Loading...
PZC Minutes 091801 (2)Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting September 18, 2001 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road 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 Commissioners Klein and Karow. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda None IV. Conflicts of Interest None V. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the September 4, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sipes moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VI. NON-COMPLIANCE OF APPROVED DESIGN LOT C, Sheraton Mountain Vista 160 Beaver Creek Boulevard Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development, stated there were three items of discrepancy in construction on the project; the arches over the Employee Housing building, the entry truss and the retail arcade. The concerns are related to what was seen on the mock up and in Design Review. Aleksandr Sheykhet, representing the applicant, explained why these changes were made. Commissioner Sipes said it is your responsibility to come back and say this does not work, you need to change this and state the reasons why you need to change what was on the approved plans. We were not given a chance to review these changes prior to them taking place. You deviated from the approved plans and it is not what was approved. The mock up was approved with the glue lam beam with a steel bracket connecting it to the timber post. There were many discussions during the approval process on how important that lower story was to the scale of the building and how important the detailing was on this project. Chairman Evans stated the Commission is considering tonight whether the changes that have been made on the inside truss, the box beams and the vertical columns are approvable. Commissioner Wolfe said the discrepancies between the first and second trusses are not acceptable. These changes lower the quality of the building. Commissioner Macik stated the front entry arch was not acceptable. He might be able to go along with the box beams. The vertical columns seem out of proportion to the base and he would not approve them. Commissioner McClinton stated he was not pleased with the archway. He was concerned that changes have taken place which have not been brought to Staff for approval. Chairman Evans said it is your responsibility to resubmit any deviations from the final DRB approved drawings to this Commission. We will hold you to what is in writing. We would not have approved the archway with two distinctly different glue lam trusses. He was totally against the box beams. They need to be changed to a glue lam detail as originally proposed. He may have gone along with the vertical columns had they been submitted at DRB. The appearance of the mass of the anchor of the building is important. The arcade was supposed to provide that detail. You will be held to what you submitted and was subsequently approved. Commissioner Sipes moved to deny the submissions for design change for the truss, the glue lam beam and the posts for the Sheraton Mountain Vista. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VII. SPECIAL REVIEW USE - Public Hearings A. Resolution No. 01-13 Lot 41, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: Day Care Applicant/Owner: Shawn and Michael Walkowicz Address: 2121-B Long Spur Eric Johnson, Planning Technician, stated the applicant was proposing a home day care for children ages 1'/2 to 3 years old. The Zoning Code specifically allows for day care. There would be a total of six children; four customers and two children of their own. Hours of operation would be 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. There would be no employees and no deliveries. Parking should not be an issue. There is a two -car garage with three exterior parking spaces. Customers would be dropping off and picking up their children and not staying for an extended period of time. The application is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with adjacent uses. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Five letters have been received from residents opposing this application. Chairman Evans stated the Commission has eight criteria from the Town of Avon Zoning Code on which to review this application. Applicant, Mike Walkowicz, said he is speaking on behalf of his wife, Shawn, who will be the day care provider. This day care proposal is in response to our personal financial needs and that of the community for day care. The Town and County encourage day care. We will comply Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 18, 2001 Page 2 with all the rules and regulations of the Town, the State and the County that govern such an enterprise. The neighbors concerns are our concerns and we do not want to alienate them. A concern of the neighbors is liability. We are open to purchasing more insurance. Commissioner Wolfe said one of the concerns of the neighbors is traffic. Would you be willing to stagger the drop off and pick up times? Mr. Walkowicz said yes, they would encourage that. The Public Hearing was opened. Rich Carroll, 2121-A Long Spur, the adjacent duplex homeowner, handed a petition to the Commission stating it had been signed by 14 homeowners and has 18 total signatures in opposition to this application. We have two children and understand the need for day care. However, we are opposed to day care which is a commercial use in our residentially zoned area. We share the same driveway and during the winter with snow, the parking and driveway area will be an issue. Snowplowing will hinder the parking situation. Liability is an issue. Noise and traffic will affect our quality of life. Susan Peterson, 2133-A Long Spur, the neighbor on the other side of the applicant, said when there is a proposed change, neighbors are supposed to receive notice. She did not receive a notice and their neighbor did not come to them to talk about the proposal. She and her husband are definitely opposed to this application. It is inappropriate for this location. Parking