Loading...
PZC Minutes 0110851000% RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 10, 1985 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on January 10, 1985 at 6:40 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Rcad, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mike Blair. t'enbers Present: Mike Blair, Mark Donaldson, Cheryl Dingwell, Larry "umpost, Tom Landauer, Pat Cuny, Jerry Davis Staff Present: Dan Fogland, Building and Zoning Administrator - Norm Wood, Director of Public Works - Bili James, Town Manager - Maggie Lach, Recording Secretary - Jim Lamont Work Session og aFT ndgave an overview of the Sign Code and explained that, work on the Code had been formulated to include a district approach. One of the districts includes the interstate area north of the interchange around the Pester Station and the Pizza Hut site. Fogland explained that Susie Weber of Ski and Shore Real Estate had contacted his office regarding a potential client interested in land adjacent to the Pester Station for a Taco Bell restaurant. Thei, prinary interest regards the height of signs in that area. There are two aspects under consideration: Staff suggested that Fritz Opel of Taco Bell attend the meeting to present his ideas on signage to the Commission and that the Commission offer some feedback on this proposal for signage. Fritz Opel of Taco Bell stated that the parcel of land adjacent to the Pester Station is an ideal locatiun because it is so near the interstate and traffic flow will be important in maintaining the sales volume of the restaurant. He stated he had contacted the Highway Department and average traffic flow on I-70 past the Avon exit is approximately 9,000 cars per day on a year-round basis. It is below the requirements for Taco Bell, but enough to consider the site. The most important aspect is to have visibility from both directions on the I-70 corridor. He initially thought they would need a 70 - 80 foot high sign. After taking some pictures from I-70, he found that the top of the Pester Station is visible from the eastbound side of :-70 at approximately 1/4 mile back from the exit. Opel felt that the Pester '.tation is approximately 25 feet in height, therefore his thinking was adjusted regarding the heinht of the sign and is now looking at a height of 40 - 50 feet. Square footage of the sion would be approximately 60 S.F. Opel presented drawing of Taco Bell sign, which has been changed nationally to a rectangular sinn, with a dark brown background with white letters. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 10, 1985 Page 2 of 7 ;40 Work Session, Con t. a' Lan aver as.e iii at the height requirement is in that area. Fogland Stated 20 - 25 feet in that district and about 64 S.F. for a one sided sign. This sign would be twice as high with twice as much signage. Kumpost felt one side of signage does not make a lot of sense. You end up with .r 60 S.F. on one side and a one sided sign has as much impact as a 60 S.F. two sided sign. Landauer asked if a 25 foot high sign would work. Opel stated that would be the top of the sign and the sign is 10 feet high. He stated that they need at least 35 feet to clear the bottom of the sign and the sign needs to be above the road grade from the bottom of the sign to make an impact. Dingwell felt that a Highway Department sign, similar to what is in Frisco, would alleviate the need for a huae sign. The logos of the restaurarts are on the sign. She felt that there might be too much competition to see who can have the highest sign to get the most attention. Cuny stated she understood the reason for signs and how you can use them, but felt the sign was too high and it would not give the Town a good appearance. She did feel that the building was attractive. Opel stated that Highway Department in the Denver district office covering the I-70 stretch in Frisco have had discussions with him on signage. The Highway Department is all for a sign, but the problem is finding a piece of land. The Forest Service will not allow advertising on their property which is a Federal law. The land has to be found on an easement that belongs to the Highway Department or on private property. Davis felt the location of the sign was acceptable, but he was not in favor of 50 foot sign. If it were in perspective with the building and site,'he felt that would be fine. Landauer questioned why the sign had to be that height. Opel stated that guidelines were different for different businesses. He said that the preferred location of the sign would be at the west end of the property. Kumpost felt that something could be worked out with the proposed sign. Davis agreed with Kumpost. Blair asked if Staff could check with the Highway Department regarding advertising signs on the highway. Fogland stated that the Zoning Committee had made changes in the language of the Zoning Code. The format should now be clearer and within a month be ready to be re -written for the Commission for review. Lamont presented the District II Goals and stated they were similar to the District I Goals and gave a brief overview for the Commission members. Cuny motioned to adopt the District II Goals as a working document. Dingwell seconded. Passed unanimously. �-4�•A Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 10, 1985 Page 3 of 7 I:11 16M Regular Meeting Agenda Items - 7:45 PM Readinc; andApproval of P & Z Minutes i Dingwell motioned to approve the minute as submitted. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. 