Loading...
PZC Minutes 051685RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 16, 1985 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on May 16, 1985 at 5:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avor Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mike Blair. Members Present: Tom Landa;!er, Jerry Davis, Pat Cuny, Charlie Gersbach Mike Blair Members Absent: Cheryl Dingwell, Mark Donaldson Staff Present: Jim Lamont, Planning Director and Consultant - Norm Wood, Director of Engineering and Community Development - Bill James, Town Manager - Maggie Lach, Recording Secretary Work Session Members of the Town Council (Clint Watkins and Al Connell) and Planning and Zoning Commission members held a work session to discuss Development District Goals 3 and 6, which they reviewed and discussed. Lamont reviewed and explained the development map to the Town Council members present and Commission members present, with regard to planning goals of the town. Regular Agenda Items - 7:45 PM Lot 65, Block 2, BM @ BC - Avon Executive Center - Informal Discussion Wood stated that no additional information had been su mitte on of 65 for this meeting, but he had enclosed a letter drafted to the applicant regarding an outline of requirements for final design review approval. Wood explained that Mr. Otis, applicant, had informed him that a number of items addressed in the letter had been provided, but he felt there were a few more items that needed additional detail included. Mr. Otis has provided clew plans this evening that are specifically related to items mentioned in the letter and also related to planning concerns regarding proposed access road across the property and building relocation. Jim Otis, applicant, stated he was present for approval on his project. He stated he met with the planner and engineer and has tried to work out the location of the building so it would comply with the potential Master Plan. He had serious thoughts that someone may not want this project approved. Blair did not feel that was the case. He felt that if the plan submitted met all the requirements, it has to be considered. If there are items of information missing, the Commission would require those. Otis stated that in regard to Woods' letter, he believed he complied with every item (1-6) regarding the property map. The site grading and drainage had not fully been completed. He believed that this was the only item missing for final approval. He also believed that the building elevations and landscape plans were complete. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes May 16, 1985 Page 2 of 7 2. BM @ BC - Avon Executive Center - Informal Discussi wood responded and said that part of the problem was that stats realiy nad not had the opportunity to talk with Otis at length. He explained that the letter was more of a summary to explain what was needed for final design review. He stated that proposed contours were also needed, not just proposed contours. Wood felt that the key issue was grading and drainage and felt that the Staff needs to know that the building can fit on that site, that it is tied down on the site, along with details on grading. He believed the information submitted was sufficient for preliminary approval. Otis presented plans submitted from previous meeting and explained and reviewed those with Commission members. Cuny mentioned concerns of her view corridor being obstructed by a 60 foot building. Otis and Commission members felt that view would not be obstructed. Otis presented plans regarding traffic flow to show how that would work with relation to Wendy's. Landscaping plan and types of materials were reviewed. Otis speculated that construction could conceivably start in Spring of 1986 or Fall of 1985. He reviewed the square footage of the building. He stated that there would oe office and commercial space on 3 floors or 34,752 SF, or just under 12,000 SF per floor. The 4th and 5th floors would total 16,000 SF and is designed for 8 residential units. There is parking for 134 cars on the original plan, and on the revised plan it shows 120 spaces and still meets the code as proposed. The exterior materials are proposed cement plaster on a steel frame building, solar reflective glass windows, with the upper windows being Andersen or Pella windows. The ground floor doors as proposed would be wood with glass, balconies have wood frame and metal rails, and roof treatment is pre-moldel aluminum in a wood color. The roof to the balconies and stairwells would be laminated wood beams. The landscaping includes indigenous materials of aspen, hackberry, wild spruce and pine, some andora juniper and flowering shrubs, and sod and natural rock. The building would be an ivory color stucco so that accent colors stand out more and the tinted glass should enhance the architecture of the building. He explained that open space is 73.42% impervious and 26.85% pervious, or 20,000 SF pervious area. He stated that the contour lines and drainage needed further work and that it would be reviewed by the Town Engineer before final approval. Davis asked Wood if there were other areas that needed attention that would preclude preliminary approval. Wood stated that there would be no problem with preliminary approval. The drawings submitted this evening have not been reviewed by Staff and he stated he would feel more comfortable if site grading and drainage were worked out before final approval. Davis and Blair agreed that they had no problem with project as lo,:'1 as details such as irrigation, landscaping, trash enclosure and grading and drai;Zna waro worked out. Otis felt that he could have all details worked out in i month, but did ask for preliminary approval so he would know he was going in the right direction. Commission members agreed