Loading...
PZC Minutes 090401 (2)Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting September 4, 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. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Item IX, Preliminary Plan Referral, Resolution No. 01-09, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, A Resubdivision of McGrady Acres, is not a Public Hearing. IV. Conflicts of Interest None V. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the August 21, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sipes moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Klein seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Karow abstaining. VI. FINAL DESIGN A. Lot 48, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: Duplex Residence Applicant/Owner: Tom Marcin Address: 2430 Saddleridge Loop Eric Johnson, Planning Technician, gave the Staff presentation stating the project is a contemporary duplex home that resembles several other homes in the immediate area. The lot coverage proposed is approximately nine percent; however, the front of the lot is quite steep and requires extensive use of retaining walls. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Applicant, Tom Marcin, gave his comments. He said Staff has requested the grading be changed from 1.5:1 to 2:1 on the west side. He asked the Planning and Zoning Board to leave it at 1.5:1 due to hardship. The prevailing slope on the west side is 1.5:1. He said Land Use Regulations for the Town of Avon state you should try to maintain the existing character of the lot if possible. He would be moving the grading but it is the same slope as the existing conditions for access for the driveway. Commissioner Sipes asked how do you maintain the character of the lot if you are grading nearly the whole lot. The applicant said he would recreate that slope. It would just be a little further into the hill. Chairman Evans asked what was happening behind the house and why was the entire back corner being taken out. Mr. Marcin said to make a back yard. Chairman Evans said it looks like in some areas you are putting in up to six feet of fill. Commissioner Sipes commented this is an identical plan to other properties in the area; but he did not have a problem with it if they were not directly adjacent to this lot. His general impression is that there is too much grading happening. He could agree to the 1.5:1 if it was revegetated back to its native condition but cannot support the excess grading in the back. The landscaping plan seems uninspired. He would like to see it revegetated with native landscaping and materials. Commissioner Klein said it generally meets the Design Review Criteria with the exception of Staffs recommendations. He would like to see the lot revegetated particularly from the street. Commissioner Macik said he generally agreed with Commissioner Sipes' comments. He did not agree with the grading behind the building and particularly with items 4 & 5 of the Review Criteria regarding site grading and drainage. The 1.5:1 can work but to get it established is difficult. He had no problem with the architecture but did have big problems with the additional grading. Commissioner Karow said he has seen this design on several other lots in Wildridge and twice in Block 1. In regards to Criteria Number 7 which states no project should be so similar as to impair values, he feels this will impair values and could not support it. He saw no real reason to completely dig out the back. He also did not see a reason to change the nominal requirement of 2:1 grading for this application. Commissioner Wolfe is concerned about the slope steepness but not bothered by the overall excavation and change of topography. He thought it looked very creative and aesthetically pleasing. He had concerns about the adequacy of the landscaping. He would support the application and suggest there could be an intermediate retaining wall in the front to soften the grade. Chairman Evans said he is not in favor of increasing it to a 1.5:1 slope. He sees the same steepness in grading in the northwest corner as well and cannot approve that grade. He cannot vote in favor of the back yard. He said he saw no reason why Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 4, 2001 Page 2 portions of this lot are being disturbed other than for the sole economic benefit of the applicant. 100% of this site is being disturbed. He has seen this house four times now. It is being put on this site even if it doesn't fit. There are numerous other design solutions that would minimize grading. This design is not in the best interest of this site. We do not want to see block walls everywhere. More terraced walls could help to get this accomplished. Commissioner Sipes said a condition of approval about grading made him nervous; especially when there is excessive grading. He suggested the applicant table his application to make changes and bring it back. Mr. Marcin agreed. Commissioner Sipes moved to table the application. Commissioner McClinton seconded the motion. The motion carried six to one with Commissioner Karow opposing. VII. PUD - Public Hearing A. Resolution No. 01-08 Lots 24 & 27, Mountain Star Subdivision Project Type: Planned Unit Development Amendment Applicant: Mary Isom Owner: Richard Rogel Residence Address: 1428 Paintbrush Eric Johnson gave Staffs presentation stating the applicant is seeking a PUD Amendment to combine two lots into one. His residence is constructed on Lot 27. Staff supports the PUD amendment as proposed to vacate lot lines between Lots 24 and 27. The applicant was not in attendance. Chairman Evans opened the public hearing. No comments were made. