Loading...
PZC Minutes 022885RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 2B, 1985 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on February 28, 1985 at 6:45 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: Pat Cuny, Mark: Donaldson, Cheryl Dingwell, Mike Blair, Charlie Gersbach, Jerry Davis, Tom Landauer Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Public Works - Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant - Maggie Lach, Recording Secretary _Work Session Blair introduced and welcomed new Commission member, Charlie Gersbach. Commission reviewer' and commented on rough draft of Sign Code with regard to fine art definition, portable signs, joint directory signs and freestanding signs. Blair mentioned Fogland's memo regarding a Special Work Session for March 21, 1985 for discussion of Sign Code and Design Rules. Regular Agenda Items _ 7._35 PM Reading and Anergyy-al of P & Z Meeting Davis motioned to approve the regular meeting as submitted. Donaldson seconded. Gersbach abstained. Motion carried. Minutes of :/14/85 Regular minutes of February 14, 1985 Election of Secretary to Planning & Zgning Commission Davis nominated Pat Cony as Secretary to the Commission. Donaldson seconded. Passed unanimously. White Annexation - A Parcel located in NE 1/41 SE 1/41 §< NW 1/441 SE_ 1%41 Section 1=1 15_91 R_8urhe 2W1 as ftr described by Legal Description - Zoning Change to SPA - Pub_lic Hearing Zoning Change Request Withdrawn Wood stated that procedure for Public Hearing on this item had been done prior to official annexation request coming to Town Council. Town Attorney felt that applicant should withdraw the request for zoning change until formal application had been made to Town Council for annexation. Knight Planning Services submitted a letter requesting Planning &< Zoning Meeting Minutes February 28, 1935 Page 2 of 1.' White Annexation, Con t_ withdrawal of the zoning change request. Blair opened public hearing. There being no one winning to be heard, the public hearing was closed. Cuny motioned to accept applicants request for withdrawal of the zoning change request for the White Annexation. Dingwell seconded. Passed unanimously. Lot _8, Plock 4, W.R. - Satellite Antenna _ Design Review Wood stated that satellite antenna had already been installed, but applicant was requesting design review. A rendering of the home with satellite placement has been submitted. Staff report states that satellite does comply, location should be verified so it is not located in setbacks or easements, and it is somewhat visible from the west and north. The color of the dish is black: and white and screening is suggested. Richard Irwin, president of Universal Satellite Systems, and representative of owner John Fawcett stated that antenna is installed and feels that it does comply with easements and setbacks. Irwin presented photos of home and antenna placement. Irwin stated antenna was installed at owners request because there is no cable service to that area. The resident would like to keep satellite as a permanent installation. Wildridge Covenants state that antennas are allowable on a temporary basis until high density cable subscription service is available. Irwin stated he agreed that area should be bermed and include vegetation. He did not feel dish needed paint because the winter season lasts about 6 months. He also stated that if cable becomes available, it is owners right to keep antenna there. Davis felt that owner does not necessarily have the right to install dishes that have not been approved. He felt it was a special type of review use and admonished applicant for installing the antenna without review, nor has it been addressed before in Avon. Concerns were mentioned regarding permanency of antenna. Irwin stated that pole that supports antenna is cemented to ground, but dish can be moved. Cuny asked if adjacent property owners had been notified. Irwin stated no, that the closest house or building was 1/4 mile away. Davis had no problem with installation as temporary use until cable is available or an ordinance by the Town of Avon that regulates satellite antennas from design review standpoint. Blair asked if zonimg allowed this use. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes February 26, 1905 Page _ of i' Lot OOsHlock 4, W_R_ _ Satellite Antenna _ Design Rev_iew3, Con 't. Wood stated it could be allowed as a central system or until cable is available. Irwin stated that satellite is a round parabolic dish, S feet off the ground. Landauer felt that dish should be painted to match house because there is only -4 months of snow on that side of the valley. Irwin suggested a 4 foot berm behind dish for screening. Dingwell motioned to accept application as a temporary installation until cable is availabe to the residence and/or an ordinance to allow the dish; that it be painted to match the house, and a berm be included around the backside of dish for screening. Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. Lot 211 Hloc4_: 4s .J_R_ _ Single Family Residence - Design Review Dingwell stepped down from discussion due to a conflict of interest. Wood stated that applicant is proposing a single family residence on Lot 21, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. The home is 3 levels with garage, utilizing solar panels in window areas. The proposed materials are wood shingles, cedar siding, facia and trim. The project generally conforms to design guidelines. Clarification is needed for colors, and type of wood retaining walls. There is a question as to whether the drive will be entirely paved or just a portion, and verification of easement across Lot 22 providing access to this project. Drawings and site plans have been submitted and appear to be very complete and in order. Kirk Aker, architect and representative of owner reviewed and discussed site plans with Commission. Aker presented evidence of the recorded easement and stated that this would allow access to the property. The driveway will be paved in front of garage and rest would be compacted road base. The colors are Olympic stain 716 for majority of house and Olympic stain 726 for trim. Windows are dark clad brown and roof is wood shal::e shingles. Liveable area is 2,000 SF and does not include unfinished basement or garage. The project is nestled into site to avoid disturbance of most of the site and is situated on duple: lot. Concerns were mentioned regarding driveway not being completely paved. Aker stated that landscaing would be natural vegetation, and are going to try to perserve the sage etc. Cottonwood trees will be used in drainage swales. Planning & Zoning fleeting Mintues February 28, 1985 Page 4 of 13 Lot 21s Bl9c4_: 11 W_R_ _ Single Family Residence _ Design Rev -i ews Con t_ Donaldson felt project was well conceived and well sited and handsome project for the area. Donaldson motioned to approve the design review of the single fmaily residence on Lot 21, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, as submitted. Davis seconded. Davis commented that adequate roadbase be put on drive. Dingwell abstained. Motion carried. Staff commended architect for professional nature in which materi-zl was presented. Lodge at Avon Subdivision (Formerly Lots 57_61 Blocks BM G BC) - Development Sign = Design F_'ev_iew Dingwell rejoined Commission discussion. Wood stated that development sign is for proposed Lodge at Avon project. He stated that the sign generally complies with Sign Code and proposed Sign Code, except for the height. The sign dimensions are 12' 1(Y" in height x 7' 6" in width. However, based on definitions, the top round portion of the sign is an integral part of the display and the height requirement is F feet. Based an this assumption, the sign is 4' 10" too high. The sign sould be located at least 10' from property lines. Drawing of sign and site plan were submitted for review. Bill Pierce, representative of Lodge at Avon Associates stated that there might be verbage changes on the sign and perhaps some phone numbers. He explained that they would not have to put the round part of the sign on top, but it was put on as a decorative feature. If height were 8 feet, it would be too low and they would consider removing the top round portion of the sign. Donaldson asked if it would be out of the Io' setbacks. Pierce stated it would be no problem. Pierce stated there was no color rendering submitted, but that the colors are dart; green letters and white background. Realtor colors are black, red and white for Ski and Shore. Davis had no problem with the sign being higher than what is stated in regulations due to the fact that the lettering, in comparison to the sign, is much smaller. Dingwell motioned to approve the development sign for Lodge at Avon, formerly Lots 57-64, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, even though it is higher than it is supposed to be due to the fact that it is a good sign design, and approval is not to exceed 2 years. Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 28, 1985 Page 5 of 13 Lodge at Avon Subdivision _S_R_U_ -Mixed Use Parking Reduction Wood stated that Commission reviewed Preliminary Plat at last meeting for Lodge at Avon and it was pointed out that if lease from Highway Department were terminated, the protect would be short parking spaces. A revised site plan has been submitted showing the projected parking requirements of 158 spaces in combination with the reduction in parking requirement through the Special Review Use, and this can be met on-site even if the lease is terminated. Wood stated that there are 2 ways to consider the allowable parking reduction: one is for mixed use lots, wiich does meet this requirement. What is allowed under this reduction is that no more than 25% of normal park::ing requirements for a specific use with a total reduction being no more than 20% of the normal requirement. The other method is large lot reduction. Based upon 158 spaces, the reduction that would be allowed would be 10% or 15 spaces. Wood stated that there is mixed use of the project, accommodation and commercial, and on the assumption that the people in accommodation units would be using commercial space, and taking the maximum of 25% for commercial space uses times 69 spaces allocated, would allow a reduction of 17 spaces. This is within the 20% reduction using maximum mixed use reduction. Wood felt a 17 space reduction is realistic. The revised site plan provides 164 spaces of which 21 could be lost if Highway Department lease is terminated, which would leave 143 spaces on-site. With maximum mixed use reduction and based upon projected commercial uses, the minimum parking requirement would be 141 spaces. With maximum large lot reduction, based on projected commercial uses, minimum parking requirement would be 143 spaces. The revised site plan showing pervious open space area with revised part.-Ang plan meets the useable open space requirement of 20%. Wood recommended that Preliminary Plat and plat be revised in accordance with the site plan if this application is approved. Bill Pierce, representive of Lodge at Avon Associates explained his interpretation of the mixed use reduction. Wood stated that he believed Pierce was asking for a Tull 20% reduction of the total requirement of 158 or 31 spaces, and felt ordinance could not be stretched. Lengthy discussion followed. Blair opened public hearing. There being no one wishing to be heard, the public hearing was closed. Donaldson motioned to approve the Special Review Use for Lodge at Avon Condominiums (formerly Lots 57-60, Block 2, Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 28, 1985 Page 6 of 13 Lodge at Avon Subdivision _ S_F_U _ Mixed Use ParL_i ng Reductions Con 't_ Benchmark: at Beaver Creek) for mixed use reduction in parking. The Commission found that applicant was in compliance with items 1-3 of Findings Required for Special Review use. Mixed use reduction is for 17 spaces and plat is to be revised in accordance with site plan as submitted. Dingwell seconded. Passed unanimously. Lots 73/74, Block 2, PM C B.0 - Savoy Sgugre _ Design Rev-iew Lamont stated that applicant had applied for 212 residential units, building is pre -cast, 8 floors, 2 levels of underground parking with a gross SF of 354,963. There is approximately 28,000 SF of commercial and there is requisite number of development rights necessary, and project generally complies with open space building coverage, snow storage, etc. Building height at its peak is 95 feet. The most restrictive interpretation of the zoning code application for averaging heights would yield a height of 82' 3". This could be changed to 80' by increasing the exterior grade on the west and north by 2' 3". The project will require a Special Review Use for compact car spaces and large lot reduction. Staff recommends final approval not be given until final items be addressed (1-10 on Staff report). John Eden, architect for Savoy Square gave an overview of what had been presented and discussed at previous meetings, along with some changes made per Staff recommendations. Lamont presented his comments on Savoy Square with regard to goals for Development District II. He stated that his comments raise issues that are of community wide concerns and was not sure that this project could resolve them on its own. He stated that these items are dealt with on 2 levels: one is site considerations and the second is how the project may conflict with goals. The topics t.:, addressed included housing, transportation and circulation, community facilities and community design. Eden responded to Lamont's comments and stated that this project evolved through the rules and regulations that are in effect now and made effort to address all of those with this project. He felt it unfair to client to require him to completely redesign the zone, and require variances under recommendation of Staff, and no longer knows wh'ch direction to take. He commented on each poiit. presented in Lamont's memo submitted to Commission with regard to height of building, time share, and entrances to parking structure. Eden stated project would not be phased, but built all at once. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 28, 1985 Page 7 of 13 Lots 73/74,- Bloc4_: 2� BM C BC = Sav_oY Sgus are = Deign Reviews C_o_n_'t_. Davis agreed with Eden's comments and felt that amenities should be tied down and what is going to be provided. Donaldson commented on adoption of working goals. Davis stated this project came in before adoption and that other projects that had been approved recently should be required to come back for redesign and did not feel this was fair. Cuny agreed with Davis and comments made, and reviewed points 1-10 of Staff report. Donaldson commented on second entrance to parking structure and felt it would be helpful. Discussion followed between Commission members and Eden regarding parking structure. Wood reviewed items 1-10 of Staff report with Commission members and stated that with regard to platting process and fractionalization, platting would resolve this issue, which is in regard to the design of the unit. The unit has a piece of furniture or wall that may have a difference as to whether the unit is an efficiency unit at 1/3 development right or a one bedroom unit with 1/2 density right, and this will determine if they have sufficient density rights. Wood presented plans to Commission to review interior of unit and stated that as it is shown, it is an efficiency unit, but the piece of furniture, if it goes floor to ceiling with the door in it, becomes a one beoroom unit. Dennis Cole, representative of applicant stated that diagram shows a piece of furniture that goes from wall to wall, floor to ceiling and i-: a complete room divider, if you want to look at it that way, and it has a sliding pocket door. our position is that this unit is an efficiency, and if there is any question an this it needs to be resolved immediately. Cuny and Donaldson agreed that it was a one bedroom unit. Cole stated if it were a fixed wall, it would be a one bedroom, but we are putting a piece of furniture there. Eden asked Commission how they would police furniture placement. Wood stated difference between one bedroom and efficiency is the number of units that can go on there with the development rights that they have. At a 3-1 ratio with 71 units, they would be allowed 213 efficiency units. The 2-1 ratio of a one bedroom unit would be 142 one bedroom units. With regard to parking, one bedroom units require 1 1/2 spaces per unit and efficiency units require 1 space. Davis did not care if unit were efficiency or one bedroom. He felt perhaps a limitation of SF would be more appropriate. Donaldson read definition of efficiency unit from the Avon Municipal Code and felt attempt was being made to build a one Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes February 28, 1985 Page 8 of 13 Lots 73/74.,_ CilocF_:1 BM @ BC _ Savoy Sguare _ Design Reviews Con t_ bedroom unit. Wood continued with remaining points of Staff report. Eden felt- that most points of Staff report could be met. Donaldson felt that unit was a one bedroom unit with furniture as shown. Cole stated that in order for this project to fit in with their time frame, the project would have to be built this summer. This project makes economic sense only if we have 212 units and use the efficiency, and for time share use a piece of furniture needs to be installed as described. We need that determination if this unit is efficiency or not. If not, we cannot do this project. We are asking for feedback from Commission as to those items that would need tc be worked on. Discussion followed on definition of efficiency unit between Commission and applicant. Cole felt requirement of SF was easier to maintain than what is put in unit. He asked for clarification of efficiency unit. Discussion followed on efficiency unit and fractionalization ordinance. Donaldson motioned to continue the application of Savoy Square to the next regular meeting until feedback from Council is obtained regarding the definition of efficiency unit. Motion died due to lack of a second. Davis motioned approval of the preliminary design review with recommended conditions for Savoy Square, Lots 77./74, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Conditions are numbers 1-10 of Staff report and to include considerations for a second entrance for parking level, consider incorporation of sky bridge, at later date, in design of building, and submittal of letter which states amenities to be in building; an agreement is to be made with neighboring property owners for shared access to parking and clarification of efficiency unit versus a one bedroom unit. Dingwell seconded. Donaldson