Loading...
PZC Minutes 030789RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MARCH 7, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on March 7, 1989, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was :;alled to order by Chairwoman Pat Cuny. Members Present: Frank Doll, Pat Cuny, Denise Hill, Buz Reynolds, John Perkins, Tom Landauer Clayton McRory Staff Present: Lynn Fritzlen, Department of Community Development; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary; Norm Wood, Director of Community Development Lot 65/66 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Otis Development Company. "The Annex". Final Design Review Norm Wood stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed plans for the development of Lots 65/66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek at the regular meeting of February 7, 1989 and that the proposed development included a one-story building with a floor area of 16,420 square feet, plus a one story drive --in restaurant with a floor area of 2386 square feet. He stated that following review of the proposed development, the Commission granted design review approval subject to 1: Site grading and drainage plans be revised to separate off --site storm drainage from parking lot drainage and design of parking lot drainage treatment facilities be redesigned to provide required runoff treatment and to be compatible with other site development and landscaping; 2. Town Council approval and subsequent recording of a subdivision plat vacating the existing lot lines between lots 65 and 66 and dedicating the agreed upon 50 feet wide public access easement across Lot 65; 3. Replace the proposed vehicular connection point between the proposed project and the shopping center site with a pedestrian pathway; 4. Relocate proposed sidewalk along Beaver Creek Place to match the existing sidewalk alignment at shopping center and within property line; 5. Revise the plans to include curb and gutter along Beaver Creek Place; 6. Revise plans to show proposed exterior building and parking co Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 7, 1989 Page 2 of 13 lot lighting. Parking lot lighting should provide adequate light at driveway entrances and pedestrian areas and also be compatible with existing lighting on adjoining properties; 7. Relocate proposed project sign adjacent to Beaver Creek Place to conform with 10 foot setback requirement; 8. Revised plan shall include a detailed sign program for the project including design details for project signs as well as required information for individual business signs; 9. Building footprint and building site plans for the proposed drive-in restaurant are subject to further design review approval; 10. Access to Wal-Mart parking lot be changed to the southeast end to align with the public access casement; and 11. Additional information including floo!• plans and building cross sections showing proposed loft area be submitted for evaluation of parking requirements. Wood stated that Staff had received a limited portion of the plans showing the additional information. He stated that the top plan provided is a revised grading plan showing the relocation of the alignment of the easement across the south end. It shows the pedestrian connection between Wal-Mart and this proposed site. Shows the relocation of the sidewalk along Beaver Creek Place and it also reflects changes in the grading to divert the off-site storm drainage around to the west side of the building which would take it down between this project and the Benchmark Shopping Center building. He stated that the filter curtain area that was indicated as approximately seven feet deep on the previous plans has now been redesigned so that it is more compatible with the site grading. In addition, they have submitted building floor plans showing the basic floor area of the building and also a section showing the loft area, which was a question on how the parking requirements should be calculated. He provided plans for the Commission to study. He stated that the plans had just been received this morning. He stated that, the staff comments in the were based on the plans previously submitted and some of the staff comments have been addressed in the revised plans. The Commission the took a few minutes to study the revised plans. Wood then reviewed the Staff recommendations: 1. A revised drainage report conforming with grading and drainage plan be approved by Staff prior to issuance oP a building permit. Wood stated t.ha.t Staff feels that everything is probably alright, but the drainage report should be revised so that it Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 7, 1989 Page 3 of 13 Lot 65/66 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Otis Development Company, "The Annex" Final Design Review (cont.) is in conformance with the drainage plan. 2. Curb and gutter sections be modified to show delineation and separation of parking and driveway areas along the southerly access drive at Avon Road and at Wal-Mart site connections. He stated that this has been shown on the revised plans. 3. Pedestrian connection to Wal-Mart site be provided with handicap access ramps and delineation of walkway from parking and driveway areas. He stated that this has also been shown on the revised plans. 