Loading...
PZC Minutes 071895RL"ORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 18, 1995 The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jack Hunn at 7:30 PM, July 18, 1995 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. All members present. Members Present: Jack Hunn, Beth Stanlev, Rhoda Schneiderman, Sue Railton, Bill Sargis, Buz Reynolds, Henry Vest Staff Present: Mike Matzko, Director of Community Development, Sheila Kremski, Recording Secretary CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (6:00igm worksession) Lot 71, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision_ Durlex Lot 81 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex Discussion on Avon Comprehensive Plan Update CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Hunn expressed a conflict of interest regarding Lot 82/83, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Amendment to Master Sign Program. CONSENT AGENDA The following items were scheduled on the Amended Consent Agenda: 1. Lot 82/83, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Amendment to Master Sian Program. 2. Approval of the June 20, 1995 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes. Karen Griffith described the Consent Agenda. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Henry Vest and the motion unanimously carried. Jack Hunn abstained from the vote. Um Planning 8-, Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 July 18, 1995 PUBLIC HEARINGS Avon Village Staff stated the Avon Village annexation application was submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission for review last month. The primary purpose of the July 18 public hearing was to receive input from the public and respond to questions from the Commission. Staff will then incorporate public comments in preparing the report and recommendation for the August 1, 1995 public hearing. By the August 1, 1995 public hearing, Planning & Zoning Commission will have had the staff report along with public comments, and can address any outstanding issues. Following its review and action, P&Z will prepare and forward a recommendation to Town Council. Council will conduct additional hearings for action regarding the proposed plan. Count il's review will include an ordinance and an annexation agreement which will address the responsibilities of the applicant and the Town in providing services and amenities for the annexation. Staff recommends the Commission review the application, r-.ceive and clarify public comments, then continue the publ::,� hearing to the August 1, 1995 meeting for further review and action. Peter Jamar was present representing the applicant. Als ) present was Tom Braun, planner, Tom Ra_ginetti, legal council, Ernie Clivage, transportation consultant, ':ick Thompson, project wildlife biologist, Rick Johnson, water attorney, and finally Dan ? eary and Bill Post with EMD. Peter explained that the application was first submitted for the annexation back in April. The applicant met with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council back 'n May. The public hearing process has now started and moving toward that first step of several steps of the implementation of this project. Peter proceeded with the slide show. Jack Hunn opened the public hearing. C.C. Nottingham had one concern to address that was talked about as far as density and zoning at a previous public hearing and it was a question that Rhoda Schneiderman had asked C.0 to address then and C.C. felt that the rest of the Commissioners had a right to hear an answer. The concern was the division of the property being 1,400 acres on the north side and about 176 acres in the valley and looking at the 2,000 units and wondering how that would be distributed as far a percentages or numbers so you could get feel for residential density. Peter Jamar requested to hold that question so the math could be calculated. Peter clarified the question ur!derstanding that if they built the parcels by the north side of 1-70 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 Avon Village (Con.'t) to their maximum committed densities how much of the 2,000 units would be in those areas north of I-70. Peter asked C.C. if that was the question. C.C. explained that what they were looking for was proportionally there is 1,400 hundred acres on the north side and 2,000 residential units overall, what proportion percentage wise or number wise will be on the 1,400 acres and what will the density be in the valley of 176 acres as far as what is being speculated now. The next questioned would be looking at the town core extending westward, do you know what the residential unit density is at this point, for a feel and some sense of comparison. Peter stated he could come up with a hypothetical number. A better way to answer the question would be to go through it in terms of discussion. Peter explained that the parcels on the north side of I-70, other than the 95 home sites which take up 75% to 80% of that 1,400 acres, those are indicated from a maximum of 15-20 units per acre if built out at their maximum. The Stolport area is indicated at a maximum density of anywhere from 20 to 30 units per acre which is consistent with the zoning in the town center. Peter could point to various areas and try to tell how many units per acre. Peter