Loading...
PZC Minutes 070792--N '°` RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEE(ING MINUTES July 7, 1992 The regular meeting of the Planning and Z,3ning Commission was held on July 7, 1992, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Rd., Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins. Members Present: John Perkins, Buz Reynolds, Sue Railton, Henry Vest, Jack Hunn, Rhoda Schneiderman Patti Dixon Staff Present: Jim Curnutte, Town Planner; Rick Pylman, Director of Community Development Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary All members were present except .Jack Hunn. Mr. Hunn arrived at 7:32 PM. Holy Cross Electric Assoc iation,_Line Relocation,___Special _Review Use Amendment, Public Hearing Rick Pylman stated that the applicant and the Town are still working to gather more information and would request that this item be tabled. Henry Vest moved to table this application to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Buz Reynolds seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lots 141'15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Lyon Trucks, Inc Contractor's Yard and Soil Storage, _Speci_al_ Review Rick Pylman stated that the arplicant is still working on this application and asks that this item be tabled. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table this item until the next meeting. 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 26 Lots 14/15, Block 1. Benchmark _at_ Beaver _Creek.Subdl_vision,__Lyon Trucks Inc.. Contractor's Yard and Soil Stora e,_.__Special_Revi_ew Use. Public Hearing. (conte_ Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot_14, Block 3, Wildr.idge._Subdivision. Goddard --- Bed_and B_r_eakf:a_st, Special_R,eview usePublic Hearing Jim Curnutte stated that Kristin Goddard is asking for a special review use for a bed and breakfast residence at her home. The house is completed. It has received a final CO. Ms. Goddard has indicated that two of the three bedrooms in her home will be used for the bed and breakfast operation. There will only be breakfast served, no lunch or dinner. Ms. Goddard has contracted with Vail Ski Areas Inc. to book her rooms throughout the year. There is a two car garage on the property and Ms. Goddard has only one car. Curnutte stated that there are two types of bed and breakfast in Avon, a bed and breakfast residence and a bed and breakfast lodge. The lodge is more of a commercial operation and the residence is something that can happen in residentially zoned properties, provided that there is no substantially negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The definition of a bed and breakfast residence is a dwelling unit that is owner occupied and provides lodging with or without meals to guests for compensation. This request does comply with that zoning requirement. All other portions of the -oning code are being complied with. Staff feels that the proposed bed and breakfast residence is an affirmative step to further the Comprehensive Plan vision statement without negatively effecting adjacent property owners. Staff feels that the residence is very compatible with adjacent uses. There is more than adequate room for parking on Lot 14. Staff recommends approval of this application with one condition and that is that there not be any signage on the building or on the lot, so that the building retains its residential character. Ms. Goddard stated that the maximum would be four or five people at one time. Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing. With no public input to be heard, Chairman Jerkins then closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hunn asked if the applicant had proposed an identification sign. Ms. Goddard stated she was not proposing one. Sue Railton moved to approve the special review use for a bed and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 3 of 26 Lot 14 Block 3. Wildr ridge__ Subdivi_sion_,____Godda_ra_ Bed_ -and Breakfast Special Review Use, Public Hearin cont_ breakfast residence on Lot 14, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, with the Staff recommendation that the building retain its residential character by not installing any signage on the property or the building. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. _a_yer __Creek Subdivision.John _Pub 1_i c _Hear.i ng Rick Pylman stated that this is a parking variance request at the Benchmark Plaza Building. The building was built in the early 80's and is a three story building just under 20,000 square feet of leasable area. There are 30 underground parking spaces on site that are assigned to specific tenants and there are 33 surface spaces for a total of 63 parking spaces on site. This building does meet the parking demand as required by the Town code if it was being used solely as office srace. There are two spaces that have been converted into different uses. There is a 1215 square foot restaurant space and a 1300 square foot retail shop. Calculating the parking demand for the building as it is being utilized today would require 71 parking spaces. The building is in a nonconforming parking situation as it exists. John Heilman would like to open and operate a restaurant in the existing retail space. Assuming about 900 square feet of seating area, that would create a parking demand of about 16 spaces, or 10 more than is currently being demanded by the retail use. This would put the building parking demand substantially over the parking available on site. Pylman stated that the existing parking demand for the building is 71 spaces and the proposed parking demand would be 80 spaces. He stated that the zoning code states that anytime a change in use occurs which creates a higher parking demand that parking must be provided for on site. There is little or no opportunity with this building to add more parking. Therefore, the available route to the applicant to pursue this idea is a parking variance, to allow him to maintain 63 parking spaces for a building use that demands 80, which would allow operation of a restaurant in the former Casa Bella space. Mr. Heilman would like to operate the restaurant as a dinner restaurant only and would open at five or six o'clock at night. As an office building the parking demand is during the daytime, and the justification for the variance, in the applicant's eyes, is that the parking lot is largely unused during the nighttime and it is a good use of the existing space. Pylman reviewed the criteria, stating that restaurant use is allowed in both the Town Center and Shops ng Center zone PLANNING AND July 7, 1992 Page 4 of 26 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES districts. Thele are buildings that have been developed with sufficient parking to accommodate tenant fluctuation that would allow change over from retail or office to restaurant spaces. This building, unfortunately, is not one of them. It was built strictly as an office building. The adjacent Benchmark Shopping Center, a mixed use building, is at its absolute max-imum as lar as intensity of use. Pylman stated that the granting of this variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. There are buildings in Town who spent the money to build adequate parking facilities so that they could be flexible with their tenant mix. This building is not one of them. Pylman stated that the Commission ne,ds to cite findings in their decision. Staff recommendation is for denial, since the granting of the variance may be considered a special privilege, and it also has a potential