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sipes moved to approve Resolution 01-08 recommending to the Town Council approval of the application for the Mountain Star PUD to establish Lot 27 as a single family lot vacating the lot line between existing Lot 27 and Lot 24 and eliminating Lot 24. Commissioner Klein seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VIII. ZONING - Public Hearing A. Resolution No. 01-10 Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, A Resubdivision of McGrady Acres Project Type: Zoning Applicant: Traer Creek, LLC Address: Eaglebend Drive Minutes o/ P&Z Meeting September4, 2001 Page 3 In the audience were12 people from the public. Also in attendance were Burt Levin, Town Attorney; Bill Efting, Town Manager; Larry Brooks, Assistant Town Manager and Norm Wood, Town Engineer. Chairman Evans explained to the audience that the Zoning resolution and the Preliminary Plan Referral resolution will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation to Town Council for approval or denial of the applications. The Zoning and Preliminary Plan applications would become a package with the annexation of McGrady Acres should it be approved. Council is the one who will act on the applications. The Planning and Zoning Board will not be discussing the annexation as a whole. That will be the function of Town Council and there would be two public hearings of the annexation at Council meetings. The issue at hand is the Zoning application. The public hearing will be opened after the Staff and applicant presentations. Walter Dandy, a resident of Eaglebend Drive, spoke saying the neighborhood had been mislead in this process and on what will be covered tonight. They were lead to believe that what was to be discussed this evening was Post's offer to pay for and construct a cul-de-sac. We have a small amount of residents here and this is a major issue for them. If they had known, there would be a much larger turnout of people. He said they feel sandbagged and request the application be tabled so the neighborhood could be notified. Chairman Evans asked Mr. Dandy to step back and said when we open the Public Hearing there will be ample time to voice your concerns. He said there was public notice given of the public hearing for the Zoning application. It was noticed and posted in numerous locations for the public. The public has not been mislead. The application and public notice did not include any mention of a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Sipes explained to the public how the Commission functions saying they review applications against a set criteria. They are appointed by Council to do a specific job. The Staff presentation was given by Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development. She stated this was an application for Zoning submitted by Traer Creek L.L.C. for a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of McGrady Acres Subdivision into newly configured lots 1, 2 and 3. Lot 1 is being proposed as Government Park/Employee Housing, Lots 2 and 3 as Neighborhood Commercial. Neighborhood Commercial zoning is intended to provide sites for commercial facilities and services to the community and also highway oriented to be near its commercial needs. The allowed uses under Neighborhood Commercial are retail stores, professional offices, car wash, restaurants, accessory apartments, churches. This portion of McGrady Acres will change to support the Neighborhood Commercial zoning and the new 1-70 interchange and the spur roads for the interchange. It will utilize the proposed four -lane Nottingham Ranch Road and connect with Highway 6. Minutes of P&Z Meeting September4, 2001 Page 4 The proposed government park/employee housing on Lot 1 is an expanded park owned by the Town of Avon. It will act as a buffer for the Neighborhood Commercial use of Lot 3 and the residential uses on Eaglebend Drive. The Comprehensive Plan currently identifies the area as a mixed-use river corridor with the potential to be developed for a combination of uses such as being proposed here. The development of Nottingham Ranch Road as a major access point for 1470 and Highway 6 supports this. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 01-10 for the rezoning with the condition that Town Council will not adopt the zoning ordinance until such time that the Annexation and Final Plat for the Resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of McGrady Acres have both been adopted. Applicant, Bill Post of Traer Creek, made his presentation. He said he was not backtracking on his previous statement that if the Town Council determines that it is best to have a cul-de-sac, he will do that. We are not trying to blindside you tonight. We fully expect when we go to the Town Council that the residents will be there and make their presentations. He disagreed with the residents whether a cul-de-sac is the best planning and best for their neighborhood. But if the Town Council agrees to that, then Traer Creek is willing to put in a cul-de-sac. Chairman Evans asked why is Council seeing this annexation and as a result, why are we seeing zoning and platting piecemeal. Why are we not seeing one application to annex the entire property? Lot 6 would be county jurisdiction completely surrounded by town -owned land. There are also some additional slivers that will have to be annexed, platted and zoned at a later date. Mr. Post said they volunteered to bring in Lot 6 and have the jurisdictional basis to require it but the Lot 6 owner is not sure he wants to be annexed into the town. We do not want to force someone into an annexation. We are currently in discussion with the owner and he may apply simultaneously with us to be annexed. He is not an island