does not feel that these requested numbers will mean much. Peter proceed to explain the areas of densities from the map. Rhoda Schneiderman clarified that C.C. wanted to know what percentage of units are being built on the north side of the highway. Peter explained a total of 2,000 units. Rhoda asked how many units are on the north side of the highway? Peter said theoretically if all of those areas that are in the darker colors on the map, if built at there maximum units per acre which ranges anywhere from 12 units per acre to 20 units per acre, theoretically it would be close to that 2,000 in that area on the north side. This is an extremely low density to be spread out over the entire property. Rhoda stated that now she was really confused. She thought the overall project north and south of the highway was a total 2,000. Peter replied yes it is. Rhoda was understanding that just the brown areas which are only north of the highway.... Peter explained that each one of these parcels has a maximum density that is based on a logical or typical residential unit density for that type of land and sort of the envisioned type of product. Almost every project that has as a large P J.D. ends up building less Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 Avon Village (Con.'t) 4 than its maximum number of units. The way that the zoning is set up and established they will not exceed a total of 2,000 units unless there is less commercial space built based on a formula in the P.U.D. guide. This is more than likely a 20, 30, or 40 year project which make it difficult to predict. To build in a type of flexibility they have developed the same type of system that is used in many P.U.D.'s which says this is a cap in terms of what can be supported with water rights, traffic systems, ect. It is impossible for each one of these developments parcels to be built out at its maximum units per acre. Rhoda understood that looking at 2,000 residential units proposed for this P.U.D. on the north and south side of the highway. Again the question is how many of those 2,000 units are north of the highway? Peter replied theoretically all of them could be. Jack Hunn explained that if you looke,' at each parcel m its maximum potential you could begin to derive some percentages. BuL we should allow the applicant to come back and respond with more information. Jack reminded the Cummission that this is the public hearing portion of the meeting and we would like to hear from the pi )lic at this time. Rhoda explained she was trying to get a clarif cation from a question asked by the public Ray Suthord contributed to the public impute. He asked if it was possible to get a copy of an annexation notebook to check out and read? Staff replied that that the public may come the Community Development Department for a copy. Ray Suthord commented if there would be a published schedule of the steps? Staff replied they maybe running an ad in the paper. It will be recommended that Planning and Zoning Commission continue this hearing to August 1, 1995. On August 8, 1995 will be the first reading of the Annexation Ordinance by Town Council. Second reading would be August 22, 1995. The next stages would involve a preliminary plat and following with the final plat. Ray Suthord also commented that this was a rare opportunity for significant growth in such a compressed environment. Ray asked the Commission to really look at all the different aspects of growth that are going to occur and the needs of the community, for instance, affordable housing, transportation, and health and human services. Rick Cardel, an Eagle -Vail resident, was present for comment. The designated dimension for the wildlife was a concern . Their is enough pressure in all the areas on the wildlife and their seems to be conflicts on the routes for the deer, the winter grazing areas for Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 Avon Village Con.'t) 5 some of large animals which needs to be taken into consideration. As an Eacie-Vail resident he was also concerned with the visibility and the impacts on Eagle -Vail, seeing the housing and the road cuts. Lots of lights and activity. One of the largest concerns are some of the interconnections down on the eastern end between the river and I-70, the density of the roads, the traffic patterns, what it will do to the road corridor that is presently there for Highway 6, impacts on the Eagle -Vail Business Center, the entrance into the high school, ect. Much of the development will cause a strain on the already heavily traveled two lane roads. Rover Wilkenson, an Avon home owner on Eaglebend Drive, was present for comment. He felt the development was a natural progression of what is happening. As a resident and homeowner the number one concern was traffic issues as it relates to the east end and the access. Another concern was how would the Town of Avon handle this huge increase in the town when it is already so stressed and since the tax base would not increase for another 2-4 years with that commercial basis it would defiantly directly impact how the town handles it. Chris Eckram, an Avon home owner on Eaglebend Drive, expressed concerns on planning areas A, C, D, B, and E which are essentially the dark brown areas on the left hand side of the displayed map. According to the