to set a precedent. John Heilman provided some letters and a petition from the building tenants, supporting the variance request. He then reviewed his background in the restaurant business. He stated that he is also in the process u. purchasing Rugs Pub. He stated that he thinks the issue is the logic vs. the code standard. ;;e realizes that there is a serious parking pr)blem on the property. He mentioned the sales tax revenues that %..ould be produced in a building that at this time produces no sales tax revenues.. He stated that he did some research at the Comfort Inn, the Christie Lodge, etc. to find out what restaurants the people of those establishments recommend to their guests. People that stay in Town are taking their tax dollars for meals outside of the area. He stated that intersection is a cornerstone for Avon. There needs to be a highly exposed restaurant at this location. Regarding the parking, he stated that on the way to this meeting the parking lot had 3 cars parked in it. By doing this restaurant only at night he is actually taking out of the parking pool basically a little more than 10% of the building by taking out 2100 square feet. The only way to alleviate the parking problem is to try to take advantage of using it at night and getting a dual use out of it as opposed to just having it used only in the daytime. Mr. Heilman stated that in goal number four of the parking, transportation and circulation heading of the Comprehensive Plan vision statement states "to provide an adequate supply of parking, both public and private to serve the needs or the community. There are three objectives to reach this goal. They are: explore opportunities for the provisions of public PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 5 of 26 parking; encourage the joint use of parking where appropriate; to analyze existing parking requirements. He stated that he thinks that some of the equations used for parking are probably a bit outdated and thinks that the parking situation would not be as bad if more uses of parking were explored like this. He feels that the hardship is that he is stuck with either outdated standards or worse yet, standards that don't even exist and something that has never been experienced or looked at before. Also, the developer that built that building never looked at it as a possible restaurant site. He stated that he would not be open in the daytime. He doesn't Know how to assure the Commission that he does not plan to open in the daytime. He askeo the commission to overrule the staff recommendation to deny the variance. Chairman Perkins opened the public hearing. Malcom Murray, Attorney for Vail -Avon Commercial Partntrs, owners of the Benchmark Shopping Center Building, stated that hs supports the Staff recommendation for denial. He reviewed areas where other people have been complying with the parking requirements. He reminded the Commissioners that they have to make certain findings that are required based on the facts that are presented, and he did not believe that they could make those findings based on the factual record. He stated that all of the arguments Mr. Heilman pr-^^nted, i. e. sales tax revenues, were not included in the fir, that the Commission must make. Even though Mr. Heilman ,cioned the codes and their requirement, the Commission is bound by the codes and must follow the code, unless you can make the findings that this is not a special privilege. He has not shown that the parking requirements will create a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship, nor has he shown any exceptional circumstances. He also mentioned that it has not been established if the underground parking would be availably: for use in the evening. The overflow from this building would naturally flow into the Benchmark Shopping Center parking lots, which are filled to capacity in the evenings from their own two restaurants. They don't want to see a conflict situation. They want the parking to be available for the uses of their building. Mike Phillips, Manager of the Benchmark Shopping Center, stated he did not know, when he wrote his letter, how many parking spaces were involved. He feels that any kind of a variance is unacceptable, but if it were only one or two it might work out, but 17 parking spaces is too much change. The precedent also bothers him. He doesn't feel that asking to reduce the parking requirement by 20% is in the best interest of the Town at all. He feels strongly that the Staff recommendation should be upheld. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 6 of 26 Lot 20, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creeksubdivis-ion,._John Heilman, Parking Variance Request, PublicHearingyACont) Jan Chanault, former partner of Casa Bella, stated she is very familiar with the space. She stated that daytime retail doesn't work in that space because of the light on the windows. At night the space would show up a great deal. The parking was a problem during the day, however, the parking lot is empty at night. She stated that she had received many inquiries regarding a family restaurant in this area. The space would not work as an office space and is not good for a retail space. She urged the Commission to approve the variance request. Gary Stevens, Manager of the Benchmark Plaza building, stated that the owners and he were 100% behind John Heilman. They will make the garage available for valet parking. That would be 30 spaces that are totally not used in the evenings. This will alleviate the daytime parking somewhat, because there will not be retail or office use in that space. Mark Donaldson stated that he is a tenant in the Benchmark Plaza building, and that when Avon became incorporated and began to write municipal codes the parking problems in Vail were very evident and these parking codes are very conservative. Until recently we really haven't seen parking problems, per se. This particular site has been known as one that has had the tightest parking constraints, because it is shaped like a triangle. This is an opportunity to create some energy in Avon. The building is known as a unique structure. It will not always function as an office building. It works well as an office building for the tenants on the second and third floors. The lower level has always struggled. The Casa Bella space is not a retail space. Mr. Heilman is proposing to operate after hours of the other tenants. He feels that if we would all relax a little bit and realize that we are on the threshold of really tying the Town together with the streetscape program, all the urban improvements, and rather than drawing property lines and saying no we don't want anybody parking over in our parking lot, etc., that is not even an issue in this nighttime parking. He encouraged the Commission to consider this, not so much as a variance request, but as an opportunity to add a use to an existing structure that would add some energy to it. Tom Backhus stated that he was not here for this tonight, and he wasn't even going to get fired up until he heard the attorney talking about codes and the restrictions, etc. He feels that this is an opportunity for the Town and he feels that times have changed since the ordinances were written. The Town has really changed. Look at what has happened at Avon Center and at Christie Lodge. Someday the Perigrine/Grand on Avon will be a go, etc. PLANNING AND July 7, 1992 Page 7 of 26 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES This is a great location for a restaurant and would be great for this