Loading...
PZC Minutes 081684RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 16, 1984 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on August 16, 1984 at 6:35 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 Chairman Mike Blair. Members Present: Tom Landauer, Pat Cuny, Jerry Davis, Larry Kumpost, Mike Blair Members Absent: Cheryl Dingwell, Mark Donaldson Staff Present: Jim Lamont, Planning Director - Norm Wood, Director of Public Works Dan Fogland, Building and 'Zoning Administrator - Maggie Lach, Recording Secretary Work Session Blair stated that the Fractionalization Ordinance was reviewed by the Commission at the August 9, 1984 meeting. Recommendations from the Commission were forwarded to the Town Council and most were accepted. Town Council passed the Fractionali- zation Ordinance on first reading and it will be considered for second reading at the August 28, 1984 Town Council meeting. Lamont highlighted the changes: 1) applicability of system to original Town of Avon included; "...to continue such system on lands later annexed to the Town."; 2) applicability of Ordinance to pre-existing projects: Council decided cut-off line would be "...projects for which temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy have been issued."; Lamont stated that question was raised as to applicability to existing zoning and stated adopted language reads: "The total number of units permitted on any parcel as a result of Fractionalization may exceed the density limitations imposed on the parcel by the general limitations of the Zoning Code provided that the total number of units prior to fractionali- zation shall not exceed such general limitations.'; 4) TDR's not mentioned on original Town plats amended to read: "...condominium/apartments/square footage and duplexes."; 5) definition of accommodation unit added to match that of hotel - lodge Transfer Rights; 6) bedrooms: generally decided that they would be dealt with as habitable space or rooms. Lamont presented status of Master Plan and stated that Fractionalization Ordinance created 3 areas that need additional legislative action: 1) annexation; 2) Master Plan; and 3) TDR. Lamont explained that preference is to concentrate on central business district and I-70 corridor on north side of highway. He suggested that Commission concentrate on priorities and "products" of Master Plan. A suggested sequence of priorities mentioned included: 1) Sign Code; 2) Master Plan; 3 review of goal statements; 4) zoning; and 5) subdivision. The recording secretary was asked to forward copies of the goal statements to the Planning and Zoning Commission before the Town Council meeting of August 28, 1984. Reading and Approval of P b Z Minutes of 7/12/84 Regular Meeting Davis motioned to approve the minutes of the July 12, 1984 meeting as presented. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes August 16, 1984 Page 2 of 10 [• Rock P1ountain Airwa s - Informal Discussion • amont intro uce t e app kation and stated that Tim Mooney, District Manager for Rocky Mo.mtain Airways had approached staff regarding their concerns regarding the Master flan. Tim Mooney introduced Gordon Autry, Chief Executive Officer of Rocky Mountain .. Airways and explained that Autry would present suggestions. for zoning in conjunction with applicable F.A.A. regulations. Autry presented a brief history of the Stolport including iris ideas on the location, development, construction and future of the Stolport. He explained that this was the first airport with a microwave instrument landing system and high approach angle approved by the F.A.A. Autry explained that in previous discussion with Vail Associates and previous members of the Town Council, he had received an informal commitment that building heights would be restricted in the area near the Stolport. Autry assured Commission that the approach to the Stolport is by far the highest precision approach anywhere and that terrain to east of Stolport is in a protected clear zone. Autry explained that he was specifically addressing the departure area and why compromises in building height restrictions are necessary. Autry explained that if building heights or obstructions start encroaching in the departure path of the aircraft, the Stolport would be inoperable. Autry presented a diagram or airway clear zone map that gave approximate aircraft and allowable building heights. He stated that terrain begins dropping at end of runway and went on to explain the areas on the map in relation to the Stolport. He felt Rocky Mountain Airways would be requesting a building height restriction of 30 feet on property adjacent to the west end of the Stolport, 50 feet in the area of the First National Bank, and 80 feet would be acceptable beyond Avon Road. He stated