Loading...
PZC Minutes 012485lij RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 24, 1985 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on January 24, 1985 at 6:55 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: Mike Blair, Mark Donaldson, Jerry Davis, Tom Landauer, Larry Kumpost Members Absent: Cheryl Dingwell, Pat Cuny Staff Present: Dan Fogland, Building and Zoning Administrator - Norm Wood, Director of Public Works - Bill James, Town Manager - Maggie Lach, Recording Secretary Work Session Fogland presented a review of the parking requirements for accommodation suites and Zoninn Committee suaaestions on the parking, Chapter 17.24.020-C, Off -Street Parking, from the Town of Avon Municipal Code. The suggested revisions were presented regarding parking spaces for an accommodation suite unit. Zoning Committee suggestions were reviewed along with the proposed revisions. Renular Meeting Aoenda Items - 7:40 PM Reading and Approval of P & Z Minutes of 1/10/85 Regular Meeting Donaldson motioned o approve the minutes of the January 10, 1985 regular meeting with the change as noted. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Kumpost stated that page 6 of 7, line 23 of the minutes should read "1 week of 50", rather than 53. Tract Q South, Block 2, BM 0 BC - Wendy's Restaurant - Informal Discussion Foqland stated that this discussion regarded the south 1/2 of Tract 0 that Jim Cunningham has been working on for the proposed subdivision. He stated that Peter flitter, representative of Wendy's Corporation had requested feedback from the Commission on the proposed development of this site with regard to the pro- posed Wendy's restaurant. Foqland also stated that the Staff notes mentioned that the frontyard setback would be 25 feet off of Avon Road. He explained that it appears that with the shape of this lot and the wide State right-of-way in that area, it is something to note at this point. Peter Witter stated he represented the Wendy's franchise of Eagle, Summit, and Garfield Counties. The proposed site of the Wendy's drive-through restaurant is approximately 1/2 acre of the Cunninnham property. The gross enclosed building is 2,700 SF with the possibility of a basement for storage. .-y Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 24, 1485 Page 2 of 10 W Tract 0 South, Block 2, BM @ BC - Wendy's Restaurant - Informal Discussion, Con't Witter further said that there would be 104 seats proposed and the useable public area is approximately 1,400 SF. The current site is all paved and they would be doing the site development in conjunction with the revision of Cunningham's site in strict accordance with the Codes. fie stated that there is a drainage problem, and Inter -Mountain Engineering has reviewed this and feels that at the bottom end of the site, provisions could be made for a French drain arrangement. He felt they could meet the requirements for snow storage, but have utilized some of the pedestrian areas that would not be used during the winter months. Witter stated that the building has a greenhouse on the front which faces north and they have reviev,ed the overall character that Wendy's has established. They have proposed a free-standing sign on the north portion of the lot and would also propose one on the building facade as shown on the submitted pictures. Witter stated that access is on Avon Road with 2 accesses on the' Benchmark property. The drive-through access would be from the intersection with approximately 7-8 cars stacking to the intersection. Another area still in question is the access easement in the area. It is being researched, but it appears that there are lots and portions of lots where there are no joint access easements, but owner believes they can work out an agreement with the associated properties. Blair asked if the pictures submitted showed the standard building design and materials. Witter stated yes. Donaldson felt consideration should be given to the drive-through. As an example, when McDonald's in West Vail is busy with their drive-through, it effects traffic flow and access to the whole west end of the shopping center lot. In this case it is going to effect the ingress/egress of the entire parking lot. Witter stated it had been discussed with Staff, and they did not have a better solution to what was shown on the plans. He explained that when there are 7-4 cars waiting in the drive-through, people either park and walk in, or they go to McDonald's. Kumpost stated that the landscape area would probably require a variance. Witter said they proposed to connect across the State highway landscaped area to the bike path. Kumpost stated that a variance would also be needed for the setback. Witter explained that in discussion with Staff, Avon Road was considered the front. Davis questioned if the plans presented were Wendy's conception of what would happen to the Benchmark Building or was that what Jim Cunningham had indicated to them on Tract Q north. Witter stated it was Cunningham's plan. Blair asked if the traffic flow was acceptable with the Town Engineer. Fogland stated that he and Wood had concerns of stacking problem with drive-through and suggested an alternate route, but it does not appear that there is enough room to do that. 0^ Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 24, 1985 Page 3 of 10 Tract Q South, Bla k 2, 6�l @ BC - Wend 's Restaurant - Informal Discussion, Con't. Davis ad t e understan ing that fast food c gins would be to the nortTi oT t— to I-70 corridor and was not very pleased to see what Avon is turning into and explained that it was related to the fast foods, lock -offs and time