and Landauer opposed. Motion carried. Davis suggested that Staff request that Council address the issue of efficiency and one bedroom units. Lot 6i1 Bloc4_: =s BM @ BC _ Peregrine Village _ Preliminary Plat Review_ Wood stated this was continuation from previous meeting of February 14, 1985. Revised site plan has been submitted showing revised surface parking layout with open space and a Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 28, 1985 Page 9 of 13 Lot 63y Bloc4_ 2� BM C BC _ Peregrine Village = Preliminary Flat F_'ev_i ew,i Con t letter submitted by Town Attorney John Dunn regarding his interpretation of open space requirements. Dunn's interpretation is that there is a conflict between the Design Review Regulations and the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code was adopted by Ordinance whereas the Design Review Regulations were adopted by resolution, and that the Zoning Code was adopted after the Design Review Regulations. Dunn feels The Zoning Code would take precedence over the Design Review Rules. Design Review Rules call for a 25% pervious area on each lot and the Zoning Code, for the Town Center district, calls for 20% useable open space. Dunn feels that useable open space can include walkways, mall type areas, etc. Wood reviewed and discussed revised site plan with Commission members and stated that landscape areas were outlined, open space areas are paved, mall area calls for brick pavers and landscaping plan has been revised and parking appears to work very well. Loading spaces appear to function well and meet the requirement of current code. Pervious open space is 11.8% of total site and impervious open space equals 13.6%, totalling 25.4%. Wood stated that parking has been resolved and request that they come back to next meeting with parking layout. Frick Larson of PPL Development, representing applicant stated that Wood had covered most points and said it would be Commission's decision to determine interpretation of useable open space. Donaldson asked what percentage of impervious materials were decorative. Larson stated it would be about 5�)-50 of the 13-.6%. Commission reviewed and discussed submitted plans with Larson. Davis motioned to approve, with recommended conditions, the revised landscaping and surface parking plan for Peregrine Village Condominiums, Lot 6.3, Block 2, Benchmark: at Beaver Creek, and recommended that Town Council table action on Preliminary Plat pending review by the Commission of the parking layout. Items 1-3 of Staff report determined that there is 25% Useable open space. Cuny seconded. Donaldson suggested that a clear definition of open space and a formula be found that Commission could live with for other projects, and note that this motion was based on exter,;tating circumstances of the project being under construction. Passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 28, 1985 Page 10 of 13 Lot 6 Bloc4_: Qs BL1 @ BC - Peregrine Village - Variance Reguest = Ogen Space Reduction Wood stated variance request was applied for in case the previous action taken on Preliminary Plat was not approved. Public notices have been sent. Blair opened public hearing. There being no one wishing to be heard, the public hearing was closed. Ric Larson of PPL Development, representative of applicant stated they formally request withdrawal of application for vz.riance request. Donaldson motioned to accept applicants request for withdrawal of application for a variance request for reduction in useable open space requirement for Peregrine Village Condominiums, Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek:. Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. Lot 63A Blocls 2s EM C BC - Peregrine Village _ S.R.U. _- Tr&nsFerof 30 DeveloDment Rights to Lot 55, B1ocF:: 2S PM @ BC Wood stated that Municipal Code allows for transfer of dwelling or accommodation unit densities as a Special Review Use. Our records indicate an assigned dwelling unit density of 103 units on Lot 63 and assigned dwelling unit density of 0 units on Lot 55. Wood stated he did request an opinion from Town Attorney regarding how this applied with Zoning Regulations, and said Attorney's letter was attached. The Town Attorney stated that transfer could be approved if Commission agrees with Findings Required for Special Review Use. Wood reviewed items 1-3, Findings Required for Special Review Use and Special Review Criteria., A-E. Greg Gage, representative of applicant stated that transfer was within Town Center and was not changing average density. Blair opened public hearing. There being no one wishing to be heard, the public hearing was closed. Davis questioned the location of Lot 55. Gage stated