that the only protection Rocky Mountain Airways would need is in area between the Stolport and Avon Road. Autry stated that past administrations had informally agreed that this would be no problem and he was asking Commission to consider this as a reasonable approach for protection of the Stolport. He felt it was a small compromise. He stated that Vail Associates and present owner of property had plans that were supported by the past mayor and Vail Associates. These plans showed nothing that would exceed 30 feet in height in that area, and he was making a formal request to the Commission to adopt a plan which would restrict building heights in that area. He didn't want to depend on a Supreme Court ruling that protects clear zone areas. Blair stated that Benchmark Subdivision, which was later incorporated as the Town of Avon, was approved by Eagle County. This approval included certain uses, building bulk, size and height as well as certain commercial and residential uses as allowed under present Town zoning. Lamont concurred that commercial uses were emphasized in the area being discussed. Blair commented that he believed builaing height was limited to 80 feet in that area. Autry stated they were told 80 foot building heights was something the Town did not want, but it was later adopted in the Zoning regulations. Planning and Zoning August 16, 1984 Page 3 of 10 Meeting Minutes Rocky Mountain Airways - Informal Discussion, Con't. Blair stated that he recognized the request and raised 4 points for consideration: 1) Rocky Mountain Airways join Town in Master Plan process; 2) some regulations may be revised as a Master Plor; process; 3) when the Town was incorporated, it established land uses and zoning by adopting the original subdivision plat which was approved by the County; and 4) the Town adopted regulations which recognize those uses approved by the County. Lamont stated that land in the area adjacent to the Stolport is zoned for 2 units per acre plus commercial. A policy allowing conversion of commercial square footage to residential units and allocating TDR's is being considered in the Master Plan. Potentially, that would provide an opportunity for the transfer of TDR's to other sites which in turn could be a consideration in Rocky Mountain Airway's request for height limitations. He explained that this transition must be orderly so that property rights are not damaged. Davis asked if the runway could be extended to the east instead of the west. Autry explained that landing distance exceeds take -off distance and due to heights to the east and the angle of approach, 500 feet of the existing runway is not used for landings. He stated that any runway extension to the east would improve take -offs but not landings. He mentioned that 300 feet could be added to the east, but it isn't practical because of irrigation and drainage ditches and little is gained. He stated that a 500 foot displacement threshold is currently used and a 300 foot e -.tension would improve take -off performance of aircraft, but would not help landing performance. Davis stated that Stolport was built after the Town was incorporated but realized that cooperation was needed between property owners and Rocky Mountain Airways. He asked if County would need to approve landings for planes other than Dash 7's. Autry stated that Special Use permit allowed use of any aircraft having same capabilities as Dash 7. He stated that additional 300 feet of runway would solve their problem for 10-15 days a year and would allow another 6-7 feet of building height. Record sows that Cheryl Dingwell arrived for the meeting at approximate y :1 'W Cuny mentioned concerns regarding proposed ordinance distributed to Commission by Rocky Mountain Airways and assumed that no action was requested at this time. Autry explained that this was presented for consideration and `hey are still pursuing exact building heights so that concerned people will have correct calcu- lations. Cuny asked if this could have been presentf.d earlier. Autry stated that the administration has cnanged within the Town and previous discussion lead him to believe that adoption of these rules would be a simple process. This was a formal approach to the Commission and interested parties. Kumpost said it was his understanding that as Town was set up and zoning established, and airport was approved, the information available 6 years ago indicated that 90 foot building heights would be no problem. i Planning and Zoning August 16, 1984 Page 4 of 10 Meeting Minutes Rocky Mountain Airwa s - Informal Discussion, Con't. Autry reiterate tat e was told that notFi—n—q—w—ou-TcT be planned or built higher than 35 feet between the Stolport and Avon Road. Their problem is that if a tower were to be built at the fence, it