Loading...
PZC Minutes 092784RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1984 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on September 27, 1984, at 6:38 p.m., in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mike Blair. Members Present: Mike Blair, Larry Kumpost, Cheryl Dingwell, Jerry Davis, Mark Donaldson. Tom Landauer arrived at 6:45 p.m. Members Absent: Pat Cuny Staff Present: Dan Fogland-Building and Zoning Administrator, Norm Wood -Director of Public Works, Barbara Joseph -Recording Secretary Work Session Commission members discussed DRB Rules. Commission members reviewed and generally approved the Sign Code format developed by Fogland. Staff was directed to identify the rest of the districts and the sign regulations to accompany them. Members reviewed information submitted by staff regarding parking requirements and reductions. Staff was directed to research and report on past Commission action. Donaldson voiced concerns regarding the parking lot situation at the Avon Center building. Dingwell mentioned parking lot changes/problems related to drainage work at the Benchmark Shopping Center. Blair reported discussing the Master Plan with the Town Council. He suggested special meetings with the Council, and field trips to review areas of interest for comparison purposes. P & Z Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 Page 2 of 12 Reading and Approval of P & Z Minutes f 9/13/84 Regular Meeting Wood stated that, on page 2, second to last line, "Gaoion wall" should be "asphalt swale". Wood stated that, on page 3, Avon Center Revised Planting Plan, the motion to approve the Revised Planting Plan, with the condition that a loading zone be reflected on the plans, should be amended to change "loading zone" to "Fire Lane". This change in wording would reflect how the area is actually designated on the plans. Blair thought there should be a distinction in the minutes to reflect the end of the Mork Session and the start of the Regular Meeting. Kuripost moved approval of the minutes of September 13, 1984, with the addition of the start of the regular meeting right after the arrival of Tom Landauer, and the change, at the bottom of page 2, of "Gabion wall" to "asphalt swale". Donaldson seconded. Passed unanimously. Dingwell moved to amend the Approval of the Revised Planting Plan for Avon Center, Lot 55, Block 2, BM @ BC, changing the designation of the triangular area, as indicated on the plans, from "loading zone" to "Fire Lane". Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Blair suggested that staff send a letter to the Avon Center people informirg them of tLe Commission's action in this matter. Tract O, Bl o�� _�I_�BC - Design R view - Indiy"yam Business Si_QD=_Surety Lanj _Title Comr,anv._.Inc. Fogland reviewed the application, stating that two signs were proposed for the business at the Benchmark Shopping Center, in the area near Ski & Shore Real Estate. One would be installed on the building facia, the other would hang below, in the arcade area, as a pedestrian sign. Measuring their letters individually, 12 square feet would be the approximate combined square footage. Fogland stated that the square footage would be in compliance with current applicable sign regulations. Fogland recommended that the Commission encourage Benchmark Shopping Center to develop a Sign Program, due to the variety of P & 2 Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 Page 3 of 12 Tract0,_Block 2, BM Q BC.- Design Review - Individual Business sign _ Surety Lan_ Title Com�gAnv._Inc. - Cont'd signs currently in use there. Copies of the proposed signs, listing approximate sizes and colors to be used, were reviewed. Davis suggested an official action by the Commission directing the Benchmark people to do something about eliminating illegal signs and developing a Sign Program. Blair directed staff to pursue this. Discussion followed. Dean Malsom, managing officer of Surety Land Title, the applicant, answered questions regarding the plexiglass letters of the facia sign, and the design and content of both signs in general. Davis sought clarification of the way total sign area is determined. Malsom stated that one sign was 10 square feet in area, and the other sign was a little less that 10 square feet. He stated that neither sign would be lighted. The facia sign would have White letters, the pedestrian sign would have Black lettering on an Ivory -colored background. Davis wanted a determination of the exact square footage involved, and whether it complied with the current Sign Code. Fogland stated that the pedestrian sign was 8.3 S.F. The facia sign would also be less than the 12 S.F. limit set in the Sign Code. Dingwell moved approval of the Individual Business Sign for the Surety Land Title Company, on Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, as submitted. Kumpost seconded. Brief discussion followed. Passed unanimously. Lot 49. Block pesian Review - Residential Project Entrance Sign -SunIlvside Townhomes Fogland revie-.ed the application, statirg that applicant proposed one sign, at the project entrance. The sign would measure 2ft. x 4ft. (8 S.F.), and would be between 5 and 6 ft. high. He stated that, under the current Sign Code, signs not to exceed 32 S.F. in area and eight feet in height are allowed. Mr. Schmidt, the applicant, was not present. P & Z Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 Page 4 of 12 Lot 49, Block 1. BM _@ BDesign Review - Residntial Project Entrance Sign - Sunnyside Tow homes - Cont'd Donaldson asked if the sign was to be made by a sign maker. Pogland stated that the applicant planned to have the sign made professionally. Discussion followed. Landauer moved approval of the Residential Project Entrance Sign for Sunnyside Townhomes, on Lot 49, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, as submitted. Donaldson seconded. Passed unanimously. ��r � � r ■ a.r�r.c• •: rsna a r� a'a �:r.� ers. n r.• i ci.