share. He felt that the building was acceptable and fits in with the Codes, and felt he would just have to accept it. Blair stated that the town was originally designed as, and agreed upon, as a service/commercial center for the valley, but what it appears like and is designed as is another thing. He asked if the building was compatible with what is in town. Donaldson commented that the Commission discussed at length the fact that fast foods and services would be limited to a certain area of the Zone District and he wanted to hear what Lamont had to say about that. Davis added that the Commission does not have any paperwork on the Development Plan so it is difficult to tell people that they can't do something when the Commission has nothing to back it up. Landauer commented on the design of the building and questioned the use of a blatant metal roof in the downtown area. He felt that a shake shingle roof would tie-in with the Benchmark Shopping Center building. He also commented that a red roof on the north side of the I-70 corridor had been accepted because of its location. Witter stated that the mansard roof color had not been chosen. Blair felt that the design of the building was compatible with what is in town, but expressed concern that buildings and materials be compatible and that they function well in regard to the traffic flow and open space. Witter made comment that if there were insurmountable obstacles or opposition to the project, they would like to hear it now. As far as the roof, in speaking with Lamont, they did consider and look at other roof types and Lamont suggested the Avon Center mansard straight roof. While the roof may be compatible, it is not appropriate on a Wendy's because it is a condominium roof on a fast food restaurant and looks out of character. Blair asked about the height and profile of the building because it is so close to the main thoroughfare of town. Witter stated that the building would be 15 1/2 to 16 feet high. Landauer suggested that Witter read the Sign Code carefully. Witter stated that his general impression from the Commission was that any problems could be solved. Blair thanked applicant for his presentation. Lots 73/74, Block 2, BM 0 BC - Savoy Square - Conceptual Design Keview Fogland stated that at the meeting of January 10, 1985 Savoy Square presented sketches, informally, on the conceptual ideas regarding the building and the site. Formal application had been made for this meeting and formal 'action could be taken on the conceptual ideas of the Savoy Square project. Elevations of the north and west end of the project had been submitted. There had been some questions as to what the north and west side of the building would present to the interstate and that traffic, and a visual concept of what that would look like. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 24, 1985 Page 4 of 10 - Savoy Square - Conceptual Desian Review conn Caen, arc m sect tor aavoy Square stated that they had pulled away rpm tl-ie interstate side and that side had been heavily landscaped on the plans as well as the western side. The creek side area had been increased and a bus stop had been addressed. The east/west pedestrian access along Beaver Creek Road and the exterior/interior mall had been addressed on the site plan. He said they are also trying to accommodate an interior mall from the adjacent properties either across the street from Avon Center or Lot 29. The main level of the lobby and commercial space of the mall has been worked to tie-in with exterior space and the mall becomes continuous to tie-in to the Avon Center to the south and east. The gathering areas on the 2nd and 3rd floor that overlook the main lobby area are about 1,200 SF per floor which can be used for public or private use. The northwest elevation may have an entertainment center on the top floor with decks and glass enclosures. The vertical stacks on the fireplaces have been broken up so that it is not repetitious and have used shadow lines, drawn in mono color. Eden stated they would be using 2-3 major colors of browns and tans, and dark browns to beige. The developer is considering a copper roof. The decks on each level are landscaped as they step back. The size of the walls on the end units have proposed sky bridges to tie-in with existing buildings. Davis mentioned concerns of the design of the building perhaps charging during the design review. He stated he liked the design of the building_ and felt it would fit in well with Avon. Eden stated that everyone involved in the project felt that they have a quality project. The building design itself will not change. Kumpost felt the building was fine, but had concerns of the swimming pool placement. Eden stated that the pool location might vary. Donaldson pointed ci.t that he did not see a snow storage area on the site. Kumpost motioned to approve the conceptual design review of Savoy Square, Lots 73/74, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Approval includes the architectural concept of the building and site. Approval is conditional upon additional work on the location and design of the swimming pool, and additional site planning for snow storage areas near or adjacent to areas to be cleared of snow. Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. White/Kriz Property - Annexation & Zoning - (East of Beaver Creek between Highway 6 and Eagle River) - Informal Discussion ierriii Knight, representative of applicant stated they had been before the Town Council at their last work session and had made comments and reviewed the plan. They are preparing for annexation and zoning requests. He explained there are actually 3 properties involved in the annexations; one is the White property owned by Grace White and Edward Roaers, located east of the center line of Beaver Creek. Based on suggestions by La;ront, area wide considerations were looked at. Applicant is proposing to combine the White property with the Kriz property owned by Eagle River Townhouse Associates. Joint Manning and development has been discussed. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 24, 1985 Page 5 of 10 White/Kriz Property - Annexation & Zoning - (East of Beaver Creek between Highway 6 and Eagle River) - Informal Discussion Knignt rurtner explained that there is one design for the property and they are presently ignoring the property lines, however they are separate properties and there is not agreement at this time that they will be designed together, but hope that will happen. Both property owners have made every effort to do that. The parcel is approximately 9.3 acres, a great portion of which is in the Eagle River and flood plain. They originally met with the town Staff and the Wottinghams and it was suggested that part of the highway be annexed. There have also been discussions with Vail Associates in addition to discussion with representatives of the Folsom property. It was suggested by Lamont that we work with adjacent property owners so that we could work out physical problems as well as the compatibility of development along Highway 6. Knight felt that annexation belongs and would be beneficial to the town. The County also felt that annexation related much better to the town. Knight stated they were proposing a mixed use project and would request RHDC density. The development plan is considerably less than the maximum. In discussion with Staff, the 3 issues presented were: 1) time share is not being considered; 2) 2 oints of access, which would be worked out with the Highway Department; and 3� height requirement in the RHDC zone. Buff Arnold of Robert Arnold Associates stated that they had submitted and distributed the statistical analysis and reduced set of drawings. Arnold stated that Eagle River Townhouse Associates parcel is approximately 5 3/4 acres, and the White property is about 3 1/2 acres. The existing property line divides the developable portion of the property down the middle. Arnold explained the handouts to the Commission. Arnold stated that the joint proposal regarding the annexation goes from the center line of Beaver Creek along Highway 6 all the way to the Stonebridge access. There are 3 areas proposed for development: the western end along Beaver Creek is planned for 4 units. The center portion of the property, which holds the major development is a 110 unit lodge/accommodation/conference hotel facility. The eastern portion would be used for recreational amenities or a park setting and the proposed bike path would be along Highway 6. Building area ratio is about 30%. The building itself would be 3 stories on the east and 5 stories on the west. The proposed maximum height of the project is 62 feet and there is no intention whatsoever of going to an 80 foot height. Arnold said they are requesting RHDC zoning because of the mix of uses allowed. He explained that they would need 15 development rights for accommodation units. There are 25 suites with 27 lock -off bedrooms and would need 25 development rights there. The suites would be condominiumized and sold as security, but they would be operated as hotel rooms. In total, they would request 44 development rights. Kumpost stated he was in favor of river front development. Davis felt that location for a hotel was removed from other areas of density. Ile also felt that transportation, facilities, and what the town is expected to do needed to be addressed. He also expressed concern of RHDC zoning rather than SPA. G@ Planning A Zoning Meeting Minutes January 24, 1985 Page 6 of 10 White/Kriz Property - Annexation & Zoning - (East of Beaver Creek between Highway 6 and Eagle River) - Informal Discussion, Con't. rm gnt statea inat r(hut, promotes the mix of uses that meets their needs. Commission discussed road grades, access, ingress/egress as well as the railroad crossing. Bill Pierce, architect, spoke from the audience and stated that the town needs to look at the impact of having a development of this intensity, style and intended use located this far from downtown. Pierce felt it did not relate to anything around it. Arnold felt that a 100 unit hotel was not exceptionally large and is 1/3 the size of the Christie Lodqe. Kumpost did not feel the project was out of scale or out of place. Davis had no problem with annexation but did have a problem with what the applicant was proposing. He felt if Development Plan were done, they would have some guidelines to better determine the suitability of the project to the site. Blair felt there were 4 issues to be considered: 1) annexation; 2) zoning; 3) density; and 4) the relation of the proposed use to the Town Center. Commission members agreed with points presented and felt SPA zoning to be more appropriate than RHDC. Blair thanked applicant for his presentation. Folsom Property - Annexation - (South of Highway 6 and East of Beaver Creek Entrance) - Informal Discussion JacK Zehren of Zehren and Associates, representing applicant stated that he had submitted an outline proposal to Commission regarding the site. He stated that the contiguous nature of the property is such that the White property would need to be annexed before they would have a contiguous boundary to the town. Applicant is requesting SPA zoning with a cluster type development on a smaller scale. The