12/1 000,41' regular meetin4 Lot 73/74, Block 2, BM @ BC - Savoy Square - Conceptual Review - Informal Discussion rogiand stated that when Council approved the Special Review Use for time-share for Savoy Square, they asked them to proceed as quickly as possible and return to Council or the Commission before the first of February. Savoy Square asked if they could informally show the Commission their proaress on the project regarding conceptual ideas and drawings so that the Commission could offer some feedback. Dennis Cole, representative of Savoy Square stated that when Council approved them for the Special Review Use on time-share, they did commit that by February 1 they would make progress and show the Commission what they had in mind. Cole stated that their intention was to share informally what they are proposing to do and then make formal application for the January 24 Commission meeting for preliminary review. Cole said that the Savoy Square project is a time-share project located on Lots 73/74, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. John Eden, architect for the project stated that the design of the building is such that in the future, it can be connected with whatever w ll be developed on Lots 29, 30, 31, and 32. He explained that the drawings reflect a 3 to 1 Frac- tionlization ratio with an efficiency unit strictly in mind, and are approved for 71 units, with the efficiencies, 213 units. This building is designed for 212 units. He further explained that 190 units are shown with a combination of efficiency and accommodation units. The color renderings show that the building has been angulated to eliminate north walls and all units will get sunshine sometime during the day. The building has been stepped and the tower incorporated into the structure will not shadow Greenbriar. There will be 7 floors and the view obstruction has been minimized. The developer has proposed 300 plus parking spaces depending on the new densities. 50 of the spaces will be above grade and the other 250 plus spaces are below grade in the underground parking. The footprint of the building is approximately 33%. The developer has also expressed an interest in having access between Lots 29, 30, 31, and 32. The Master Plan of the project has been developed from that aspect to maintain accessibility and tie-in with future development on those lots. Eden further explained that if Lot 29 were acquired, the developer would propose a Holidome similar to what Holiday Inns have, on that lot. All major amenities, other than what is planned for Savoy Square would be in there such as meeting rooms, greenhouses, lobby area, etc. However, this is all being projected for possible future acquisition. Eden stated that the ground floor would house retail, common space with a corridor and mall area. int: malls are 25 feet wide and open 3 stories above. Because the building is 7 stories, the developer does not want a 7 story atrium. Every 3rd floor will have its own mall area. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 10, 1985 Page 4 of 7 Lot 73/74, Block 2, BM @ BC - Savoy Square - Conceptual Review - Informal Discussion, Con't. The central lobby area is open 3 stories up and is enclosed in glass. ere is approximately 4,500 S.F. of office space on the 2nd and 3rd floors and the first level is reserved for retail and commercial space. The recreation/spa area contains 2 racquet ball courts, a lobby, spa area with storage lockers and is similar in that respect to Poste Montane in Beaver Creek. The efficiency and 1 bedroom units have approximately 560 S.F. with fireplaces and each unit has its own jacuzzi tub and bathroom. The kitchen consists of a small refri- gerator built into the cabine-Lcy, a small 18" dishwasher, a single basin sink with garbage disposal and a 3 burner stove with a small oven. The developer is hoping to build a quality unit. Eden stated that the concept of the retail shops are barber shops, boutiques, little areas that work with the people that are staying there, so that they really don't have to go anywhere else if they don't want to. Thoughts for future use of Lot 29 would be to make it the same as Savoy Square; commercial on the first level and residential above, and totally commercial on Lots 31 and 32. The exterior of the building includes a copper color metal roof; 2 colors of stucco over pre -stress concrete, lots of glass and all of the units will have wood balconies. Eden stated that they are trying to make the building linear. Davis commented on the design itself and stated he felt it was the right design for Avon and a mountain area. Eden explained that they have oriented the units so that they have a view of Beaver Creek and the views and angles have been oriented to a 45 degree angle. The malls have been designed to tie-in with adjacent lots should development occur there. Blair stated that Buck Creek is a direct source of drinking water for the Town and the Avon Metro District owns the water. The District would encourage land- scaping to make things look better, but it does have to be protected. Eden stated that area would be heavily landscaped and would help the retail areas on the first floor in separation from Greenbriar. He explained that Greenbriar was huilt when there was no 30 foot setback requirement and they are presently 12 feet from Buck Creek. The developer plans to landscape heavily as a buffer between so that Greenbriar does not feel infringed upon. Eden explained that he and Staff had reviewed the Planning Goals of Avon in conjunction with the review of Savoy Square and felt resolutions to any problems could be met. Dingwell asked if the loading spaces were underground. Eden stated that they are above ground and the restaurant would have the highest use. They wanted to locate loading spaces wherever they are most useful and where they do not interfere with the public. Cuny commented that she liked the project and felt it was very attractive. She asked if the amenities would be open to the public. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 10, 1985 Page 5 of 7 Lot 73/74, Block 2, BM @ BC - Savoy Square - Conceptual Review - Informal Discussion, Con't. Eden stated it was under consideration. He explained that the transfer fee is 4% which pays for additional amenities and bus service, etc., but there is no incentive to put extra amenities in because there is no reduction in the 1.25% tax. There would have to be negotiations on how much would be public and how much they could reduce payment to the Town. If they are willing to put in the amenities for public use, then there should be some reconciliation from the other direction. This use would include not only the amenities, but the interior mall space, the public gathering spaces, etc. The developer is trying to incorporate the gathering are --s that the Town does not have, but there are really no incentives to do that. One of the Goals of the Town is how do they encourage the developer to include these public amenities. Pat Montgomery of Ski and Shore Real Estate suggested that these types of uses by the public would emerge later once they know the percentage of use or non-use of these amenities in order to be offered to the public. Lamont stated that the Master Plan areas of importance are the malls and park. The atrium area in Savoy Square is a real asset for public meetings and gatherings. He further stated that because of the size of the building, he would encourage a little more color to remove some of the blandness. This could be done with more glass or painting, or enclosing some areas of the balcony or cantilevering some areas for more dimension. Eden stated that the building is a two-tone color of chocolate stucco and a fawn color. Lamont added that more concern was placed on the urban spaces of the project more so than the exterior of the building. Cole ztateu for clarification that they would like to own Lot 29 next door and that they would not want to duplicate the building, but extend the project onto Lot 29. Cole also clarified that since they do not own that lot, this is not part of the development discussion, but only to mention that if you look at the building, the color and how it looks, it is only fair to say they might come back, and hope they would come back at some point in the future, and say they wanted to do a Holidome type building in the middle of the lot and then do a similar building on Lot 29. He felt it was appropriate to mention it now so they know if it is agreeable with the Commission or not. Commission members, after discussion, agreed that there needs to be enough parking for all aspects of commercial, retail and restaurant space along with residential spaces. Blair thanked Savoy Square representatives for their preview of the project. Other Business Bill James, Town Manager presented information regarding Hotel Suites, Ordinance 84-13 and stated that Council had made some changes in the wording. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes January 10, 1985 Page 6 of 7 40 Other Business, Con't. • James stated that the units would be an average of 600 S.F. per unit. The Council opted for 4/10 of a Development Right which converts to a 2.5 Hotel Suite per Development Right. Council went with this method to stay consistent with the formula. Council felt Hotel Suites come out to 4/10 instead of 1/3, ®. which is highlighted in the report distributed. There was also some concern since the 1/3 did not fit any way they worked it into the formula. Council also addressed, in the final Ordinance, that we stay with the maximum 1,500 S.F. The reason we are staying with the maximum 1,500 instead of the 1,800 S.F. they allowed in the Ordinance is because the number of people change that you can get into a unit. He stated they went with 1,500 S.F. so that if a developer wants to put in a full kitchen, full bath, full bedroom, it would not effect the full occupancy. This keeps it a distinct classification for a Hotel Suite instead of a 1 bedroom unit. James stated that Page 1, Section 2 of Ordinance 84-13 had some minor wording changes, and that Section 17.08.025 -Accommodation suite, remains essentially the same. Discussion followed on the difference between an efficiency, hotel suite and a 1 bedroom unit. Kumpost mentioned paragraph 17.22.030 - Limitations on use of accommodation units and accommodation suites, and stated that he felt "time-share project" should be deleted because while anything to do with time-share is a Special Review Use, he could foresee in the future where time-share or some form of interval owner- ship cannot be distinguished between people owning 1/4 of a year or 1 week out of 50, and that some form of interval ownership may be allowed anywhere in Town, and if this is left worded the way it is, it leaves a loophole open for the future that by a approving a time-share project or interval ownership somewhere other than in an area that is allowing hotels, we would automatically allow an accommodation unit or an accommodation suite. I•:umpost clarified that you can time-share a hotel, but not every time-share is a hotel and felt clarification needs to be addressed. Dingwell mentioned concerns of ice buildup at the Benchmark Shopping Center and the dangerous condition that exists there. Cuny mentioned concerns of the Christie Lodge sidewalk not being shoveled and mentioned concerns of Pizza Hut having a red roof when one in Chicago was built with a brown roof. Blair asked Commission if perhaps a policy could be adopted for smoking in i.ne Chamber. Davis felt it was not appropriate. Landauer suggested that at the beginning of the meeting, the chairman ask all present not to smoke, and if they do want to smoke, to please step out of the Chamber. Blair and Commission agreed with the suggestion. There being no further business to discuss, Dingwell motioned to adjourn the meeting. Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 Pit.