Loading...
PZC Minutes 062481,jw 14W W 40 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING JUNE 24, 1981, 7:30 P. M. A Continuation of the Design Review Board Meeting held on June 17, 1981 was held on Wednesday, June 24, 1981 at 7:30 p.m., in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon, in the Benchmark Shopping Center, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill Pierce. The Board Members present were Che,yl Dingwell, Tom Landauer, Alice Alpi, Mike Blair and Bill Pierce. Purpose of this special meeting is to discuss and review some proposed changes to the Design Review Boards Rules, Regulations and Procedures. Terrill Knight, Town Planner, was to propose the changes and give a brief summary of each. He suggested that instead of going into these first, that the other people who were there go ahead and discuss the second item for the compact car parking so they wouldn't have to wait all night. All members agreed. Terrill Knight opened the discussion regarding the parking situation. He stated that in his opinion the parking was not the problem. It's the fact that there are too many cars. We don't have a dependable public transportation system like buses and so forth. Also it is much easier to drive your own car to work or wherever than to take a bus. Also he stated that if a business is successful then they will require more parking than if they were not. Easy access to and from a parking area plays an important part as well as placement. Rick Larson/Sea Mountain Developers stated that a restaurant should be based on its own merit. If it is an after hours restaurant then there wouldn't be a parking problem during the day. If it caters to a lunch crowd then there would be a problem due to the fact that people may decide to go to a drug store or shop at the same time. As far as the residential requirements for now its 2 to 1. He feels that this ratio should be updated. He suggests that maybe we try to find a more suitable or more realistic percentage such as 1 3/4, 1'z, or 1 to 1. As it stands now the Town of Avon doesn't have any parking, so its up to the individual contractor to do something about it, by providing parking for certain areas. We should be realistic about this though by not having parking areas that will be about 50% empty. Nick Dalba/Avon Center stated that he felt the same as Rick Larson in regards to there being too many parking spaces. There is some overlapping in that there will be 2 parking spaces per every tenant. They are anticipating that the tenants will come down and shop in the mall area and go to the restaurants there. Bill Pierce stated that once all these buildings are built and then we need more parking space, then there will be a problem, due to the fact that we don't have public lands or lands designated by the Forest Service to be used for parking lots. Terrill stated that it is better to have more spaces than not enough. It was suggested that maybe some type of shuttle bus service be set up over at the Stolport during peak seasons for skiing. Bill Pierce said that he felt that with all the commercial spaces or businesses which are going to be built, there are not enough tenants to provide these businesses with enough income. Therefore, it is especially important to have outside people come to the malls and restaurants which will encourage pedestrian activity, by using some type of bus service. Bill P. suggested that anyone in the audience who wanted to say arything else in regards to the compact car/parking issue do so and the board members would in return have to get back with ever;one at a later date. Nick Dalba suggested that there be a rpriain time Period given to make this final decision. He said Chambers of the Town of Avon, in the Benchmark Shopping Center, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill Pierce. The Board Members present were Cheryl Dingwell, Tom Landauer, Alice Alpi, Mike Blair and Bill Pierce. Purpose of this specijl meeting is to discuss and review some proposed changes to the Design Review Boards Rules, Regulations and Procedures. Terrill Knight, Town Planner, was to propose the changes and give a brief summary of each. He suggested that instead of going into these first, that the other people who were there go ahead and discuss the second item for the compact car parking so they wouldn't have to wait all night. All members agreed. Terrill Knight opened the discussion regarding the parking situation. He stated that in his opinion the parking was not the problem. It's the fact that there are too many cars. We don't have a dependable public transportation system like buses and so forth. Also it is much easier to drive your own car to work or wherever than to take a bus. Also he stated that if a business is successful then they will require more parking than if they were not. Easy access to and from a parking area plays an important part as well as placement. Rick Larson/Sea Mountain Developers stated that a restaurant should be based on its own merit. If it is an after hours restaurant then there wouldn't be a parking problem during the day. If it caters to a lunch crowd then there would be a problem due to the fact that people may decide to go to a drug store or shop at the same time. As far as the residential requirements for now its 2 to 1. He feels that this ratio should be updated. He suggests that maybe we try to