Town. If the restriction that he only be open in the evenings be placed on this request, that is pretty tight control. He ropes the Commission will grant the variance request. He does not feel it is favoritism. He feels this would be for the betterment of the Town. Chairman Perkins then stated for the record that letters had been received from Lynn Weiss of the Christie Lodge urging approval of z.he variance; a letter from Harold Barnes, General Manager of the Comfort Inn urging approval of the variance; and a petition with 24 signatures from the tenants of the Benchmark Plaza building, urging approval. Chairman Perkins then closed the public hearing. Buz Reynolds asked how many seats were planned in the restaurant. Mr. Heilman stated that approximately 75. Mr. Reynolds voiced concerns regarding any tenants working at night and also the time span when the daytime tenants would be leaving and the restaurant would open. He actually feels that this would be a good use and the nighttime parking would work. He also likes the idea that there would be another restaurant in the Town and he likes the idea of the tax dollars staying in the Town. Sue Railton asked how many cars would be involved with 75 seats? Mr. Heilman stated that would be difficult to determine. one of the attractive factors about the location is that it is very walkable. Ms. Railton stated that she feels it is a wonderful use for that building. She is in favor if the underground parking can also be used and she would like there to be restrictions that it will not be open during the daytime. Jack Hunn asked how the current deficiency came about and also, if this applicant would be expected to solve the problem of the current deficiencies of 8 parking spaces if he were to find more parking spaces at an adjacent piece of property? Rick Pylman stated that he really did not know how that came about, since the space that is occupied by Rugs Pub has been a restaurant in that building from almost as long as the building has been open. Discussion followed on this matter. Jack Hunn asked Staff if they believed that by not using that space for office or retail in the daytime it would relieve some of the parking congestion during the day? Rick Pylman stated that there is some obvious logic to that statement. There was a bank in that space previously. According to the zoning and the Town of Avon parking standards you could put another bank back in there and have some serious problems PLANNING AND July 7, 1992 Page 8 of 25 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES b there. Think of the amount of vehicles at First Bank. Jack Hunn asked if the Town had any review process if another applicant other than a proposed restaurant use would try to lease the space? Rick Pylman stated that there is no review process if it is an office space. Staff would have to check to see if the retail space would be grandfathered as Rugs Pub is. Discussion followed on the square footage of the space. Jack Hunn asked if any one has ever explored the possibility of converting a portion of the landscape area between the underground parking access ramp and the dumpster into parking. Mr. Heilman stated that he thinks that that is a roadway there. Discussion followed. Mr. Heilman stated that one of the problems is that he is sitting here trying to figure out how to add more parking for a daytime use that he would not even be using. He feels that the current parking spaces will be more than enough for his use in the evening. He stated that a restaurant is a great use for the site, but there is a practical way to look at this and then there is a letter of the code way to look at it. Jack Hunn stated that he personally is having difficult time finding a justification to grant the variance, even though he would like to see a restaurant happen here. The zoning code does not allow a distinction between daytime vs nighttime uses. John Perkins stated that if there is a hardship here, which it is very difficult to define, it is that in the parking guidelines, this circumstance was not forseen. He thinks that they need to take a look at the parking guidelines with respect to both joint use and adjacent lot accommodations. A restaurant there would be good for this town, however, granting the variance is going to be a difficult issue. Henry Vest asked about the employee parking for employees that would be coming in around 3:30. Each employee would be driving themselves. The applicant needs to consider this and maybe going to Christi Sports to work out some agreement for use of that parking lot also. He feels that the applicant needs to show the staff a documented plan showing valet parking, etc. He would recommend tabling this item in order to take a longer look at this matter. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that if the parking lot is empty in the evening, this would be a good use. She asked Rick Pylman if his business license could be restricted to certain hours. Rick Pylman stated that this could be made a condition of the granting of the variance. She personally feels tha flexibility would be an interesting word to explore here, based on the fact that they have never had this circumstance before, where the parking PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 9 of 26 ohn structure would be a shared use based on hours. She feels it is for the good of the community and is all for it as long as strict regulations are put on so that the parking won't be a problem. She also agrees that the employee parking may be a problem. Mr. Heilman stated that he has actually talked to the owners of the Christi Sports building and they have no problem. Patti Dixon stated that even though she thinks it is an ideal location because of the evening traffic, she would be in favor of tabling this matter. She would be in favor of this if they have full support of all the Benchmark Plaza tenants, and a valet plan be provided and the applicant look into possibility of additional parking on the other end. John Perkins stated that he thought they were kind of getting off track, there is a request for a variance, they do not have a vehicle for approving this variance, he was not sure that tabling is the right process. He asked Staff if tabling is the right vehicle here or if denying this variance and then encouraging the applicant to work with the Staff at exploring an avenue for a joint use and adjacent parking lot accommodations would be a better process. Rick Pylman stated that as to whether it is appropriate to table this or not, if you think that there is more information out there that would enable you to make findings to support the variance, then you could grant the applicant time to present it to you, but if you are tabling it because you are not ready to deal with it, that is not a good reason to table it. Buz Reynolds stated he believe that there is an avenue that this can be done, because the interpretation of this code for parking and enforcement of that is written in approval criteria B actually shows one use which is a daytime use and he sees this as a separate use for this building, which is a nighttime use. If this applicant comes in and tells us that he is going to work in a time period which is not normally used within this building, he thinks that they interpret that as a different use for the building and he has no problem at all seeing the building used in a different way after 5:30 in the evening. Buz Reynolds moved to approve the parking variance request for Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with the findings listed in section C-1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the ibjectives of this title. Rhoda Schneiderman s 3nded. The motion carried with a five to two vote, John Perkins and Jack Hunn voting nay. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 10 of 26 Jim Curnutte stated that Brian Vedder is requesting a variance from the 25' front yard setback required on his lot. The variance request is specific to the garage area in both of the units. The garages are intended to encroach 15' into the 25' setback area or will be within 10' of the front property line. Mr. Vedder feels that the variance is necessary to provide reasonable access to the garages without an excessive grade. He also pointed out the fact that the original design guidelines in the Wildridge Subdivision specifically allows for this type of a variance request, if indeed the lot has a slope of between 20 and 30%. This lot averages about 26%. Curnutte reviewed the criteria for approving a variance, stating that Staff does not feel that the garage encroachment, will have a significant negative effect on the -uture homeowners or on the character of Wildridge as a whole. Curnutte stated that the building being built on Lot 44 to the west is meeting all of it's setback requirements and Lot 45 is not significantly steeper than Lot 44. There are some architectural issues that almost requires that the garage doors face the street. The applicant feels that his is more architecturally pleasing in that the public will not have to look at the garage doors. Curnutte reminded the Commission that they must cite findings in either approving or denying this variance request. He stated that, based on technical aspects and strict interpretation, whether there is a hardship or not, Staff's recommendation is for denial, feeling that the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege to this property owner which would be inconsistent to the rules that the other property owners have to live by, and also granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety or welfare, and that the variance is not warranted for any of the reasons listed under section "C" of the findings. Brian Vedder stated he had no more to add, except that he used the original Wildridge guidelines to come up with this design. Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing for comments. With no public input forthcoming, Chairman Perkins then closed the public hearing. Patti Dixon stated she is in support of the variance because it would allow the garage doors to be situated away from the street. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that it has been done on other properties in Wildridge, so she doesn't feel it is showing any favoritism and architecturally the solution far outweighs the merits of turning it down. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 11 of 26 Henry Vest stated that he agrees with both Commissioners. Jack Hunn stated that he is comfortable with it because the bulk and mass of the building is within the front setback. By granting the variance it allows you to come up with a better solution for the site. Sue Railton stated that she agreed with Jack Hunn. She had some questions regarding the garage roof and if it would have some sod. Mr. Vedder stated that there would be some sod and wildflower mix. Buz Reynolds stated, being an adjacent property owner, he has no problem with it at all. If he moves this house down the hill any more he will have a tremendous amount of top soil. Jack Hunn moved to grant the front yard setback variance for Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, based on the findings on Section 17.36.50 - A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; and B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to tr.e public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and C. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 45 Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Vedder Duplex, Final Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that the lot is about an acre in size. This has been reviewed at the conceptual level and some of the comments that the Commission had were: - The large sloped roof over the garage was not working; consider a flat roof. - The image of the house from the street could be improved. - The garage doors facing the sida lot lines was a good design element. - The cantilevered portion of the building on the south side was awkward. Consider removing or screened with some sort of landscaping. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 12 of 26 - Consider a steeper roof pitch over the dwelling units and to lower the building's overall height above finished or existing grade. - Simplify the roof structure. The duplex will be accessed via asphalt driveways on the east and west sides near the side lot lines at about 8 to 10%. It is a two and one-half story building, nearly 5,000 sq. ft. in size total for both of the units, not including the garages. The maximum building height is 35' even. Mr. Vedder stated that they are about 33'. Curnutte stated that there is a gas fireplace in each unit. The exterior building materials being proposed are, medium cedar shake shingles, 1 x 6 T&G cedar siding, stucco, cladded windows, stucco deck pilasters, etc. A landscape plan and a grading and drainage plan has been provided. The grading and drainage plan has been reviewed by the Town Engineer and there are no concerns with it. There is a good mixture of trees and shrubs on the property in all elevations. Disturbed areas will be revegetated with a wildflower seed mix and some sod. Automatic irrigation is proposed. Curnutte reviewed the criteria for approval of a final design review, stating that the overage of the building height has been corrected; the type and quality of the building and landscape materials arr very suitable and are found throughout Wildridge; the siting and landscaping of the building is sympathetic to adjacent properties; all regrading will be contained within lot lines; the property slopes toward the south at about 26% and the house is integrated well into the existing topography of the site Staff recommeds approval with the condition that those portions of the concrete driveway threshholds and lanterns located in the utility easements will need review and approval from all utility companies prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant provided samples of the proposed colors. Chairman Perkins stated that he did not feel that the applicant was ready for final design review. He would like to see the elevations hardlined and finalized at a large scale so that they can tell somemore about window details, etc. ;le stated that he could probably give the applicant a real strong conceptual approval, but what he sees is not developed enough to go for a final approval tonight. He stated that he likes the changes that have been made. Discussion followed on the matter of having more refined drawings. Discussion followed on the safety of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 13 of 26 Lot 45 Block 3. Wildridae subdivision. Vedder Duplex, Final Design Review, (cont) driveways and the allowance for snow removal. Also snow shed was discussed. The safety of the sod roof was discussed. The need for a more detailed landscape plan was discussed. Henry Vest moved to grant final approval for Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, with the following staff conditions: 1. Those portions of the concrete driveway threshholds and lanterns located in the utility easements will need review and approval from the utility companies; 2. The landscape plan be itemized and reviewed by staff. nhoda Schneiderman seconded. Jack Hunn asked about the snow shed and safety concerns. Henry Vest stated that it was his opinion that he has addressed the snow shed removal with a drain spout and that it would be up to Joe McGrath to determine some sort of safety fencing going across the garage. Buz Reynolds suggested that if Joe McGrath determines there are any requirements of handrails, etc., it would come back to the Board. Henry Vest so amended his motion. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded the amendment. The motion failed with four against the motion and three for the motion. Jack Hunn moved to table this application, with a strong conceptual endorsement, and request the applicant return and address the concerns of the Board expressed at this meeting. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried with a five to two vote. Jim Curnutte stated that Gregg Sanders, on behalf of the Saddleridge Townhomes Association, is requesting approval to change the color of the building. The building is currently stained with a semi -transparent rust colored stain and a brown trim. He stated that Gregg Sanders had called today with some changes in the colors from what is listed in the staff report. Gregg Sanders provided samples of the Devoe Creekside color to be used on the siding. They are wanting to get away from the semi -transparent primarily because of the lack of pigmentation which is not protecting the wood as well. Originally the proposed trim was the Wizard (teal green), however, now they would like to use the solid body cedar color for the trim. This would be used on the door and window trim, fascia and deck rails and corner trim. Garage doors would be the same as the body. The front doors would stay the natural. Discussion followed on the use of the Creekside color. It was the general consensus that the cedar did not work well with the Creekside. They felt that the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 14 of 26 Creekside was too grey. Patti Dixon moved to approve the color change, of the cedar trim and that the Creekside color warmer color, i.e. sandstone buff. The motion died for lack of a second. with the approval be change to a Jack Hunn moved to table this item and request that, the applicant return with some other colors for the Commission to consider. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried with Henry Vest opposing. Lots 13. 14 and 15 Block 2. Benchmark at_ Beaver _C_reek c..F.rli.,i�inn_ Ruck Creek Condominiums. Building__Color_CW_ge Jim Curnutte stated Gregg Sanders informed him that the homeowners have changed their minds regarding the colors to be used and are not at this time ready to make a presentation to the Board. Henry Vest moved to table this item. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Jim Curnutte stated that the applicants are requesting to change the previously approved cedar shake shingles to an asphalt shingle. They are proposing to go with the Tamko Heritage II shingle which is about a 320 lb per square and the color will be rustic slate. The applicant provided a sample of the proposed shingle. Discussion followed on the lack of texture and the color. Henry Vest moved to approve the building material change request. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried with John Perkins and Jack Hunn voting nay. Jim Curnutte stated that this is actually more than a building material change, there are some architectural changes also. This was discussed at the last meeting. The most substantial changes are material changes and those are the siding on the building going from a natural wood cedar siding to a masonite product and a change from cedar shake shingle to 360 lb per square Timberline shingle. The Commission tabled this item at the last meeting to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSON MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 15 of 26 Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, —Bristol allow the applicant to get with the Beacon Hill Homeowners Association to talk about these changes, since Jeff Maddox had sent a letter basically opposing this request. Another letter was received today whereby the Homeowners Association has reviewed the samples of the sidings and agrees with the request for the masonite siding, however, they do oppose the roofing change. Mark Donaldson stated they would like to withdraw the asphalt shingles from the application and simply request the approval of the masonite siding. Discussion followed on the deletion of the pendant light fixtures which have been replaced with soffit lights and the deletion of the stucco garage door headers. Donaldson stated that the whole building was lowered about 26" in height when they went from manufactured to stick built, therefore, the stucco was deleted. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the siding material change be approved with the shake roof being reinstated, Sue Railton seconded. The architectural changes as proposed are included in this motion. the motion carried unanmously. Lot 95, Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision, Gossett Duplex _F in al. Desiqn Review Jim Curnutte stated that the Commission looked at this item at the last meeting. Some of the Commission comments were: - At final review, submit carefully conceived grading and drainage and landscape plans, which the applicant has provided. - The north and east elevations needed a lot more work to add interest. Consider changing the massing especially on the north elevation, and not by way of just a change in materials. - Consider putting the garage doors on two diFferent elevations. - More landscaping is needed, especially along the entrance to the project. The duplex will be accessed by a 14' wide asphalt driveway which approaches the house at a consistent 10% grade. A landscaping and grading plan has been reviewed by staff. It is a two story duplex, about 5,200 sq. ft. not including the two car garages PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 16 of 26 associated with each unit. Building height, is well below the thirty five foot maximum. Gas fireplaces in each of the living rooms and decks on the second story living room areas. Exterior building materials are asphalt shingles, 310 lbs per square.; 1 x 8 cedar lap siding a forest green color; stucco, a light peach; rough sawn cedar fascia; metal clad wood windows; possibly copper chimney caps, flashings; exposed aggregate walls next to driveway. Curnutte then reviewed the criteria for approval of a final design review. Staff recommendation is for approval of this final design review application with the condition that issuance of a building permit will be subject to Town Engineer review and approval of the grading/drainage plan. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that this is a tremendous improvement, she thinks that the stucco color should have a bit more peach tone color to it. She thinks that the applicant has addressed most of the Commission's concerns. Patti Dixon felt that it was a definite improvement and she likes that the colors are not grey with green. Henry Vest stated that he feels it needs more work. He cited the way the fascias are shown; the use of copper for flashings; the two windows and the one window on top. John Perkins stated that conceptually you needed to take another direction, and although you have made some of the changes, he still sees the same concept and still has a problem with the massing and the way some of the gable forms relate to each other. Also of concern was the window trim detail. Discussion followed on this matter. Also discussed was the application of the stonework. Jack Hunn stated that he agrees with John Perkins that the massing still bulky; there should be reconsideration of the roof forms; and possibly regrading the site with some retaining walls (due to rattling of plans, transcription of the rest of this comment is not possible). Mr. Hunn then stated that the transition of materials is somewhat awkward, there doesn't seem to be any pattern to where the stone stops and the stucco begins or where the siding is used, the siding is kind of patchy. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. Hunn asked about the height of the pine trees, and also, what would the method of irrigation be? The applicant stated he wasn't sure about the height of the •1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 17 of 26 pine trees, and the landscaping would be watered by hand or a drip irrigation. Hunn asked him to specify one of the other. The applicant stated that this was a concern. The more he has to change, the more constraints on the budget, so there are some items he would like to leave open. If he has the money he can do it. He stated that he did not want to have to water by hand, but if he doesn't have the money he'll have to water by hand. The applicant stated that he will be living in one half of the duplex. Hunn asked if the native vegetation would be preserved? The applicant replied that he will be doing the excavating and will preserve as much as he can. Further discussion followed on the siding locations and the colors. Sue Railton stated that her comments were the same as Jack Hunn's and Buz Reynolds stated that his comments have been expressed by the other members. Discussion followed on the proposed roofing material. Discussion followed on the planter locations and the stair railing requirements. Henry Vest stated that he likes the house as a whole. He personally feels that the last time it was very conceptual in nature, and although you have put more effort into it, it is just now at the conceptual stage. He feels the applicant needs to give it one more shot. Henry Vest moved to deny the final design review as submitted. Jack Hurin seconded and the motion carried with Reynolds and Schneiderman voting nay. Lots 2 and 4 Sunroad Subdivison Denny's Restaurant, Final Desiqn Review Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant is requesting final design for a Denny's Restaurant on Lots 2 and 4, Sunroad. The building straddles the lot line, so eventually that lot line obviously, before a building permit is issued, will have to be vacated. The combined lot area would be just slightly over an acre in size. The building site coverage is at 10%, the total impervious is at 65%, leaving 35% landscaped area. The parking requirement is for 31 spaces, but 48 have been provided on site. At the time of conceptual review, a future commercial space was shown. That has been eliminated. They could come in at a future date and utilize that zoning on that property. Curnutte stated that it is a stucco building with aluminum window PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 18 of 26 _F i_n a 1 systems and a standing seam metal roof. The stucco color is beige and the roof is proposed to be a blue green color. Curnutte stated that the request does include signage. As per the code, there is 135 lineal feet in the building, therefore, the applicant is allowed 135 square footage of signage (1 sq. ft. per lineal ft.). The applicant has chosen to divide that into four signs, all on the building. The total is 102 square feet. They will be individual can letters. Curnutte stated that the Commission, at conceptual review, had some concerns regarding the mechanical equipment on top of the building. What the applicant has done, in addition to designing the building so that you would not be able to see any equipment, he provided a sight line graph to show that from any portion of I-70 you will not be able to see the mechanical equipment. Another concern the Commission had was landscaping. The Commission suggested that the plan take into account the Town of Avon's existing Streetscape Plan and the post office conceptual landscape plan and the Commission also suggested that the applicant consider a mature landscape treatment. Also, consider putting landscaping into the highway right-of-way to the north, since theri was not room to get it on the property along that northwest property line. That has been amended somewhat by removing the commercial building. Curnutte then reviewed the criteria for approval of a final design review. Staff feels that it may be more appropriate to use a dark tone roof color rather than the blue-green. No detailed information has been provided regarding the lighting of the site. The grading and drainage plan has been reviewed by the Town Engineer and found to be acceptable. Staff recommendation is for approval, however there are some areas that need to be discussed at this meeting. They are: roofing material color, a muted color palette is suggested in the design guidelines; site should be reviewed to ensure compatibility with design as it relates to the light source, they should not be directly visible; and a condition of approval that the existing property line separating Lots 2 and 4 be vacated prior to the issuance of a building permit; the minimum caliper of trees be two inch. Jim Morter stated that the submittal for the commercial building has been deleted from the application and there are no immediate plans to do it. He provided samples of the Dennv's standard package of colors, which has the turquoise metal roof. He then PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 19 of 26 rant, __Final provided a sample showing a hemlock green color for the AEP metal roof, which is muted green. The stucco colors will be a LaHabra dove grey for the primary stucco and a LaHabra french grey for the secondary stucco, and the windows gill be white. Mr. Morter then described how the mechanical equipment will be screened. 'fe stated that there would not be a problem with upgrading the caliper of the aspen trees. He stated that they did review the town streetscape plan and are staying true to that, with one exception and that is that they want to supplement it with a little more than the town streetscape plan has. They want to cluster some Colorado spruce trees in with the aspen clusters. They do have sod and decidious trees on the post office site, and they will just continue that on to the Denny's site. They feel it is important to have a loop on the site since there is only one access to the site. They have been able to pull it away and will supplement the landscaping of the highway property. They have been able to maintain substantial landscaping around the building. He feels that they have addressed the snow removal. He does have a cut sheet of the lighting. They will be glad to coordinate with the town on the lighting. Discussion followed on what is being proposed. One minor revision to the sign program is that there will be three signs of one size and one smaller, bringing the total to 114 square feet. Regarding lighting, there are soffits all the way around all of the hip roofs for intensive down lighting, they are proposing landscape lighting, plus the lighted signs on the building and subtle lighting