Loading...
PZC Minutes 020789-1 "WIN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on February 7, 1989, at 7:35 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: Frank Doll, Pat Cuny, Denise Hill, Buz Reynolds, John Perkins, Tom Landauer Staff Present: Lynn Fritzlan, Department of Community Development; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary; Norm Wood, Director of Community Development Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, 24 Unit Residential Complex, South Harbor Development Corporation. Dan Hunter, Architect, Side Setback Variance_,_ Public Hearing. Fritzlen stated that Dan Hunter, on behalf of South Harbor Development Corporation, is requesting a sideyard setback variance of varying width on Lot P, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, for an open carport. The area of the encroachment is approximately 500 square feet. She stated that she had included with the report a copy of the proposed elevation of the building and a site plan that shows the area of encroachment. She described the lot as being triangular and also described the area behind the carport whert, the Rio Grande Railroad runs. She stated that Tony Seibert was present to speak for South Harbor Development. Fritzlen stated that the lot is located next to the ri%er and ner.t to the railroad, across from Sunridge and is zoned RHDC. She stated that there are four build'ing;prodosed, each with six units, three stories. There are two entrances proposed and an area of covered parking. One reason this pushes into the setback is to turn the back of the development on the railroad as both an audial and visual screen. Regarding the variance criteria of any pratical diTFiculty or unnecessary physical hardship, the applicant responded that the unique triangular shape of the prr,perty creates design Planning and Zoning February 7, 1989 Page 2 of 27 Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 8 Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek,_ 24 Unit Residential Complex South Harbor Development Corporation, Dan Hunter Architect, Side Setback Variance,. Public Hearing cont difficulties that preclude utilization of unit density permitted by existing zoning. Furthermore, the railroad fenceline violates the property line additionally reducing the effective area that can be built on. Fritzlen stated that the triangle shape of the lot creates an interesting, but relatively inefficient site circulation and parking layout and that the shape and size in combination are unique to Block. 3, however, the second part of the comment is not particularly pertinent in that the railroad fence, although not located on railroad property, sits within the sideyard setback of Lot 8. With regards to the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site that do not apply to other properties, the applicant responded that the Rio Grande Railroad 300 feet right-of-way borders the entire sideyard of the property and the Eagle River borders the other sideyard. Fritzien stated that the Rio Grande Railroad does act as an audial and visual deterrent to the residential development of the site which is an allowed use and in order to minimize those impacts, the site plan proposes to turn the views towards the river and the parking towards the railroad. She stated that the carports will serve as a means of noise abatement as well as a visual screen from the passing trains. The ability to utilize the unit density permitted by zoning is precluded without the variance was the applicant's comment regarding the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations. Fritzlen stated that although the proposed density is allowed under the fractionalization, the procedure for approval does include u public hearing and review under separate, specific criteria. Fritzlen stated she had included in the report the approval criteria for the variance and also the findings required. She stated that the Staff recommendation is that if the Commission finds that the variance request meets the approval criteria and has adequate findings to grant the variance, approval of Resolution 89-1, which includes the following conditions, approval is recommended: 1. Approval of the applicable utilities for use of the easement; 2. Final ....ti Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 3 of 27 Lot 8 Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek_ 24 Unnt Residential Complexy South Harbor Development Corporation Dan Hunter,_Architect. Side Setback Variance,__Publlc Hearinn9 cont Design Review for the proposal as presented in the variance application; and 3. Variance shall be subject to any further limitations which may be imposed as a result of the required Design Review process. Cuny asked how marry density right,,, the lot has, and Frltzlen replied, 16. Cuny asked how many parking spaces they would need for this many units? Cuny stated they would ask the applicant to respond tr -..his matter. Tony Seibert, representing South Harbor Development Company, stated that South Harbor has been seeking property in the Town of Avon and the Vail Valley to enable them to provide affordEble housing for employees. He stated that this is their first attempt to do this. He stated that he was under the understanding that the property had 25 residential development rights not 16 as stated, however the 16 meets their needs. He stated they are attempting to provide 24, vc.ry attractive, 800 square foot, 2 bedroom, 2 bath units, with a lot of glass facing south and facing the west. He stated they have tried to optimize the amenities of this site by placing all the units on the south portion and facing the sun and facing the views and getting as far away from the railroad track as possible. He stated that they have also added the carport along the railroad right-of-way in order to provide storage and help shroud the railroad tracks from the tenants in the units. They believe that the carports are necessary for storage of personal items as well as their cars and will also make the site more attractive. He stated that the variance request 1s reasonably small. The actual penetration of the setback is only about 8 feet for a small section of the northern property line. In order to get the parking in, and keep the right distance for both the actual parking spaces as well as the driving isle, they have to penetrate the setback. He stated that they are providing 66 parking spaces, but are only required to provide 54. Cuny asked if Mr. Seibert was aware that Avon only allowed compact spacers in covered parking. He stated that he was not aware of it. Fritzlen stated that she had discussed this matter with Dan Hunter and that the parking will be resolved with the L;asian review application. Discussion followed on the covered parking spaces with the storage spaces. Discussion also followed on the encroachment of the railroad Planning and Zoning February 7, 1989 Page 4 of 27 Commission Meeting Minutes M Lot 8 Block 3 Benchmark at Beaver Creek. 