4. All site plans be revised to reflect changes shown on grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit. Wood stated that the site layout plan, landscape plan, etc. have not been revised to reflect the changes. 5. Town Council approval and subsequent recording of subdivision plat vacating existing lot lines between Lots 65 and 66 and defining and providing for the dedication of a fifty feet wide public access easement across Lot 65 as previously agreed to by applicant, prior to issuance of a building permit. Wood stated that Staff has received an application for a subdivision review and the revised plat that does have those provisions incorporated into it. 6. Submission to Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of a detailed sign program in accordance with Chapter 15.28 of the Avon Municipal Code prior to issuance of a building permit. This should be information on the project sign and individual business signs. 7. Is a carry over of the previous condition that building footprint and building site plans for the drive-in restaurant are subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 8. Approval is limited to uses which have no higher parking requirements than 4 spaces/1000 square feet. Parking shall be provided for loft area at the rate of 3 spaces per 1000 square feet and loft uses shall be limited to office and storage space for terdnt located directly below loft area. Drive-in restaurant shall have a maximum seating area of 505 square feet. Other uses or additional seating area may be considered on a case by case basis by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Approval shall be based upon availability of excess spaces which exist on site. Wood stated that based on the calculations of 4/1000 spaces for main floor area and 3/1000 spaces for loft area and 1/60 square feet for restaurant, a minimum of 76 spaces will be required. He stated that the site plan shows roughly 81 spaces. Pat Barron of Otis Development Company stated that they feel that they should not be required to provide parking for GO Planning and Zoning March 7, 1989 Page 4 of 13 Commission Meeting Minutes storage in that the storage is an amenity for the tenants. It is for their use only and will not increase traffic into the center. Discussion followed on the accesses to the loft areas. Considerable discussion followed on the possibility of a tenant converting the loft area to retail space, etc. and the parking problems this could cause. Barron stated that it will be stated in the leases that this area can be used for storage only. After further discussion, Doll moved to grant Final Design Review approval on Lot 65/66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, "The Annex" subject to Staff Recommendations 1 through 7 and allowing the business to operate with a total of 74 required parking spaces. Reynolds seconded. The motion carried with Landauer and Perkins voting nay. Lot 8 Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, 24 Unit L Lynn Fritzlen stated that Dan Hunter, on behalf o` South Harbor Development Corporation is requesting final design review and approval of fractionalization for a 24 unit residential complex on Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, and this is a public hearing for fractionalization, so consequently some of the information that has been presented before has been reiterated. She stated that the lot is zoned RHDC. The lot has 16 residential development rights assigned to it, 12 of which are to be fractionalized into halves to create a total of 24 residential units not exceed 800 square feet each. The proposed development consists of four - building with six units each. The buildings are three levels high and are aligned with the southwestern or river edge of the property. Proposed parking is primarily surface parking. The parking located on the northern property line, abutting the railroad right-of-way is proposed to be an open carport. Built improvements within a sideyard setback required a variance which was approved February 7, 1989, at Planning and March 7, 1989 Page 5 of 13 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 8 Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek. _ 24 Unit Public Hearing (cont.) the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She then described the location of the site on the plans provided. Fritzlen stated that fractionalization is considered in conjunction with final design review. Fritzlen then reviewed the procedures for considering fractionalization in addition to the design review guidelines. Regarding the adequacy of the site access, she stated that access appears to be adequate. Regarding the availability of transportation, the site is in proximity to a Town of Avon bus stop although service is seasonal. Regarding the impact upon public and private services and facilities, she stated that there does not appear to be any unusual or significant impact. She stated that the fire department has reviewed the plans and made recommendations. Approval of the proposed fire protection by the Fire Department is recommen6ed prior to issuance of building permit. Regarding the compatibility of unit sizes and unit mix, she stated that the unit sizes are similar to adjacent