encompassed because if you have a public road on one side, he is not considered under the law to be an island. The little slivers will be annexed when we have possession of the three different parcels we are dealing with or when we actually have the fee ownership with them. That is why it is being done in two parts. Chairman Evans asked what is driving this annexation now versus waiting for the others. Mr. Post said he needs this in order to get all of the utilities to supply the project and to show with the applications for CDOT and Federal Highway Administration for pending permits. Chairman Evans opened the Public Hearing. Bob Bank, a member of the audience, said he believes the Staff report is not correct and is misleading. It says there is a buffer created by the park area. That area is smaller than this room and is not a legitimate buffer. As for compatibility with the surrounding area, Eaglebend Drive is a completely residential area and this zoning is not compatible. We will be a residential street between two commercial projects one at Minutes of P&Z Meeting September4, 2001 Page 5 each end; the other end of the street having Burger King, Starbucks, etc. He does not want to see traffic duplicated on his end of the street. Gary Powell, resident on Eaglebend Drive, said Staff estimated 14,500 trips per day. Ruth Borne said that number was provided by the applicant as part of their PUD application and approval. Mr. Powell said if you live there, that is a lot of traffic. The zoning has to be looked at in light of the compatibility of the traffic and how it impacts the surrounding area referring to Criteria Number 3. He asked if a traffic flow study could be done to see how it will impact the area. Carol Krueger, a resident on the east end of Eaglebend Drive, said she will be impacted by this rezoning. It is zoned for very limited residential use now. They want it changed because it will be on a busy street corner. She did not think the new zoning is compatible with the street as it is. She would like to see continuity on the street so they are not pocketed between two commercial areas. We have relied on the current zoning. We feel this is an after -thought tacked on to the end of this project. We don't want to see the end of our street turned into a restaurant, car wash or even retail or office. We will see more traffic and we will be impacted. She said she was here to protect her property values and keep her children safe. Why can we not see a compromise and have a use to keep the street the way it is now. She hopes there is something that can be done to meet the expectations of both parties. She felt this is the first step of a final phase of a commercial development. She understands the economics of this corner; this is a huge area to put commercial in. She would like to keep their area residential. Bill Post said they applied for the lowest density commercial zoning for this area. You don't put residences at busy intersections like the one that will be going through there. The park that we are proposing is larger than the one you have now and will be a buffer zone. Buzz Diddier, a resident, suggested several different configurations for this area to make more residential lots. He thought a buffer with a fence on the hill could separate it. Amy Philips, a homeowner on Eaglebend Drive, she was personally concerned with the transitions with this development. She knew this area would be developed in the future. She feels Eaglebend Drive is a unique street because it is single family and duplex homes on a nice, quiet road that is left alone and has a good neighborhood feel to it. There are not that many streets like us in this area. We want to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Lot 1 as a park will be nice. Lot 3 needs to be the transition lot with some sort of high-density housing. Lot 3 becoming something more than high-density residential would be a mistake. As soon as you put in commercial space, you bring in cars that keep coming and going. Eaglebend Drive cannot support more traffic. Lot 3 will be the transition area. What you zone for Lot 3, will set a precedent for Lot 6 in the future. Craig Ferraro, Eaglebend resident, would like to have a traffic study done on the impact of this area becoming commercial. There is significant impacting coming from a Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 4, 2001 Page 6 commercial area. It will have an overall impact on our road and on this neighborhood. This is a terrific neighborhood. We would like to see the developer come up with some other alternatives. Resident, Bob Bank, said he would like the Board to keep this residential zoning. If you make it commercial, traffic will come down our street and that will impact us. Chairman Evans asked Mr. Post why not leave these lots residential. Mr. Post said what we have applied for from a planning standpoint is appropriate for this area and the surrounding area due to what the surrounding property will be doing in the future. We have asked for the right zoning for the future of this area. We would not put residential on these corners. That is why we have asked for the low zoning for commercial. Commissioner Sipes asked Mr. Post if your access off Eaglebend Drive will be Lot 3. Mr. Post said yes, it straightens out Eaglebend Drive. Chairman Evans suggested dedicated green space would work there. Commissioner Wolfe asked if there was the possibility of a land swap so a park could be at the end of Eaglebend Drive adjacent to Nottingham Ranch Road. He asked the residents if they had any real estate appraisals done to estimate the economic impact on their homes. Would there be a demonstratable material impact if this zoning