24 Unit Residential Complex Soutn marcor ueeveiiwme�ri� man N,,nt.ar_ Architect. Side Setba:,k_Variance, Public Hearing cont fence on the property. Cuny then opened the public hearing and called for any comments from the audien.:;e. Being none, she asked the Staff if there had been any written responses? The Secretary stated that there had been no written responses, but that she had received a tlephone call from the Rio Grande, stating that there was some concern about the encroachment that close to the fence. The Secretary stated she had suggested that someone be here at the meeting, or send a letter voicing their concerns. No letter was received and there had been no other correspondence. Cuny then closed the public hearing and called for any comments from the Commission members. Further discussion followed on the parking situation and the problem of having compact spaces. Discussion followed on the front setback also. Doll stated that, he felt the purpose of this development is commendable, as it is needed. He stated he had no problems with the variance. Perkins stated that because of the shape of the lot, he would go along with this request. Cuny then reviewed the approval criteria and the required findings. She stated that the findings had been included in Resolution 89-1 as well as the three conditions recommended by Staff. Doll moved to approve Resolution 89-1 as written. Hill seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Final Design Review Fritzlen stated that Dan Hunter, on behalf of South Harbor Development is requesting Final Design Review for a conventional duplex on Lot 7, Block I, Fling 1, Eaglebend Subdivision. She stated that each unit is proposed to have approximately 1900 square feet of finished floor area, a 900 square foot basement and a two car garage. She stated that the proposal is similar, but not identical, to the duplex Planning and Zoning commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page ; of 27 Lot 7. Block 1. Filing 1. Eaglebend Subdivi_siony 0uolex ign ReV - ew (cont) approved on Lot 12, Block 1, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, also by South Harbor Development. Fritzlen then described the site layout as shown on the drawings provided. She stated that the proposal appears to be in conformance with the zoning code with the exception that the driveway grades appear to exceed 10% at some points. She stated that at the time of the report Staff was awaiting an amended grading plan, which was received yest,eroay. Another exception is that the basement has the potential to become a second unit. A sliding glass door is indicated on the elevations with access from the basement to the rear yard. She stated that at the time of the report Staff was waiting for a basement floor plan confirming its intended use. Additional density is not allowed under current zoning. She stated that the applicant is aware of this and the intent is to leave the basement unfinished and to allow the future owner to decide about it. With regards to the suitability of the improvements, the proposed duple>, is similar, but not identical, to a previously approved duolex on Lot 12. She stated that the applicant had responded to previous comments and design review criteria discouraging mirror image duplexes by modifying street elevations such that they are non-symetrical and offsetting the two sides by 12 feet, although the riverside: or south elevation is symmetrical. Approval of exterior colors should be based on distinguishing this duplex from its similar neighbor as well as other design criteria. She stated tnat this proposal does not unusually or unreasonably impact adjacent properties. Fritzlen stated that the applicant has complied with the request to submit an amended grading p"an regarding the driveway grade and the grading behind the top of river, bank to minimize potential for erosion. She stated that there are no adopted Goals, policies and Programs for Eaglebend. Fritzlen stated that the Staff recommends that final design review approval be based on the following: Receipt or a Staff approved amend -d grading plan and basement plan, which has been received; approval of exterior materials, colors and lighting; and inclusion of adequate hosebibs on building permit plans for irrigation of landscaping. Tony Seibert provided a rendering of the proposed duplex, showing a totally different look for both sides. He described the changes made from the duplex on Lot 12. He Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 6 of 27 stated that they will use shake roofing, cedar lap -siding and will be painting this one a different color grey and instead of a white trim, they will use a blue trim. He provided samples of the materials to be used. He then described the options to be provided to the buyers, i.e. a finished or unfinished basement or a different arrangement on bedrooms. He stated that this duplex will also have some river rock on it. Discussion followed on the design rendering provided. Perkins voiced some concerns regarding the massing and the chimney renderings. Mr. Seibert stated that he felt something could be done about the chimney appearance. Discussion followed on the matter of stucco being shown on the drawings but not on the rendering. Discussion followed on the color to be used for the stucco. Cuny and Reynolds agreed about the stacks. Discussion followed on the landscaping. Doll asked if the Eaglebend Association has any say in what is being proposed. Mr. Seibert stated that yes they do have to approve the project. Cuny asked about the lighting. Mr. Seibert stated that they are not proposing any lignting other than directly on the building itself. It will be similar to what was used on Lot 12. Fritzlen stated that that would be satisfactory. Doll moved to approve the request for Lot 7, Block 1, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision for a duplex residence by the South Harbor Development Company, with the inclusion of adequate hosebibs on the building permit plans and further that the colors, blue, grey and off-white stucco be used. Reynolds seconded, but also requested that Doll amend his motion to include the chimney stacks will be increased in mass. Doll so amended his motion. The motion passed with Perkins voting nay. Lot 65/66 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis ComoaaY�_ The Annex Fritzlen stated that she has a potential conflict of interest, therefore, she is stepping down on this matter. Wood stated, for the record, that Fritzlen has not been Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 7 of 27 Lots 65/66 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis Company The Annex (cont) consulted �r had anything to do with the staff report or comments regarding this project. Wood stated that the Otis Company has submitted plans for design review for development of Lots 65 and 66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The location of these two lots is bet,.9en the existing Benchmark Shopping Center and the Wal-Mart site. It is bordered by Beaver Creek Place and also comes to a point adjacent to the Avon Road right-of-way. The proposed development generally consists of a one story building with a floor area of 16,400 square feet, plus a separate building for a one story drive-in restaurant with a proposed floor area of 2,386 square feet. Additional facilities include