Sunridge condominiums. Fritzlen then reviewed the design review considerations, stating that the following items were requested to be addressed prior to final design review: Compact parking spaces - Applicant has submitted an adenda sheet indicating revised parking dimensions on the east end that are in compliance with parking regulations; Exterior lighting - Applicant has submitted a cut sheet on proposed parking lot lighting and three locations are indicated on the site plan. Staff recommends additional site lighting on the western end of the property where walkways connect the end of the parking lot with the two most western buildings to insue the safety of the residents; Landscape irrigation - All landscape areas are proposed to be irrigated with an underground sprinkler system; Detailed Dimension Floor Plan - Applicant has submitted a marked up floor plan indicating exact dimensions and areas. Proposed areas and calculations are compatible with requested fractionalization; Drainage plan - Drainage plan has been submitted. There are minor discrepancies between it and the architectural grading plan. Final staff approval is recommended prior to issuance of permit. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 7, 1989 Page 6 of 13 Lot 8 Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek_ 24 Unit Public Hearing (cont.) Regarding the suitablity of the improvement, Fritzlen stated that the proposed development is similar to adjacent Sunridge in regards to height, type of exterior materials and fenestration. However, the buildings are not as large and are probably more desirable in teems of scale for a residential project. She stated that it is horizontal wood siding with a bluish trim and a composition of roof. Fritzlen stated that the proposal does not appear to have significant or unusual impacts on adjacent properties. She stated that permission of adjacent property owner will be needed to allow proposed path. She recommended that the proposed path be taken to the public right-of-way. Regarding the compatibility with topography, Fritzlen stated that the site slopes gently and easily accomodates the proposed improvements. Regarding the carport, modifications have been indicated on revised elevations as recommended in the precious report. Applicant has added gable shaped parapet extensions at regular intervals to the front or south elevation. Fritzlen stated the buildings are identical to each other but are offset and angled which will mitigate the regularity. Fritzlen then reviewed the applicable goals for District Five. Fritzlen state that final design review and fractionalization approval is recommended conditioned by: 1. Proposed path on the adjacent openspace tract be extended to the public right of way; 2. Issuance of building permit be subject to staff approval of proposed fire protection; 3. Issuance of building pernit be subject to staff approval of drainage plan; 4. A.ditional exterior lighting be located on westernmost walkways; 5. Building location ties to adjacent property lines be indicated on site plan that comply with applicable setback requirements prior to issuance of a building permit; 6. Permission of adjacent property owner be obtained for proposed improvements prior to issuance of a building permit; and 7. Approval of exterior materials as presented at the meeting. Dan Hunter stated that he was present to arswer any questions the Commission might have. He stated that there are lights on each carport. They are hooded lights so that they do nit shine in the direction of the buildings. He agrees that some low level landscaping lighting could be added. Regarding the staff recommendations, he stated that he would comply. Discussion followed on the proposed pathway. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 7, 1989 Page 7 of 13 Lot 8 Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, 24 yUnit Public Hearing (cont.) Cuny then opened the public hearing. She called for any comments from the audience. She asked if any phone calls or correspondence had been received. With no public input forthcoming, Cuny then closed the public hearing. Perkins moved to grant final design approval to South Harbor Development Corporation, for a 24 unit residential complex on Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, as presented in the staff memo with all seven conditions attached to the approval. McRory seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Comerford. Fritzlen stated that Jim Comerford, owner of Subway Subs, is requesting design reviw approval for a canopy and signage for tho entry to his business. She stated that the canopy and sign are not in conformance with the apprived sign program for Christie Lodge and the existing canopy and sign do not have written approval of the owners association or sign code administrator for the Christie Lodge. She stated that Mr. Comerford has indicated that he has been unable to obtain written approval from the Christie Lodge for reasons other than lack of acceptance of the canopy, therefore he feels that the variance is justified. Fritzlen stated that Mr. Comerford is requesting a variance from the following provisions of the sign code. Section 15.28.980 Avon Municipal Code Part Q, Sign Program: 2. Sign programs may be proposed or changed only by the owners of the building or the owners association. Sign program changes or proposals may not be made by an individual business. 