does happen. Gary Powell said if Lots 3, 4 and 5 go commercial, you can be certain Lot 6 will also go commercial. Commissioner Macik asked Bill Post if he knew what the traffic count was in the traffic studies. Mr. Post said he did not remember if they counted a side street like that which is not a collector. Chairman Evans said he is questioning how to protect the residential character of this quiet neighborhood. He thinks this rezoning will have a huge detrimental impact on the neighborhood. But, he also thinks the cul-de-sac is not good planning and is not a good solution. Chairman Evans said we need to give something to Council to act on for an interpretation of this issue. He said the real issue is Lot 3. Lot 1 is going to be a park, Lot 2, no one will want to live on. What can we do with Lot 3 to protect the residential character of Eaglebend Drive and perhaps decrease the propensity for Lot 6 to come in asking for something out of character. Dedicated green space would solve a lot of problems. He asked Mr. Post if there was some compromise that enables the Board to send a recommended resolution to Town Council that addresses the residents' concerns. Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 4, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Post said he did not want to table the application; he would like this to go on to Council. Everything that this issue has come down to is the traffic. We will have the cul-de-sac debate at Council. Chairman Evans said these residents bought and invested in this area with the understanding those adjacent lots were zoned compatibly to the use as it existed prior to the application of the Village at Avon. Chairman Evans closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Karow asked Rick Pylman with PJA, the Planner for Traer Creek, why this area was selected. Mr. Pylman said from a land use planning perspective, Neighborhood Commercial is the best use for this area; residential uses would be difficult even on Lot 3. He commented that all comments tonight have come back to the traffic and the cul-de-sac. If you keep this residential or make it Neighborhood Commercial, would it make any difference in the traffic going down Eaglebend Drive? Commissioner McClinton said he came into this meeting thinking the application as presented should be recommended for approval. There is too much involved in this issue and it needs to be discussed more. We should not make a decision that was rushed. At this time, he would not recommend approval. Commissioner Klein said the question is how do we come to a decision to make it compatible for both sides. As far as it being compatible with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, the Plan identifies the Village at Avon as an area to be developed. The rezoning fits with the traffic flows. The criteria that gives him the most problem is if the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding areas. He sees a problem with the compatibility of Lot 3 becoming commercial. He would rather see it high-density residential. Lot 3 is pivotal to Lot 6. Commissioner Sipes said he is struggling with Neighborhood Commercial on Lot 3 for two reasons. One is the precedence it will set for Lot 6 and the other is that due to the grade change, the access for Lot 3 is only off of Eaglebend Drive. He is unsure Neighborhood Commercial is the right zoning for this piece of land. If a cul-de-sac is put in, he thinks that Neighborhood Commercial would make sense. If the cul-de-sac is not put in, he believes high-density residential would work. This would be his recommendation to Council. Commissioner Macik said as the application stands, it is fine because the Village just to the north of that will be commercial. He did not think it is right to put a cul-de-sac on Eaglebend Drive and close off the road. As a resident of the town, he has a right to use that road. The residents will be affected by the Village no matter what. He is in favor of the rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial. Commissioner Karow said we must look at the application based on the four criteria given. Is the proposed zoning justified by changing conditions and the area to be rezoned? The answer is yes. Second, is it consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 4, 2001 Page 8 Plan? Yes. The Town has planned for this development and we developed a Comprehensive Plan to include this. The fourth is if we have enough facilities to handle this. The answer is yes. This application meets three of the requirements. The third criteria is the one which he has trouble with. Are the proposed uses compatible with the surrounding areas or uses? If you look at the large commercial area across the tracks, this is very compatible with that. If you look at Highway 6, it is consistent with it and the traffic. He thinks Neighborhood Commercial is the least impact use for the residents of Eaglebend Drive. Based on those findings he can support the application for rezoning. He does not think a cul-de-sac will serve the residents. Commissioner Wolfe said he is strongly opposed to rezoning this property. He does not agree that the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding areas or use. There are too many unknowns including Lot 6 not being included in the rezoning. He believes the economic impact on the owners on Eaglebend Drive should not be ignored. The rights of those owners should take precedence over the developer. The developer knew this property was zoned R when he purchased it. The questions are not only about traffic but the impact of the character of Eaglebend Drive. That road will change with commercial space at both ends of it. He recommends to Town Council this application not be approved. This area should remain residential and there should be a cul-de-sac. Chairman Evans agreed 100% with Commissioner Wolfe. He has summarized his views in four points which could be made into a resolution. 