property is approximately 21 1/2 acres located to the south of Highway 6 and directly across the road from the White/Kriz property. The frontage road along Highway 6 is about 1,100 feet and divides the necessary 1/6 perimeter for con- sideration for annexation. Zehren presented drawings for the conceptual plan of the property. Zehren explained that the developer is proposing a mix of different efficiencies, 1 and 2 bedroom units and the total number of units would be 102, and based on Fractionalization of Development Rights, it comes out to 53.2 Development Rights. He further explained that there is 1 covered parking space per unit and a central structure for 34 cars, and on -grade overflow parking for guests and secondary parking. The developer has also proposed a small commercial club -type facility and would be related to the residents and guests of the project. This would include a 60 seat restaurant. Parking for the restaurant would be located in the garage structure. Snow storage indicated on plans needs more refinement at this time, but they are located on the plans. Developer is looking at a net 9.2 Development Right per net developable acre, or a little under 1.0 Development Rights per acre. Architecturally, the developer is proposing a 2-3 story wood frame structure with integrated concrete parking foundation. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 24, 1985 Page 7 of 10 Folsom Property - Annexation - (South of Highway 6 and East of Beaver Creek Entrance - Informal Discussion, Con't. Ze ren also presented the geology and slope stability soi s report and exp ained that Schmeuser and Associates of Glenwood Springs had prepared the report. Davis commented and said that he felt that this project was more consistent with the town. Donaldson and Kumpost were in favor of the proposed development. Blair stated that on behalf of the Commission, that annexation was appropriate along with the SPA zoning. Bill Pierce spoke from audience and mentioned concerns of development spreading out along Highway 6 and the impact this development might have on town services. Blair thanked applicant for presentation. Lot 63, Block 2, BM 0 BC - Pere rine Villa e - 0 en S ace - Informal Discussion 0o state that a Special eview se was gran a or time Share an one o t e conditions for approval was that the unresolved problem of whether the project meets the open space requirements or not, be finalized, as one of the conditions. One of the proposals that have been discussed with Peregrine and reviewed at Staff level on open space was that the present ordinance is not clear as to what is open space and what is not. What Staff did discuss with Peregrine was whether paved walkways, planter areas, etc., be considered as useful open space. Wood mentioned letter from Johnson and Kunkel Associates who is preparing plat for Peregrine that states there is 21.6% open space. Wood suggested that Commission consider if the paved areas are open space and defer a decision as to whether the total meets the requirements until the drawings are submitted, so that these areas can be verified. Rick Larson, representing Peregrine Village stated that the concept that they designed the building with is the proximity to the Town Mall and the high density involved with it, and the buffer zone or Town Mall in between the two of them. The buffer zone has been involved since 1979 when the initial conceptual drawings were presented. Larson felt that they have areas that are open space; they are open to everything around, whether or not they have green grass below or are paved areas or concrete areas is the question. He explained that Johnson and Kunkel took the total area of the site and deducted from that area the portion that was not under a roof itself. From that they took out the parking and service areas, which would not have pedestrian areas. With those calculations, it comes up with open space of 21.6% of the total area. Another question arises: does open space need a roof above or is it the mere fact that if you have interior corridors and walkways and areas that have overhangs, is that calculated to the building line, or is it calculated to the overhang of the roof line. We have calculated and included overhangs around the building, and with those percentages taken into account, or another 6.4%, we're up to 28% of open space useable for pedestrian traffic flow. The interior mall designed into the building is another 3,500 SF, which increases open space to another 27, but it is not open to the environment, it is enclosed by glass doors, but it is for pedestrian walkways. <�w Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 24, 1985 Page 8 of 10 FAZ Lot 63, Block 2, BM @ BC - Peregrine Village - Open Space - Informal Discussion, r__I� Larson said it is the definition of terms that we are addressing and that interior mall is another 2%, which brings us up to 30% open space. We're here to aet an idea of how the Commission perceives the definition of open space so we can address it accordingly. Kumpost asked if the whole building footprint was subtracted before the percentages were done. Larson stated that the area that is not under roof is that area, and from that calculation we were subtracting the driveways and the parking. It is on a square foot basis. The 2 buildings have a main exterior courtyard and that has water features and planting areas, and the pedestrian walk areas are exposed concrete. Davis asked how open space is typically figured and what everyone else has been held to. He believed that the intent of the open space is to have pervious areas where there are trees and grass