that this was a good project. Landauer motioned to approve preliminary design review for Avon Executive Center with the condition that details be included on final plan such as irrigation system, landscaping, trash enclosure and grading and drainage. Gersbach seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes May 16, 1985 Page 3of7 Lot A, Block 2, BM @ BC - Penalty Box Restaurant in Avon Center - Patio Addition Design Review Wood stated that applicant has proposed an outdoor patio in the Town Center Mall for his restaurant. This is a concept recommended for the Mall. He explained that there are some problems with the proposed patio in that the liquor law requires that the patio be tied directly to the restaurant. The proposed plan creates a major disruption to pedestrian flow. As the area develops, this could cause problems later on. The proposed design calls for a 5 foot walkway around the enclosure, but it does not present a smooth flow and the 5 foot walkway is half the width of the rest of the walkways in the mall area. Wood did not feel that the application was complete. He stated that there is re -grading required which is not shown on the plan along with landscaping and irrigation. Staff is recommending that conceptual review be given for the type of project proposed and that Commission provide guidance as to the layout of the patio. Wood presented plans and reviewed and explained those to Commission. Buck Letourneau, applicant and owner of half the restaurant stated that they tried to keep plans simple and carry the same theme that exists in the mall now. There would be approximately 40 seats for the patio. Blair mentioned concerns of additional parking for the outdoor seating. Wood stated the current Ordinance does not require additional parking for outdoor seating. Letourneau stated they are also proposing an awning for the entrance for aesthetics and to catch any snow that may slide off the roof. Commission members reviewed and discussed plans with specific attention to the sidewalk area. Wood also stated that this particular area was to be dedicated to the town as part of the mall. He stated that this would need additional research. Blair suggested that applicant work with Staff on these details. Commission members agreed. Davis motioned to approve the conceptual review for the patio and awning for the Penalty Box Restaurant with the condition that that applicant return with acceptable plans for Staff and Commission review. Landauer seconded. Wood stated that the Mall Committee would also need to approve the design. They would be having a meeting in 2 weeks. Passed unanimously. Lot A, Block 2, BM @ BC - Penalty Box Restaurant in Avon Center - Si n Desi n Review Wood stated that applicant is requesting review of a neon window sign an an exterior wall sign. There are some problems in that Avon Center has not responded to inquiries of their sign program. These signs do not comply with the approved sign program and a sign that is not in compliance requires approval from Avon Center and the Commission. The proposed wall sign or exterior sign is individual plastic letters 12" high. The size of the sign matches the sign program, but the materials do not. Wood read from the Avon Center sign program which states "exterior signs shall consist of groups of individual cast metal bronze letters or wood letters with laminated bronze faces and matching edges:' He stated this S Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes May 16, 1985 Page 4 of 7 Lot A, Block 2, BM @ BC - Penalty Box Restaurant in Avon Center - Sign Design Review, Con't. would be a variance from the sign code with these proposed plastic letters. The only thing that is allowed for window signs, and in the sign program is painted or etched lettering affixed to storefront glass not exceeding 10% of the glass area. Maximum height is 6" or individual white "Letra sign" die cut vinyl letters affixed to the storefront glass not exceeding 6" in height and 10% of glass area. Window signs may not be used in conjunction with wall signs. From this standpoint, both signs are at a variance from the sign program and would require Avon Center approval as well as Commission approval. Previous action with Anthony International, who had an existing sign and was unable to get a response from Avon Center, was given a 30 day temporary approval for the sign until such time as they were able to get a response from Avon Center. Wood further explained that Fogland wrote a letter to Avon Center and received no follow-up and Dick Evans drafted a letter, in addition to making numerous phone calls, and to date have not received a response from Avon Center with regard to non -complying signs with their sign program. Based upon this, Staff feels that the best course of action, since the neon window sign is in place, and if the Commission feels it is an acceptable sign, and to be consistent with the Anthony International sign, that it be given a 30 day temporary approval to remain in place, and hopefully get a response from Avon Center as to whether the sign is acceptable or not. Wood suggested that review of the exterior sign be continued until approval is received from Avon Center or denied. The applicant would then have the option of installing the exterior sign, which conforms to the sign program and does not require Commission review. Letourneau asked if written approval were given for the neon sign from Avon Center, would that meet the Commission's requirements. Cuny stated that the Avon Center sign program does not allow interior window signs. Davis briefly explained sign program to Letourneau and stated that if tenants do not like the sign program, it is up to the tenant to get it changed, and in turn, Avon Center must come back to the Commission to change their