Loading...
PZC Minutes 050388RECORD Or PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MAY 3, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on May 3, 1988, at 7:40 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Pat Cuny. Members Present: Pat Cuny, Tom Landauer, Frank Doll, John Perkins, Denise Hili Clayton McRory Staff Present: Norm Wood, D=.rector of Engineering and Community Development; Ray Wright Engineering Technician; Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Introduction of New Members Chairwoman Pat Cuny introducea Clayton McRory, .'John Perkins and Denise Hill as newly appointed members of the Commission. Election of Officers Cuny called for nominations for Chairperson. Landauer nominated Pat Cuny for Chairperson. Doll stated that he felt that Cuny had represented the Commissiin very well the past year and does not see any advantage in changing leadership at this tim-. No other nominations were made. The nomination passed unanimously. Cuny called for nominations for Vice -Chairperson. Landauer nominated Frank Doll. No other nominations were made. The nomination passed unanimously. Cuny called for nominations for Secretary. McRory nominated Tom Landauer Doll nominated Denise Hill. The nominations were closed. Cuny called for a vote for Landauer as Secretary with McRory and Perkins voting aye. Cuny called for a vote for Hill with Doll, Cuny and Landauer voting aye. Denise Hill is the new Secretary. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes May 3, 1988 Page 2 of 11 Lot b9, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Variance to Allow Parking Within 10 Foot Front Yard Setback - Public Hearing And De=ign Review For A Retail Development. Wright stated that the owners of Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek have applied for Design Review of a retail development they are proposing for the site. The site is located directly across the street from City Market. The development generally consists of a single story building housing retail shops served by surface parking. The applicant is also requesting approval of a variance to allow ;.he surface parking to encroach approximately three feet intc the ten foot front yard setbacks along Beaver Creek Place and East Beaver Creek Boulevard. Due to a number of concerns that the Staff had in reviewing they proposal, the applicant is requesting at this time tt.at both items be continued to the next regular meeting. In case there is someone present at the meeting who is here to speak, on the variance due to the public notice that was sent out, it would be appropriate to open the public hearing and take that inout. A separate action will bE required to continue the application for Design Review and the Variance. Curly opened the public hearing and called for any comments from the audience. She asked also if there had been any correspondence received by the Staff. With no public input received Curly closed the public hearing. Doll moved to continue the public hearing for the variance. Landauer seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Landauer moved to continue the design review applici-tion. Doll seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Winfield Inn, Lot 73/74 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Sign Progam, Design rReview Wright stated that the Wynfield Inn has been purchased by a nationwide hotel chain and the new owners are requesting approval of a new E:gn program for the project. They are proposing to change the two existing building mounted signs with similar pan channel letters that read "Comfort :nn" and replace the free standing sign out front with a standard Comfort Inn monument sign. The project currently has 96 square feet o+ signage, which is the maximum that would be allowed Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes May 3, 1988 Page 3 of 11 under the sign code, with the 50% increase for a sign program. This proposal is 12 feet over that due to the fact that we have to count both sides of the monument sign. Because of the 12 square feet they technically need a variance to get this approved. The building mounted signs are virtually the same size as the current signs. The color of the faces will be yellow instead of green. The monument sign will be the standard colors for the new chain. Discussion followed on the colors. Bill London, Manager of the Wynfield, stated that in clarification, they are not changing ownerships, they are gust getting a name change. Discussion followed on the size of the monument sign. Mr. London stated that this is the smallest Comfort Inn sign made. Discussion followeJ on the procedure for variances on signs. Cuny stated the criteria and findings required for granting a variance Doll moved that the variance be granted under the findings of A: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; and B -i: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. Landauer seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Sunridge Phase II Clubhouse Preliminary Design Review Wright stated that the Sunridge Phase II Homeowners Association has applied for Preliminary Design Review of a Clubhouse they propose to construct. The building will be located at the north end of the site between the parking lot and the river, and between buildings "J" and "K". Improvements include locker rooms, hot tub, steam and sauna, exercise room, office, and a multi-purpose room with a small kitchen. An area for construction of a future swimming pool is also indicated on the plans. Materials include wood siding, river -rock, and shake shingles. Wright stated that a representative from the Homeowners Association was present to make the presentation and answer any questions, however Mr. kraft wished to wait until his architect arrived. While waiting for the architect to arrive, discussion followed on bhe resignation of Commission member Mark Donaldson. Wood stated that the Council would be appointing another Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes May 3, 1988 Page 4 of 11 member to the Commission in the near future. Mark Donaldson stated that the clubhouse would be restricted to Phase II owners and residents and guests. This has been planned for several years and has been reduced to bring it back into a budget that they can afford. There will be a substantial re -landscaping program and re -paving of a lot of the areas. The lower level consists of the men's and women's locker rooms, the management offices, reception area, aerobics room, hot tubs, spa etc. along with some storage and mechanical space for the opera+ion of the rental management program. The second floor is a multi-purpose room with a kitchen. They have designed the building to compliment the exisiting construction, but somewhat differ in a wav that is helpful. The building is pretty much in keeping with the layout of the existing buildings. Discussion followed on the request that the building be located so as to allow for a future bike path. Lamont described the areas for the future bike path. Donaldson also stated that they would work with the Staff on the matter of handicap access. Lamont reviewed the design review guidelines and commented on each guideline in conjunction with this application. Lamont then reviewed the applicable goals, policies and programs. Cuny asked the Commission if they had any questions about Mr. Lamont's report. She then asked Mr. Donaldson if he had any questions or comments regarding the report. Mr. Donaldson stated he would address any questions the Commission might have regarding the report. Perkins stated that the Commision should look at how to relocat> the building to provide the corridor between the river and he felt that more information on the parking lot was necessary. Discussion followed on the parking as it is currently and as it is proposed. Wood stated that one item that had been discussed as a possible solution was the re-arrangment of the deck area in the hot tub area along the ditch. Discussion on the parking continued, in particular the necessity for a fire safety area in front of the building. Mr. Kraft stated that thr deletion of two or three spaces right in front would be no problem, but any more would not be workable. Considerable discussion followed an the possible \1 '0 s O M Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes May 3, 19ee Page 5 of 11 re -location of the building. Donaldson stated that they could better re -design the hc.t tub area rather than try to re-locatra the building itself. Cuny asked about the materials to be used. Donaldson stated that everything will match the existing buildings_ Donaldson stated that there are a couple windows that they realize are too targe and they will be de=signing them smaller. They will take out about 25% of the window area on the stair tower. Discussion followed on the necessity for a children's playground. Doll suggested that a solution to the bike path problem might be th=_t the ditch be filled with pipe and covered as the ditches in Eagle Vail are. Doll moved to grant Preliminary Design approval with the following contingencies to be addressed before sinal design is approved: 1. Give consideration to the north side of the building to allow for bike path to be built in the future. 2. Look into current drainage and filtration system as it exists and modifications that may need to be made in the future in order to accomodate the project. 3.. Designation of an emergency lane in front of the building to accomodate ambulance and/or fire equipment. 4. Give consideration to handicapped access into the building. 5. Consider the landscaping design in front of the '-wilding. Landauer seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 3, Block E. Wildridge Subdivision, Otterman and Associates, 20 Unit Condominium Project, Preliminary Design Review and Lot v Block 5 Wildridge Subdivision,_ Otterman and Associates, 24 Unit Condominium _Project; Preliminary Design Review Wood stated that there are two projects that are very similar, but are being treated as two separate actions, in that the first project is located on Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision and the other pr-ject is located on Lot 6, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision. Otterman and Associates has applied for preliminary design review for these two projects. Wood suggested that they go through the Staff report on Lot u. The comments will be virtually the same for both projects. Even thouoh it will take two separate actions, the comments will. apply to both projects. On Lot 3 a 20 unit project is proposed. Lot 3 is currently --s=_i.gned 4 residential development rights. This would be a fractionalized project, having 20 one bedroom units, slightly under- 450 40 4R e Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes May 3, 19ee Page 6 of li square feet in each unit. The site area for Lot 3 is approximately 40,510 square feet. The building area proposed for this site is about 5250 square feet or approximately 13% of site area. The building height is approximately 31 feet. Approximately 57% of the site will be open space. 