Loading...
PZC Minutes 060788MINUTES OF JOINT TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSESSION RE: FRACTIONALIZATION JUNE 7, 1988 Jim Lamont, Town of Avon Planning Consultant, stated that as the principal person involved in the research behind fractionalization, he has been asked to lead the discussion. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the fractionalization ordinance regarding some decisions that need to be made regarding potential revisions to be made to this ordinance. Tt.e Council/Commission are being asked to discuss to what the degree of decisions need to be made regarding revisions to the fractionalization ordinance. Lamont stated that fractionalization is a vehicle, through government, by which the Town could entice new development in the community by encouraging them to build a mixture of smaller units for the development rights which have been established for the community. Lamont described how the fractionalization ordinance wa=_ used to enable the Wynfield Inn to be built. Lamont stated that the concerns now is regarding the fractionalization formula as it applies outside of a commercial area. What neighborhoods should fractionalization occur in and what should it not occur in. Should it be limited to the central business district and if it is allowed outside of the central business district, what criteria should apply to those situations. Discussion followed on the beginning discussions on the fractionalization ordinance. The primary concern at that time was the central business center and it was assumed that when the residential areas became involved, that would be the point in time that the problem would be dealt with and that time has now come. Considerable discussion followed on the fractionalization formula and the matter of mix. The intent for hotels and the intent for residential units was discussed. The matter of minimum size for fractionalized units was discussed and the general consensus was that 600 to 650 square feet should be the minimum size. Discussion followed on repealing the fractionalization ordinance or revising the ordinance. It was suggested that the Town return to the point before adoption of fractionalization, which is with the development right system and then try to wort; with the idea of limiting the residential area=_ and trying to get the mix. Lamont asked if they under the fractionalization ordinance as it exists now, limit it to certain areas. John Dunn stated that this could be done by revising 17.22.020, 2, stating that development rights can be fractionalized only in a particular zone, thus MINUTES JOINT COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 7, 198E PAGE 2 limiting it to designated zones within the Town. Further discussion followed on what areas should be considered to include fractionalization. After considerably more discussion, Lamont stated that file issues that needed to be dealt with were: 1. The unit size 2. The areas to be designated for fractionalization. 3. The mix issue. The good of the community needs to be considered first. Is 1/3 of 1800 square feet acceptable? Is all the same size acceptable? Is it acceptable in residential areas outside of the commercial business district? Discussion followed on minimum sizes to be considered. It was proposed that the 1/4 formula be used only for hotels. For residential units the minimum size should be 650 square feet. Discussion on the procedure for amending the ordinance followed. Lamont stated that the these discussions are aimed at solving the problems that have arisen for both the developer and the community. That is what needs to be achieved. The question was asked that if a project, which has received preliminary approval, but not final approval would be under the new ruling if the ordinance is amended prior to their receiving final approval. It was stated that the rules could be changed up until the time of vesting, and vesting does not occur until final approval is granted. Lamont asked if there were any other concerns. He stated that the Council will be receiving some sort of proposal regarding the matters discussed at this meeting in the near future. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING JUNE 7, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on June 7, 1988, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 470 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Pat Cuny. Members Present: Pat Cuny, Tom Landauer, Frank Doll, John Perkins, Denise Hill, Clayton McRory, Buz Reynolds Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Engineering and Community Development; Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant: Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Hole-in=the-Wall Restaurant and Bar, _Sign Variance. Tom Landauer stepped down as a voting member of the Commission due to a conflict of interest. Wood stated that L.A.L., Inc, dba Hole -in -the -Wall Restaurant and Bar, is requesting a variance to hang a banner that advertises Breakfast. The banner will be displayed on the southwest facing framework of the sundeck. The request is to be able to display the banner from 7AM to 11AM, seven days a week and is 2' by 16', with a white background with black letters. The application is based upon the recently adopted sign code, which provides more flexibility for temporary signs. It does conform with the allowable size. The variance is for the length and time of display. Wood reviewed the approval criteria and the findings criteria. Staff recommended that the variance be granted for a specific time period, should the Commission decide on approval of this application. September 30, 1988 was