find a more suitable or more realistic percent-ige such as 1 3/4, 1'2, or 1 to 1. As it stands now the Town of Avon doesn't have any parking, so its up to the individual contractor to do something about it, by providing parking for certain areas. We should be realistic about this though by not having parking areas that will be about 505' empty. Nick Dalba/Avon Center stated that he felt the sama as Rick Larson in regards to there being too many parking spaces. There is some overlapping in that there will be 2 parking spaces per every tenant. They are anticipating that the tenants will come down and shop in the mall area and go to the restaurants there. Bill Pierce stated that once all these buildings are built and then we need more parking space, then there will be a problem, due to the fact that we don't have public lands or lands designated by the Forest Service to be used for parkitg lots. Terrill stated that it i, better to have more spaces than not enough. It was suggested that maybe some type of shuttle bus service be set up over at the Stolport during peak seasons for skiing. Bill Pierce said that he felt that with all the commercial spaces or businesses which are going to be built, there are not enough tenants to provide these businesses with enough income. Therefore, it is especially important to have outside people come to the malls and restaurants which will encourage pedestrian activity, by using some type of bus service. Bill P. suggested that anyone in the audience who wanted to say anything else in regards to the compact car/parking issue do so and the board members would in return have to get back with everyone at a later date. Nick Dalba suggested that there be a certain time period given to make this final decision. He said that everyone is in the planning stages now, and also there is a lot of building going on, therefore too much time shouldn't be spent on making this decision. so pyo;; wa wa, Terrill stated that it was still subject to a public hearing. Nick said "let's get a hearing posted". Rick L. made it known that this was only a workshop and that they were pretty much out of order to make a proposal at this time. Terrill suggested that the audience members write up a specific proposal to be aired at a public hearing. They would then make a formal recommendation and the Town Board would hold a similar public hearing and decide on the issue. Bill P. asked each board member their opinions: Alice: "I think the ratio is a good thing, like for a single family to a certain number should have two. Minimize as you go higher." 33 to 35 percent ratio. Mike: There shouldn't be a large percent of small car spaces. Feels that it is a good working solution to have a percentage reduction with an increase in units and/or increased commercial area for mixed use. There should also be a backup because you don't know what will happen in the future. Cheryl: She agrees with the 33-35 compact car ratio and that smaller units should still be required the 2 to 1 and as the number of units goes up the parking number go down. Also agreed with Mike's idea of having a backup. Tom: Doesn't want to see the number of spaces cut down so far that there will be a problem. He feels that when people fly to the area or into Denver, that they will more than likely rent some type of van or station wagon instead of something compact. Doesn't know any statistics. Bill: feels that there sh:,uld be a reduction once you get to a higher number cf parking (100 or more before reduction). Is concerned about contributions towards a future parking structure. There is no land that is close enough for it to work Nick suggested that some type of formula be found to come up with the proper amount of compact car spaces. (1 per 250/being done in Los Angeles and is working). This is for commercial. Rick: 1 in 30 units or magy�ien 0 or 60 units. Maybe lower the percentage to 1 3/4 per 30 units, or maybe go up to 60 units maybe 1 5/8 and then for 75 maybe 1'-; and something like that like a scale chart. When you get to 100 units then you're down to 1 3/8 or 114 or 1 or somewhere in that neighborhood. He feels that a 1 to 1 ratio for 100 to 150 residential units is an accurate estimate. Bill P. stated that the board would diligently pursue this matter. As soon as Terrill comes back with a suggestion they will re -discuss the issue and follow up with a public hearing and then go to the Town Council or whatever the procedure is. Terrill stated that he would have the issues written up by Wednesday, July 1, 1981, and that the public hearing could be set up from that time on. The next item was pertaining to the proposed changes in the Design Review Board's Rules, Regulations and Procedures. Terrill opened the discussion. He stated that certain items tend to get a little mixed up in their function. To be able to separate the Design Review Functions from other items would make it easier for the Board members as well as the applicant's. Bill P. asked each board member their opinions: Alice: "I think the ratio is a good thing, like for a single family to a certain number should have two. Minimize as you go higher." 