growing. He also commented that a year had passed since the Commission had made the request for that information. Wood stated that useable open space had been interpreted, pervious areas, land- scaped grass and trees, shrubs, etc., but the point we're making is that this is not clear in the Zoning Code and do we want to consider looking at different types of open space. There are areas in this project that contain planter beds, etc., but is a wide walkway with a planter in it useable open space even though it is not totally pervious. Davis commented that it does need to be defined, but felt it was a little late to make a decision because the building is already there and it was supposed to have been done before. Landauer felt that the open space should be found and maybe concessions could be made. Donaldson stated that this issue had been around since he had been on the Commission and commented that you've asked us to define more clearly this portion of the Zoning Code and at the same time you've presented us with a timetable for what you intend to do. He felt that could be a problem and did not understand why this wasn't presented before in the last few months. He did not know if it was the town's or developer's liability, or both but he did not feel the Commission should be put under pressure by this timetable. Larson stated that the timetable was established to allow hearings to discuss this matter. Kumpost asked how much of the 30,234 SF is walkway. Wood believed it was 8%. Kumpost clarified that it would then be about 12% landscaped area. Davis felt that perhaps a compromise would help. He suggested that some of the walkways be heavily landscaped to make them appear to what they are supposed to be, which was open space, to accommodate what the regulations are supposed to be. He felt there might be some validity in the mall concept with more potted planters and things of that nature in areas where pedestrians could be. M Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 24, 1985 Page 9 of 10 Lot 63, Block 2, BM @ BC - Peregrine Village - Open Space - Informal Discussion, - . bill Pierce spoke from the audience and felt that the definition should include walking areas, plazas, and useful open space. He further stated that maybe there should be a limit as to how much of that should be pervious and the definition in the Zoning Ordinance doesn't say that. Kumpost felt that the only way to proceed without stretching interpretations is to apply for a variance so that a precedent isn't being set. Discussion followed. Larson asked Commission if they were concerned with visual impact of open space from above or at street level. Blair stated at street level. Fogland stated that this issue of open space was presented to the Commission 1 month before. His feeling was that after having gone through the Design Rules and the Zoning Code with regard to open space, the pervious materials comes under the Design Rules. He did not know how, technically, you would apply for a variance in the Zoning Code, because the pervious materials are addressed in the Design Rules. Fogland stated that he had suggested i month ago to specify in the Zoning Code that open space requirements are 20% or 25%, and of that a certain percentage will have to be pervious materials. Discussion followed. Blair clarified that the questions involved are how much actual open space there is, and is required, and what does the Commission want to include in the open space. Davis felt that Commission should establish what the pervious and impervious percentages should be within that 20% and stay with that guideline. Commission members agreed that applicant return with more specific numbers and a site plan showing those numbers. Other Business Donaldson asked if the Commissinn was in favor of a Wendy's with a plastic roof and Hollywood lights on the main thoroughfare of town. If so, he believed that there had been some direction previously on these types of things. He also felt that there had been some progress when Pizza Hut was allowed to have a red roof in a limited area of town and that would be followed through in the Development Plan. He felt they could not enforce a Development Plan if there is to be a Wendy's in the middle of town. Kumpost said that when property is zoned to allow a certain use, the applicant has a right to ask for that. Davis suggested that a letter be addressed to Council regarding the Development Plan and having some guidelines to follow. Discussion followed. Planning & Zoning January 24, 1985 Page 10 of 10 Meeting Minutes Other Business, Conit Blair clarifie that f the Commission feels strongly that a project won't work or if there are negative comments, it is up to the Commission to express those thoughts. Davis motioned to have the secretary write a letter to the Council regarding the Development Plan. Landauer seconded. Passed unanimously. Fogland mentioned his enclosed memo regarding the Highway Department meeting on signage for roads to be held on January 30, 1985. Fogland also presented a plan for a restaurant at the Avon Center and asked if the Commission preferred if the wall that was proposed to be under construction have a stucco or brick veneer finish, and if in fact this was a minor chance to be approved at Staff level. Commission members agreed that There being no further business meeting. Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:20 PM. Staff could approve this minor change. to discuss, Kumpost motioned to adjourn the Respectfully Submitted, Marg et M. Lach Recording Secretary Commission Approval M. Blair P. Cuny J. Davis T. Landa L. Kumpo f1. Donal C. Dingwell Da to