recommended. Tanya Landauer, representing the Hole -in -the -Wall, stated that the banner was made by the same company that made all the other signs on the building and is of the same materials, therefore they feel that it is in harmony with all the other signs. They feel that it would help increase their visibility to the people passing through, since they are set so far away from Avon Road etc. Reynolds asked if they had a problem with the Staff recommendation of approval to September, 1988. Landauer responded that it would be no problem. Discussion followed on their other signs. Perkins asked why should they allow the sign to stay there Planning and Zoniny fleeting Minutes June 7, 1988 Page 2 of 9 Tract Q. Blocr.2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Hole -in -the -Wall Restaurant and_BarSign Variance (cont.) - that long. Landauer stated that those are the hours that they serve breakfast and when they had a temporary variance before it had help their business by giving them more visibility from the road. Doll moved to grant the variance under- Section 15.28.090, paragraph 3,b,ii: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity. Display of the sign shall be limited to the hours of 7AM to 11AM and shall be allowed until September 30, 1988. McRory seconded. Discussion followed on whether the sign would ever become a permanent sign. Perkins asked what were the exceptional or extraordinary conditions. Doll stated the inability to see the restaurant from the road. Landauer stated that it would not be a permanent sign. The motion passed, with Perkins voting nay. Lot �1 Hlock 1, _Benchmark at Heaver _Creek, Coastal Mart. Inc. (Derby Station), Sion Variance, Design Review Wood stated that Coastal Mart, Inc. is applying fo,' d^sign review for changes to the signs on the existing Derby Station. One of the proposed signs would replace the existing PD Quick, and the face on the freestanding sign, which currently has the Derby logo, which will be replaced by the Coastal Mart logo. They are also requesting to change the facia along the front of the building. Wood stated that in reviewing the proposed changes there are some things that need to be addressed in particular. Section 15.28.060 discourages the use of interior -lit box -type signs. The current sign is a pan channel type and it is being proposed to be replaced with a box. -type sign. Another consideration is the illumination levels of both the building sign and the freestanding sign. Section 15.28.060,8 states that "lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties". Both proposed signs have a considerable white colored area that will probably be considerably brighter than the existing signs. This needs to be considered in the review. Staff recommended that approval be contingent upon the sign being no larger than 10.5 square feet and illumination level be reduced to a level consistent with existing sign; Proposed facia shall not exceed sire or Planning and Zoning Meeting Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes June ;', 1988 Page �DF 9 Lot 1, Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, _Coastal Mart 1, Inc (Derby Station), Sign variances Design Review illumination levels of existing facia; Illumination level shall be reduced in freestanding sign to maintain light output consistent with existing sign face. These conditions should maintain signage within the previously approved sign program variance. Jack Scurlock, Zone Vice -President for Coastal, stated that this is strictly a name change, Coastal has owned the station for a year and are now changing the name of the Derby Station. He provided photographs of the existing signs and of the proposed signs. He stated also, that they had received a notice of cease and desist regarding the PD Quick sign. He stated that the pigment in the paint on the proposed signs is the same as on the existing sign, although it is a silver color rather than black.., but it supposedly will block out as much light as the current sign. He stated that they would use a light meter to check out the light and if the wattage needs to be changed, they will do so. Discussion followed on the colors, sizes and illumination. Perkins moved to approve the requested sign changes for Lot 1, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Coastal Mart, with the Staff recommendations: 1. The approval is contingent upon the sign being no larger than 10.5 square feet and illumination level be reduced to a level consistent with existing sign. 2. Proposed facia shall not exceed size or illumination levels of existing facia. 3. Illumination level shall be reduced in freestanding sign to maintain light output consistent with existing sign face. Reynolds seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 49,_ Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. 51 Beaver Creek Place, Design Review Wood stated that preliminary plans for a 7000 square foot retail/commercial center on Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the May 17, 19BB meeting. The proposed project generally consisted of a single story masonry building with standing seam metal roof, covered walkway along the front and surface parking. Exterior materials include B" by 2" scored concrete block and stucco and high gloss paint cn the concrete block. Following the review, the Commission gave preliminary design approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Firma design include a fully dimensioned site pian ccnforming with building setback requirements, parking and Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes June 7, 1988 Page 4 of 9 Lot 69, Block Benchmark at Beaver Creek. 