35 parking spaces are proposed which conforms with the zoning code for that number and type of units. In general the site plan conforms with parting and access requirements., Wood stated that there are some other concerns that should be addressed in going into the final design including Fire Department access around the building, adequacy of water supply, and another request from the Fire Department regarding areas at each stairway accessing the parking lot be designated as emergency access lanes. Wood stated that those spaces have been treated as such on the plan and those areas have not been counted in meeting the parking requirements. Staff also felt that site ligh;-ing and pedestrian circulation in the parking area were concerns that should be addressed. The proposed project take=_ the parking lot right up to the building, with no separation between parting and building at all. The revised plans that have been submitted since the Staff comments does include some lighting on the building, but no provision has been made on getting lighting further out into the parking lot and particularly the area of the entrances. Another concern is that the site grading plan shows regrading of the entire site. This would destroy all the natural vegetation and require complete re -vegetation of the site. 1.1e final grading and drainage plan must address snow storage and treatment facilities for parking lot runoff as required by the zoning code. Wood stated that in reviewing this project that the Commission very thoroughly look at the design review guidelines and whatever action is taken it should be based upon those guidelines. Wood then stated the guidelines to be considered. He stated that with Wildridge there were no Goals, Policies and Programs adopted for that area since it was a specially planned area and a lot of it was determined through the specially planned area and the plan for that site. Cuny asked if the applicant had to get approval here before going to the covenants committee or get approval from the covenants committee before he come= before the Commis -,ion. Wood stated that those are private covenan`s and while the Staff tries co make the applicant aware of those covenants, it is not part of our review process or approval. The project has to be reviewed based upon our own desigr: review guidelines. ,• am Ne Nil C: Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutcs May 3, 1988 Page 7 of 11 Mark Donaldson stated that he was representing Otterman and Associates, who is working with a fcderal loan program that is basically a 24 month window, from April 1, 1988 to April 1, 1990- There is a federally approved program for rental housing projects. There has been several mill?on dollars alloted and approved for the State of Colorado and the Eagle County Extension agent has researched and provided written material supporting the need for this type of housing in the Eagle County area for employees. The two sites have been combined for the purposes of the federal loan program. It will be a rental apartment project and will remain that for 15 years. That is the stipulation of the program. The units are not for sale and are not really ror short term rentals. They are rent restricted. They will be constructed as condominiums and after 15 years they will be for sale. Hill asked if the covenants in Wildridge allowed this. Donaldson stated ghat there were no restrictions in the zone districts as far as rental projects are concerned. Donaldson described the vehicular circulation on the sites and snow storage. He stated that possibly a three foot walkway could be provided along the buildings if that would satisfy the Commission. Each unit is accessed from the parking lot by one of the stairwells whit;) is connected between each double unit. On Lot 3 the two southerly buildings are two stories high and the two northerly buildings are three stories high. On Lot 6 all four buildings are three stories high. They all have the same unit plan and same building layout. Donaldson stated that there are large amounts of cut and fill and revegetation to be done. He read a letter from Ellison Design, addressed to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the current vegetation on the site, and suggestions regarding the grading and revegetation of the sites. Donaldson provided photographs showing the slope ano revegetation problems of the area. Donaldson stated that the overall goal is to provide approximate parking to all the units, control the parking for snow storage, drainage and vehicular circulation, etc. avid to keep the buildings as simply positioned on the sites as possible. They prefer to regra.de to match the existing slope so that they don't have the stairstep with retaining walls. Donaldson stated that the parking lot lights were something that just has not been addressed at this preliminary stage, but will provide detail information on it at the final review. Donaldson described to the Commission members various_ facets of the design of the buildings and the parking Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes may 3, 1988 Page 8 of 11 and the grading. Donaldson stated that the Fire Department asked that on Lot b, uphill from the parking lot, a fire break be provided. Lamont questioned the suitability of subsidized employee housing in a Specially Planned Area, stating that when zone districts were established Tract "P" was designated for employee housing. He stated that a government subsidized hou=_inj would encourage transient economically unstable residents in a stable residential subdivision which is remote from employment and personal service centers and the remoteness may require dependence on mass transporta'_ion to gain access to employment and personal services. Lamont also discussed compatibility with existing site conditions, amenities, fire safety, sidewalks, building mass, handicapped access, childrens playground, site landscaping and wildlife habitat. Lamont then reviewed and commented on the compatibility of the desion to minimize site impacts on adjacent properties, and with site topography. The visual appearance as viewed from adjacent and neighhoring properties was then reviewed. Lamont stated that the mass of the three story flat roof structure is inconsistent with the two and three story structures with pitched roofs on adjacent properties as required by subdivision design guidelines. Lamont stated that no information or standards is presently available that indicates that either the proposed use nor the aesthetics of the improvement are so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. However, the intent and language of the Fractionalization Ordinance permits development rights to be fractionalized into a "combination" of smaller units. The type and