by Staff or gone through the public notice procedures with notification to neighboring property owners. The Commission must act on the Variance request that is on the agenda tonight. The applicant asked for some time to refocus his thoughts and presentation. Chairman Evans then opened the meeting to Public Comments. Dr. Bryant, owner of Centennial Center on adjacent Lot 31, addressed the Commission. He said he and Mike Thul are concerned about this and have had several meetings with Mr. Grow regarding access and parking in particular. They have done extensive work on the parking situation trying to get it worked out. We do not have specific comments about the setbacks; however, there are some legal issues in addressing the parking lot that still have to be settled to our satisfaction. We still have restrictions that need to be met. No one else spoke and the Public Hearing was closed. Minutes of P&Z Meeting August 7, 2001 Page 2 The applicant then continued his presentation. He stated he probably would reapply for a front parking setback variance and take the rear setback variance off the table tonight. Chairman Evans asked if the applicant was requesting to table or withdraw this application. Mr. Grow said they wanted to table the rear setback request and go on to the side setback. Chairman Evans said they need to approve or deny the application as it exists as a whole. They could not separate the two variances. Mr. Grow said they would table or withdraw it, whichever is appropriate. A discussion about the benefits or downfalls of tabling or withdrawing the application ensued. Chairman Evans commented that if the Commission took action on the Variance application presented tonight, it would not preclude the applicant from reapplying for a different variance. Commissioner Sipes said if they went forward with the application tonight, it would give Mr. Grow the benefit of feedback and comments from the Commission for his future application. Mr. Grow decided to go forward with his application. Chairman Evans said the action taken tonight would be a recommendation to Town Council. Mr. Katieb clarified that a Variance application does not go to Town Council except in the event of an appeal. John Perkins, architect on this project, commented they had decided to do a rear setback variance because of the Town bike path going in the front on Nottingham Road. The side setback is much more important. We would like to make the point that the overwhelming majority of our requests are subterranean. When the building meets the plane of the grade, we will be in our setbacks with the possible exception of the front eastern corner. The nails will go back into your property but that all will be buried. The restored grade will go back to the existing grade behind the building. He asked for feedback on the side setback. Commissioner Wolfe asked them to clarify the east end on drawing Al. Mr. Perkins said the second floor outer wall follows the setback line and a portion would be buried. He said we would need a grading agreement on your property. We don't think we are receiving the same consideration as our neighbors. Chairman Evans asked if there had been any previous requests for building in a setback with a subterranean nature. Ruth Borne, Assistant Director Community Development stated that there were not any variances that consisted of habitable space, including subterranean areas that she knew of. Commissioner Karow asked about utility easements. Staff responded there is a seven and a half foot utility easement. Commissioner Wolfe commented if the applicant eliminated one of the dry vacuum area lanes and shortened the east/west dimension of the building, the easterly end would Minutes of PBZ Meeting August 7, 2001 Page 3 move out of the setback. Or, if the retail and waiting room space were contracted in the east/west dimension, it would allow the easterly end of the building to pull back into the setback line. Mr. Perkins said he did not know if they could make that a viable retail area if they did that. Tom Schuster with PDQ of the Rockies, a carwash consultant, explained that the turning radius and the different lanes were necessary to accommodate the number of anticipated customers. He said those lanes are needed and they could not shorten that side because it would cut off the turning radius. Commissioner Karow stated this application does not meet the criteria for granting a variance and as for any further requests for variances, he did not see that this lot has any specific characteristics that would entitle it to a variance. He would not be inclined to grant any type of variance on setbacks for parking, etc., on this site. Commissioner Sipes commented this project is just too big for this lot. He believes a carwash would be a great addition to the Town, but does not believe this lot is the right place to do it. It is very apparent that you cannot do it without variances. You are over the 50% buildable coverage and to him, that does include subterranean uses. There is no way you can meet the minimum landscaping requirement on this site. A variance is not warranted because it would constitute a special privilege. He did not see exceptional extraordinary circumstances for this variance. Commissioner Klein stated that a variance would give the applicant a special privilege. The building size is too large for