Loading...
PZC Minutes 050289RECORD OF PROCErnINGS MINUTES OF PLAN' 1NG AND ZONING MEETING MAY 2, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commi<sion was held on May 2, 1989, at 7:40 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 Chairwoman Pat Cuny. Members Present: Frank Doll, Denise Hill, Clayton McRory, John Perkins, Tom Landauer, Pat Cuny, Buz Reynolds Staff Present: Lynn Fritzlen, Department of Community Development; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary; Norm Wood, Director of Community Development Design Review Lynn Fritzlen first described the location of the proposed residence on the zoning map. She stated that Tony Seibert of South Harbor Development is requesting final design review for a 4,280 sq. ft. single family home located on Lot 10, Filing No. 1., Eaglebend Subdivision. the stated that the e,.terior design is similar to the duplex gnat was ap.-roved 2.nd is nearly complete on Lot 12, Filing Nc. 1. The lot is in the Eaglebend Specially Planned Area and has two residential development rights assigned to it. She stated that the applicant has not indicated how the additional development right will be used. Fritzlen then reviewed the design review considerations as follows: Regarding the conformance with the zoning code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon, she stated that the exterior parking area grades appear to exceed the 6% maximum as recommended in the design guidelines. She also commented that the applicable setbacks are shown on the plan and it appears that there is no proposed encroachment, but adequate building ties should be Planning and May 2, 1989 Page 2 of 11 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes indicated on the site plan. Fritzlen also stated that landscape irrigation is not addressed on the application. Regarding the suitability of the improvement, staff comment was that the building type and materials are similar to others in the vicinity. Regarding the compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties, Fritzlen stated that the proposed development does not appear to have any significant or unusual impacts on adjacent properties. Also, regarding the compatibility with site topography, the staff comment was that the site slopes at approximately 10% from Eaglebend Drive to the Eagle River. Fritzlen stated that the proposed residence steps with the grade and the building footprint angles from the side property lines to maximize views. Regarding the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties and public ways, Fritzlen stated that all elevations have an adequate level of architectural interest and planar relief. She stated that the west elevation is the least fenestrated and modulated and suggested that additional dormers, offsets or fenestration may be desirable. She stated that the landscape plan is well developed and incicates a variety of plant materials at the drive entry and on the east and west sides of the building. Fritzlen stated that final design approval is recommended conditioned by the following: 1. Approval of exterior material samples as presented at the meeting; and 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a revised site plan be submitted indicating parking and vehicular manuevering area grades at a maximum of 6%, adequate building ties and proposed means of landscape irrigation. Tony Seibert stated that the plan is a pre -sale and the buy=r dictated the design based on the floor plan layout of half cf the duplex on Lot 12, with some changes, i. e. adding an additional bedroom on the top floor and including a walkout basement. He stated that for all intents and purposes this is a two story building with a walkout basement. He stated that the design is similar to Lot 12, but they have changed Planning and May 2, 1989 Page 3 of 11 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes the dormer shapes so the roof line is different and the west side is completely different from the duplex. He stated that they angled the bu.lding on the site to maximize the view corridor right down the river and the majority of the windows in the bedrooms look out on that side. The roof is cedar shakes, the siding is 8 inch cedar lap -siding, the siding color is a grey with a blue trim. It is a solid color. Landscaping is a mixture of sod and native grasses with trees along the house and grouped down by the river. Cuny asked if there were any plans for the other residential development right. Mr. Seibert stated that they will move it to one of the other lots that they own at this time. They do not have a use for it yet. Cuny reminded Mr. Seibert that the transfer would have come through the Commission. Discussion followed on the stain used on Lot 12 and comparisons were made. It was agreed that there is enough difference. Discussion followed on the height requirements. Hill asked if the applicant had a problem regarding the condition of a 6% grade. Mr. Seibert stated that there was no problem. He stated that he thought they can make the adjustments on the final construction drawings. The general concensus of the Commission was that the west side design was fine the way it is. Perkins moved to grant final approval to the proposed single family home on Lot 10, Filing No. 