P.U.D. information in the annexation notebook, in those planning areas the applicant gives purposes in providing for uses by right ect. and Chris is concerned with the setback requirements. The building height requirement of 60 feet for areas A, B, and C and those are the most westerly three parcels and 48 feet for planning areas D and E which are next to the east. Chris has to live right across the street from these area and is very concern since something built at 60 feet tall looking down on her and she is not happy with that. Since parcel B and E are at a much higher elevation then parcels A, C, and D, Chris would like to know if plans to regrade or remain the same will happen. Chris also had concerns with the transportation plan. Chris asked the applicant a question for the next meeting of what the advantages and trade offs for the Town of Vail and Avon Village to have the annexation approved? Because you could have the Avon Village be developed within the Eagle County Guidelines and you would not need the Town of Avons blessing. If the P.U.D. is approved what guarantee with the Town of Avon have that the infrastructure and site prep of areas A thru J are completed within a reasonable and agreed upon time duration. Please remember Avon's white elephant, the Season's, which stood in disrepair for over 10 year. If the town does decide to annex and approve the P.U.D. for the entire area that we need a guarantee of some type for that to occur. Please continue I-70 and Highway 6 on the drawings so the public can see the impact on other areas. Chris would also like to know the phasing schedule for Avon Village and what plans to be built first. How and what kind of services are going to be provided for the housing and other areas that are north of 1-70. Has there been any direct communication between the applicant to talk with the owner of Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 6 July 18, 1995 Avon Village Con.'t) the Rio Grande Rail Road to find out if there will be any tourist usage of rail for Vail Valley arrivals and departures. Tom Hines, an Avon resident and Council member was present. Commented that one of the burdens facing both the town and its residents if this is to occur is that it needed to flow. One of the comments that Tom hears is that we do not need a bright new shining and an old defunked. Somehow in this process we have to insure that everything flows from the old town core and what is developed on what is the Stolport property to the east. Sue Railton m,itioned to continue the Avon Village Public Hearing to the August 1, 1995. Seconded by enry Vest. Motion carries unanimously. Lot 3 S Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision, Variance, Deck Staff stated the request is for a variance to allow a concrete and stone patio, including a 26 inch high perimeter wall, to encroach on the 10 -foot rear yard setback and terminate within S inches of the rear property line. The perimeter wall is supported by a concrete footer approximately four feet below grade. Although not a setback per se; the patio and wall also would encroach on the 7.5 foot utility and drainage easement. The applicant has also verbally stated that an irrigation system will encroach 16 inches over the property line (into the adjoining property -Lot 38, Block'), WR). Staff cannot support the applicant as p:- .sensed based on that it is unclear how the proposed structure will affect the drainage in the area and if any utilities would be impacted. The completion of the patio and wall would require disturbance of the adjacent neighbor's property. The neiv-hbor's permission should be obtained. If the sprinkler system is to be installed on the neighbors property, an agreement should be signed between the two property owners. Fred Hiller is the home owner of western half of duplex of the lot requesting the variance. The duplex was purchased on November 15, 1995. In the rear yard there was a small patio and they envisioned expanding that patio. An attempt to expand it at one time had caused the irrigation to go into the adjacent neighbors property which the applicant was unaware of, about 2 feet into neighboring Lot 37. The only drawings the applicant had at the time was a public service layout and the property was not surveyed. The applicant did not realize how close that deck was to the adjacent property and did not realize the encroachment of 2 feet in to the neighbors property. The applicant proceeded in November to prepare the deck which was more of a repair than a completely new deck and they -" ere advised they did not need a building permit by the town. For personal reasons the applicant chose to stop work. Only a few weeks ago the applicant decided to continue with the project. The applicant dug a trench for a footer, not knowing they were deposited dirt on Lot 37. The original design at one point went 16 inches in the neighbors property, Lot 37. The concrete was canceled and the applicant had the line set. Later the actual site plan was found. The hold was redug, reset the seal and anticipated pouring again and the staff asked to hold off until investigated further. Staff felt it was al-,)ropriate Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 Lot.38 Block 3 Wildridge Subdivirjion (Con.'t) for the applicant to hold a public hearing. The blue line