51 Beaver Creek Place Design Review (cont) access, loading dock requirements and pedestrian circulation. 2. Final design include complete grading and drainage plan addressing detention and treatment of parking lot runoff. 71. Final design include a Comprehensive Sign Program detailing sizes, locations and materials for all signage for the project. 4. Final design conform with requirements of the Zoning Code, Planning and Zoning Commission Design Procedures, Rules and Regulations. Wood stated that the Applicant has submitted revised plans addressing the above criteria. He then provided the plans for study by tthp Commission. Jim Morter, Morter Architects, described the colors to be used on the towers, varying from green to blue-green. Discussion on the use of red on the sign followed. Morter then reviewed the Staff recommendations as follows: 1. Construction plans include concrete curb and gutter details for all designated areas within public right-of-way and at en' es. He stated that it will indeed be concrete not asph 2. Concrete curb section and landscpaing extend into parking lot at Beaver Creek Place. He described how the curbing will be extended. Construct4cn plans include details for sidewalk crossing of curb and drainage swale at southeasterly corner of lot. The location and how it will be accomplished was discussed. 4. Regraded drainage Swale at entrance to Commercial Federal driveway culvert be rock lined for erosion. Morter stated that it would be rock lined. 5. Additional information be provided regarding site lighting and additonal lighting be provided as necessary to provide minimum light levels at entrances and parking areas. Morter stated that they will work on getting the light coverage to the point of being acceptable to the Town Engineer. 6. Landscaping to b= expanded to include southwesterly corner of site to providt screening for loading space and Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes June 7, 1988 Page 5 of 9 Lot 69, Block 21 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, 51 Beaver Creek Place, Design Review (cont) trash dumpster. He stated that the revised plans show additional landscaping for this purpose. 7. Submission of plans for enclosure of trash dumpster -For aproval by Commission. Since the trash area is on a utility easement and they may need to get into it, we have developed an enclosure that has a pipe in the ground, with pipes that slide over it, with a wood frame all the way around it. Discussion on color etc. followed. 8. Location of various colors be identified on building elevations. Further discussion followed on the previously shown colors. 9. Sign program be modified to allow up to 20 square feet of sign area per individual business with a maximum letter size of 18 inches. Discussion followed on the sizes of the individual businesses that may be needed and the locations of the signs needed for those businesses. 10. The freestanding sign should be considered as a separate item in the review process. Cuny suggested that the Commission return to this item after discussion on the design review. Cuny asked Jim Lamont to comment on the design review. Lamont stated that most of the things he would be looking at are mostly refinements. He stated that it is one of the most difficult sites in the Town because it is long and narrow. Lamont first commented on the sidewalk and how narrow it is. He suggested that the sidewalks be 8 feet. Lamont stated that the problem of the parking spaces falling short of optimum design has been resolved. The driveways being more narrow than appropriate has been resolved. Discussion followed on the turning radius in the parking lot and Lamont stated that this problem had been resolved. Pedestrian access through and across the site has been provided linking the arcade and the street. Lamont expressed concern as to how the sidewall:: meets with the street. Discussion on the pedestrian access followed. Lamont stated that he felt that the site and building lighting problem has been resolved. He stated that he felt the landscaping matter has been resolved. He suggested that some of the landscaping be under -lit. He stated that he felt that the additional setback in the rear accomplishes what was being looked at. for fire safety equipment. He stated that most of the drainage issues have been resolved. Discussion followed on the problem of the manhole and traffic control sien in the gutter line. He asked Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes June 7, 1988 Page 6 of 9 Lot 69 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creekz 51 Heaver Creek Place Design Review (cont)_ consideration from Engineering and the Owner that the manhole be offset and the curbing run down as far as possible, at least further than it is right now. Regarding the snow drop areas, the rear setback helps, the flat roof on the east side and the cupolas resolve the snow drop issue. Discussion followed on the interconnection with common driveways an adjacent properties. Lamont stated that the interconnection of drainways with adjacent properties had been resolved. Lamont stated he assumed that the landscaping will be somewhat compatible with the existing building landscaping. Lamont commented on the compatability of proposed improvements with site topography stating that the problems of this 1-kas been solved. Lamont stated that the visual appearance cf the proposed improvement does not inhibit principal views nor block the solar exposure of adjacent and neighboring properties and the architectural design is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. Landscaping seems to be sufficient, but Lamont suggested