will be a problem. It will affect our quality of life. Eric Johnson stated public notices were mailed to residences within 300 feet, the property was noticed with a sign and the public notice was posted in four Town locations. Ruth Borne said it is required that the list of adjacent property owners be provided by a title company which is based on the assessor's most current information. We have the list provided by the title company. Gerry Carroll, 2121-A Long Spur, the direct party wall owner, said we also did not receive the notice. Traffic and quality of life is a concern and also the liability. The back yard is common to us; there is no delineation. Our driveway is common with the applicant and this is a huge issue for us. She was told by her neighbor that this application was already approved. Chairman Evans said no it was not. Dave Yoder, 2137-B Long Spur, said this is a business, it is not in the character of the neighborhood. Your stipulations of drop off times, ages, etc., are unenforceable. These folks are entrepreneurs, their idea is to make money. We used to have a day care next to us and had many problems with it. The Commission must consider the character of the neighborhood in terms of how the neighborhood is used. It is a residential neighborhood and day care is a business. It should be in a commercial area. The Commission needs to enforce the criteria. We had trouble getting insurance when the day care was next to us because the insurance company said it is a commercial enterprise. Day care changes the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has set one neighbor against another. Amy Holm, 2110 Long Spur, said it is not civil in the neighborhood right now; there have been lots of heated comments. She has her child in a day care center that works and it did not take a long time to get her child into one. She would like to see more information as to the need in the area. She thinks some of the community problems with day care is that people wait until the last minute to try to get their child into one. The day care need should not be my issue or the neighbors' issue to solve. Neighbors are being pitted against neighbors. Her concern was what happens when more applicants come in for approval. Suddenly it becomes a much bigger Minutes of P8Z Meeting September 18, 2001 Page 3 issue. The criteria says no audible noise outside the dwelling unit. Children will be playing outside and noise will be a problem. Insurance will also be a problem. Margy Orcutt, 2140 Longspur, said this is a wonderful, quiet street. There are children who play hockey in the street and that is alright; but, to add more children to the scenario is unwise. We are on a cul-de-sac and the traffic is kept to a minimum. The applicant is prohibited from having any employees on the premises; but, the Staff Report recommendation state there would be no employees allowed to work on the premises on a regular basis. Which is it? Applicant, Mrs. Walkowicz, said the State allows a substitute to come in, but no regular employees. Mark Kizzire, 2133-A Long Spur, said this will obviously be an infringement on the neighbors. He agreed there is a need for day care centers but not next door to him. The applicant did not have the decency nor the courtesy to come and talk to us about this. Tom Spooner, lives across the street from the applicant at 2110 Long Spur. If this is approved, someone else could then come and apply. Where do you cut it off? Disapproval at this point is better then pitting neighbor against neighbor. Barb Murray, a real estate agent, said she does not live in Wildridge. She was asked to come in to speak on behalf of some of the absentee owners. People who are recommending approval of this day care seem to be heavily biased; people who are more neutral should be making recommendations. It will impact the value and resale of the homeowners' property values. It will affect the value of the other side of that duplex. If this is approved because of the needs of the children, it needs to be also looked at as the need of the neighborhood. She spoke of the audible noise that will be heard outside the residence. That is against one of the criteria. Morgan Turner, 2455 Old Trail, said there is an increase in noise inside the residence with the common wall. The impact is there. A day care was approved where he lives and the increase in noise with just two children is very audible. He is thinking about moving. Wendy Van Wyhe, 2350-A Saddleridge Loop, said her back yard is adjacent to the applicant. She asked if a fence was required by the State. Chairman Evans said a fence is not part of this application. If there is a fence, the applicant must come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. The applicant said the State requires a fence unless the Town denies it. Ms. Van Whye said having an adjacent backyard with the applicant, she is concerned about there being a fence. She asked about the policy of fences in Wildridge. Chairman Evans said fences are discouraged in Wildridge. Chairman Evans reviewed the criteria for fences in Wildridge. Commissioner Sipes said special consideration for a fence would not be given just because it is for day care. John Wolcott, of 2140 Long Spur, said this should be denied because of parking. There is insufficient egress. One driveway services both sides of the duplex. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Wolfe commented the neighbors have raised valid issues. If this is approved, you have the right to appeal the decision to Council. Anyone can move into a house in the neighborhood with six children and the affect would be the same. We must review the application within a set of requirements set by the Town. He agrees with Staffs comments on all three points. This application does meet the zoning requirements. Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 18, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Sipes stated he sees the noise ordinance written to prohibit a business of an industrial nature, not children. You live in a multi -family neighborhood that has children. He encouraged people to talk to their Town representatives to change the ordinance if they feel strongly about this. The Commission must review these applications by the criteria that has been set. We have zoning that specifically allows for this use and the language encourages it. That comes from Town Council. Parking is demonstrated to be adequate. This use is drop off and pick up. He does not see this changing the character of the neighborhood; there are already children in the neighborhood. Commissioner McClinton commented there is a need for day care in this area. It is a big problem. This is an application for a day care, not a strip mall. Staffs recommendation is valid and backed by the Town's codes. The Comprehensive Plan encourages this use and the application meets the review criteria. He saw no reason why this should be denied. Commissioner Macik said it meets the current review criteria and should be approved due to that. He did not see the traffic argument being a real problem. Chairman Evans said we have been appointed by Council to enforce the rules. We are applying the guidelines given. The end result should be appealed to Town Council. We hear what you are saying and your comments should go to Council. Commissioner Sipes moved to approve Resolution No. 01-13 approving a Special Review Use Permit to establish a home occupation for day care at Lot 41, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Unit B, subject to the following conditions. Chairman Evans asked to amend Condition Number 3 to read no employees shall be allowed to work on the property. The conditions are: 1. No more than six (6) total infants and toddlers inclusive per day are allowed. 2. Parking cannot interfere with access to the adjacent units. 3. No employees shall be allowed to work on the property. 4. A State of Colorado license for infant and toddler day care is required. 5. A Town of Avon Business License is required. 6. Approval is valid for one year and renewal is subject to Planning and Zoning Commission review. Commissioner McClinton seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Macik objecting. Chairman Evans called recess at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:03 p.m. B. Resolution No. 01-12 Lot 30, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Project Type: Automatic Carwash Applicant/Owner: Steve Grow Address: 710 Nottingham Road Eric Johnson gave the Staff presentation. The applicant has previously appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 7 and September 4, 2001. Parking, circulation, lot coverage and landscaping now comply. Staff has revised the parking requirement to 17 parking spots. The driveway has been expanded by removing part of the building. Site coverage maximum for the building has been reduced to 44.6 percent and the landscaping has been Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 18, 2001 Page 5 increased to 24 percent. Staff still has concerns about the express detailing and recommends review in one year. Staff recommends approval with conditions. John Perkins, architect for the applicant, said they reduced the areas of retail space and eliminated two spaces enabling them to bring this into compliance. Commissioner Sipes asked about the second story windows. Mr. Perkins said he is not proposing a second story. It is just vaulted space. Commissioner Macik asked if engineering has looked at this application. Eric Johnson said yes, It meets the Town's requirements for access and circulation. The Public Hearing was opened. Mike Thul, adjacent property owner, said one stipulation and concern we have is that we agree upon an easement agreement and the parking situation with Mr. Grow. Dr. Bryant, adjacent property owner, said the applicant has done the right things to make this work. He was not convinced this is the right use for this property. We have concerns about this whole parking situation. Mike Thu] and I are not satisfied with answers given to us by Mr. Grow. We have a shared easement. Regardless of what happens tonight, Mike and I have to be satisfied with our outstanding issues with the applicant. There must be a legal document and remedies for the problems. The Public Hearing was closed Commissioner Sipes commented the applicant has addressed our concerns. He suggested the applicant review the Federal Fair Housing Act for the employee housing. This application meets our review criteria. Commissioner Macik would like to see less parking spaces and more landscaping on the ground to soften the base of the building. He still sees the roof overhangs in the setback. Mr. Perkins said it should not be there. We will pull those back. Chairman Evans commented he is not 100% comfortable with the use of the property but sees no reason not to approve the Special Review Use application. Commissioner Macik moved to approve Resolution No. 01-12 approving a Special Review Use for Lot 30, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision for a car wash with the following findings: 1. That the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code. 2. That the proposed use is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The access easementlagreement between the owners of Lots 30 and 31 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek must be approved and recorded prior to submittal of the Final Design application. 2. The approval of the express detailing is conditional upon review by the Planning and Zoning Commission in one year from date of approval. Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 18, 2001 Page 6 3. The roof overhangs will not encroach into the setbacks. Commissioner Sipes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VIII. FINAL DESIGN A. Lot 48, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: Duplex Residence Applicant/Owner: Tom Marcin Address: 2430 Saddleridge Loop Ruth Borne stated the applicant has revised his plans and made changes according to recommendations given at last meeting. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Applicant, Tom Marcin, was not in attendance. Commissioners Macik, Sipes and Evans said they were satisfied with the grading revisions. Commissioner Sipes said the landscaping plan does not meet what is intended for Wildridge. There is no landscaping shown on three sides of the building. He would like to add a condition for approval addressing that issue. Commissioner Sipes moved to approve Final Design for Lot 48, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision with the conditions listed below to be submitted at the time of building permit application. Commissioner McClinton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 1. An address sign will be required at the entrance to the property to comply with E911 standards. The location of the address sign must be identified on the site plan. 2. Decks must be indicated on the site plan. 3. Grading and drainage around the window wells must be clarified. Top of Wall/Bottom of Wall elevations on the window wells will be required. 4. Decks and railing must be indicated on the elevations. 5. Retaining walls exceeding four (4) feet must be certified by a soils engineer that construction occurred in accordance to engineered stamped plans. 6. Submit a revised landscaping plan addressing all sides of the building. IX. PUD - Public Hearing A. Resolution No. 01-15 Lots 38, 40 & 41 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Project Type: Apartment Complex Applicant: Tanavon Corporation Owner: KOA Holdings, Inc. Address: 491 Metcalf Road Ruth Borne stated Staff has been working with the applicant over the past several months. Staff recommends approval. This project will still be required to go through Design Review. Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 18, 2001 Page 7 Commissioner Evans asked about the transfer of development rights from adjacent properties with certain properties becoming open space turned over to the Town. Ruth Borne said Lot 38 will be designated open space and conveyed to the Town. Eric Johnson made the Staff presentation. He said the applicant is proposing a 45 -unit employee housing project previously titled "The Cove" PUD. The PUD for The Cove was originally approved by ordinance in 1981 through a transfer of development rights from a residential density 'pool' that were not assigned elsewhere in Wildridge. The current proposal is for 18 units in 6 buildings on Lot 40 and 27 units in 9 buildings on Lot 41. Lot 38 will not be developed and is proposed as open space. There will be a portion of the parking for Lot 41 on the Metcalf Road side of the Metcalf Drainage Ditch that connects to the development via a pedestrian bridge. Staff recommends approval. Approval for this PUD should be for the proposed Barrancas development only. Ruth Borne stated Engineering, Public Works and the Fire Department have recommended approval. Commissioner Sipes asked if the stream crossings had to be permitted by the Army Corp. Ms. Borne answered yes. That condition is contained in Staffs recommendations. Commissioner Macik had questions about the curb cut on the main parking lot on Lot 41. Andrew Royster, Rick Dominic and Ray Nielsen were present representing the Tanavon Corporation. Mr. Royster said they are willing to coordinate with Public Works to locate a bus stop on Lot 41. Chairman Evans asked if there was an environmental study for this site. Mr. Royster answered yes. Commissioner Macik said he was opposed to five total curb cuts and especially the one on the curve. Chairman Evans cautioned that if this application is approved, the Commission will still have the right to comment on massing, detailing, overhang, architectural styling, landscaping and materials at Final Design. There is no implied approval of those items based on this PUD. Ray Nielsen questioned what the approval of the PUD entailed. Was it reviewing the site, grading, the general concept? Chairman Evans said that is part of this PUD. What the Commission is not approving tonight is the building architecture. The applicant still must go through the Design Review process. The Board reviewed what was covered in the PUD approval and what was not. Chairman Evans suggested the applicant participate in work sessions with the Commission on their Design Review submittal. The Public Hearing was opened. No one made comments. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Sipes moved to approve Resolution No. 01-15 recommending approval of Barrancas PUD for Lots 38, 40 and 41, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following conditions: Concurrent with the Final Design application, the following items must be provided: 1. Revised subsoil and geologic hazards reports. 2. Engineered retaining walls for all walls over 4'0" in height. 3. Revise grading at the furthest north building on Lot 41. Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 18, 2001 Page 8 4. Permanent and temporary erosion control. 5. Label each unit. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit, the following items must be provided: 1. Execution of Deed Restriction Agreement with the Town of Avon. 2. Approval from the Army Corps of Engineers. 3. Verification of water pressure and anticipated flow. 4. Resolution on fire access and sprinkler requirement. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. X. OTHER BUSINESS A. Village at Avon Ruth Borne said the Town only has approval on Subdivision, not Design Review. She stated Mr. Post said comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission should be funneled through their appointed representative. Discussion ensued regarding the Design Guidelines. B. Staff Approvals: Lot 11, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision 1011 Wildwood Road Retaining Walls XI. ADJOURN Commissioner Sipes moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner McClinton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted Cecelia Fenton Recording Secretary APPROVED: Octo r2, 2001 Chris Evans FA, Chairman Ra --t K1eia Geeretay v — 'ijVvj c (fvsl Minutes of P&Z Meeting September 18, 2001 Page 9