3. Proposed signs, not in accordance with an approved sign program, will only be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon receipt of written evidence that the proposed sign is acceptable to the owners of the building or the owners association. Fritzlen stated that the proposed request would require a variance to the Christie Lodge Sign Program and a variance from the provisions of the sign code. She then reviewed the criteria and findings for granting a variance. Planning and March 7, 1989 Page 8 of 13 Zoning Commissiun heating Minutes Fritzlen stated that the staff recommendation is if the Commission finds the requested variance is in accordance with the applicable criteria and has adequate findings to justify the variance, approval may be granted. She stated that if the variance is granted, design review may be scheduled for the next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting. Jim Comerford reiterated the problems he has been having with Christie Lodge as presented at the last Planning and Zoning meeting. Considerable discussion followed regarding the position of the Commission in a matter between Comerford and Christie Lodge and also the matter of granting a variance of the sign code itself. Discussion followed on the criteria to be considered and findings required. Discussion followed on a possible time period to allow the differences to be resolved. McRory moved to table this application for a period of sixty days to allow the applicant time to resolve his differences with the building owner. Perkins seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Review Fritzler stated that Mark Donaldson. an behalf of Otto Stork, owner and developer of Storky's Restaurant is requesting preliminary design review for a 3400 sq. ft. restaurant and bar located immediately west of the Coastal Mart. She stated that the proposed restaurant is a one story ribbed block and stucco building with a partial basement. Parking sits on the north side of the property and the restaurELnt sits on the south side with views facing I-70 and the toi•+n. Parking lot access is from Nottingham Road and circulation is proposed to be one way entry and exit. She then descr=bed the location of the building and entry and exit locations. Fritzlen then reviewed the design review consideratio.rs. She stated that the application appear to he in conformance with the applicable rules and regulations. She stated that Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 7, 1989 Page 9 of 13 Lot 2 Block 1. Benchmark at Be specifications on exterior lighting and landscape irrigation system have not been submitted and should be submitted prior to final design review. Regarding the suitability of the improvement, she stated that the restaurant is sided by a commercial service use, oriented to I-70 traffic, on the east and residential on the west. She stated that ideally the architectural design will span the residential and commercial character of the area. She then described the building design and materials to be used. She stated that the proposal does not appear to have significant or unusual impacts on adjacent properties. With regards to the compatibility with site topography, she stated that the site is gently sloped, approximately 8% over the proposed developed area and easily accomodates proposed improvements. She stated that staff has two concerns in regards to visual appearance. 1. Rooftop mechanical equipment may be visible to residents and motorists on Nottingham Road; and Parking lot will dominate view of proposed development from Nottingham Road. Additional landscaping at the drive entries and within the parking lot is suggested. She stated that proposed building design is unique to vicinity, proposed use and scale is similar to the existing Pizza Hut on the north side of Nottingham Road. She then reviewed the applicable goals and policies for District Four. Fritzlen stated that this is a preliminary design review and no formal action is recommended. She then summarized the staff comments regarding additional landscaping, exterior lighting specifications and landscape irrigation system and screening of rooftop equipment. Mark Donaldson provided a picture of the high pressure sodium lights to be used. Discussion followed on the wattage of the lights. Donaldson stated he would have that by final design review. He stated that the landscape irrigation will be provided. Regarding the rooftop mechanical system, at this time all equipment is designed to be within the structure. However, the east end of the building has a six to eight feet high parapet wall which will screen anything that might have to be put on the roof. Donaldson stated that, regarding the parking area, there are some problems with snow storage from the owner and the town. The are concerned that nothing will grow there. He stated that the town road is on their property in some areas and the drainage for that road is entirely on their property, so they have had to move the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 7, 1989 Page 10 of 13 entire building to the south. He stated that all of the site will be done