the related parking, driveway, landscaping, and drainage facilities. Proposed building materials include split faced block, stucco and pre -molded metal roofing. He stated that the applicant had indicated that they would bring color information and samples to the meeting tonight. Wood stated that Staff had a number of comments regarding this particular project. He stated that it is located in the SC zone district and appears to be in accordance with the allowed uses in that district. The project is located on two lots and will require resubdivision for conformance with some code items. The total area of the two lots is approximately 91,900 square feet and information submitted with the application indicates the proposed building area and the usable open space area is within the zoning regulations for that zone district and also indicates that it does meet the requirements for snow storage areas. The application also appears to be -in conformance with building heights and zoning restrictions for that district. Wood stated that most of the staff comments are related to site layout, grading, drainage and parking requirements. Wood stated that while there was nothing indicated on the materials that the review was based on, in the drainage plan there wvs a mention of loft space in conjunction with the retail space. Discussion with the applicant has indicated that this loft space adds 5600 square feet of floor area, which was not taken into account in the parking calculations on the plans provided to the Commission. He stated that the staff has suggested that the 16,400 square feet of retail are be calculated at 4/1000, the 5600 square feet of loft area be calculated at 3/1000, which is in accordance with office space regulations, and the seating area of the drive-in restaurant is indicated as 505 square Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting February 7, 1989 Page 8 of 27 lots 65 and 66 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis Company The Annex (cont) feet which is calculated at 1/60 according to the regulations. This would total 90.8 spaces. The Commission, if they feel that everything is appropriate, can allow up to a 15% reduction which would amount to 13.6 spaces for a minimum of a little over 77 or say 78 spaces. The parking plan submitted indicates a total of 81 spaces, so this would be an excess of three spaces. He stated that with only three extra spaces there will be some limitations on uses that could be allowed in the project. Typically a project of this type would be considered a mixed use project and the main floor area would be calculated at 5.5 spaces so it would allow a mixture of uses. Wood stated that the site grading and drainage plan indicates a very deep filter gallery with steep sides located near the south easterly corner of the main building. Wood stated that the applicant has agreed to dedicate a 50 feet wide public access easement along the southerly lot line. He stated on the site plan the easement is fine, but the access does not connect on through to the easterly property line, as it is located further up into the site. He stated that Staff feels a more appropriate alignment would be for the connection to be made directly from the easement to the Wal-Mart site. A pedestrian connection at the location of the proposed connection between the two sites would seem to be very appropriate. He stated that the proposed sidewalk along Beaver Creek Place a•i shown on the drawings does not appear to match the existing sidewalk on the Wal-Mart site. He stated Staff recommends realignment with the existing sidewalk and the sidewalk be located within the property line to provide a greater separation between the street and the sidewalk. This would make it much eaiser for snow removal etc. Wood stated that curb and gutter is not shown on the plans along Beaver Creek Place. Staff believes curb and gutter is appropriate in this area, in that the recent projects that have been approved, i.e. 51 Beaver Creek Place and the Wal-Mart shopping center, all have curb and gutter. Wood stated that very limited information h,Is been provided in the area around the drive-in restaurant. There are not specific locations or dimensions provided. He stated that there may be some discrepancies between the site plan and the elevations for the restaurant. Additional information is Planning and Zoning February 7, 1989 Page 9 of 27 Commission Meeting Minutes Lots 65 and 66 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver _C.reekOtis Company The Annex (cont) needed to determine that. Wood stated th--t the plans do not show parking lot lighting or building exterior lighting. He suggested that this should be compatible with the existing lighting on adjoining properties and adequate light levels be provided at driveway entrances and pedestrian ways for safety purposes. Wood stilted that the project sign adjacent to Beaver Creek Place aypaars to encroach into the 10 foot setback and this could present a safety hazard by obstructing views of oncoming traffic. Wood stated that the proposed site plan is shown with an entrance from Avon Road. He stated the applicant has chosen to proceed without applying to the State Highway Department for approval for this entrance. He stated that this may or may not be a problem, but the Staff feels that if the site plan is based on that access location, there should be some assurance that the entrance will remain. Wood stated that the plans show some information regarding proposed signage, but a more complete sign program as required by Chapter 15.28 of the Avon Sign Code should be conformed with. Wood stated that a letter from Intratect had been received regarding three areas of concern expressed by the owners of the adjacent Tract Q. These include: Additional landscaping along the west side of the southerly portion of the main building to buffer views from the dining deck of the Hole in the Wall Restaurant; Cooperation on solving mutual drainage problems on the mutual drainage and utility easement along the common property line; and Assurance that common north access is properly completed to serve both properties with an appropriate common access. Wood pointed out to the Commission that the plans that they had before them is what the Staff Report was based on. He stated that additional plans had been recieved, but they were too late to recieve review, so in order to keep everything consistent, you were not provided with the recently recieved plans. He stated that he would like to review the recommendations after the applicant has made his presentation. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 10 of 27 Lots 65 and 66. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek,_ Otis Company The Annex (cont) Pat Barron, representing the Otis Company, stated that he would like to discuss the recommendations, but wanted to make a comment that, in planning this project for the last six months, they were not aware that parking for storage was required, therefore they did not allocate any parking to the loft storage in the building. They feel that the interpretation of the loft area for office uses is unfair, as it implies a strict literal office use for tenants other than those tenants within the building. He stated that the purpose of the loft storage is to provide an amenity for tenants, a place to store their goods, increase their buying power. The loft area is not for anyone but the tenant. He stated they had provided additional parking rather than maximizing the size of the building, they tried to provide additional parking to take into account future uses, i.e. a restaurant that might require a more denser number of parking spaces. Mr. Barron stated, regarding recommendations Number 2, (concerning site grading and drainage) and Number 3,(concerning Council approval and recording of a subdivision plat), are items that they will comply with. Mr. Barron stated, regarding Number 4, that he had a brochure, which he provided the Commission, that shows the access points. He stated that they had tried to work with the Council and the Staff to align this for the best circulation. He described on the site map where the access would be on the Wal -mart side. Regarding Numaer 5 recommendation, relating to the pedestrian access, he stated that this is a condition they are happy to comply with, as are Numbers 6 (relocate sidewalk along Beaver Creek Place) and Number 7 (include curb and gutter along Beaver Creek Place). Regarding Number 8, concerning the drive-in restaurant, he stated that they were in negotations with the tenant now and at this time they want to be able to tell them that, yes, there is a site approved, and then it goes to their corporate decisions makers. This is why the information is so sketchy on the restaurant. He stated that he has since supplied a revised site plan so that dimensions and the elevations correspond with the dimensions indicated on the site plan. Mr. Barron stated that Number 9 (concerning bui�ding and parking lighting), Number 10 (relocating project sign) and Number 11 ( regarding a detailed sign program) are h Planning and Zoning February 7, 1989 Page 11 of 27 Commission Meeting Minutes Lots 65 and 66 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Otis Compa:iv The Annex (cont) recommendations that they will comply with. Mr. Barron stated that they feel that recommendation Number 12, regarding the highway access issue of the State Highway Department, should not even be on the list. He stated that they have met with this Committee and, at Staff's recommendation, gone to the Town Council, and it is his understanding that they had given them the green light to proceed with the approval of the project without making this access issue a condition of that approval. He felt that it is inappropriate to have that condition on the list. Cuny stated that she was also under the impression that, the Town Council had also stated that the approval could be given without that as a condition. She asked Staff if she was wrong in that. Wood stated that there are probably two different things involved here. He stated that number one was that Pat Barron and himself interpreted the action of the Council differently and number two, while there were some sessions of the Council regarding that, the function of the P & Z is to review the site plans for conformance with design review criteria, access, which is part of your guidelines, for review. While there was an informal presentation to the Council, there was some indication given by them, that still, the function of the P & Z is to review the information in front of them. Cuny asked, if Avon Road was not there, the site would not need Avon Road, is that correct, the way it is planned now? Wcod stated the way you need to review that is, if Avon Road was not there, would this stand on its own. Would the uses be appropriate, would the access be appropriate, if Avon Road was not there? Cuny asked, going back to some of Mr. Barron's comments, if he was saying that the revision of the parking, the parking calculations, puts a restriction on what can happen to the building. Mr. Barron replied absolutely, they designed a building that they thought is pleasing to the eye, rather than have a flat roof in town, they designed a pitched roof that they could somehow utilize and have a function as opposed to having dead air space. Cuny asked if the storage shows on the plans that they have in front of them. Mr. Barron stated that it does not show on those plans. Planning and Zoning February 7, 1989 Dage 12 of 27 Commission Meeting Minutes Reynolds asked if each tenant will have their own separate storage area that cannot be accessed by others. Mr. Barron replied that that is correct. Cuny asked how they would get to it, is it a drop stair? Mr. Barron replied it could be an interim stairwell or a drop, pull down stair or ladder. It is still up in the air, but it is only accessable by the tenant. Only the tenants with the larger spaces in the middle will be provided with the loft storage. Perkins asked why this wasn't shown on the floor plan. Mr. Barron stated that frankly, up until five days ago, they didn't realize that parking was going to be required for storage and that the storage space can be 100 feet or 800 feet per unit. Cuny stated that, as a retailer, she thinks it is a fantastic idea. She stated that this matter of the loft had been mentioned during the conceptual review. Perkins stated he was not arguing that point. He stated his point is that if this is here for final approval, it should include floor plans, maybe a section, to show what kind of head height is involved in that space. Cuny stated that she was not sure that she agrees with the Staff on making it office space. Reynolds stated that he thinks it is a great idea to provide storage. Since it can only be accessed by the tenant is is strictly storage. Cuny discussed the memo from Lynn Fritzlen to Norm Wood regarding requirements for parking from other entities, with some mentioning storage and some of them not mentioning it. Cuny asked if the Town of Avon specifically mentions storage? Wood stated we do not. He stated that his interpretation of the regulation was that they felt they were being lenient when they offered to recommend it be considered as office space. The other option was the total floor area as retail space, by virtue of by making the space available above, it increases the floor area below, and so we felt that it was a wash, one way or the other, that by making more space for retail on this level, by not having requirements for storage and office space in the lower level. Cuny stated that that is an individual merchant's choice when Planning and Zoning February 7, 1989 Page 13 of 27 Commission Meeting Minutes Lots 65 and 66. Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis Company, The Annex cont they go into the building, is if they are going to have all selling space or part as office or part of it as storage, that is not a developer choice. Wood stated that you've made the option available to everyone of them. Reynolds stated that he gives this applicant credit for coming up and trying to show, up front, that that is exactly what he wants to use it for, rather than put the structure in and do it later. He feels that storage is a priority with businesses in this area. Perkins stated that this was deceptive and there could be an awful lot of space up there. He would like to see a floor plan and a section. Mr. Barron introduced Angelo Biondi, Architect, who stated that the reason that they don't have more detail information on the storage is that they don't know how many tenants will actually opt to use it, although they are offering it to each tenant in the middle of the building, and each tenants storage area may vary. He stated that adequate head height will be provided. The space is to be soley for storage. Mr. Barron stated that they are prepared to put that in the lease. Cuny asked, if there wasn't the 5600 square feet of office at 3/100, how was it figured before, as far as the parking? Wood stated that his interpretation was that it should be figured at 4/1000, as additional retail space, regardless of how it is used. With City Market and Wal-Mart they went with building floor area. Wood stated that another concern he has is that we are reducing it to calculating the parking requirements at strictly a retail rate instead of the mixed project rate, and so there is not much flexibility in the project. Cuny asked, if we went back to where they were before it was known that there was storage, how was the parking figured and how much did they have to have? Norm stated that he apparently had missed some information in some of the earlier presentations, in that the first time he became aware of anything dealing with the loft space was when he was reviewing the drainage report and there was a mention of a one story building with loft. That was the only indication that he had seen that indicated a loft space. Cuny then asked if there had not been any parking figures before this parking figure? Wood stated that there were none that he was aware of. Cuny asked, if the Commission wanted -14% Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 14 of 27 Lots 65 and.66 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Otis Company, The Annex. (cont) to consider the loft as just storage and did not require parking, how would you figure this for parking, under mixed use? Wood stated that mixed use is 5.5/1000 for main level. Mr. Barron commented that he did not know if this qualifies under mixed use, it is a single use, retail and they think that the parking requirements should be calculated on the 4/1000 and not 5.5/1000 because, if anything is used in the upper level, such as storage, that relates to the tenant below, it is not a separate tenant, there is no separa,�e use, such as an office. Discussion followed on the floor area being added and the potential for using the loft area as some other use than storage. Mr. Earron stated that they were prepared to stipulate in the leases that the area could be used only for storage and if the tenant wanted any other use they would have to come to the Commission to get a variance for that. Discussion followed on the dormers. Perkins stated he felt that this was a very attractive building, but there are some loose ends that need to be penned down. He stated he was concerned that there are more drawings that have been submitted that they cannot see. He stated that he understands why they are not seeing them, but the whole process bothers him, that there are more drawings that you submitted at the last minute, that they can't see, but you are here asking for final approval. Mr Barron stated subject a reasonable review of the other items. He stated that they had provided everything that they thought was necessary, and a week ago they got a list of concerns, and they have changed the plans at considerable time and expense, several times. He stated that they are just trying to get something approved subject to some conditions. Cuny asked if there would be a problem if the Commission felt that there were enough loose ends to give a preliminary approval and have the loose ends wrapped up by the next meeting. Mr. Barron stated that there is because right now they need thirty days to forty five days for construction documents and then we are into the building season and we are alligating to the tenants based on the delivery date of the project. He stated that nine out of the twelve recommendations have either been revised or will be within in the next three or four days. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 16 of 27 Lots 65 and 66 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis Company The Annex, icon i) Reynolds stated, in looking at this, the alignment as shown, lines up in front of the Wal-Mart building and his personal feeling is that he would rather see it come in front so the drive becomes seeable, rather than have it come in back of the building. This was the general consensus, that it should line up with the front drive of Wal-Mart. Descussion followed on moving the project sign and the sidewalk and the pedestrian walkway at the access. Discussion followed on the need for Otis Company to come back with a sign program. Cuny stated that this should be a condition of approval. Discussion followed on the need for site and building information on the drive-in restaurant. Perkins asked what the Commission would be approving with respect to the drive-in restaurant? Mr. Barron stated that he would like approval of the fact that there will be one there and approve the size. He stated that the architectural will be consistent with that of the retail building in terms of colors and in terms of design. What you have to understand is that that has to go to corporate. They will come back before the Commission as soon as corporate approval is received. Reynolds asked if they are asking for building envelope and footprint approval. Mr. Barron replied yes. The question was asked what would happen if the State Highway Department would not allow the Avon Road access, with regards to the restaurant? Mr. Barron stated that that is up to the restaurant and they may not lease the building. In that case they would only build the retail building and not build the restaurant building. They want to go ahead with the retail juiiding at this time, but they want to make sure that they have the footprint for the restaurant available. Furtrher discussion followed on the matter of Otis Company going to the State Highway Department. Cuny stated that she thought the Commission had already recommended to the Town Council that the Commission would approve this plan without the approval of the State Highway Department. Mr. Barron stated that they had also gone to the council and reiterated that position as well. Perkins asked what the Council's response was. He stated that there seems to be a difference of opinion and he would like to hear what Mr. Barron's opinion was. Mr. Barron stated that his opinion, and he had verified this with Allan Nottingham, was that it was his understanding that the Council said "Let's not get in the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 17 of 27 Lots 65 and 66 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis Company The Annex cont way, let's let them have this project approved without a contingency for access, or an access permit." In other words, let's not deal with it unless it becomes an issue. Perkins