Loading...
PZC Minutes 032189a 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MARCH 21, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on March 21, 1989, at 7:35 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 Vice Chairman Frank Doll. Members Present: Frank Doll, Denise Hill, Clavton McRory, John Perkins, Tom Landauer Staff Present: Lynn Fritzlen, Department of Community Development; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary; Norm Wood, Director of Community Development Fritzlen stated that this item had been tabled at the last regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, due to an incomplete description of the requested variance on the public notices. She stated that the applicant has rewritten the description and reposted the public notices. She stated that the current wording is: To allow the encroachment of the northwest corner and roof overhang of the building into the building setback on the west side of the lot. Fritzlen then reviewed, on the plan, what is being requested. She stated that the subdivision plat indicates that the building foundation corner is located 8.2' from the property line and the applicant has indicated that the roof overhang extends an additional 16" or 1.34' beyond the foundation corner for a total building encroachment of 3.14'. The total area of the building encroachment is 5.86 sq. ft. into the building sideyard setback. She stated that the applicant has provided statements from the utilities companies stating that they are aware of the encroachment and have no problems with it. Fritzlen stated that in response to the criteria regarding 2 Planning and Zoning March 21, 1989 Page 2 of 11 Commission Meeting Minutes practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, the applicant stated that it is a small building area and the contractor has built to close to the easement by accident. Staff response to this is that removing the built structure from the easement would be a practical impossibility without substantially modifying the design of the building and incurring significant financial cost. Fritzlen stated that in response to the criteria of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site, the applicant responded that the site is located in a SPA zone and setbacks are not easily determined by subdivision plat. The Staff response is, As in all SPA zone districts, zoning restrictions are determined by the adopted plat. Fritzlen stated that the approval criteria and findings required for a variance have been included in the Staff report. She stated that if the Commission determines that there are adequated findings for the granting of a variance , approval is recommended and Resolution 89-3 recommending granting of the variance with the condition that the variance is to allow an encroachment of existing construction of approximately 3' into the 10' building sideyard setback, should be adopted. Doll asked if any member of the Commission had any questions of the applicant's representative. The members stated that since all the figures, etc. have been corrected, there are no further questions. Doll opened the Public Hearing. With no questions or comments from the audience and no correspondence or phone calls received, Doll then closed the Public Hearing. Discussion followed on what can be done to prevent this happening in the future. McRory moved to adopt Resolution 89-3 granting the sideyard setback variance for Lot 51, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex Residence. Hill seconded. Planning and Zoninc Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 1989 Page 3 of 11 The motion carried with Landauer and Perkins voting nay. Fritzlen stated that this item was presented as a preliminary design review at the last regular meeting. She stated that Mark Donaldson, on behalf of Otto Stork, owner and developer of Storky's Restaurant, is requesting final design review for a 3400 sq. ft. restaurant and bar located immediately west of the Coastal Mart. She stated that the proposed restaurant is a one story ribbed block and stucco building with a partial basement. She then discussed the rendered elevations provided. Fritzlen stated that at the preliminary design review there were concerns regarding the specifications on exterior lighting, which were addressed at that time. The landscape irrigation system was another concern. She stated that there were two concarns regarding the visual appearance, and those were the rooftop mechanical equipment may be visible to residents and motorists on Nottingham Road and that the parking lot will dominate the view of proposed development from Nottingham Road. Additional landscaping at the drive entries and within the parking lot was suggested at that time. She stated that at the time the Staff Report was prepared, no additional information had been received. She stated that if the Commission finds that the application meets the applicable criteria, Final Design Review is recommended, subject to the following: Additional landscaping at the drive entries and in parking lot; Approval of proposed exterior lighting and proposed landscape irrigation system; Approval of signage as presented at the meeting; and Adequate screening of rooftop equipment. Donaldson stated that they have increased the landscape planning around the road. He stated that the lighting had been looked at the last meeting. He stated that the vegetated areas will have an underground irrigation system. The signage has been provided on the drawings for the entry and exit and an area on the building that will face the Interstate. They will be working with a sign contractor to come up with more detail. He stated that there will be nothing on the roof to screen. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 1989 Page 4 of 11 Lot 2, Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Storkv's Restaurant Otto Stork, Mark Donaldson Final Design Review, coni Doll asked if any Commission members had any questions. Perkins asked about the additional landscaping. Discussion followed. Discussion followed on the sign program as shown on the plans. The applicant will return when they have more details regarding the type of signs. Perkins moved to grant final design review approval, with the condition that the final sign designs would be brought before the board at a later date. Landauer seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Residential Complex, Final Design Review, Fractionalized Pro.iect, Public Hearing Fritzlen stated that John Dunham, on behalf of Stephan Kaelin and Franz Elsigan is requesting final design review and approval of fractionalization for a 16 unit residential complex on Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. She stated the lot is zoned RMD. The lot has 8 residential development rights assigned to it, all of which are to be fractionalized into halves to create a total of 16 residential units not exceeding 800 sq. ft. each. She then described the location of the lot and the colored elevations. She stated that the proposed development consists of two buildings, with eight units each, three levels high and are aligned with the southern edge of the property. proposed parking is all surface parking. She also descrihed the retaining walls and landscaping and trash receptacle. She stated that the proposed development received an informal review at the February 21, 1989 regular meeting. Fritzlen then reviewed the fractionalization criteria and design review criteria and findings required and the Staff comments. Fritzlen stated that Staff recommendation is that final design review and fractionalization approval is recommended conditioned by: Approval of the drainage plan and fire protection by the Staff prior to issuance of building permit; Planning and Zoning March 21, 1989 Page 5 of 11 Commission Meeting Minutes Relocation of signage such that it does not encroach into frontyard setback of 10'; Additional landscaping within the front setback and adjacent to building perimeter on east, west and north; and Additional parking lot lighting at drive entries and lot corners. Perkins asked to see the model. John Dunham stated that they are working with the Local, State and Federal governments to provide affordable housing. He asked Stuart Canada to provide the Commission with the information regarding this. Mr. Dunham then described the procedure for accomplishing this. Dunham stated that in general they have no objections to the comments made by the Staff. He stated that, regarding the lighting, They can light it, but they were concerned it might be objectionable to the people behind them. He stated that they would work with the Town in any way they can. He stated that horizontal siding will be used in the form of heavy timbers. Fritzlen asked if the FHA requirements would have any bearing on the drawings that have been submitted. Dunham replied that they would not. Discussion followed on the possible requirement for providing a handicapped unit. Mr. Dunham stated that there was no requirement. He stated that if it ever became a problem, the lower level of the units could provide such an opportunity. Discussion followed on the income requirements for this type of housing. Discussion followed on the model, the inclusion of a skylight in the core area where the stairwell is. Dunham stated that they plan to include some. Discussion followed on having more windows on the north side. It was pointed out that with the grading the way it is, the windows are not called for. Discussion folowed on the colors to be used. Doll then opened the public hearing. Bill Fleshier, of the Chambertin Homeowners Association stated that he had nothing against the project as he sees it, w) a? 0i Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 1989 Page 6 of 11 IF40 however the Homec.-hers Association overall is against the project because they do not care for fractionalization. He suggested that washers and dryers should be incorporated in the units. It was stated that hookups will be provided with the option to purchase. With no further comments forthcoming and no correspondence or calls received, Doll closed the public hearing. Discussion followed on fireplaces being provided and the number allowed with fractionalization. Perkins moved to grant final approval to Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, approval to include the four conditions listed by the staff. McRory seconded. Fritzlen asked how the design review of the additional landscaping should be handled? The Commission felt that the Staff should be able to approve that. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 17, Filing Residence, Sidey in Conjunction wi Eaglebend Subdivi Fritzlen stated that John Appleby and John Loughridge are requesting a sideyard and frontyard setback variance in conjunction with a replat of Lots 17 and 18, for two seperate residences located within Filing No. 3 in the Eaglebend SPA. She then described where Filing No. 3 is located on the map. She stated that the request for the variance is in conjunction with a minor subdivision or replat that relocates and reconfigures the existing lots 17 and 18. She stated that an exhibit has been provided with the report that shows the existing and the proposed configurations. She stated that if the variance is approved the applicants will pursue final subdivision approval for the proposed replat from the Town Council. She stated that Filing No. 3 is currently platted for 19 townhouse units. Of those 19, 12 have been developed, commonly known as Stonebridge Townhomes. There is one a Planning and Zoning March 21, 1989 Page 7 of 11 40% Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 17, Filing No 3 Eaglebend Subdivsision Duplex .,.._,-4-- 0 -+ Variance residential right assigned to each of the lots. Lots 1 through 19 as platted represent the area directly beneath the existing and proposed townhouses. The common area outside of the lots is Tract B and is owned in common by the Stonebridge Condominium Association. The applicant has procured the written approval of the Stonebridge Condominium Association Board of Directors which has been included with the Staff Report. Fritzlen stated that the newely platted lots would allow for two detached residences with a common driveway rather than townhouses with no direct vehicle entry as originally proposed. She stated that a site improvement plan had been provided, indicating the common drive. She stated that Filing No. 3 has a 16' front building setback and a 100' setback from the eastern property line adjacent to L,)t 19, Filing No. 1. The proposed location of Lot 17 would require a variance of 6' from the 16' front building setback locating it 10' from the public right-of-way and a 20' variance from the 100' building sideyard setback locating the building 80' away from Lot 19 of Filing No. 1. Fritzlen stated that regarding the practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship, the applicant responded that the houses get too close together t.o provide adequate driveway, parking and snow storage areas; the houses get too close to the river to provide a safe distance from the river and rear landscape; and the views from existing units are obscured without this