the lot and a variance cannot be given to make it work. Commissioner McClinton said he did not think a variance is warranted due to the reasons listed by Staff. He agrees there is a need for a carwash in Avon, but this project is just too big for the site. Chairman Evans also agreed with Staffs' comments. He did not find any unique situation on this lot that is different from another lot. What is requiring the variances is the size of the project that you are trying to force onto this lot. That is the only reason why a setback variance is being requested. There is no proven hardship unique to this specific site that would force the granting of a variance. Commissioner Karow moved to approve Resolution 01-06 denying the Variance for Lot 30, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision for the fallowing reasons: 1. That the granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the Variance may be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the Variance is not warranted for one or more of the following reasons: Minutes of P&Z Meeting August 7, 2001 Page 4 a. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the Variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VII. Special Review Use A. Lot 30, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Project Type: Automatic Carwash Applicant/Owner: Steve Grow Address: 710 Nottingham Road This is a public hearing. Public comments will be taken after presentations by Staff and the applicant. Tambi Katieb made the presentation as stated in the Staff Report dated August 1, 2001. There was no public comment. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner McClinton asked why the housing is not being assured as employee housing. Steve Grow said his plan is to be able to assure his employees have a place to live as incentive to work at the carwash, which also allows him to deal with the parking issues. The employees that use the parking spaces will be the same people using the housing parking spaces. Commissioner Sipes and Chairman Evans asked if the applicant could assure in writing these units would be restricted to employees. Mr. Grow said yes. Commissioner Klein said he is not opposed to the carwash on the site as long as it fits on the site. He believes it follows the requirement guidelines for a SRU. Commissioner Sipes addressed the traffic problems that may affect Nottingham Road. We just received your traffic study and have not had time to review it. As a resident of Nottingham Road, I know at peak times traffic is heavy which makes it difficult to make turns. Another concern is the noise that may be produced and the hours of operation, which you say will be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Carwashes are noisy. He also is concerned about keeping the housing dedicated for employees. Minutes of P&Z Meeting August 7, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Karow commented regarding Criteria No. 1 which refers to meeting all the other requirements. He believes a carwash and residential units on the same site are completely incompatible due to the noise. Housing above a carwash is something he does not want to do. In regards to Criteria No. 2, he sees no problems. He thinks a carwash would be a welcome use for the Town; however, you need to meet the criteria of it fitting on the site, the parking, circulation, traffic impacts should be minimized. As for Criteria No. 3, it is not compatible with adjacent uses which on one side is residential; due to the noise. He cannot support a carwash on this site because of the noise. Commissioner Wolfe said he has a series of concerns. Housing should be restricted to employees. Parking is a large issue and so is the traffic impact. He is skeptical about the queuing up of customers which would back up traffic onto Nottingham and possibly line up on the side of the road. He believes it is too close to the residential area. Chairman Evans commented as it is designed now with the setbacks and the variances, he cannot approve it as a SRU. If site coverage is 93%, you cannot do the required 20% landscaping on this site. Parking is also an issue. He is in favor of the employee housing and restricting it to employees only. He has concerns regarding Criteria No. 3. He believes there may be an adverse impact of noise and traffic. He asked Norm Wood for his analysis on the traffic impact on Nottingham. The applicant needs to prove that noise mitigation can work. Mr. Grow said the letter given by TDA addresses the traffic impact. Someone in the audience commented that 1-70 runs along Nottingham Road and creates a lot of traffic noise. The noise from the carwash will be no worse than that created by 1-70. Commissioner Karow moved to approve Resolution 01-07 denying a Special Review Use for Lot 30, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following findings: 1. That the proposed use does not otherwise comply with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code. 2. That the proposed use is not in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed use is not compatible with adjacent uses. Such compatibility may be expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features, site design and the control of any adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc. Commissioner McClinton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VIII. Other Business A. Staff Approvals: Review given by Eric Johnson Minutes of P&Z Meeting August 7, 2001 Page 6 1. Lot 15, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 2170 Saddleridge Loop Deck Modification for Privacy Wall 2. Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision 2455 Old Trail Road Deck Addition 3. Lot 71, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 5380 Ferret Lane Retaining Wall Modifications 4. Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 600 Nottingham Road Additional Parking Spaces B. Discussion on East Beaver Creek Streetscape Improvements Norm Wood, Town Engineer, gave a presentation of the streetscape improvements saying this is the plan for improvements to East Avon. We show implementation of finishing the final details for construction plans and acquisition of right-of-way and easements. These improvements consist of converting this area with sidewalks and some off-street parking. It will make this area more pedestrian friendly with crosswalks, additional landscaping and seating areas. There will be a bus stop and landing where the pedestrian bridge is proposed in the Town Center Plan. This plan will make the connection between east and west. IX. Town Center Plan Pat Dawe of RNL reviewed the draft Plan with the Board. In the audience were Al Williams, Mark Donaldson and Jonathan Greene. Commissioner Wolfe asked about day skiers using the Town parking if the gondola is built and if we somehow would exclude them from the Town lots. He had concerns with skiers filling up the Town lots. Mr. Dawe said we would have to add them to the demand. Holly Miller, parking consultant, would have to do a winter parking schedule. That is a problem in itself to solve. Al Williams spoke about parking. If talking about our location, the 800 cars is probably more effective and also gives an elevation for crossing over the tracks. We are about 12 feet above the tracks and on grade coming off Main Street. He had been talking with some other Town Square owners who indicated they would consider joining in a parking solution to improve the situation. We could have a large structure. The solution for the Minutes of P&Z Meeting August 7, 2001 Page 7 parking is in this location, between Avon Town Square and Lot 61, but it involves relocating Benchmark Road. Commissioner Wolfe said he has concerns about priorities, sequence and nomenclature. Pages 2, 3 and 4 of the plan applies to the Town as a whole in regards to the disjointedness, lack of circulation and fragmentation. The priority of the Town should be to integrate east and west Avon. East Avon has the greatest potential to create a reasonable circulation pattern to make this a friendly vehicular and pedestrian area. The west side does not have a good circulation pattern. If Main Street could return to Beaver Creek Boulevard, you would get back to Avon Road and on to the Beaver Creek Circle to get to the other side. He said Beaver Creek Boulevard and Avon Road are the main streets of this town and we should recognize that. Beaver Creek Boulevard could have underpasses and overpasses for pedestrians. He expects to see a better connection with east and west. Mr. Dawe said Page 12 shows a unified development on both sides in Phase 3. Norm Wood tells us that it is very difficult to modify the roundabout there because of the slope. Commissioner Sipes commented the center of town is where the civic functions are. East Avon generally functions, west Avon does not. We need to fix what is broken. He likes the way the phasing is being proposed. West Avon has the most undeveloped land and the area where you can make the most changes. East Avon will go into a redevelopment segment if you make changes there. There is an opportunity to make a real impact here. The Village area will never have the use of the Beaver Creek connection via the gondola and the main north -south artery from the highway. There are many reasons why this area will always be the downtown of Avon. There is so much concentrated here that is good and will draw people. But everything feeds into one or two roads, we should be diversifying and providing alternate roads not just relying on the main north -south road. We should be providing alternate routes of transit. We should be ready to take on the opportunities for negotiating right-of-ways in order to get better alignment of the roads when redevelopment of the buildings start to occur on the east side. Chairman Evans made the comment that the Village at Avon is too big and too long to be a pedestrian friendly area. We have something right here to develop. We do not need to tie this into the Village. Phase 3 is what we should be thinking about and doing. The fourth roundabout has to be fixed and made a full roundabout. We have to figure out a way to make it work. It is the key to circulation throughout this and making the east and west sides of Avon connect. Commissioner Wolfe said that if we do not have a solution to the fourth roundabout and don't have that road, the circulation on the west side will not be friendly to anybody. Minutes of P&Z Meeting August 7, 2001 Page 8 X. Adjourn Commissioner Sipes moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cecelia Fenton Recording Secretary APPROVED: August 21, 2001 Chris Evans Chairman Paul Klein Secretary Minutes of P&Z Meeting August 7, 2001 Page 9