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, with condition 2, that prior to issuance of a building permit, a revised site plan be submitted indicating parking and vehicular manuevering area grades at a maximum of 6%, adequate building ties and proposed means of landscape irrigation. Landauer seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Planning and May 2, 1989 Page 4 of 11 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 25, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Equity Concepts, c.. -i+., Mini-warchnuSes_ Gerry Flani4an Project Cuny stated that since this is a conceptual review there will be no action taken on this item. Fritzlen pointed out on the map where the lot is located. She stated that a xerox copy of the area is included in the staff report. She stated that Gerry Flanigan and Les Johnson are present this evening and are requesting a conceptual or informal review of a mini -warehouse facility on Lot 25, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. She stated that the lot is zoned IC and warehouse is an allowed use in the zone district. She stated that residential units are allowed as a Special Review Use when used in connection with a business operation. Fritzlen stated that Lot 25 is a 1.41 acre or 61,500 sq. ft. site with a 25 ft. drainage easement along the eastern property line. She described the easement on the exhibit provided in the report. She stated that the front portion of the lot is moderately sloped toward the road and the rear and north portion of the lot slopes steeply up toward the forest service land. The property is sided by Mountain Center on the west and an undeveloped parcel on the east. She stated that approximately 35,000 sq ft. of warehouse area and an ancillary office/onsite manager's unit is proposed. Required parking for a warehouse use is one per 800 sq. ft., and 35,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space would require 43 parking spaces or approximately 17,000 sq. ft. of site area for surface parking and drives. Fritzlen stated that the site plan submitted indicates four parking spaces. The site plan is intended to function such that vehicles accessing the warehouse space park in the drive aisles between the buildings while loading and unloading. Those drive aisles are dimensioned at 24 ft. She stated that the site layout does provide for a loop of traffic flow so trucks are not required to back out onto the public right-of-way. In regards to the conformance with the zoning code, Fritzlen stated tha-� as presented, this proposal would require a sideyard setback variance, a parking variance and the transfer of one residential development right onto Lot 25, in conjunction with a special review use in order to allow for the onsite managers unit that is proposed. Regarding the compatibility of the design, she stated that proposed Planning and May 2, 1989 Page 5 of 11 zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 25, Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Equity Concepts exterior materials are standing seam metal roof, horizontal cedar siding and painted concrete masonry. Rooves are hipped and gable. She stated that the exterior design appears to be compatible with other development in the vicinity. She stated that given the information presented, there doez not appear to be any unusual or significant impacts to adjacent properties. Fritzlen stated that topographical information has not been submitted, therefore, comments are based on the information presented. She stated that offsite drainage will have a significant impact on the site design of this lot. Flood waters flow across the lot, through the easement, to a culvert underneath Nottingham Road and into the I-70 right-of-way. She stated that the right-of-way appears to have had significant siltation buildup and may not be adequate to detain drainage from backing up onto the lot and onto Nottingham Road. A thorough drainage study and report is strongly encouraged as well as coordination with the Colorado Department of Highways. She stated that the applicant has indicated that the intent is to raise the groundfloor elevation above the 100 year flood plain. As presented, this requires a seven foot masonry or concrete retaining wall on the south property line adjacent to Nottingham Road. Regarding the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties and public ways, Fritzlen stated that this site is highly visible from I-70. Landscape areas, as well as snow storage appear minimal. She stated that the 7 ft. retaining wall on Nottingham Road may have a significant visual impact. She stated that security fencing is typically required for this type oe warehousing and the type and style of fence may also have a significant effect on the character of the project.She stated that this design would be unique to the vicinity. Fritzlen stated that she has provided in the report the adopted goals and policies for District Six for the Commission's review. Fritzlen stated that this is a conceptual review and no formal staff recommendation is submitted. She stated that the Commission should consider the fcllowing in regards to this type of development. The site is highly visible from I-70 and a well Planning and May 2, 1989 Page 6 of 1i Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 25, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Equity Concepts Mini-warphnuses_ Gerry FlLnigan Project developed landscaping plan will enhance the area image as well as the view from I-70. 