is the original approved site plan which was included in the P&Z packet. The applicant proposes to build a wall 16 inches high and cap it with 2 inches of rock with a total of 18 inches high, increasing the deck on the blue line to the wall with rock. Mr. Hiller would like to build the deck to inhance the livability of the house. Mr. Hiller would like to be a good neighbor and work with them and construct the deck and cover up the hole. There are no utilities in the back and the drainage would not effect Lot 37. The applicant feels it is a reasonable request for a reasonable sized deck with a nice wall around. Jack Hunn opened the public hearing Mark Donaldson was present representing the owners of Lot 37, Maria and Hines Wieland. Mark began with summarizing the experiences on the development proposal keeping in mind the phrase "buyer beware". Two years ago Mark stood before the Planning and Zoning Commission with the owners of Lot 37 and dealt with these issues that are a problem tonight. They explained to the Commission, 2 weeks later they had an opportunity to explain it on appeal to the Town Council. The Commission gave a 7-0 approval for the final design review and the Town Council upheld it 7-0. At both hearings it was pointed out that Lot 38 has irrigation on Lot 37 property and they did not ;.now if th:- footing drain or a roof drain was draining onto Lot 37 property, 2 years later here we are again, that is not historical drainage, it is manufactured drainage, Lot 37 wants it off. Mark would like to see a Locations Improvement Certificate and is a reasonable request. Mark feels that Mr. Hiller's project may have been glazed over in the begining. Mark received a call from Mr. Wieland explaining that someone told him that while he was away there had been some construction that took place on his property and the owner did not know about it. Mark called Al Booth and told him he thought there was encroachment on to Lot 37 with construction that does not have approval and a stop order should be issued. Al went up to the site and reported to Mark that the Mr. Hiller was within property lines and setbacks. Mark asked how do you know Al and AI replied because the owner told me. Mark asked Chairperson Hunn if he received a letter from Mr. Wieland dated June 27, 1995. Chairperson Hunn replied no. Mark stated that a letter was written to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated June 27, 1995. The Commission requested that the letter be passed around. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 Lot 38 Block 3 Wildrid(Je Subdivision (Con -'t) Mark was disappointed that the letter was not distributed. Mark also sent a letter to Mr. Hiller on June 21, 1995 by return receipt mail asking him to restore the property to its original condition and that has not been done. Mark and his clients are here to abide by the process and they would like Mr. Hiller to abide by the process and would like to see equity in the neighborhood. Mark would like to know who told Mr. Hiller that no permit would be required. Mark would like to get this settled since hewill be applying to the design review board to reapprove Lot 37 that was approved 2 years apo. The damages that have occurred need to be remedied and remanded at Mr. Hitler's expense. The hole needs to be filled in and compacted to its original state with re°,vegetation and the he sprinklers removed from the property and capp -,d. Assure that the irrigation is not going run-off onto Lot 37. Mark does not understand the drawings submitted. Chairperson Hunn asked Mark if the owners of Lot 37 suppoi � thi- variance application? Mark replied absolutely not. Mark wanted to clarify on the staff report where it states in the final sentence that our project (Lot 37) will be in for final site plan consideration, Mark would like to note for the record that it would be for final design review approval not for just the site plan but for the entire project. Mark has obtained letters from Holy Cross Electric and Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sewer District and they have verbal agreements and letters coming from the other three utilities companies on our ability to build within that utility easement and Mark has not seen any such documentation from this variance application. Mark would like the site restored to its original condition. Chairperson Hunn closed the public hearing. Fred Hiller replied that he does want to abide by the process which he thought he was. He will restore the property to the way it was. There is a plan posy ed on the wall showing where Mark's project would have torn up Lot 37 property with a 12 foot retaining wall which Fred has seen for the first time this evening. They would like to build this dec, and irrigation system was built on the neighboring property by feels it would hurt nobody, the the former owner, it has been removed. The applicant is asking to build the deck 2 fee four inches out into the easement further than it is. Primarily to put in a foundation in for a wall. Chairperson Hunn reminded the Commission this variance request is to consider the appropriate findings and criteria. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 Lot. 38 Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision (Con.'t) m Chairperson Hunn disregarded for a moment the circumstance and took this request on its merit. Chairperson Hunn would have a hard time agreeing that the relations) ip of the requested variance to other existing, or potential uses in structures in the vicinity would not have adverse impact because of proximity. Chairperson Hunn would also have difficulty finding in Sec. 17.36.0-J0 item b, which is one of the requirements we find the granting of a variance, not be detrimental to the public, health, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements into the vicinity. On the merits of the request Chairperson Hunn could not support the request. Chairperson Hunn believes their should be a discussion outside of this application about the process and the communication problems and the Commission )should talk about this later. Chairperson Hunn needed to bring up a question about the deck that existed when Fred purchased the home may or may not have been approved to encroach into the setback when it was built. Their may not be a prior variance for the deck that was originally there. How does the town view the grandfathering or the replacement of a non conforming use? Is there the right to replace this original deck as a maintenance item if it was never properly approved. Staff replied by definition non -conforming implies that it was a legitimate or approved use at one time and then the regulations have changed. It is not clear that there was ever a variance here and it was done on platted lot, not a P.U.D. to assume that this was done without. Legal council should follow up on what to do now. Staff will follow up on also. Chairperson Hunn decided as a procedure to hear more information and then take action with some suggestions on what should happen next. Fred Hiller commented on something he just realized this evening that makes a necessity of having a wall there even greater. Fred has four grand children from 4 months to 10 years old. If there is going to be a 12 foot drop off, four feet off of Fred's property line he is very concerned. If Fred can not build an eighteen inch wall to at least help restrain it makes the applicant even more concern. The work that was started without a permit was for refurbishing the deck, repairing the asphalt, and for replacing the sidewalk in the front. rmit later issued included all of these items. They could move the wall ? The building pe feet four inches or move the wall onto the existing original concrete deck that was on the original plans but then the deck at one side would only be 5 feet wide. Fred did not disregard anything and they were very wrong in digging a hole on the neighboring property. If Lot 37 is building a 12 foot wall it will be a concern to the applicant and the staff report indicates the this 12 foot walls approval ran out on April 20, 1995. Fred would like that 12 foot wall addressed whether or not the applicant is granted this variance. Mark Donaldson remarked that Fred brings up a good comment on the liability of the retaining wall on Lot 37 property. Their is a concern on Mark's part that if the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 Lot 38. Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision (Con.'t) 11 Commission chooses to approve this patio wall it is bringing the problem closer and not building what the building code might perceive as a guardrail. Everyone is concerned about safety. Buz made the comment that Fred's lot is a small lot and it is not. The structure is built all the way to the south and the architect put the yard on the north side opposite of the view and it is unfortunate. Mark believes Fred's goals have almost been foreclosed upon before he ever bought the property in terms of a use by right. This may not have any direct relationship to the variance applicant before you but Mark wanted to remind everyone that there should have been a chain of disclosure. Mark and his clients have been through enough arguments and debates with Mr. Hollingsworth in the past and for Fred not to get any history on this project is disappointing. Again, buyer beware. Mark would like to enter a letter into the record from Mr. & Mrs. Wieland to Al Booth, dated June 22, 1995 and another letter to Mike Matzko date June 27, 1995. Mark felt Chairperson Hunn brought up a good point about the non -conforming use. If a variance is not applied for the project it is an illegal use. Buz Reynolds actually feels that there is something that could be done safety wise that it is a good idea if a small wall is installed and a patio is installed at this point. Mark expressed that they are not taking issue with Mr. Hiller's desire to improve his property. Me rk feels there are other ways to expand his patio. Mark mentioned the building permit that was granted to Mr. Hiller was apparently issued based on inaccurate information provided by the owner. Mr. Hiller mentioned that he did write a response to the letters written to him by Mark Donaldson and the Wieland's dated July 3, 1995. Mr. Hiller proceeded to read the response into the record. Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to deny Lot 38, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Deck Expansion Variance based on the following findings: FINDINGS: A. That the granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health., safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity. Seconded Bill Sargis. Motion carries. Sue Railton and Buz Reynolds. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1' July 18, 1995 )FINAL DESIiGN REVIEW Lot 10 Block 4 Wildridae Subdivision Final Design Review, Single Family The staff stated this is a single family residence on a 1.44 acre, south facing site. The site slopes up from Wildridge Road East. The residence has primarily stone veneer siding with cedar and stucco trim. The roof is standing seam metal, with 18 inch ribs and is a sage green color. The landscape plan features native sage and grasses with shrubs such as alpine currents and service berries. Ray Story was present as the applicant for the owner, John McDonald. The area map was something Ray did not understand and he thought the survey had the utilities on it and it will be taken care of. The part of the retaining wall that in question can be handled with the grading primarily because of the subgrade which is a very hard shale that is underneath the topsoil. Ray feels that a retaining wall at that location is not necessary and can be done with grading. The applicant did look at other roof shapes and did look at the potential of putting little hips on the dormers that exist on the design and did not change it because the feel this is the best roof shape that is available for this particular design. The drawings now show the drains in the back patio. Ray took a series of photographs of similar metal roofs in the area and over a period of four weeks Ray only found one place where he could get a reflection off a roof. Ray proceeded to explain reflection at certain angles. Buz Reynolds explained that the project might work but the person across the street from this project is applying for a metal roof which opens a can of worms it you are allowed. Buz stated that he will not vote for a metal roof in Wildridge. Ray feels to meet the criteria of a metal roof he can not prove to the Commission that the applicant can meet that criteria without setting up a demonstration on site. Ray also agrees their is a precedent problem. The owner has given Ray the authority to say the roofs could be stipulated and would still like his metal roof. The alternative was to do the coppered shingled roof. Rhoda Schneiderman reminded staff that a legend is required on all landscape plans. Ray explained the lighting would be down lighting approved for other projects. Rhoda would like a landscape plan to come back with trees. She also feels this would be an excellent opportunity to end the debate about glare on roofs at least in the upper teir of Wildridge by following the applicants suggestion conditionally approving a roof with panels put on all sides of the roof, front and gable side. Malting the roof contingent upon the Commission approval after the panels are put on and if the Commission disapproves an alternative roof is specified. Rhoda feels the green color is too bright. There is another sage green that has more gray in it. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 Lot 10, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision (Con.'t) Sue Railton agrees to having the panels demonstrated for glare. Sue would like to see some trees in the front. Sue also questioned if a sprinkler system was proposed. Ray replied no. Sue Railton expressed their is a list from the Planning Department of high altitude, semi - aired trees. Henry Vest asked what the garage door finish was. Ray replied it was a flat door with enough of a surface embossing on it so that it can be staineu and look like a rough surface. 13 Chairperson Hunn noted to the applicant that there are criteria that must be met in order to consider a metal roof and one of those is subjective being wheth(:r this roof will create glare. The applicant is offering to conduct an experiment that might be a fair way to deal with it. The precedent issue is the concern. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 10, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Approval with the following conditions: CONDITIONS : 1. A landscape plan be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval; 2. A metal roof be approved conditioned upon the color being gray cloud and at the time of installation sufficient panels on the south, east, and west roof surfaces be installed so that Planning and Zoning can make a site visit and then determine whether or not the roof will be Given final approval if not an alternative roofing material will be brought back to Planning and Zoning for a final approval. 