number of units being proposed for the vicinity does not attain the intent of the Fractionalization Ordinance. The uniformity and amount of residential unit types proposed may remove the desirability of a broader range and quality of housing types that could be located on adjacent properties and in the vicinity. Lamont stated that insufficient information is presently available to determine that the proposed improvement conforms with the adopted goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. Lamont stated that employee housing was needed, where it is located is critical and support services are critical and what happens to the expansion and general development of the neighborhood after the proje,.t goes in is equally important. lC Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes May 3, 1988 Page 9 of 11 Terry Halverson commented that some guidelines need to be established for lenders regarding what policies the Commission will be following for the Wildridge area. Cuny asked the Commission members if they had any questions regarding Mr. Lamont's report. Cuny stated that she did not like the design. She does not like the flat ;ook or the modular style building and she has trouble wit,i she stripping for regrading of the entire lot. Donaldson stated again that the regrading is to avoid the use of retaining walls and the flat roof is to keep maintenance to a minimum regarding snow. Pitched roofs dump snow and it would be dumped on the balconies or in the parking lot. He stated that they could offset the buildings some and play up the stairwell roofs a bit more. He stated he could provide some revised plans incorporating some of the concerns the Commission has regarding the design. Cuny stated that another concern she has is that he has maxed out the fractionalization ordinance, to possibly not be exactly what the ordinance was meant to be. Another concern she has is the size of the units and the fact that the tBize would cause it to be transient in nature as opposed to permanent residents. Donaldson asked Norm Wood to share the verbal opinion received from John Dunn regarding the fractionalization issue. Wood stated that the statement in the fractionalization ordinance was to promote various size housing units for both short term and long term area residents. The regulation portion of the ordinance does not require any specific mix. Wood stated that this is not a written opinion on this matter, it is just a verbal opininon. Wood stated that in the adoption of the ordinance the intent was to promote a mix of units, however there were no safeguards incorporated into the ordinance to specifically prevent tt,is type of project. One other issue regarding this particular project in the SPA zone district, relating to subsidized, or public housing, there is one zone that addresses public or private employee housing only and that is Tract "P", which is zoned GPEH. In the SPA, typically, uses allowed are specifically identified in the land use plan. Uses, unless specifically mentioned, are excluded from the SPA plan. This is probably the most serious question regarding this particular project. Landauer asked if the applicant would consider a mixture, rather than all one bedroom size? Donaldson stated that the client has said ito and the Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes May 3, 1988 Page 10 of 11 reason is that they have a restricted rent rate in this particular program. Donaldsun stated he would like to focus on the design rather than the unit mix, etc. Perkins stated that he feels that the fract:ionaliza*ion issue is getting out of hand and something needs to done to correct the problem than seems to be developing. He stated that this many one bedroom units does not sit well with him. Discussion followed on the quantity of two bedroom units that are now unrented and /or sold. Perkins stated that he felt that this was a visually hard project and he didn't reel that this is the kind of statement to be made for the entry into Wildridge. If the mix could be broken up the design could probably be changed from the bony look. Donaldson stated that he thought that the hardness could be addressed without messing with the units. Perkins stated that as the project has been presented he cannot support it. It has to have a lot more creative t-eatment than has been presented. Donaldson stated that they could introduce some more interesting architecture if that is what the Commission desires. Cuny asked if the applicant would like to continue the application for a redesign of the buildings? Donaldson stated that they would certainly like to have that opportunity. Landauer moved to continue the applications for both Lot 3, Block 5, and Lot b, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision until a further meeting for redesign of the project. Doll seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Terry Halverson reiterated his previous comments and discussion followed. Perkins suggested that maybe the Commission should recommend to the Council that they ought to review the fractionalizztion legislation and possibly adding some sort of ac.'_adum that addresses mix. Lamont stated that one of the research issues that the Staff and consultants will be dealing with is the zoning language issue in terms of clarification. It may not be the fractionalization that will be studied, but how the Specially Planned Areas are dealt with. i 40 • Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes May 3, 1988 Page 11 of 11 Reading and Approval of P & Z Minutes of 4/19/88 Regular Meeting E Doll moved to approve the minutes of the 4/19/88 minutes as submitte:l. Hill, seconded. The motion carried unanimously. With no other business to come before the Commission, McRory moved to adjourn. Landauer seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, v M2? QsLl� ��� Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Commiss P. Luny T. Land F. Doll J. Perk D. Hill C. MCRc A. Reyr w