Loading...
PZC Minutes 060501Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting June 5, 2001 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Macik. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Final Design Item B, Lot 42, Block 4, 5101 Longsun Lane, Wildridge; Item C, Lot 92, Block 1, 2440 Old Trail Road, Wildridge; Item D, Lot 12, Block 2, 2841 O'Neal Spur, Wildridge were moved to the Consent Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest None V. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the May 15, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes B. Lot 42, Block 4, Wildridge Project Type: Triplex Residence Applicant: ASE, Inc. /Andy Schifanelli Owner: TS Properties, Inc. Address: 5101 Longsun Lane Approved with the following condition: 1. The address sign must be located outside of the 10 -foot snow storage and drainage easement. C. Lot 92, Block 1, Wildridge Project Type: Duplex Residence Applicant/Owner: Vladimir Zika Address: 2440 Old Trail Road Approved with the following conditions: 1. The address sign must be located outside of the 10 -foot snow storage and drainage easement. Also, each unit shall have an address placard placed in an area visible from the road. 2. The grading plan must be revised on the west side of the property to accurately reflect finished grades as they affect the driveway and drainage. No finished grade shall exceed a 2:1 slope in this area. This revision to the site plan must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The culvert must be sized and installed per the Town of Avon residential standards. 4. Driveway heating installation shall not exceed beyond the property line. D. Lot 12, Block 2, Wildridge Project Type: Single Family Residence Applicant: Summit Forest Dev. /Robert Borchardt Owner: Glenn Davis Address: 2841 O'Neal Spur Approved with the following conditions: A revised site plan indicating finished grades that match the survey shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. The revised site plan shall also accurately depict the 10' snow storage and drainage easement, as it exists on the O'Neal Spur frontage. Commissioner Sipes moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. VI. Final Design A. Lot 52, Block 3, Wildridge Project Type: Single Family Residence Applicant: Galen Aasland, Architect Owner: Wagner Schorr, M.D. Address: 4686 North Point Minutes of P &Z Meeting June 5, 2001 Page 2 Eric Johnson, Planning Technician, gave the Staff presentation. He stated the residence is approximately 4,018 total square feet in size with 3,129 square feet livable area. The project includes two unique design elements; a children's amphitheater built into the hillside and an entry arch. The applicant, Galen Aasland, answered questions from the Commission. Commissioner Ron Wolfe asked about the entry feature that goes over the driveway and why such a prominent feature is at the front of the house. Mr. Aasland responded it provides a private entry and is appropriate for this house. The property is in a more private area of Wildridge and borders BLM land. Commissioner Wolfe was concerned that the freestanding structure could set a precedence if approved and could change the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Karow said the design meets all the Design Review Criteria except for a couple of technical exceptions. He did not see any dimensions on the floor plans which are required. He had no issues with the entry feature and thought it is unique and adds to the design. Commissioner Sipes stated he had no problem with the design and freestanding feature. However, he was very dismayed with the level of the drawings. This would be acceptable for a schematic level review but is not acceptable for a final review. Commissioner Klein said it meets all of our Design Review Considerations. He had no problem with the front entryway and liked the uniqueness of it. Commissioner Evans stated the intent of the design meets the Design Review Criteria. He was hesitant about the children's amphitheatre in the back yard. He thought Commissioner Wolfe had a good point about setting a precedence with the entry feature. He would like to see it tied into the structure a little better. His concern was that this does not meet our Design Review submittal requirements as far as dimensions, floor plan dimensions and site plans. There is nothing on the site plan tying the location of this house to any specific area on the lot. Nothing is dimensioned, there is nothing showing what the entry feature is made of. He cannot tell what the materials are on the outside or where the colors are placed. He said if there were a motion to approve, he would not vote in favor of it. He prefers to see it tabled or a motion to approve tied with a resubmittal to Staff clearly identifying dimensions and where materials are located and what the materials and color numbers are. Mr. Aasland said he had submitted a list of all the numbers of the colors to the Staff and has a picture of the stucco. Commissioner Evans said it should be on the documents and tied to the elevations. Commissioner Wolfe moved to approve the application subject to the following conditions: Minutes of P &Z Meeting June 5, 2001 Page 3 1. The grading on the north side of the property must be revised to allow for positive drainage away from the building. 2. Landscaping plan must be revised to include a drip irrigation system for all trees and shrubs. 