2. A stepped retaining wall in the front setback in combination with landscaping may have a more desirable visual appearance. 3. Security fencing is typically required for this type of warehousing and type and style of fence may have a significant effect on the character of the project. 4. Offsite drainage will have a significant impact on the site design of this lot. A thorough drainage study and report submitted with the design review application as well as coordination with the Colorado Department of Highways will be important to properly evaluating proposed site development. 5. As presented this proposal will require a sideyard variance, parking variance, special review use and a density transfer. Addressing these approvals, particularly a parking variance prior to the application for final design review may help alleviate the need to significantly alter a fully developed design proposal. Les Johnson stated that he has built 16 facilities throughout Colorado. He stated that he appreciated the opportunity to present this project, at this stage, to the Commission. He stated that this is a better concept of this type of project. It will not be constructed like the mini -warehouses were in the past. He stressed that this will be a masonry construction project. They would like to use residential type brick treatment on the ends of the buildings and masonry block construction in the garage or door openings. They will be using earthtone colors. He stated that they like to ure pitched roofs, however the roof will be a metal standing roofing with not as much pitch when they get toward the back where there is little or no visibility. He also stated that they do not intend to scrimp on the landscaping. He then described on the drawing the grade of the lot and how the placement of the buildings will be on the lot. The buildings will be two stories and the second story units will be very small units, mostly for personal property, etc. Mr. Johnson stated that they have no problem if the sidyerd Planning and May 2, 1989 Page 7 of 11 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 25 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Equity Conceots nzarry Flaniaan Proiect variance cannot be granted. He stated that there is a large rock retaining wall that was built by their neighbors which, with some landscaping treatment within that wall, could be quite attractive. He stated that they are going to have to work from the wall area over and they are very limited on space. They will do a full drainage study on the property. He described the puddling in the front and stated that they were going to raise it so that they are above the flood plain. They will also provide a thorough landscape plan. 4e stated that he concurred about a two step wall and also that they are considering incorporating the signage within the wall. He stated that because of the steep hillside and the drainage they are only covering about 30% of the property. With this footprint, the garage doors are not running so that they are visible to the highway. You will see only the ends of the buildings from the street. He stated that there would be a new computerized access system that will take a photograph of the person renting the unit. There will be a digital control gate access on the facility. Mr. Johnson stated that the requirement and effective use of parking is in front of the doors along the driveways. He provided copies of guidelines from the National Self -storage Association. He stated that the minimum requirement is 20 ft. and he is providing 24 ft. The only actual parking spaces needed are for people to park to go into the office to register, etc. He asked for comments from the Commission. Perkins asked him to address fencing. Mr. Johnson described the areas where fencing will be needed. He stated that they will not use chain link fencing, they will probably use a wrought -iron with masonry columns and maybe a cedar fence along one side. Reynolds asked about snow storage. He also stated that he has a problem with the onsite residence. Mr. Johnson descrihed the area designated for snow storage and he also stated that they use front-end loaders on any of their facilities where there is heavy snow. Regarding the office/apartment, this is mostly for security. It also enhances the building visibility on the front. The insurance companies and fire and police departments strongly recommend Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 1989 Page 8 of 11 that there is onsite management residence. He stated that he would feel very uncomfortable about not building it from a security standpoint. Hill asked about the density transfer. Mr. Johnson stated that he had rot been aware of needing a residential development right. Cuny explained that he will have to aquire a residential development right from someone that has one to sell. Reynolds asked about the drainage. Mr. Johnson stated that they will be looking into that. Hill stated that she was not clear on the parking variance issue. Mr. Johnson stated that if they park on both sides of those buildings, in other words one lane either way, plus the parking they have already designated they will have more than enough. The parking i,� only for renters of spaces to load or unload. He stated that the managers will have a parking garage for their vehicles and there will be no vehicles stored on the facility. Hill asked what a parking