33 to 35 percent ratio. Mike: There shouldn't be a large percent of small car spaces. Feels that it is a good working solution to have a percentage reduction with an increase in units and/or increased commercial area for mixed use. There should also be a backup because you don't know what will happen in the future. Cheryl: She agrees with the 33-35% compact car ratio and that smaller units should still L. required the 2 to 1 and as the number of units goes up the parking number go down. Also agreed with Mike's idea of having a backup. Tom: Doesn't want to see the number of spaces cut down so far that there will be a problem. He feels that when people fly to the area or into Denver, that they will more than likely rent some type of van or station wagon instead of something compact. Doesn't know any statistics. Bill: feels that there should be a reduction once you get to a higher number of parking (100 or more before reduction). Is concerned about contributions towards a future parking structure. There is no land that is close enough for it to wore. Nick suggested that some type of formula be found to come up with the proper amount of compact car spaces. (1 per 7.50/being done in Los Angeles and is working). This is for commercial. Rick: 1 in 30 units or ma�gen0 or 60 units. Maybe lower the e-centage to 1 3/4 per 30 units, or maybe go up to 60 units maybe 1 5/8 and then for 75 maybe 13a and something like that like a scale chart. When you get to 100 units then you're down to 1 3/8 or 1'a or 1 or somewhere in that neighborhood. He feels that a 1 to 1 ratio for 100 to 150 residential units is an accurate estimate. Bill P. stated that the board would diligently pursue this matter. As soon as Terrill comes back with a suggestion they will re -discuss the issue and follow up with a public hearing and then go to the Town Council or whatever the procedure is. Terrill stated that he would have the issues written up by Wednesday, July 1, 1981, and that the public hearing could be set up from that time on. The next item was pertaining to the proposed changes in the Design Review Board's Rules, Regulations and Procedures. Terrill opened the discussion. He stated that certain items tend to get a little mixed up in their function. To be able to separate the Design Review Functions from other items would make it easier for the Board members as well as the applicant's. -2- W W a Page 2 - just a general statement saying that conformance with zoning requirements will be put on forms provided by the Town. Page 6 - Terrill suggested that the Board members review what a "minor" • change is. This way it would help to decide what is appropriate and what is not. Mike says in his opinion it depends oi, the size of the project and also how much of a fee the applicant has paid. Dick stated that he wasn't too disatisfied with the Residential and Commercial ' Fees, but is with the Temporary Structure fee. He doesn't think its right for the Town of Avon to charge someone $100.00 to come in and find out if he can set up a Construction Trailer for Storage only, and charge him $10.''0 month per thousand feet, and then charge some else $100.00 to come in and set up a temporary trailer with water, sewer, telephone, lights, etc. In other words there should be different fees set up for each type of temporary structure. The Board members suggested that the fee schedule be revised by Dick, instead of discussing each and every item on an individual basis. Section 7.10 - this was suggested by Jerre for administrative purposes only. Instead of seven (7) days to get the replys out to the applicants, it would be changed to twenty (20) days. Mike Blair stated that he felt the information should be sent out to the applicant as soon as possible. Feels that the applicant shouldn't have to wait lodger than seven or ten days to get his reply. He did state that Jerre should have some additional help with the work load and that may solve the problem with the time limit rather than changing the rules. Terrill suggested that the twenty (20) day period still remain for the appeal part. He then suggesteJ that maybe seven (7) working days might be better. That would take care of the holidays. The Board members all agreed that would be enough time for all the information to be taken care of and sent out. Design Review Fees - Section 3.10: Regarding Temporary Structures, the fee was changed to $25.00 to come in to the Design Review Board rather than the original $100.00. Dick felt that is a more reasonable fee. Mike suggested that the entire fee schedule be re -structured. Also to classify what a minor change is (square footage, value, percentage of project, fences,etc.) the changes need to be catagorized. Terrill suggested the Board members make some kind of decision about these proposed changes without waiting too long. Alice asked if the Board could discuss more about the parking situation and requirements for a restaurant. Terrill said that he wanted to get some of the members opinions and then he would write up some kind of proposal and then they could take it from there. Mike suggested that maybe someone could come up with a formula and do some research so that they would have a better understanding of the parking situation. Tom L. brought up Avon Center and lock off units - being a problem. Wanted to know how it is controlled and suggested that there be a regulation started to prevent it. Cheryl made a motion to end meeting, it was seconded by Mike Blair and the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. • Ll low Respectfully submitted by Melody Cummings Recording Secretary Design Review Board