3. Design Review Plans to be resubmitted to Staff for their review indicating what materials are being used and dimensions. VII. Special Review Use A. Lot 88, Block 1, Wildridge Project Type: Home Occupation - Day Care Applicant/Owner: Jennifer Lawler Address: 2455 Old Trail Road, Unit C Chairman Evans explained to the audience that public comment would be taken. He reviewed the criteria guidelines from the Town Zoning Code and stated the Commission will follow these in reviewing this application. Eric Johnson gave the Staff presentation stating the applicant has applied for a Special Review Use for a home occupation to operate a home day care for infants and toddlers. The business involves customers dropping off and picking up children. There would be three children plus her own child for a total of four children. Three letters have been received by the Town supporting the application and one letter opposing. Applicant, Mrs. Jennifer Lawler, made her presentation. She stated the hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. three days a week. Commissioner Wolfe asked if the customers would all arrive at the same time. Mrs. Lawler said she was arranging a staggered drop off schedule and they have three parking spots. He asked if there would be additional play structures outside. Mrs. Lawler answered no permanent structures and nothing she would not be using for her own daughter. Commissioner Sipes asked if there was a site plan for this application; something which shows access and parking. Eric Johnson said we could get one. George Ruther, owner of Unit B at Lot 88 spoke. He said he was here also on behalf of the owners of Units A and D. We agree there is a need for home day care. The applicants have applied as owners of Lot C. The association includes Lots A, B, C, D and the Common Area, Lot E. We are concerned what happens on Lot E. As part owners of Lot E, we are concerned about liability. Parking must be a condition of your approval tonight. The circulation patterns on the site are tight. Vehicles now have to park out in the common driveway. We were disappointed there was not a site plan with the application and that a parking plan was not provided. Parking is a problem now and we are looking for a copy of the site plan to be recorded with this application. Minutes of P &Z Meeting June 5, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Evans stated a site plan is not a submittal requirement for a home occupation Special Review Use application. He further said in regards to specific parking areas and liability issues, whatever covenants you have with the association are not enforceable by the Town. If you wish to enforce association issues, you need to do so with the property owners. Commissioner Sipes said conditions have been suggested in the Staff Report that parking and access cannot obstruct other owners. Mr. Ruther asked if there would be a fence placed on the property for the day care use which may be mandated by the State for licensing. Commissioner Evans responded if the State requires fencing, the applicant would have to come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission with an application for a fence. Dominic Muriello spoke. He has a contract to purchase one of the units. He asked if the condition could be revised in regard to the number of infants. It should read three infants in addition to their own to make it more clear. Also, that a condition be added which requires the times to be staggered for dropping off children. In regards to Criteria A, it states: does not produce noise audible outside the dwelling unit. If the children are in the outside play area, there will be noise. He also would like to see a site plan for parking. Commissioner Sipes said your issues are valid; however, the parking issues should be addressed with your association. He would like to see the motion state four total infants or toddlers. Morgan Turner, owner of Unit D, said we have met as an association and declined to approve this and now are being forced to go through this with the Town. We have bylaws against this. The city needs to adopt criteria that helps address this type situation. The Town of Vail would not accept an application without a 100% approval from a multi - family dwelling. We are going to end up in a civil problem. Chairman Evans said the Board cannot enforce the association bylaws. Commissioner Karow stated the criteria for review have been met and the five conditions stated in the Staff Report should address the concerns. We should amend Item 1 to say no more than four total infants and toddlers inclusive per day are allowed. Commissioner Wolfe proposed the condition that the SRU be for one year and would be subject to review. Chairman Evans commented if the noise were mechanical, we should address it; but children outside in a residential neighborhood is not violating the condition. He hoped the parking problems could be worked out by the association members. The applicant cannot interfere with the parking and if they do, it would be in violation of the permit. The liability issues are not part of our review criteria. Minutes of P &Z Meeting June 5, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Karow moved to approve Resolution #01 -04 approving a Special Review Use Permit for Lot 88, Block 1, Unit C, Wildridge Subdivision to establish a day care home occupation according to the application dated April 24, 2001 with the following findings and subject to the following six conditions: 1. That the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code, including the definition of a Home Occupation (Section 17.08.360). 2. That the proposed use is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Subject to the following six conditions: 1. No more than four (4) total infants and toddlers inclusive per day allowed. 2. Parking cannot interfere with access to adjacent units. 3. No employees shall be allowed to work on the property on a regular basis. 4. A State of Colorado license for infant and toddler day care is required. 5. A Town of Avon Business License is required. 6. Approval is valid for one year, expiring June 5, 2002. Renewal is subject to Planning and Zoning Commission review. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VIII. Sign Variance A. Tract B -2, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Project Type: Tenant Sign Applicant/Owner: Chapel Square LLC /Palmos Address: 230 Chapel Place, Units 208 & 209 Eric Johnson gave the Staff presentation. He stated the applicant has applied for variances for tenant signs for the Vail Valley Trading and Loan. The variance is seeking approval for an increase in the sign dimensions from the Master Sign Program and to relocate an existing cabinet sign to a post in between the two archways. Staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The tenant has a pre- existing sign that conformed to the sign code prior to redevelopment of the building. The proposed tenant sign will conform to all of the MSP program criteria with the exception of an increase of 12 square feet in overall sign dimensions. (15.28.090 B.3.b.ii). 2. The lease agreement is binding the landlord and this is the proposed compromise (15.28.090 B.3.b.ii). Applicant, Terry Palmos, made no presentation. Commissioner Wolfe said he understands the logo is very important to the owner but what you are asking is a significant deviation from anything else that is in the area. If the two larger sizes were Minutes of P &Z Meeting June 5, 2001 Page 6 approved, could the logo be applied to one of the ovals? Is there a way to get all of the information on the two oversized ovals? Mr. Palmos said the tenant is not willing to do that. He has a sign that is recognizable which he has built up over the years. To put that on the bronze oval would not have the same effect and would change the logo. Commissioner Wolfe asked if the logo could be applied on the surface or could the oval be cut out to match the perimeter of this logo? It would look the same but just be in a different place. Mr. Palmos said he has discussed this with the tenant but they have not been able to reach an agreement. Mr. Kilstrip, the tenant, was in the audience and answered that he did not want to do that. Commissioner Karow said he does not agree with Staffs reasons for approval. We have some very strict requirements for granting a variance. It would constitute a special privilege for this property that other properties in the vicinity do not enjoy. The lease agreement that is binding the landlord and the tenant is of no consequence to the Commission. This application does not meet the criteria for a variance. He said he would, however, consider an amendment to the Master Sign Program to allow the oval signs that would be proportional to the arches on the building but he would not approve the lighted sign. When the landlord chose to redevelop this property and add the new building, he applied for a new Master Sign Program. That means everything must comply with that new sign program. This application does not meet our minimum criteria for a variance and he cannot support this application. Commissioner Sipes commented that maybe a Master Sign Program Amendment would be in order but a variance is clearly not supported. Commissioner Klein said he agreed with Commissioner Karow's statements. Chairman Evans said he would be willing to consider a Master Sign Program Amendment to allow the ovals. He does not support the Vail Valley Trading and Loan logo being put on the stucco above one of the columns. It clearly is not in keeping with the theme of the sign program. There is no basis to grant a variance. He said he would be willing to grant Staff give approval for a Master Sign Program Amendment allowing the two ovals only. Mr. Kilstrip said if you don't approve it, the present sign would stay where it is. Chairman Evans said not if it does not comply with the Master Sign Program. Mr. Kilstrip said he would go to court to keep it. What we are talking about is deleting the Loan sign that is there. That is the concession I am willing to make. Otherwise, the sign that is there will stay there. Commissioner Karow said the Loan sign and the Trading and Loan sign would come down to be in compliance with the Master Sign Program. He said the owner applied for and received approval for your Master Sign Program for Chapel Square and you must adhere to them. The present signs are currently in violation. Mr. Palmos said we believe Mr. Kilstrip's sign was grandfathered into the new Master Sign Program. Chairman Evans said perhaps in your lease it was but from the Planning and Zoning Commission, our issue is with the building owner. The tenant and the Minutes of P &Z Meeting June 5, 2001 Page 7 owner have to come to an agreement on this, not the Town. The variance cannot be supported. He had no problem with the logo but it would be better if it were incorporated into the ovals. The ovals are larger than what is allowed by your sign program. We are willing to go with the larger ovals. It would make more sense and be approvable if that logo is incorporated into the oval as opposed to being a freestanding element that is contrary to the Master Sign Program. Commissioner Karow moved to deny the application based on the findings that it does not meet the following Variance Criteria: 2a. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; b. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the title; ii. 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; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. Commissioner Klein seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IX. Other Business - Commissioner Evans suggested the Board skip other business. A recess was called at 6:45 p.m. The meeting resumed at 6:52 p.m. X. Town Center Plan Public Meeting Pat Dawe, Jim Leggit and Heather Gregg of RNL Design and Holly Miller of FHU gave their presentation of the proposed four phases of the Town Center Plan. Mr. Dawe said the next step was to give a draft plan to Staff for review at the end of June. It would include an implementation plan. They need to define what it is the Town Council would adopt, work on that vision and define specifics for adoption. Chairman Evans suggested that the vision of the Town Center Plan be implemented into the Design Guidelines. Minutes of P &Z Meeting June 5, 2001 Page 8 XI. Adjourn Commissioner Sipes moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Karow seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cecelia Fenton Recording Secretary APPROVED: July 17, 2001 £kt�is Chairman Paul Klein Secretary Minutes of P &Z Meeting June 5, 2001 Page 9