would shut the Stolport dorm until they could get a court order to remove the tower, which they don't want to do. He stated that improvements or expansion of the Stolport would not happen until spring of 1985. Lamont stated that peripheral issues relating to the airport such as parking, mass transit, freight, and anticipation of passenger growth for Rocky Mountain Airways are areas of particular interest. Rick Baldwin of LaCroix Skis in the Town of Avon, spoke from the audience in support of Rocky Mountain A-;rways. He felt the Stolport is important to the Town and community and he supports this as a small local businessman who uses Federal Express deliveries from the Stolport. Glen Palmer of KKBNA, a resident of area, also spoke from the audience supporting Rocky Mountain Airways. Dean Kerklinq, an employee of Vail Associates stated that the Commission had received a letter from Harry Frampton, President of Vail Associates voicing strong support for Rocky Mountain Airways. Blair stated that a letter dated August 14, 1984 from Harry Frampton voiced support for height restrictions and the need for the Rocky Mountain Airways services and requested that the Town support Rocky Mountain Airways. Blair stated that Rocky Mountain Airways is an important consideration in the Master Plan and the resolution of height restrictions could be difficult, but felt ideas and solutions would be possible. Davis asked if Rocky Mountain Airways could use their leased property for other purposes. Autry stated that the Special Use Permit is restrictive, but not the lease with the Nottinqhams. Davis pointed out that the Stolport is outside of the Town and that Commission is looking at Avon as a transportation center in the Master Plan. He felt this was an opportune time to look at the Stolport complex for other transportation needs to benefit the community. Autry stated they would not be opposed to annexation of the parcel. Mooney and Autry thanked the Commission for their time and consideration in this matter . Lot 70, Blk. 2, BM @ BC - Empire Savings - Design Review - Fence - Con't. from 7/;:5/84 Regular Meeting Blair stated a letter had been received from Empire Savings requesting a withdrawal of their application. Commission agreed to honor withdrawal. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes August 16, 1984 Page 5 of 10 Lot 67 & 68, Blk. 1, BM @ BC - Pizza Hut - Design Review Phase I & Conceptual Site Plan Review Phase II Lamont stated that this project is one of many the Commission would see in the future regarding the Master Plan approach in that applicant and Staff have had discussions on long-range use of the property ar.d the application has been presented on a 2 phase basis. He explained that Phase I is something they would like to start on immediately, but also a longer range use for the adjacent property had also been discussed. He pointed out that this is a model that the Commission will be looking at in the future. P.lair stated that this was a complete site planning project rather than fragmented. Fogland stated that the first phase is for the design review of a building for Pizza Hut and that Phase II is a conceptual site review only. He stated that Lot 67 is the proposed site of the Pizza Hut building and Phase II is a commercial building on Lot 68. Applicant plans to vacate the property line between the 2 lots. Fogland explained that Phase I meets the intent of the Zoning Code with the assumption the property line is removed. The restaurant will seat 126 people and the building area is approximately 4,584 S.F. He explained further that Phase II is a conceptual site review with little information available for exact Zoning breakdowns and requirements. Lamont explained that Staff and applicant discussed this on a preliminary basis, and there is enough information to give them a conceptual approval, adding that there may be other changes based on the Staff report. Lamont stated that Pizza Hut representatives had been extremely accommodating in terms of siting the building, and the design is distinctive in and of itself, apart from what most of us are used to seeing in design. Ward Lawrence, representing applicant, Coulter Enterprises, introduced Glen Palmer of KKBNA who prepared the engineering plans and Larry Reynolds, architect for the project. Lawrence explained that they are in the process of acquiring Lot 67 and 68 and stated that the building they are proposing is larger than they require for a Pizza Hut. He stated that in their preliminary meetings with Staff, they worked on something that would be acceptable to the Commission and it is their intent to construct the building before ski season. Blair stated that parcel is important entrance to the Town, and pointed out 3 elements for consideration: 