1. The character of Eaglebend Drive neighborhood as it currently exists should be preserved. 2. A cul-de- sac is not recommended from a planning point. 3. If a cul-de-sac is put in, Neighborhood Commercial zoning is appropriate. 4. If the road is a continuous through street Neighborhood Commercial zoning of Lots 1 and 3 is inappropriate. Thought should be given to Lot 1 being open space and Lot 3 perhaps high-density residential, a park, or maybe purchased open space by the Town of Avon. The Commissioners asked for these points to be made into a motion to vote on. Commissioner Macik said he did not think there should be a mention of the cul-de-sac in the resolution. Commissioners Evans, Sipes and Wolfe said they think it should be included in the motion because it will come up. Chairman Evans moved to recommend denial of Resolution 01-10, Series of 2001 which recommends approval of the rezoning of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, McGrady Acres Subdivision with the following findings: 1. The character of Eaglebend Drive neighborhood as it currently exists should be preserved. 2. A cul-de-sac is not recommended from a planning point of view. 3. If a cul-de-sac is put in, Neighborhood Commercial zoning of these lots is appropriate. 4. If the road is a continuous through street, Neighborhood Commercial zoning of Lots 1 and 3 is inappropriate. Thought should be given to Lot 1 being open Minutes of P&Z Meeting September4, 2001 Page 9 space and Lot 3 perhaps high density residential, a park or purchased open space by the Town of Avon. Commissioner Sipes seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-2 with Commissioners Macik and Karow opposing. The Commission broke for recess at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:34 p.m. IX. PRELIMINARY PLAN REFERRAL A. Resolution No. 01-09 Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, A Resubdivision of McGrady Acres Project Type: Preliminary Subdivision Plat Applicant: Traer Creek, LLC Address: Eaglebend Drive Ruth Borne said this is a Preliminary Plan Referral from Council. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 01-09. It is in compliance with the preliminary subdivision requirements. Commissioner Wolfe asked if this application was still relevant in light of the Zoning application being denied. Ms. Borne said yes. Commissioner Karow asked if this is subdivision of lots only irrespective of the zoning applied for these lots. Ms. Borne said that was correct. This is only to show where the lot lines are and that it complies with subdivision regulations. Chairman Evans said they would be approving the replatting only. Bill Post commented that all the tracts shown are for roads. Commissioner Wolfe moved to approve Resolution No. 01-09 Preliminary Subdivision Plan for a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of McGrady Acres. Commissioner McClinton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. X. VARIANCE - Public Hearing A. Resolution No. 01-11 Lot 30, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Project Type: Front Yard Setback Variance Applicant/Owner: Steve Grow Address: 710 Nottingham Road Eric Johnson, Planning Technician, gave the Staff presentation. He said the applicant was applying for a front setback variance to meet parking requirements for a proposed carwash. This front setback is a similar variance to those approved for adjacent lots. Staff supports the proposed variance because there are adjacent properties who received similar variances and recommends approval. Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 4, 2001 Page 10 John Perkins, architect on the project, said they need this to align to the Pet Center's parking. Commissioner Karow asked if the variance was specific to the site plan. Ruth Borne said yes; this variance only applies to this site plan. Based on the criteria and considerations that are setforth for a variance, Staff supports and recommends approval. Commissioner Karow asked if they would have a variance attached to this property or specific to this plan. Ms. Borne said it is specific to this plan. Commissioner Wolfe asked if the site plan is rejected, any other design that would come in for this lot would it be subject to this variance? Ms. Borne said yes. Commissioner Sipes commented to not grant this setback would be contrary to Criteria Number 2 since several other properties in the neighborhood have been granted a front setback. It would give the applicant an unfair disadvantage compared to his neighbors. Commissioner Karow moved to approve Resolution 01-11 approving a Variance for Lot 30, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following findings: 1. That the granting of the Variance will not 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 will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 3. That the Variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 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 will 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. Chairman Evans realized the Public Hearing had not been opened and did so. There were no public comments made. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Karow restated his motion to approve, Commissioner Wolfe seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 4, 2001 Page 11 XI. SPECIAL REVIEW USE - Public Hearing A. Resolution No. 01-12 Lot 30, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Project Type: Automatic Carwash Applicant/Owner: Steve Grow Address: 710 Nottingham Road Chairman Evans said this is a Public Hearing. We will open the floor to the public after Staff and applicant have made their presentations. Eric Johnson made the Staff presentation stating the applicant is proposing a Special Review Use for a conveyor type carwash. The applicant was before the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 7, 2001. This is a revision of that application. The property is between the Centennial Center, Lot 31 and Grandview on Lot 42. The carwash will house retail space, a waiting room, express detailing and four deed restricted employee housing units. These units will be restricted to employees of the carwash. Staff feels building is maximizing the allowable building area and the minimums for landscaping. The project access, circulation, staging area and parking constraints do not appear compatible with the use. Staff feels this design does not work well with the site and recommends denial. Commissioner Karow asked how many parking spaces are required for the residential component. Ruth Borne said 10 spaces. He said the commercial is proposing 10 spaces. He asked if the Town accepts spaces 1 -12 as parking when you cannot back out due to stacking. Ms. Borne said they are acceptable parking spaces. They satisfy our requirements of dimensions of a parking space. Commissioner Karow asked if the Town did not have access requirements. Ms. Borne said it is one of Staffs concerns as outlined in the Staff Report. John Perkins, architect on the project, said they redesigned the project and pulled it out of the setbacks in the rear. He said in regard to the parking spaces, the employees will have certain parking spaces and their movement will be controlled by Steve, the owner, and his Operations Manager. He said this project works differently than some other you might be familiar with. We don't feel we are getting consideration for shared parking credit for employees. No one is coming to this site to park a car other than the employees who will work and live there. We feel the 20 -car requirement of the Town is unnecessary for this facility. He said they disagreed with Staff on the 20% landscaping ground cover area. If we could get the parking down a little our site coverage will drop and landscaping area will change. Steve Grow, the applicant, said we have total control of the site. What we are showing is the most intensive use scenario. The Board questioned where deliveries would be made and where the dumpster would be located. Mr. Perkins said they are looking at an area for deliveries that would be shared with the Pet Center. They would schedule deliveries at their least busy times. Commissioner Macik asked about the turnaround space for the dumpster. Mr. Grow Minutes of P&Z Meeting September4, 2001 Page 12 said they would roll out the dumpster to the truck and they would not have a lot of volume for the dumpster anyway. Steve Grow explained his operation in detail. There will be a greeter. The customer will stay in his car throughout the process unless they want interior services. Then that person will be directed to another line and go into the waiting room until finished. There probably will not be retail area. It should not be on the drawing. The line of cars need to keep moving to keep the line from jamming up the line. If the line gets jammed up, there will be no express detail service at that time. Tom Schuster, consultant with PDQ, explained the customer does not get out of the vehicle. The car will run on a conveyor and move through the wash. Commissioner Karow said we have three criteria that we evaluate this application under. Staff in their analysis said there is a serious parking deficiency and extremely tight stacking configuration coupled with the exiting of cars from the drying area. Should we ignore a serious conflict to approve this application? He said Staff continues to state the site coverage maximum for the building coverage and landscaping are not supportable by code or Staff. This violates the Town of Avon Municipal Code. Staff states further the project being proposed is far too large for such a constrained site. The vehicular access pattern created by this facility is extremely poor and at peak times will only serve to congest the area and create vehicular conflicts. Commissioner Karow said this site has real problems with site circulation. This application falls very short on Criteria Numbers 1 and 2. He said he supports what the Staff has said on this project and does not feel it meets the minimum criteria for Special Review Use. Commissioner Wolfe asked are they or are they not exceeding the maximum building coverage. The Staff Report states in point one, they are exceeding the maximum but under general comments it says they are coming extremely close. He has serious concerns about reducing parking and feels it is the wrong way to go. The employee parking could easily be more than anticipated. You could have a lot more than 10 cars. There were 12 bedrooms proposed which means there could potentially be 24 people with cars. He also had great concern about the stacking up of cars in the circulation pattern. This does not seem to meet the codes of the Town. Commissioner Klein stated regarding Review Criteria Number 1, he cannot support this application with the constraints of the on-site parking. There are many variables that are not going to work the way the applicant is representing this application. The vehicle access and circulation is difficult. He had concerns about noise of clients who will be waiting in line. He had concerns about overflow traffic onto Nottingham Road and people turning around in neighboring adjacent properties. It