in sod. He then described the materials to be used and the colors. They will also provide at final design review drawings for the signagi. Discussion followed on the elevations of the building and the parapet wall. Further discussion followed on the par'cing lot entry landscaping. It was svigested that maybe some landscapi.g could be put along the Coastal Mart property line. It was stated that there will be 36 parking spaces provided, 29 are required. There will be seating for 80 in the restaurant and 20 in the bar. It was the general consensus of the Commission that this was a desirable project. Lot 51, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Residence, S4devard Setback Variance Public Hearing Reynolds stepped down as a voting member of the Commission due to a conflict of interest. Fritzlen stated that Monica Reynolds is requesting a sideyard variance located in Wildridge. She stated that the duplex received design review approval at the June 24, 1987, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. She stated that the site improvement plan submitted for the design review application did not indicate a need for a setback variance. The duplex subdivision plat prepared by Intermountain Engineering indicates approximately 3 feet encroachment into the 10 feet sideyard building setback requirement for the Wildridge Specially Planned area. The roof overhang encroaches and additional 16" into the V-6" sideyard utility easement. Fritzlen stated that a signed statement by the utilities companies has been provided stating that they are in full knowledge of the encroachment of the building into the utility easement on the west side of of lot and agree that there is no problem with the encroachment. This implies that the undersigned will have no problem with the Town of Avon grantif,g final approval of the plat as designed. Fritzlen stated that the applicant responded to criteria for the granting of a variance as Planning and Zoning Commission March 7, 1989 Page 11 of 13 follows: There is a small Meeting Minutes sideyard Setback Variance, Public 0 building area a;,d the contractor• built too close to the easement by acci.lent, and the staff response is that removing the built structure from the easement would be a practical impossibility without substantially mcdifying the design of the building and incurring significant financial cost. Fritzlen stated that the applicable criteria and findings for granting a variance are included in the staff report. Fritzlen stated that staff recommendation is that if the Commission finds that there are adequate findings for granting of a variance, approval is recommended. Staff stated that the following condition should be included - that the sideyard setback variance is limited to existing construction. Cuny then opened the public hearing. Larry Castruita, owner of Lot 52, the lot adjacent to the encroachment, stated he is a little confused as the engineer report states that it is a 4 feet encroachment and Monica stated that it is only 16 inches. Monica Reynolds stated that the foundation is right at the seven and one half foot line and the roof overhang encroaches 16 inches. The applicant was under the understanding that the setback was 7.5 feet when the r quirement for Wildridge is really 10 feet. Mr. Castruita ,,tated he has no objection as long as he is allowed the same consideration. Fritzlen reviewed the diferences in setback requirements in other zone districts and the Wildridge SPA requirements. Fritzlen stated that this came to the atterition of the staff when the applicant came in for a duplex subdivision and the plat indicates that the building improvements encr%ach into the sideyard set back. Mark Donaldson stated that the correct setback requirements were shown on the drawings. Discussion followed on how to avoid this situation in the future. Cuny asked tie Secretary if any comments or correspondence had been received. The Secretary stated that one phone call C Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 7, 1989 Page 12 of 13 a propertl owner, asking what it was about. Once informed he commented that he guessed he didn't need to fly in from New York. Cuny then closed the public hearing. Discussion followed on the matter of the public notice stating that it was a 16 inch encroachment rather than a 4 ft. 4 inch encroachment. Discussion followed ort this being an invalid public hearing. It was decided tha': all property owners should be notified again. Doll moved to table this application for a sideyard setback variance for Lot 51, Block 4, Wildridge, until a corrected public hearing notice can be sent and posted. Landauer seconded. The motion carried with McRory voting nay. Reynolds returned as a voting member of the Commission. Reading and Approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of 2/21/89 Regular Meeting Doll moved to approve the minutes of the 2/21/89 Regular Meeting as presented. McRory seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business With no other business to come before the Commission, Doll moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary .N Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 7, 1989 Page 13 of 13 Commission approval P. Cuny _ T. Landauer F. Doll / J. Perkin D. Hil C. A. Reynolds to