1) appearance of building and materials; 2) location; and 3) landscaping. Lamont stated that priorities established by Staff were: 1) building should have permanent appearance with landscaping; 2) parking be diminished as much as possible in terms of appearance from streets and right-of-ways for Phase I. He stated that Phase II, at Staff's request and applicant's initiative, might be looked at as a long-range plan in terms of landscape and design, and possibly a portion of that Darcel be used for an information center for the community. Dingwell asked if the 2 lots would become 1 lot with the vacation of the lot line. Lamont stated that Phase I will be built independently of Phase II. Cuny mentioned concerns regarding the lot line vacation and the length of time that could take. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes August 16, 1984 Page 6 of 10 Lot 67 & 68, Blk. 1, BM @ BC - Pizza Hut - Design Review Phase I & Conceptual Site Plan ReviewPhase II, con't. Wood stated that vacation of lot lines can occur within one month. Glen Palmer of KKBNA stated that there normally is a standard easement set forth for utilities and that these lots were resubdivided with no utility easements. Davis questioned the placement of the Pizza Hut sign on the roof. Lamont stated that sign is below roof line. Davis asked if the roofs were always red. Reynolds, architect for building, stated that Coulter Enterprises uses a red roof, but they had added an outside terrace with a windscreen, moss rock veneer and a service entrance to the north of the building. Cuny asked if the roof was metal. Reynolds answered yes. Davis asked if there was an access problem from Swift Gulch Road. Palmer stated that the road grades were a problem. Cuny commented that she felt sidewalk in front of the building was a good idea and if there were an information center there with a bus stop, it would be an asset. Lamont stated that the Buck Creek Hotel would be a major generator of pedestrian traffic and that sidewalk would be used for access to Town. Blair asked if the sidewalk could be located near the road without creating a drainage problem. He felt that the sidewalk would be covered with snow from the plows in the winter. Palmer stated there was drainage from Swift Gulch Road and the ditch along Nottingham Road was deep. Concrete pipe would have to be used rather than steel, making it a more expensive proposal. Davis felt it is responsibility of developer to help Town with this and also felt sidewalk is an asset. Kumpost asked if there was any middle ground on the red roof. Cuny stated that it makes Pizza Hut noticeable and it is a symbol. Davis felt that everyone would want a different roof color such as yellow or green and also mentioned concerns regarding a metal roof. Blair stated that roof appeared to be shingle embossed. Reynolds concurred with Blair. Lawrence stated he had discussed this concern with Staff and agreed that it was a distinctive roof. He explained that jo'ntly, franchises will spend $80 million in advertising in their national budget and that it has a significant impact on identity; it will make a difference with interstate and visitor traffic, and the design and color belong to the franchisor, Pizza Hut, Inc. Kumpost stated that building has fine addition of stone and natural finish and felt red roof would detract from that. Lamont stated that in Staff discussions, that was also a concern. Lamont felt that most criticism of Pizza Huts is that they look like pre -fab buildings in the middle of a parking lot, however this building utilizes more natural approaches to all sides of building along with the landscaping. He felt that roof becomes more of a design element rather than a detraction; red wasn't major concern because more contemporary designs and architecture utilize bold colors and the building emphasises the natural materials and landscaping. Cuny mentioned concerns regarding color changes to roof in Phase I and perhaps no change in Phase II. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes August 16, 1984 Page 7 of 10 Lot 67 & 68, Blk. 1, BM @ BC - Pizza Hut - Design Review Phase 1 & Conceptual Site Plan Review Phase II, Con't. Lamont stated that Phase I and Il are being presented to ensure continuity. Davis suggested that by design of building, roof is most predominant because of square footage and felt it would be precedent setting. Blair suggested a portion of the roof be red and the rest a more subtle color. Reynolds stated that there are 3 colors on the building to make it more appealing. Lawrence stated that building would not be as distinctive and thEy have compromised with the different appearance of the building including balcony seating, stone work and berm work. Davis felt that red roof would be a problem. Cuny