it was Avon Center's new parking lot, on the corner- of Avon Road and West Beaver Cree4:: Boulevard. Blair questioned the purpose of the transfer of density. Gage stated that Ordinance allows transfer of unused density and after reviewing the unit denisty for Peregrine, it was found that there were 30 unused density rights. They want to transfer them to a lot with no density, which are whole density rights. Cal -Colorado Investors own Lot 55 and are owners of Avon Center. Concerns were mentioned regarding access, types of uses that Planning &< Zoning Meeting Minutes February 28, 1985 Page It of 13 Lot 1�, B1oc4_ 2L BM C BC - Peregrine Village - S_E_U_ - Transfer of_ 30 Dev-elopment Rights to Lot 55. Eilock _s HM C SC Cont_ potentially could be put on lot, and the impact with regard to Development Plan. Wood explained that Dunn's letter stated that Commission could approve the application provided that it satisfied the Commission's findings regarding impact on access, parking and public transportatin and other public or priva_e services. Gage believed that owners of Lot 55 would not be submitting plan for development nor would PPL Development. Davis felt if density rights were transferred, Commission would need to know if it is suitable for that lot. Blair suggested that more time was needed to study the impact of this transfer. Commission members agreed. Donaldson- felt that points presented in Dunn's letter were valid and warranted further study. Davis agreed with Donaldson and felt Town Engineer should review ingress and egress. Discussion followed. Applicant stated he wished to continue the application to the next regular meeting. Blair suggested that Staff review impact of density transfer. Tract Q South,.,, Block 21 BM [ BC _ Conceptual Review _ Informal Discussion -------- ---------- Wood stated applicant had submitted revised site plan that addresses front setback: requirements, site circulation, building orientation and access. These were identified at the design review of the proposed Wendy's restaurant. Bill Fierce, representative of owner of Tract Q stated he wanted to address concerns of last meeting. Pierce presented revised plan and reviewed and discussed plan with Commission members. He stated there is twice as much parking as the ordinance requires. Access has been provided along the south of parcel. Site design is totally independent of access from the north. Jim Cunningham, applicant stated that they had discussion with Wendy's regarding design of building, portico, wood siding instead of brick and moss rock: in front of the green- house. The building is 3,500 SF on a 21,000 SF lot, which is less than 15%. Landauer felt building should be at least a 2-3 story building so that it is not out of scale. Discussion followed on design of building. Cuny did not feel location met goals of Development Flan. Donaldson felt roof materials needed review and consideration. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes February 28, 1985 Page 12 of 13 Tract 0 South. Plock: 2. BM C HC _ Conceptual Review _ I_nformal Discussion. goat. Gersbach did not feel that Avon attracts the family visitor in the summer or winter and that this restaurant may attract that visitor. Davis had no opposition to having restaurant there as long as architect has acceptable building that matches current architecture in town. He felt he could live with it even though it is not what he would like to see. Blair agreed with Davis and felt it would work: with revised plan, as did other Commission members. Blair thanked applicant for presentation. No formal action was taken. Other Business_ Blair mentioned enclosed letter to be sent to Town Council regarding proposed resubdivision of Tract 0. Davis motioned to approve the letter and that it be sent to Town Council, regarding proposed Tract 0 South, Block 2, Benchmark:: at Beaver Creek. Landauer seconded. Passed unanimously. Cunningham asked Commission if appropriate plans, landscape plans that conform with open space and setbacks, snow removal, and trash area, etc. were presented for Trace 0 South, would it be worth the time of the Commission to reconsider development on that lot. Commission members agreed that it would. Concerns were mentioned regarding the length of the Commission meetings. There being no further business to discuss, Cuny motioned to adjourn the meeting. Landauer seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 1:00 AM. Respectfully it te� g et M. ach Recording Secretary Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes February 28, 19851 Page 13 of 13 Commission AVpr Date M. Blair -'Z4"�"�'--1=�1== P. Cuny _ J. Davis _ T. Landauer M. Donaldson C. Dingwell _ C. Gersbach 4