variance. Staff agreed with this response. Regarding the exceptional nr extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site, the applicant responded that the sites are small in dimension from the street to Metcalf Ditch easement and lesser setbacks have already been recognized by setback distances varying from street and by variances granted to date. Fritzlen stated that Filing 3 narrows substantially on its eastern end and given the proposed depth of the building envelope of Lot 18 and existing grades, the applicant's response is correct. Pegarding the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation depriving the Planning and Zoning March 21, 1989 Page 8 of 11 0^ Commission Meeting Minutes applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district, the applicant responded: Adequate river bank yard space, garden and landscape; Interface with river views by existing houses on the east and west of proposed applicant's houses; and Driveway gradas get too steep as garages are moved back further from the street. Staff response was that the existing setbacks, were established in relation to a phased multi -unit townhouse complex. The proposeii use departs from the originall concept and consequently has site impacts not anticipa_id in the original layout. The 100' sideyard setback was originally proposed to buffer differing densities of development but the proposed detached duplexes are now more similar to the adjacent development on the east than the Stonebridge Townhomes. She stated that the frontyard setback is acceptable to Staff if the turn around area is adequate to allow vehicles to manuever such that they are not backing out into the public right-of-way. Fritzlen stated that the approval criteria and findings have been included in the Staff Report. She stated that if the Commission determines that there are adequate findings for the granting of a variance, approval is recommended. She stated that Staff has prepared Resolution 89-4 recommending granting of the variance with the conditions: The approval of the variance is contingent upon approval of the final plat of Lots 17 and 18, Filing No. 3, Eaglebend Subdivision as presented with the application; The variance, resubdivision and subsequent building and site design review approval does not allow the proposed openspace to diminish below 60% as required for Filing No. 3 for the existing and approved future development; and Any further conditions as imposed through the design review process. John Railton stated that he felt Lynn Fritzlen had covered the hardships involved. He stated that he thought this was a very positive project. He then described, on the plat provided, ,fust what they want to accomplish. Discussion followed on the snow storage area size. Doll opened the public hearing. With no comments or correspondence or calls received, Doll then closed the public hearing. Planning and Zoning March 21, 1989 Page 9 of 11 Commission Meeting Minutes Discussion followed regarding the buffer area. The applicant stated that more pleasing landscaping will probably be done on this property. Perkins moved to adopt Resolution No. 89-4, with the Staff conditions as presented. Landauer seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 68. Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Kunis Single Family Residence, Final Design Review Fritzlen pointed out the location of Lot 68, Block 4, Wildridge which is on a cul de sac serving six other lots which have yet to be developed. She stated that Steve Hyland, representing Bob and Kathy Kunis, is requesting final design review for a single family residence. The lot is assigned two residential development rights. The house is two storys and has a pitched roof. Exterior materials are diagonal wood siding and a composition roof. Fritzlen stated that in reviewing this project the Commission should consider the design review guidelines. She stated that at the time of report preparation, the applicant had provided another site plan, and that she had just received a new site plan today. The new plan appears to be acceptable and reflects the grades shown on the exterior elevations. She then proceeded to review the design criteria. Fritzlen stated that at the time of the preparation of the report it appeared that a setback variance would be needed, and Staff recommended that this item be tabled, however the setback problem has been corrected. Doll asked if that means that the recommendation to table is out? Fritzlen stated that she feels that the other items need to be addressed, i.e. the proposed landscaping irrigation, exterior lighting and the satellite dish screening. Steve Hyland stated that they did not intend to do much exterior lighting, only two deck lights by the sliding doors and at least one at the entrance. Regarding landscaping, he stated that they are considering having underground irrigation, this has not been determined, but they will work Planning and Zoning March 21, 1989 Page 10 of 11 Commission Meeting Minutes with whatever- is needed. Regarding the satellite dish screening, he stated that if too much screening is installed on the south side it will block the reception, however, they will work with the Town requirements. Discussion followed on putting an underground melt system in the drive. The applicant wishes to wait until next spring to lay the black top after the ground has settled. The Commission felt that this was a good idea. Perkins stated that he felt that there should be wider overhangs on the building and he felt that the window placements could be improved. Mrs. Kunis stated that the reason the window placements were the way they are is so that every room in the house would have the view. The colors and materials to be used were discussed. Further discussion followed on the satellite dish. McRory moved to grant final design review for Lot 68, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision, with the condition that they meet Staff recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. Landauer seconded. The motion carried with Perkins voting nay. McRory moved to approve the minutes of the 3/7/89 Regular Meeting as presented. Hill seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Further discussion followed on the satellite dish regulations. Discussion followed on what services will be provided by the Eagle Valley TV Metro District. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 1989 Page 11 of 11 Perkins moved to adjourn. Hill seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 PM Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Coml P. i T. F. J. D. C. A. i