� reregrine village - %.onLjj]Ur.U_rrum y/ 12 04 xeaular riper -Ing This is a public hearing continued from the 9/13/84 regular meeting. Blair reconvened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Wood stated that the applicant submitted a letter, dated 9/20/84, in response to the Commission's request for clarification regarding what applicant was specifically requesting, and what applicant was proposing to do. The letter narrowed the issue down to a specific request for a variance to approve compact car spaces, which is not allowed under the 79-12 Zoning Ordinance, except through the variance procedure. Applicant had indicated 'hey have a total of 362 on-site parking spaces. 104 of these are full-size covered spaces. 99 of these are compact covered spaces. 4 of these are handicap covered spaces. The total number of covered spaces will be 307. They will also have 55 exposed spaces. The number of compact spaces proposed represents 32.258 of the total covered spaces and 27.35% of the total, on-site parking spaces. wood informed the Commission that Section 17.36.040 of the Municipal Code requires the following factors be considered when reviewing a variance request: A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity] ID P & Z Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 Page 5 of 12 =£Leurir,e vi Oyv - S2L.0 U B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal inter- pretation and enforcements of a specified regulation is neces- sary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distri- bution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems appli- cable to the proposed variance. Blair emphasized the need to utilize the above factors when considering the request. Wood further informed the Commission members that Section 17.36.050 of the Municipal Code requires the following written findings be made, before the granting of a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations nn other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injur- ious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the follow- ing reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical dif- ficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. P & Z Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 Page 6 of 12 Lot 63, Block 2, BM @ BC - Variance Request - Parkin_g_.$e_duction - Peregrine Village=Cont'd 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict or literal interpretati::n and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Wood offered the following additional information, relating to the above factors and written findings: A. Current parking regulations allow up to 308 of all covered parking spaces to be compact, minimum size 8' x 16', when approved as a Special Review Use; and B. A variance request was approved on October 7, 1982, for Avon Center, allowing up to 288 of the off-street parking spaces to be for compact cars, with a minimum size of 8' x 16'. Wood then suggested that the Commission consider attaching the following six conditions to any possible approval of the variance: 1. The compace spaces allowed under the variance shall all be covered, shall not exceed 358 of the covered spaces, and shall be of a minimum size of 8' x 161. 2. The actual number of on-site spaces should be subject to field verification with regard to both size and number. (An approval should not refsr to a specific number of spaces as being available, since the number of viable parking spaces will probably be slightly less that the 362 spaces indicated in letter of September 20, 1984). P 6 Z Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 Page 7 of 12 Lot 63, Block 2. nM @ BC - Variance Reguest - rarKing x au�_cr-lun = Peregrine Village - Cont'd 3. No use shall be allowed within the project which will require more than two parking spaces per condominium unit or more than one space per 400 S.F. of commercial space, as per Ordinance 79-12, until such time as applicant can provide satisfactory evidence that minimum parking requirements for higher uses have been met. Possible methods of providing parking for higher use requirements include, but are not necessarily limited to: a. Provision of off-site parking in accordance with Chapter 17.24 of the Municipal Code; b. Conversion of commercial space to recreational amenities and common space for project residents and guests; C. Reduction of commercial space and/cr condominium units to match available parking spaces; 4. Future approval of surface parking spaces shall be subject to applicant providing satisfactory evidence that open space re- quirements have been complied with or proper variances obtain- ed. 5. Approval of this variance shall not be construed as an approv- al of any parking layout submitted to the Town by the appli- cant. 6. A final plat of parking spaces shall be submitted for Town ap- proval simultaneously with the preliminary plat for the pro- ject. Due to the fact that the ordinance the project was approved under, 79-12, required all parking spaces to be 9' x 18', Blair emphasized that the Commission was considering approval of one thing only - a variance regarding Siz€ of parking spaces, a14t number or location of parking spaces. P & Z Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 Page 8 of 12 Lot 63, Block 2, BM P BC - Variance Request - Parking Reduction - Perearineyyllage - Cont'd Rick Larson, of Sea -Mountain Developers, represented the applicant. He stated that he wculd like to address the recurring question of open space requirements. Davis questioned the relationship between the amount of open space at the project and the parking requirements. He also questioned the possible discrepancy between the number of parking spaces shown on the drawings and the number of spaces that could be field verified. He wanted to be sure there would be enough acceptable parking spaces. Larson stated that the number of parking spaces shown on the plans will be the number they will have. Discussion followed. Wood stated that 352 parking spaces are required of the project. Even of the number of field -verifiable spaces turns out to be less than the number shown on the plans, he did not see the project losing more than 10 of the 362 spaces