asked Wood what his interpretation was? Wood stated his interpretation was the Council said " we will allow you to go ahead with the design review process without requiring you to apply for an access permit from the State Highway Department, but the access point will have to be dealt with." He stated that they were not saying they recommend going ahead with the project without the access, but deferring the time when it would have to be dealt with, if it does become an issue. Perkins asked where Otis Company stands with the Highway Department with respect to that? Mr. Barron stated that they have not initiated any conversation with them, nor do they intend to. Their access is off of Beaver Creek Place, and if this becomes an issue they are prepared to block the Avon Road access off. He stated that that access has been there since the Town was incorporated and has served three properties and now the Town came to Otis wi*.h the request for the fifty foot easement, which they are willing to grant, so that some of the congestion on Beaver Creek Place could be relieved and to provide more circulation to the Wal-Mart center, we have agreed to do that, and now, this is what he didn't want to get into tonight, it is becoming an issue, it is becoming a point for approval of this project, and it shouldn't be. Cuny stated that with three property owners having the access, we shouldn't tell one that he has to pursue dialog when the other two have already been using it and they never got any permission. Mr. Barron stated it is not just those three properties, its the fact that the Town ca- to Otis and wanted that access easement across our propert;, which we agreed to give to them, so it benefits not only us three, but the Wal-Mart center and the Town of Avon as well. Doll stated that he didn't think that this should be a point of contention. Cuny agreed. Hill stated the project stands on its own. Doll stated he thinks that if it becomes a point of contention at some place down the road that these folks at some point will have to deal with it. Perkins asked what the Highway Department's attitude toward that access? Wood stated that we have had no discussion with the Highway Department. The two existing projects that are served by that entrance were constructed prior to the Highway Department adopting their current access code, so they were Planning and Zoning February 7, 1989 Page 18 of 27 Commission Meeting Minutes Lots 65 and 66. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis Company The Annex (cont) qrandfathered in, but basically this is a change in use of that site, and it may change the implications or requirements for this access. It may require improvements, but without going through with the application and getting the discussion going with the Highway Department, there is really no way of knowing what the Highway Department will or will not approve or require. Perkins stated that his concern was that it is just another screwball intersection for Avon. It is like the intersection on the east end of Benchmark's building where you have a driveway that comes in the middle of an intersection. He stated that he remembers telling these people that we would support this project without that access, but that doesn't mean that somebody shouldn't resolve that issue and clean it up. Mr. Barron stated that they stand to lose a lot more money by doing any requirements that may be imposed by the Highway Depatment and what is trying to be imposed by the Town, than if they should lose the income from the tenant. Reynolds stated that the building stands on its own ind he wants to look at it that way. Cuny then reiterated the staff recommendations that Otis agreed to comply with. She stated that the biggest problems that the Commission seems to be not in agreement with is recommendation number one and perhaps number eight, but she thinks they all agreed on number four that the access between the lots is agreeable to the Commission and regarding number twelve, we have already given them approval without going to the Highway Department. It seems that. number one is the only one that there is any disagreement on. Wood stated that he would like to comment on number four. The applicant has agreed to a fifty foot easement across the southerly part of the lot line, that serves no purpose if the connection between the two is moved up to tho center of the site. Wood stated that he really feels that the con,cction should be at the southern end to be consistent with the previous layout. Cuny stated that in either case it is not going to seem like a road. Wood asked, with regards to number twelve, does the Commission really feel it is appropriate to include the drive-in restaurant approval without assurance that the entrance from Avon Road is there for that facility? Discussion followed on how Lot 21 would be accessed if the Avon Road access was shut off. Cuny stated that she didn't Planning and Zoning �umunssion Meeting Minu.,es February 7, 1989 Page 19 of 27 Lots 65 and 66. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis Company The Annex (cont)_ think it was fair to tell one developer, when Lot 21 needs the interest more than they do. Wood stcted, as his understanding, of the Council's action was. to provide a strong indication to the applicant to get together with the adjoining property owners and try to work something out. Mr. Barron stated that they have done this. Cuny reiterated that the Commission i� saying that this project stands by itself with the Beaver Creek Place entrance. Further discussion followed on the Avon Road access. Mr. Barron stated again fot- the record that number twelve has no business being on the list. He stated that the reason that they are here for final approval on February seventh instead of December seventh is• because they were told by staff and this Commission to go t. Council to get their interpretation and their opinion as to the access issue, that cost us another month and he thinks to deny approval based upon an issue that had been resolved up until three days ago when it showed up on this report is absolutely unfair. He stated that they have bent over backwards, and they want to provide the Town with a project that works, and for Otis to jump through more hoops is not reasonable. They are not asking for any variances, all they want to do is build the project. Discussion followed on the placement of the drive-in restaurant and the parking places needed. Reynolds asked Mr. Barron, if the access does go, would they be willing to move the other access. Mr. Barron stated "sure". He also stated that if the access does become an issue, Otis Company is prepared to pay their fair share of any improvements that the Highway Department may deem necessary. He reiterated "Their Fair Share". He stated that if this is an attempt of getting the Town out of paying their fair share, then lets talk about it now and we won't grant this easement. This issue has come up because of the easement which the Town has asked them to do. He apologized for losing his temper, but this has all been brought upon by a request from the Town for access across our property. They told us they couldn't pay for the