could easily become a burden on the Pet Center. Commissioner McClinton said he thinks a carwash does fit in the zone district. But the parking and circulation is an issue. He agreed with Staffs comments and will deny approval. Minutes o/ P&Z Meeting September4, 2001 Page 13 Commissioner Karow said he thought housing and a carwash were incompatible due to the noise. John Perkins said there is plenty of room to do acoustical mitigation across the ceiling. Commissioner Sipes commented it could be an approvable project if the front congestion was reduced; but there must be an agreement with Staff on the parking. Another issue is the traffic. Commissioner Macik said delivery times could be spelled out. He asked if the grades are being worked out. Mr. Perkins said yes. Commissioner Macik said the way it is shown now, it does not work. Chairman Evans stated the applicant is proposing a very vehicular intensive operation with significantly less circulation and parking space even compared to the Pet Center next door. He is extremely concerned with the person who drives to the carwash and decides the line is too long and turns around in neighboring parking lots or does a U- turn to leave. There are significant traffic and safety issues. He would have to see a bypass lane through this site that would be maintained clear at all times for on-site circulation. Perhaps there could be some reduction in the parking spaces. He feels somewhere between 15-16 parking spaces would be appropriate. The project is just too big. The applicant is pushing every single limit. Every element is pushing the boundary. Given that, plus the parking and circulation issues, he could not support the application. Ruth Borne commented Staff would consider looking at this if the applicant were to work on creating more maneuvering room and parking reduction. John Perkins said they would like to table the application and work on it. Chairman Evans asked Dr. Bryant and Mike Thul who were in the audience for their comments as owners on adjacent lots. Dr. Bryant said they have not yet received a legal document from Steve Grow addressing their concerns. Mr. Thul said they specifically asked for legal terms four weeks ago and have not received it yet. Dr. Bryant said it is not a comfortable situation for us with the proposed exits and overflow problems. We are trying to protect our property. Mr. Thul commented there is no extra room for parking and stacking cars at the Pet Center. He sees a huge potential for carwash vehicles in their lot. The building is 10-15 feet closer to the street than the Pet Center and is a very large building. As for the noise, we will here that and there will be noise from the vacuum cleaners. There were no other comments from the public. Chairman Evans closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Sipes moved to table the application. Commissioner McClinton seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-2. Minutes of P82 Meeting September 4, 2001 Page 14 XII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Resolution No. 01-14 Commission Appointment to Village at Avon Design Review Board Commissioner Karow, the temporary Planning and Zoning Board representative to the Village at Avon, said he recently met with Bill Post on the employee housing plans and color renderings for the WalMart and Home Depot stores. There was no formal meeting because the Design Review Board had not yet been formed. He said the Town vote does not really matter. It is a token position. Mr. Post told him they were going to set up several different sets of design review guidelines; a commercial component, an employee housing unit component, residential component and an infill component. There will be different regulations for each design area. The employee housing, WalMart and Home Depot will be the defining buildings. Chairman Evans said massing and employee housing need to meet the codes. There are Guidelines in the PUD and annexation agreements. They need to adhere to them and comply or we can call them back in for violating the covenants and standards that we approved as part of the annexation. It was asked if Bill Post could attend the next Planning and Zoning meeting. Chairman Evans nominated Commissioner Karow to the Village at Avon Design Review Board. The nomination was approved unanimously. B. Staff Approvals: 1. Lot 32, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision 2643 Beartrap Road Parking Space 2. Lot 43, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 520 Nottingham Road, Unit C, Snowrun Townhomes Reroofing 3. Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 110 East Beaver Creek Boulevard Antenna 4. Lot 9, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Sherwood Meadows, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 371 Nottingham Road Reroofing Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 4, 2001 Page 15 5. Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 351 Benchmark Road Trash Enclosure 6. Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek 160 Beaver Creek Boulevard Concrete Paving Colors C. Sign Permits: Reviewed by Eric Johnson 1. Tract B-2, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 230 Chapel Square, Building D "Loans", "Furs" 2. Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek 160 Beaver Creek Boulevard "Sheraton's Mountain Vista" 3. Lot 1, Nottingham Station 15 Hurd Lane "Burger King" XIII. Adjourn Commissioner Macik moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Karow seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cecelia Fenton Recording Secretary APPROVED: September 18, 2001 Chris Evans C Chairman EVVIvi Wgs Minutes of P&Z Meeting September4, 2001 Page 16