on the metal roof. Considerable discussion followed and it was suggested that the loop drive be moved a little further to the west and more landscaping be placed next to the building. The applicant agreed. Discussion followed on the curb and gutter for the site. It will be rolled to accommodate snow removal. Discussion followed on the matte or the roof. Rhona Schneiderman moved to apprcve the final design for Lots 2 and 4, Sunroad Subdivision, Denny's Restaurant, subject to the following conditions: - Move the western portion of the loop drive further west to allow for more landscaping closer to the building, subject to staff approval; - A minimum of 2 inch caliper for the aspen, with the recomm.ndation that they be 3 inch; PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 20 of 26 nal - A muted color palette be used. - Ensure site compatibility with the design, light source should not be directly visible - The existing property line separating Lots 2 and 4 must be vacated prior to the issuance of a building permit. Jack Hunn seconded. He then asked staff if they were comfortable with the colors. After looking at the samples, staff replied that they were. Hunn asked about the colors of the signs. Morter stated that they would be red, back -lit letters mounted on the buildings. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 8. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdiv_ision,_ Bridgewater Terrace, Unit D. Final Design RE_view Rick Pylman stated that, earlier this year Tony Seibert, representing Design and Construction Services, received approval for three six-plex building on this site. The lot is zoned for 21 units. Eighteen were approved previously, and the site plan did show a future tri-plex in the extreme western corner of the site. The design review approval at tnat time did not include that building. The applicant is now here with that building. It is a fairly simple three story, gabled roof, 1 x 8 cedar channel lap siding, and asphalt shingles are the roofing materials. Some site plan revisions from the earlier approval include the addition of five parking spaces on the west side of the building. The existing parking spaces were quite a distance away from the building, so for convenience sake, the applicant has added some in -close parking, which is above and beyond the parking demand. There is a small encroachment of asphalt over the property line where this driveway does wrap around the building to provide these parking spaces. There are two comments that staff has and that is: the six-plex buildings included some stucco as an accent element, this building is all cedar siding and it may be appropriate to add a little stucco to it; and in adding the extra spaces, maybe a few could be taken out somewhere else and add a little more landscaping. Otherwise, Staff recommendation is for approval. Tony Seibert stated that, because this building is so close to the railroad tract; he asked the architect to not put any windows on the north side and minimize both eastern and western windows. He thinks that Rick's comments are appropriate, in that all the other PLANNING AN ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 21 of 26 buildings have the stairwell delineated with an exterior stucco and he would recommend that it be done the same on this building. The roof pitch is she same as the other buildings and it really is a smaller model of the other buildings. Seibert stated that the asphalt can be easily pulled back to the property line. He feels it is important to add several parking spaces there, because the rest of the parking spaces are about 75 to 80 feet away from this building. He stated that he has two other requests which were not included in this application. He stated that when they were approved for the 18 units, that approval included a six foot cedar fence along the property line, with the requirement that he return if he wanted to go higher than six feet. He would like to install a ten foot fence, strictly as a sound buffer. Also he would like to ask for a color change. Originally they were approved with a grey roof, a blue -grey main body color, and a dark blue trim and a teal green for trim. Because of the massing of the buildings and because they are going with white stucco and white windows, he would like to change the trim color to a white. Discussion followed on the fence, the additional parking and the color change request. Jack Hunn moved to grant final design approval for Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Bridgewater Terrace, Unit D, with the following conditions: - That the fence be approved from a six foot fence to a ten foot fence. - That the trim color be changed from a blue/ teal to a white trim. - That the applicant submit a revised site plan showing a.11 improvements on his property, and demonstrate to the staff satisfaction that the additional p rking spaces do function properly. - And stucco be added to match the previously approved buildings. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot A, Avon Center Subdivision Avon Center Building Sign Program Amendment Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that Larry Ast of High Tech Signs, acting on behalf of Shapiro Development, owners of the commercial portion of Avon Center, is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Sign. Program. Curnutte stated that the existing program is: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 22 of 26 back -lit, individual letters, white plexi -glass faced letters; All tenants have to be similarly mounted on the first level roof fascia; up to sixteen tenant signs are allowed on the first level fascia; up to ten tenant signs can be sixteen sq. ft. each and the remainder can be no more than ten square feet each and the post office was specifically allowed to have two signs. The purpose of amending the sign program is primarily to clarify a number of sections in the program. There is no specific size to these letters. The new program would allow up to 50% of each tenant's sign to be a cabinet sign. Also, a company logo will be allowed. A section on temporary signage has been added. The temporary sign would be a vinyl banner with a white background with black or blue letters. Curnutte stated the Commission should review the design guidelines for signs and then consider the design review criteria for signs. He stated that the amendment is very suitable with the building. The sign types in the amendment are the same as the previous program, with the exception of the cabinet signs. The sign materials appear to he compatible with surrounding properties. The nearest completed building to the Avon Center is the 1st Bank building, which also has white faced individual letters. There are currently no cabinet signs in the Town Center zone district. The only visual change from the existing program is the cabinet allowance of 50%. The type, height, size and quantity of the signs comply with the sign code and do appear to be appropriate. The signs are geared toward vehicular traffic. Staff recommends approval of the proposed sign program amendment with one comment, and that is that the Commission may want to consider the 50% ratio of cabinet size. Larry Ast stated that they are requesting that the temporary signs be a brown or black background with white letters. Discussion followed on limiting the cabinet: sizes to 35%. Patti Dixon moved to approve the sign program amendment for Lot A, Avon Center Subdivision, with the condition that the cabinet sign area be limited to a maximum of 35%. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 69, Block 2. _Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, H & W Therapy, Siqn Variance Request. Jim Curnutte stated that Wess Chambers, representing H & W Therapy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 23 of 26 is requesting a variance form the sign program for 51 Beaver Creek Place, and design review approval to allow for the placement of a sign that is not in conformance with the approved sign program. Domino's Pizza received a variance for this very same reason. The approved sign program for the building calls for each tenan•'to have 20 sq. ft. of signage. He described the locations of the signage on the building. Domino's was allowed to divide their 20 sq. ft into their east and north facing sides. H & W Therapy does a lot of work for the medical center just south of this building and they wish to also divide their sign so they can have some advertising on the south side of the building. The applicant is also requesting to use a medium blue colored letters instead of the teal green required by the sign program. All other provisions of the sign code would remain in affect. Curnutte reviewed the criteria stating that the relationship of the proposed signs to existing and potential signs on the building are acceptable. He stated that the degree that the applicant is asking for relief is the minimum necessary to relieve their perceived hardship. Staff is recommending approval, however, the Commission needs to find that the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistant with other properties in the vicinity and that it is warranted for one or more of the following three reasons shown in the staff report. Also, staff is recommending that the applicant be allowed to install a white and blue banner on the building until August 1st at the latest, to allow them time to get their permanent sign up. Wess Chambers reiterated the importance of physicans in their business and the reason that they chose this location is that it is right next to the medical center. Therefore, it will be very benificial to have exposure on the south side of the building. Mr. Chambers provided samples of all the signs on the building and a sample of their proposed blue color. Patti Dixon moved to approve the sign variance for H & W Therapy citing findings A - That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; and B - 2 that the variance is warranted as there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity. Jack Hunn seconded. During discussion the motion was amended to change B-2 to B - 3 the strict or literal interpretation and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 24 of 26 enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive applicant of privileges enjoyed by the o�,ners of other in the vicinity, and the motion was also amended to temporary sign, with a time limit of August 1, 1992 W the properties include the Hunn seconded the amendment and the motion carried unanimously. Rick Pylman stated that the Commission had several comments at the last conceptual review and they were: - Concrete block may not be appropriate. - Elevation to I-70 is important. - Concrete block needs to have some inviting interest. - Take a look at sidewalks. - Mansart roof form is not satisfactory/prefer pitched roof. - More detail design work needed and blend in the landscaping. - Too much pavement/more landscaping needed. - Upgrade exterior finishes to be compatible with other buildings in the area - Pursue arrangement with C -Mart for backdoor access. - Image to I-70 and Nottingham Rd. equally important. - Separate the service and the front door. - Contiguous material around the perimeter of the building, perhaps utilize bay windows. Pylman stated chat they are still proposing a concrete block building, however, there have been substantial arcnitectural changes. One issue that the staff is not quite comfortable with is the calculation of the parking demand. They have calculated it partially as retail and partially as storage space. The concern is the designing the parking for the use and not for the life of the building. The 22 parking spaces are probably adequate for a furniture store, but if it ever became a liquor store and video rental, etc., there would be some concerns. That will probably be settled before final design. Larry McKinzie, Architect, stated that they are still trying to get an idea of whether this is good project for their client. They wish to stick with the concrete block as they feel it is an appropriate material. He described what they have done with the driveway, parking and landscaping. He stated that they have added a loading berth that was not in the previous application. Discusssion followed on how they propose to treat the concrete PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 25 of 26 block. Discussion followed on the roof design and material. Due the the fact that all commission members and the Applicant were away from any microphones, transcription of actual conversations is very difficult. Jack Hunn stated that he thought that the suggestion to hip the roof is a very good one, but he is also concerned about the west elevation. The loading maneuvering looks a little tight. Discussion followed on the size trucks that would be used. Discussion followed on curb and gutter. Discussion followed on either a higher level of exterior finish or in the absence of that, a very strong, mature landscape plan. Discusssion followed on having good crisp detailing on the doors and windows, etc. Discussion followed on major landscaping being in the areas of the blank walls. Discussion on the introduction of a dormer on the I-70 side followed. Rick Pylman stated that the applicant is showing 4700 sq. ft. of retail space and that is calculated a 4 spaces/1000 sq. ft. Storage area is shown is about 2390 sq. ft. and that is calculated at 1 space/800 sq. ft., thus 22 parking spaces. Storage is not a primary use allowed by zoning on that property. As an accessory to the furniture store it is allowed, but the space could not be leased out as a warehouse. When you figure parking for retail space you figure it on gross leasable area. He stated that he is not concerned about it working for the funiture store, but about 10 years from now, when those uses change. Therefore, more work needs to be done on the parking. Discussion followed on the necessity for two drive entrances. In summation, the Commission is not uncomfortable with the split faced block and metal roof. As a conceptual review, no formal action was taken, but it was the general consensus that if the building materials or landscaping was improved, and the parking question was solved, this would be an acceptable project. Jack Hunn moved to approve the minutes for the June 16, 1992 meeting as submitted. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business The Chairman and Secretary signed Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 92-08, for the front yard setback variance for Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge, which was denied at the June 16th meeting. 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 7, 1992 Page 26 of 26 Other business (cont) Jim Curnutte stated that Sam Ecker has requested to change his roofing material from woodruf to asphalt. The Commission all agreed that the color must be weathered wood and at least 300 lbs per square. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 AM Respectfully, submitted. Charlette Pascuzzi 3� Recording Secretary