proposed. Wood stated that the only problem would come if the applicant tried to institute a use for the commercial space that required more parking spaces than the minimum number required for commercial space, such as a restaurant. Lengthy discussion followed. Dingwell asked if there would be sufficient parking available if the variance was not approved. Blair asked for coi..ments from the public. There being no public comment, Blair officially closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Wood re -read and reviewed the six conditions, listed above, for the benefit of the applicant. Wood stated the reason for condition 93 being included and reviewed up front was to avoid possible Anti -Trust action in the future. Lengthy discussion followed. Greg Gage, of Peregrine Properties, wanted to know if the Commission was trying to limit the types of businesses that Peregrine could lease space to. Blair responded that no one was trying to limit Peregrine's use of their space. The point was that Peregrine's use of their space P & Z Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 Page 9 of 12 Lot_jp3 Block 2. BM @ BC - Varij7nce Request =Parking Redoc Peregrine Vi lase - Cont'd would be limited only by the number of parking spaces they provide. Further discussion followed. Larson wanted to be sure that, in the event of parking to accommodate higher uses, it was variance procedure was not the only solution available. Commission members recessed at 9:35 p.m. Blair reconvened the meeting at 9:46 p.m. Applicant stated that he understood conditi.)ns, as listed above. Commission members reviewed the factors under Section 17.36.040 of the Municipal could a lack of enough agreed that the to the problem for a break. and accepted the six required to be considered Code, as listed below: A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal inter- pretation and enforcements of a specified regulation is neces- sary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distri- bution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems appli- cable to the proposed variance. Commission members then made the following written findings, as required under Section 17.36.050 of the Municipal Code: Variance to allow a maximum of 3,U of covered spaces to be compact spaces, with a minimum size of 8' x 161, for Peregrine Village, Lot 63, Block 2, BM @ BC. P & Z Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 Page 10 of 12 - Variancp RpanpsY_ - rarKina meaucrion - nregrine village - yQRL a A. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. B. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. The variance is warranted for the indicated one of the fol- lowing three reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical dif- ficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. HQ 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. NQ 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Ua Blair reiterated the fact that applicant is aware of, and generally in agreement with, the six conditions that will be attached to approval of the variance request, as is allowed under Section 17.36.060 of the Municipal Code. Kumpost moved approval of the variance to allow a maximum of 358 of covered parking spaces to be compact spaces with a minimum size of 8' x 16' for Peregrine village, Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, subject to: 1. The compact spaces allowed under the variance shall all be covered, shall not exceed 358 of the covered spaces, and shall be of a minimum size of 8' x 161. • P & Z Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 • Page 11 of 12 Lot 63, Block 2, BM 0 BC - Variance Request - Parking Reduction - Peregrine Village - Cont'd 2. The actual number of on-site spaces should be subject to field verification with regard to both size and number. (An approv- al should not refer to a specific number of spaces as being available, since the number of viable parking spaces will probably be alightly less than the 362 spaces indicated in letter of September 20, 1984). 3. No use shall be allowed within the project which will require more than two parking spaces per condominium unit or more than one space per 400 S.F. of commercial space, as per Ordinance 79-12, until such time as applicant can provide satisfactory evidence that minimum parking requirements for higher uses have been met. Possible methods of providing parking for higher use requirements include, but are not necessarily limited to: a. Provision of off-site parking in accordance with Chapter 17.24 of the Municipal Code; b. Conversion of commercial space to recreational amenities and common space for project residents and guests; C. Reduction of commercial space and/or condominium units to match available parking spaces; 4. Future approval of surface parking spaces shall be subject to applicant providing satisfactory evidence that open space re- quirements have been complied with or proper variances obtain- ed; 5. Approval of this variance shall not be construed as an approv- al of any parking layout submitted to the Town by the appli- cant; 6. A final plat of parking spaces shall be submitted for Town ap- proval simultaneously with the preliminary plat for the project. P & Z Meeting Minutes September 27, 1984 Page 12 of 12 Lot 63, Block 2. BM @ BC - Variance ReaUe,6t-=_parking Reduction - Peregrine Village - Cont'd Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Other Businesa Blair suggested that Commission members study the Sign Code information prepared by staff, for future discussion. Fogland stated that Master Plan information would probably be ready by the next meeting's Work Session. Commission members commended staff's work in researching the Peregrine variance request. There being no further business to come before the Commission, Dingwell moved to adjourn. Landauer seconded. Passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:01 p.m. RESPECTFULL SU ITT D: , B` a Recording Secretary Commission Approval: AS wsow} Date: 01r. II, IIS4 M. Blai P. Cuny J. Davi T. Land L. Kump M. Dona C. Dingwel