property, we gave it to them in essence. Reynolds asked Wood if the access goes through and he does move down to the southeast corner, and he has agreed to do that and pay his fair sharp, would the Town be willing to follow with that? Wood stated if you read number twelve, all it says is that Oa, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 20 of 27 Lots 65 and 66 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis Company The Annex (cont) there be guarantee that part of the approval is that access be maintained, whatever it takes to maintain that. Reynolds stated that that is what he is saying, his fair share to do that. Wood stated that he would like to see the wording remain just as it is in number 12, that any approval is contingent upon the continuing use of that access. Mr. Barron stated that they cannot guarantee that the access is going to be there. The whole reason that they went to the Council and this Committee was to not deal with the Highway Department. The access has been there as long as this town has been here and this item should not be of the recommendations. He stated he didn't know why they went to Council a month ago to resolve this, if it is coming up again today. Curly called for a motion. Discussion followed on all the loose ends. Mr. Barron introduced Glen Palmer, Alpine Engineering, who stated that most of the loose ends have either been resolved or are in the process of being resolved. He stated that regarding the ,vehicular connection, whichever way is decided tonight, there is no engineering problem of doing it either way. Perkins asked his opinion of the acess to Avon Road. Palmer stated it works. If it is blocked off there would still be access. Mr. Barron stated if you want the access at the southerly corner then do it and that is where it will be. Just make a decision. Further discussion followed on the Sta`f recommendations. The applicant was asked to provide more drawings on the loft at the next P & Z meeting. Further discussion followed on four and twelve and eight. Reynolds moved to approve The Annex on lots 65/66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with the Staff recommendations 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 as written, and subject to approval of the loft area at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Also that number 4 and number 12 be tied together and that the access entrance into the Wal-Mart parking lot be changed if needed and number 8, that the footprint and building site come in subject to DRB approval. Doll seconded. Under discussion of this motion, Cuny stated she did not understand the portion regarding 4 and 12. Reynolds stated that the layout as shown be installed and that at a later date, if the approval for the easement goes through, that the applicant, be required to move that access to the new area. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 21 of 27 Lots 65 and 66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis Company, The Annex, (cont) Hill stated that she thought they needed to decide right now where the access is. Reynolds stated the Commission wants it where it is and Staff doesn't agree. Reynolds changed his motion to state that the access will be placed in alignment with the easement. Reynolds asked if the applicant had any problems with that. The applicant replied that they would locate it at the south. Cuny asked if the second agreed to the change. The second agreed. The motion carried with Cuny and Perkins voting nay. Lot 46_Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Detached Duplex, C Reynolds orporation. Monica Reynolds, Final Design R:View Cuny stated that a letter of conflict of interest had been received from Buz Reynolds, who will step down for this agenda item. Fritzlen stated that Monica Reynolds, on behalf of the ;`eynolds Corporation, is requesting final design review for a detached duplex proposal in Wildridg". The two units are similar out not identical in appearance and floor plan and are h served by a common driveway, The four bedroom unit or west has a partial second story which differentiates it Isom the three bedroom unit on the east Ahich is a single story. She stated that the average slope cf the lot on the lower half of the lot exceeds 30%. This is an ample (.58 acres) duplex lot, but difficult to build on. Built improvements are proposed on the qentler tut difficult to access upper portions of the lot. Fritzlen stated, regarding the conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon, the proposed driveway exceeds 10% for the entirety of the driveway access. Average grade is 16% for driveway and vehicular manuevering area. Elevations do not accurately reflect proposed grade relationships. She described the layout of the detached duplex and the driveway, describing the almost 32 feet of rise between the roadway elevation and the unit itself. Fritzlen stated, regarding the suitability of the improvemert, the floor plans and elevations appear to be better suited to a level site and consideration should be given to a split level or stepped approach for the building and minimizing cut and fill. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 22 of 27 Lot 46 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. De cont DUplex. Regarding the compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties, Fritzlen stated that placing the built improvements on the upper portion of the lot maximizesa driveway length and associated site impacts and consideration should be given to moving the garages closer to the front property line. Fritzlen stated, regarding compatibility with site topography, the above comments apply and off site drainage should be eJdressed on grading plan. Regarding the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties, Fritzlen stated that the character of this project will be dominated by the driveway. She stated that by varying the appearance of the two dwellings will render them complimentary, but not identical and this aspect of the design is desirable. Fritzlen stated that there are no adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for Wildridge. Fritzlen stated that the Staff recommends that this application be continued, based on: 1. Driveway grades present a hazard to the occupants as well as vehicles on the adjacent street, and revised grading plan should be submitted prior to reconsideration that meets Town of Avon design criteria; and 2. Breaking up building mass to better fit building slope should be considered. Fritzlen stated that she had discussed this report with the applicant, prior to the meeting. Monica Reynolds stated that this project was designed to offer a. marketable product with a view. rhe placement of the building was to enhance the view and to lessen the impact on adjacent property owners. She stated that the buildings have been designed to minimize construction costs to make them affordable. She stated that there are other driveways not only exceeding the 10% grade, but far exceeding the proposed 16% grade for this project. The prospective buyers are aware and do not have a problem with the grade. She stated that they will meet the Town requirement of 