variance would entail. Fritzlen stated that our parking requirements require a 24 ft. aisle or access and as presented there is only 24 ft. so under our requirements that would constitute no parking. Mr. Johnson reviewed the National Self -storage Association, Denver and Colorado Springs requirements. He stated that they call out for a 9 to 10 ft. parking lane, to parallel park along the buildings, and lave at least 14 to 15 ft on the other side for a total of 24 ft. wide lanes. Considerable -liscussion followed on the parking problem and the problem of changed uses in buildings. Perkins stated that he feels that our parking ordinances do not address this type project. He feels that this type project deserves a different look for parking requirements. Planning and May 2, 1989 Page 9 of 11 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Realt_y_Corporaticn. Mini -Warehouses. Gerr Representative Conceptual Review, -(cont Discussion followed on the west property 1ine. It was suggested that it needed better landscaping along that property line. It was suggested that on further documents the elevation changes between the two properties be shown. Landauer stated that he agreed with Perkins regarding the parking. In answer to the concerns of changes in building usage, Mr. Johnson stated that since there is no plumbing acid very little electrical in these buildings, there is no way they could be used for something else. They would have to be torn down. Further discussion followed on the visibility of the buildings. The Commission asked for better dimensional drawings on future plans. Doll stated that his concerns were basically the drainage and snow storage, etc. He stated that he did nct feel that parking should be an issue. He agreed with Perkins that this type of project is not covered in the Town's ordinances. The Commission agreed that the use is applicable, and agreed on the office/manager residence as long as the applicant can obtain a density right. The Commission all agreed that the five concerns of the staff should be addressed. Wood commented regarding the drainage easement along the Mountain Center side. He stated that another area where there seems to be some encroachment is along the front with the driveway setback. He doesn't believe that it is shown as a 10 ft. setback from the street. He stated that another concern would be commercial storage. He is not sure that commercial truck traffic could be accommodated. Further discussion followed on the drainage easements and the driveway setback requirements. Hill asked how many garage doors would be provided. Mr. Johnson stated that all garage doors would be on the lower levels, probably, approximately 38 to 40 in the three buildings. Mr. Johnson then thanked the Commission for their time and input. Planning and May 2, 1989 Page 10 of 11 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Hazard. Architect Fritzlen stated that this is a continuance and there has been no new information presented. Since no new information has been presented, denial is recommended. Perkins moved to deny this application and maintain the approval of the original landscape plan as submitted. Hill seconded. The motion carried unanimously. McRory stated that he is against any approval to redesign landscaping and Commission needs to take a hard stand being of the Town. type of cut back or he feels that the on this for the well Reading and Approval of the Minutes of the April 18, 1989 Regular Meeting Hill moved to approve the minutes of the April 18, 1989 meeting. McRory seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Cuny stated that Resolution 89-5, regarding denial of a setback variance on lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, has been provided in the packet. Doll moved to approve Resolution 89-5, Series 1989. Hill seconded. The motion carried, with Reynolds abstaining. Discussion followed on the continuing parking problems with North American Van Lines. Cuny reviewed the copies of letters included in the packets regarding zoning violations, etc. Included was a letter to Jerry Vekre regarding re-evaluation of his Special Review Use on May 16, 1989, a letter to Subway Signs regarding action to be taken on May 16th, and two letters to Suncrest Condominiums and Henry Wolff regarding enclosing their dumpsters. Cuny asked about the sign that was disallowed at the last meeting and the fact that it is still there. �A 40 40 •1 Planning and May 2, 1989 Page 11 of 11 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Other Business (cont Fritzlen stated that she had not given Mr. Chaplin a specific time limit to take it down, she left it up to his discretion. She will contact him. Cuny asked about having Benchmark Trailer Park do something about maintaining their fence. She also commented on the painting of Benchmark Condos. She would like to have a time schedule provided on when they will finish the painting. Discussion followed on the problems caused for other tenants in Mountain Center by Jerry's Auto Repair. Also discussed was the problem caused by all the cars parked everywhere. This should all be considered at the next meeting when the Special Review Use is up for re-evaluation. Perkins moved to adjourn. Reynolds seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi J� Recording Secretary Commission T Jepvs�-* F. Doll J. Perki D. Hill C. McRor A. Reync approval v Date