that flower beds be introduced in the east property line setback areas. Lamont stated that he feels that all of his concerns have been met. Morter stated, regarding the arcade width, that he feels the 6.8 feet is appropriate. He compared it with several in the valley which were either slightly smaller or larger than the proposed walkway. Discussion followed on this matter. Discussion followed on the matter of the loading dock being sufficient. The concern was that there would be loading from the street. Discussion followed on the comments made by Lamont regarding curbing, lighting, landscaping and parking. Cuny asked if there were any further questions regarding the deisgn. With no other questions forthcoming, she suggested the freestanding sign be discussed. Morter described the freestanding sign and provided a model showing the placement of the sign. Cuny asked about the Staff comment that ii encroaches in the 10 foot setback. Morter stated that they thought that when they got the variance to go to seven and one half feet that it was included in the variance. They have learned since that only parking was included in the variance. They will move the freestanding sign out of the setback rather than go for another variance. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minuted June 7, 1988 Page 7 of 9 Lot 69 Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, 51 Beaver Creek Place, Design Review (cont) Discussion followed on the letter sizes and total sign size, since this is a four sided sign. After considerable discussion regarding these matters, the Applicant requested permission to withdraw this portion of the design review at this time and return at a later date with a complete sign program, including the freestanding sign. Cuny asked if there were too many concerns to give final approval? Wood stated that there were not, most of the items are construction details that can be clarified before construction. Perkins moved to grant final approval for 51 Beaver Creek Place, commercial project, Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with the condition that the Applicant work with the Staff in addressing all the Staff recommendations and that the Applicant return at a later date with a sign program, including the free standing sign. Reynolds seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 10, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, Gosshawk Townhomes, Television Antenna,. Location Change Request Wood stated that at the May 17, 1988 meeting the Commission granted approval for a television antenna for the Gosshawk Townhomes, located on sot 10, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision. The Applicant is now requesting to move the antenna to the opposite end of the same building. The reason given was that they feel it would be more aesthetically located. Doll moved to grant approval of the relocation of the television antenna as requested. Hill seconded. The motion carried, with Perkins voting nay. Lot 6, Block 1, Benchmark at Heaver Creek, BalasCond_omini_ums_ East, Color Change Request, Design Review Wood stated that William Nolan, of Perpetual Care, managers for the Balas Condominiums East, Lot 6, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek has requested approval to change the color of the exterior of the project. The project is currently stained a naturaltone cedar and the requested color change is to a solid color stain called Stonehedge Gray. Cuny asked if this was for both units or just the one. Wood stated that Mr. Nolan was present to answer any questions. Mr. Nolan stated it was for the east unit only and one of the reasons for changing the color is to differentiate between Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes ,lune 7, 1988 Page 8 of 9 Lot 6, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Balas Condominiums East. Color Change Request_ Design Review (cont) Balas East and Balas West since they are two separate projects with different ownerships. Cuny asked if they are the same architecture and do they share the same parking lot. Nolan stated that they are not the same but you can get from one parking lot to the other and that they are not the same architecture. Considerable discusssion followed on whether or not they loot: like one project. Hill asked about the trim. Nolan stated they had planned on painting everything just the one color. The Commission suggested painting the trim a different color. The applicant stated that their preference was not to paint the trim different, but that they would if the Commission so requested. Perkins moved to grant approval of the requested color change for Lot 6, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Balas Condominiums East, with the condition that the Applicant return in two weeks and present a proposed color for the trim. Doll seconded. The motion carried, with McRory voting nay. Reading and Approval of the P & Z Minutes of 5/17/88 Regular Meet i n_c Doll moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Perkins seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Cuny stated she would like to see a letter written to Mr. Cunningham regarding completing his sign program. Wood stated that a letter had been sent some time ago. The Secretary reminded the Commission that the revised sign code had been included in the packets. Reynolds moved to adjourn. Perkins seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 PM. Respectfully submitted, lf'��33rz; Chariette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes June 7, 1988 Page 9 of 9 Lommiss. P. Cuny T. Land F. Doll J. Perk D. Hill C. McRo A. Reyn I/ .._I_ /1,.,.,_ l n1RR