10% grade within the Town right-of-way. She stated that there are many lots in Wildridge that will need between 15% and 30% grades. Planning and Zoning February 7, 1989 Page 23 of 27 Commission Meeting Minutes Buz Reynolds stated that there is a five foot difference between the two buildings. He stated that the only buildable area is on the upper part of the lot. He stated that he could lower one of the buildings and berm the back of the building. He stated that the reason it was sitting so high was to give the buyer the best view possible. Regarding it being hazardous, the Commission has already approved many buildings within Wildridge that are in excess of a 16% grade, including the right-of-way. He proceeded to give some examples. Reynolds then described the colors to be used. He stated that he wants to use asphalt shin(les and is planning to go before the Wildridge Covenant Committee for approval of this. Fritzlen provided floor pians for the project for the Commission to study. Discussion followed on the lots in Wildridge where it might be impossible to build. Discussion followed on lowering the one building and garage. Discussion followed on the design of the building and the grades. Wood stated that the 10% was adopted as a guideline, not a hard, fast rule, but something to try to shoot for. Perkins moved to deny the Reynolds duplex because of the general design of the building, its massing, its window types and placements its material placements, and over all look. The motion died for lack of a second. Landauer asked Perkins what he didn't like about it. Perkins stated that he didn't like anything about it. Reynolds stated that these plans had been taken from an architectural rendering. He stated that he knows that the one dimensional drawing does not really reflect the actual look of the building. Hill asked if he could provide a better drawing that would show the dimensions. Reynolds stated that he could. •➢ am M a Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 24 of 27 • Hill stated that she didn't particularly like the roof material. Reynolds stated that cedar shingles had been used in Wildridge for years. They are very expensive, they are a fire hazard, the fire protection in Wildridge is one fire station that is partially manned and cedar shingles last only between seven and eight years and asphalt shingles last between twenty and twenty five years. Perkins asked what the weight of the proposed shingle. Reynolds stated it is about a twelve ounce shingle. Discussion followed on the costs of various roofing materials. Further discussion followed on the development of steep sites and the proposed and possible slopes of the proposed project. Discussion of relocating the buildings closer followed. Doll moved to table this item until the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, with the idea that a three dimensional drawing be provided and a little better definition of what the grade will be like after he lowers the buildings, something to show the Commission how it is going to work. Landauer seconded. The motion carried with Perkins voting nay. Reynolds resumed as a voting member of the Commission. Lots 1 and 2 Sunroad Subdivision, Christopher Eddy. Sunraod Enterprises Development Sian Variance Request for Amendment of Approval Fritzlen stated that Chris Eddy of Sunroad Enterprises, has requested that the approved 32 square foot sign located adjacent to Avon Road be allowed to remain for the entirety of the allowed period of two years in its present location, which is approximately 30 feet back from the property line. She stated that this is in difference to the Planning and Zoning Commission's request that it be moved to the center of the lot by May 1, 1989, the center of the lot being interpreted as approximately 200 feet back from the property line. She stated that if the Commission finds that the requested amendment meets the intent of the original approval, approval of the request for amendment is a Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 rage 25 of 27 recommended. Discussion followed on the placement of the sign. Perkins moved to approve the amendment request to Lots 1 and 2, Sunroad Subdivision, as presented. Doll seconded, The motion carried unanimously. Lot 2 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Storky's Restaurant Mark Donaldson Architect. Conceptual Review. Fritzlen stated that the applicant has requested that this item be removed from the agenda this evening. Cuny stated that she has one correction regarding Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Cr-ek, Canopy and Signage, Slifer Real Estate, Sign Program Amendment, the representative of Slifer Real Estate is Dennis Gelvin instead of Galvin. Hill moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Perkins seconded. The motion carried unanimously. other Business Cuny asked about the letter that Joe McGrath was going to send to Ekrem about getting her project finished. Fritzlen stated that he contacted her by phone and she is aware that she has to finish by the beginning of the summer under her current permit. Cuny asked about the yellow canopy for Subway Subs. Wood stated that we have received an application for design review for the next meeting, but it hasn't been determined how complete the application is. Cuny asked if that means that the sign gets to remain up for the next two weeks. Cuny asked if the Staff had contacted the Town Attorney as requested to see about getting the sign taken down until proper application approval is accomplished. The Staff had not contacted the Town Attorney. C: 40 LJ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 26 of 27 Other Business (cont) Cuny asked if there was an ordinance requiring people to clear their sidewalks off? Wood stated that there is an ordinance. As cold as it has been there is a limit to as how much can be removed. People are trying to stay with it. Wood stated that lately there has been a rash of temporary signs and complaints. The Staff would like to clarify, basically the direction Staff is going to take administratively with signs. Staff has been fairly liberal with the interpretations of the code and that is apparently not working, based on the number of calls we have been getting, so Staff feels that they will have to follow through strictly in accordance with the code, 36 or 35 square feet on permits. Another thing that has come up is the blow up signs. At one time we had a Coke sign at Wal-Mart, in the park, with special events, we had a Coors sign. These are signs according to the definition and we will have to follow through on these, they are a temporary sign and if they are over thirty five square feet, they will have to come in for a variance, if they are less than thirty five square feet, a permit can be issued for up to one week at Staff level. The Commission members agreed. Perkins moved to adjourn. Doll seconded The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, ( CI%G/��CoCC - Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Ow C7 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 1989 Page 27 of 27 Commissi P. Cuny T. Landa F. Doll J. Perki D. Hill C. McRor A. Reync 9 C..