asked about the lighting plan. Reynolds stated they didn't show lighting plan in parking lot, but building has exterior lighting for pedestrian walkways. Cuny asked if there would be adequate parking for Phase I with the vacation of the lot line. Reynolds stated there would be more than enough. Kumpost felt that based on another project in Town, there should be some commitment to reserve the proper amount of parking. Reynolds stated that they wanted more parking than was required. He further mentioned that the landscape plan is conceptual and they will be submitting a list of Plants to be used and are going to use someone who has done several landscape projects within Cclorado. Dingwell asked what the lot coverage would be. Palmer answered 657. Reynolds explained that the concept for Phase II was to get the largest building on the parcel without going to structured parking. They are proposing a commercial level with exclusive shops, office space and possibly residential units. Cuny asked about the information c,:nter and if any obligation had been made to the Town. Lawrence stated that in Staff discussions, it was sungested that the Town would have a possible interest in the information center. They agreed that it is a logical area and would try to plan the site to accommodate that. Blair questioned the appearance of the retaining walls and materials to be used. Dingwell asked how tall the walls would be. Palmer stated that 3 or 4 walls would be 5-6 feet maximum with dirt planters in between. The retaining walls would be concrete with stone veneer. Davis questioned the loading zone size. Fogland stated the dimensions are 12' x 35'. Davis felt he would have no problem approving this if the Commission could see a shake roof or a toning down of the red roof. He stated Commission has previously resisted national marketing concepts and felt they should continue to do so. Lawrence stated that he can make most decisions for the company, but not that one. He would have to get approval from Pizza Hut, Inc. for a color change to the roof. Davis stated that he would rather have Pizza Hut tell the Commission what they would rather have, than to have Commission tell them what they can have for roof color. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes August 16, 1984 Page 8 of 10 Lo'` 67 & 68, Blk. 1, BM @ BC - Pizza Hut - Design Review Phase I & Conceptual Site Plan Review Phase II, Con't. Cuny felt that Commission shouldn't say they would not accept a red roof and jeopardize the entire project. She felt she could almost go along with the red roof, but not on the Phase II building. Davis felt that the red roof would be very noticeable and perhaps the community doesn't feel that flamboyant. He has no problem approving the roof contingent upon it being a shake roof; felt that if it jeopardizes the project, that's the decision the Commission is making. Lawrence stated that there was a minor percentage of Pizza Huts that were allowed to have a roof other than red, but he would still have to ask Pizza Hut, Inc. because the roof is copyrighted. Kumpost motioned for preliminary approval for Pizza Hut design review Phase I on Lot 67, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek subject to items 1-8 of the Staff report, with a ninth condition that the red roof is not desireable, and alter- natives be explored by the applicant, and color samples to be provided. Dingwell seconded. Passed unanimously. Conce tual Site Plan Review Phase II, Lot 68, Blk. 1, BM @ BC Cuny motione to approve t e conceputa site review oFr lase II, Lot 68, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek with the condition that it expire it 2 years. Davis seconded. Cuny amended motion to say that no specific approval is given for the 3 items in the Staff report. Davis amended second. Passed unanimously. Lot A & 55, Blk. 2, BM @ BC - Avon Center Landscape & Sign Review - Continued rogiana states tnat the Commission requested a resubmittal of plans showing walkways along Beaver Creek Boulevard, revised landscape plan and revised business sign. He explained that the parking lot had been extended further to the east and that the Commission had requested lighting to be compatible with other lighting in the area and the sod to be carried to the ditch. The revised site plans and landscaping plans were reviewed and discussed at length by the Commission. Cuny mentioned concerns from a previous meeting stating she had suggested a smaller island and patrolled parking to eliminate congestion while delivery trucks were in roadway. She also asked if the landscaping would go to the ditch. Ned Gwathmey, applicant and representative for Avon Center, answered yes. Cuny questioned the placement of 2 large trees in the northeast corner of the parking lot that might restrict traffic visibility. Gwathmey stated the large trees were for aesthetics and would be 14' tall or m, •e and could be moved bac!.. ny suggested that the lighting match that of the Town Mall area. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes August 16, 1984 Page 9 of 10 Lot A & 55, Blk. 2, BM @ BC - Avon Center Landscape & Sign Review - Continued from 06/28/84 Regular Meeting, Con't. Gwathmey said he preferred not to use the same type of lighting because he didn't care for it particularly. His suggestion was 14' lights that are similar to those presently being used in Breckenridge. Davis felt that an individual building should be able to choose it's own design in lighting to maintain some individuality. Wood clarified that applicant's suggested lighting would illuminate ground area, but that you wouldn't see the lights directly. Cuny questioned the square footage of the business sign with the changes made. Gwathmey stated 7' x 20' or 140 S.F. Cuny motioned to approve the landscape plan for Avon Center on Lct A and 55, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek with the condition that the architect is going to correct the circulation problem by putting a loading zone near the northeast corner of the Avon Center building, or move the curbing of the center median back in the southeast portion. Landauer seconded. Passed unanimously. Davis asked if there would be a sign like this for every building, or if this was the main sign for the entire building. He felt that there was a need to establish this as a building identification sign and that no other sign be added. Kumpost motioned to approve the sign for Avon Center on Lot A and 55, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek as the main project sign and that the foreground trees be subject to approval by Town Engineer for sight lines. Dingwell seconded. Passed unanimously. Blair highly recommended to applicant that something be done with the parking lot, if not paving, at least regrading and repair work. Fogland stated that if everything were approved, they have no excuse to not start construction. Tract G, Blk. 2, BM @ BC - Town Center Mall Phase III - Landscape Review Wood explained that the open space between Peregrine Village and existing walk through Mall would be completed with landscaping. The construction area from south side cf walkway to Peregrine will be leveled out and will also be taking care of drainage and grading problems and putting in walkways to tie Peregrine project in with Mall and will sod area. Blair asked if this would be temporary improvement. Wood stated that it wouldn't be temporary, but it wouldn't be complete because of later additions of trees; walkways may change in the future and asphalt is being used now which may include brick pavers over the asphalt later. Dingwell motioned to approve the landscape review for the Town Center Mall Phase III on Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek as submitted. Landauer seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes August 16, 1984 Page 10 of 10 Lots 29 & 30, Blk. 2, BM @ BC - First Bank of Avon Conceptual ,Review - Traffic Flow - Continued from 7/26/84 Regular Meeting Blair stated that applicant had requested a continuance to the August 30, 1 regular meeting. Kumpost motioned to continue the conceptual review for First Bank of Avon on Lots 29 and 30, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek until applicant submits information, and subject to a 6 month review. Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. Other Business og al" d mentioned memo written by him regarding Rules and Regulations of the Commission and requested a review of the memo by the Commission members. Cuny mentioned concerns regarding Benchmark Shopping Center parking lot improvements and the Vail Associates' freestanding sign placed on Avon Road. Fogland stated he had written letter to Vail Associates regarding the sign. Cuny expressed concerns regarding lack of crosswalks at intersections and at bank parking lot. She felt there was an immediate need for crosswalks for safety reasons. Wood stated he had spoken with the highway Department, but had not heard from them yet. Davis suggested that the secretary write a letter expressing concerns of the Commission regarding the crosswalks. Cuny motioned to have the secretary write a letter to the Town Council regarding concerns of the Commission. Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. There being no further business to discuss, Kumpost motioned to adjourn. Dingwell seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:05 PM. Respectfully Submit d, Margaret Lach Recording Secretary Commission Approval: Date: M. Blair V' P. Cunfz J. Davis_ T. Landauer L. Kumpost_ M. Donaldso C. Dingwell