sign program. Gersbach stated that in other words, Maury Daily of Avon Center gave verbal approval, but did not inform the Commission of this variance from their sign program. Wood stated that was the basic problem. Staff has received no response from Avon center. Discussion followed. Wood stated that neon sign is approximately 15 SF and the individual letter Sion, as proposed, constitutes about 12 SF. Davis motioned to approve a 30 day temporary installation of the neon window sign for the Penalty Box Restaurant. Landauer seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes May 16, 1985 Page 5 of 7 Lodge at Avon Subdivision - Formerly Lots 57-60, Block 2, BM @ BC - Informal Discussion - Time Share Davis mentioned concerns of Lodge at Avon development sign and stated that it does not look like the rendering that was approved and thought it was an unattractive sign. Bill Pierce, representative of Lodge at Avon Associates stated they had problems getting the parts to the sign and as soon as those were available, would remedy the situation. Pierce explained that Lodge at Avon Associates had tried to make the Lodge at Avon a whole ownership project and have had little success in pre -sales. The owners of the property have requested that they pursue the concept of time sharing. He explained it would involve modifications to the plan. The building and footprint would remain the same as well as the style of the building and general mass. He believed that they would be installing more 1 bedroom units. We wanted to informally discuss this so the Commission could air any concerns. He further explained that the lender requires 50% pre -sales before they will grant financing, but the lender will finance time share. Davis asked how time share would affect amenities. Pierce did not feel it would change substantially. Davis asked if Lodge at Avon would need to come back for design review. Wood stated that time share would be a Special Review Use and that a review for the platting process would be needed. If the layout of the building is being changed, they would need to go through the full design review process. Davis felt that everyone else is time sharing, so why not the Lodge at Avon. Cuny asked if they had a particular company in mind to handle the time share sales, and mentioned concerns of selling tactics. Pierce stated that they had discussed it with several companies. Davis felt that since Avon does have a successful time share project, he had no problem with it assuming that the building and amenities remain essentially the same. Cuny asked when construction would start. Pierce stated they hoped to break ground this fall. Commission members agreed that they had no problem with time share for Lodge at Avon. No formal action was taken. Readi Minutes of Blair deferred action on the April 25, 1985 regular meeting minutes until the next meeting due to the absence of Commission members at this meeting who were present at the April 25, 1985 regular meeting. and Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. 1 of P & Z Minutes of 5/7/85 o approve the Special Meeting 7, 1985 as submitted. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes May 16, 1985 Page 6 of 7 Other Business Wood presented information on parking requirements and stated that recommendations we,e presented on large mixed use parking lot requirements. Wood explained the recommendations submitted. Rather than going through a Special Review Use for a large lot reduction, it has been incorporated into the method of calculating parking requirements on large lot projects and would apply to projects that require 50 spaces or more in the reduction, but not less than 50 spaces. Another suggestion for time share or fractionalized units would be calculated on 1 space per 600 SF, but not less than 1 per unit. This would make allowances for projects such as Peregrine where their parking requirements probably do not fall in line with a normal residential project. With bigoer units, they probably do have a higher requirement than just 1 per unit. Using t.odge at Avon as an example, you would take the total area of the commercial calculated at 5.5 per 1,000 on the first floor; the second level conmercial would be calculated at 4 spaces per 1,000 SF; residential units would end with 1 space per unit. If they were not fractionalized, they would be calculated at 1 space per 600 SF. When you total up the parking requirements for the entire project, you then find the reduction. What this does is establish parking up front rather than waiting until all the space is leased to see what the parking requirements are. Cuny asked about reserved spaces. James stated if they meet these guidelines and standards, they would get an automatic reduction of 15%. We are also trying to take out the Special Review Use process so that only the Commission reviews and approves it, eliminatino the need for Town Council review and approval. Discussion followed. Blair suggested that the Commission review the parking regulations further at the next regular work session of the Commission. Blair stated for the record that he would be absent for the regular meeting of the Commission on May 30, 1985 due to his son's graduation. Commission members thanked the Town Council for having the May 16, 1985 joint work session on a Thursday evening. Davis asked if the Commission packets could be mailed or dropped off to the members. Discussion followed. There being no further business to discuss, Cuny motioned to adjourn the meetinq. Gersbach seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 PM. RAS ectfully Submi d, MargaretTLach Recording Secretary l• Planning & Zoning Meeting Minute May 16, 1985 Page 7 of 7 3Commission Approval 40 M. Blair P. Cuny J. Davis T. Landa C. Dingw M. Donal C. Gersb Date 30 ��