3. The following approved by staff prior to submittal of a building permit application: a. An area map be added to the site plan; b. All utilities, including electric, gas, and CATV, both main and service lines, be shown on the site plan; c. The retaining wall be removed from the snow storage and utility easements; d. Trees be added to the landscape plan, including conifers and deciduous species. Seconded by Buz Reynolds. Motion unanimously carried. Planning R Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 14 July 18, 1995 Lot 37 Block 3 Wildridae Subdivision Single Family. Final Design Review Staff stated the proposed residence -,,gas originally approved for final design by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 20, 1993. As you are aware, Design Review approvals are valid for two years; the original approval has expired and the applicant is requesting final approval again. The site is a flag pole lot located near the end of Flat Pom toad on the south side of the street. It is 1.13 acres in size with steep slopes to the south ranging from 38% to 48 %. The structure is a single story with a walk out basement, approximately 3,500 square feet in area. The proposed exterior is finished in wood siding with a semi -transparent stain. The roof is asphalt composition. Accents include a gray blue juniper stain for shutters and flowers boxes. After discussion staff amended its recommendation to include that the retaining wall was within the setback and would need to move out of the setback or obtain a variance in order to meet the current code. Therefore, stafFs recommendation is a conditional approval that is subject to applying for and receiving a variance or removing the wall outside of the 10 foot side yard setback. Also staff recommends if there is any disturbance from the neighboring property owners that the owners obtain permission but the condition be that the wall be done without disturbanc � of the neighboring property owners. Mark Donaldson was present on behalf of the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Weiland. Mark requested taking out an ad on the front page of the Vail Daily when their is a change in policy of the written word. Since the project was approved under these conditions. The retaining walls and site walls have been built in setbacks and easements for years in this town and Mark just found out in the last few minutes that this has been going on for nearly 2 years and Mark has been before the de_:ign and review board more than anyone. Mark does not believe Mr. Hiller should have been requesting a variance, Mark thinks he should have been requesting a final design review approval. Mark is very disturbed about the change in policy without notice. Chairperson Hunn read from the Design Procedures Rules and Regulations adopted February, 1987. "Retaining walls should be constructed of permanent type materials" and "over four feet high shall be structurally designed and a series of lower retaining walls with landscaped terraces is preferable to a high wall unbroken vertical phases." As long as two years ago the staff and engineering department began to interpret any wall over four feet high of the structure and those were the walls they were taking a different view of. Staff needs to review this as procedure and interpretation and report back to the Commission. Rhoda Schneiderman commented that when an applicant decides to let a design app oval expire you are at the mercy of a whole new process. Do not assume anything. Mark replied that there are not any changes in the regulations. Because there is a changing of the Commission does not mean there is a change in the policy or a change in Planning &, Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 Lot 37, Block 3_ Wildridge Subdivision (�on.'t 15 how it is looked at. The regulations are written and we live and die by them. Mark is not expecting a rubber stamp. Buz Reynolds suggested that staff come back to this project and inform the Commission exac cly what was approved. Mr. Hiller commented that the house was not built by April 20, 1995. Mr. Hiller thinks it is fair that they have an opportunity to review the house and he can now see that all of his windows are looking into his. The wall is a great disturbance. Mr. Hiller would like to look at these plans before even a conditional approval is granted. Concern of the height and the wall are the main concerns. Mark reminded the Commission that a third floor was taken off this building even though it was within the building height. The agenda was posted and tonight is not the time to halt the project for Mr. Hiller's review. Chairperson Hunn offered to the members that were not here that this project went through mucl, debate and public impute from the previous owner of Mr. Hiller's home. After much deliberation it was concluded that the view corridors that you have enjoyed from your home before the development of the property below you were not ; iaranteed and the development of that site could have been predicted. Mark made convincing arguments as to why the home really needed to be where they are proposing it to minimize site disturbance and have a realistic driveway. It was unfortunate Mr. Hiller was not aware of this. Buz Reynolds moved to approve Lot 37, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivi ;ion, Final Design Approval with the condition that the retaining wall north of the driveway return for approval. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion carries unanimously. OTHER BUSLNESS 1) Chairperson Hunn inquired about a sign on a retaining wall on Lot 14%15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision? Rhoda Schneiderman was still questioning the approval of the trash enclosures on that site. It was appro•,,,ed where they were going on the site plan but it was never approved the structure as a design. Presently is does not look like it blends with the building as materials. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 Other Business (Con.'t) Mike Matzko asked Rhoda Schneiderman what she would like staff to not do while they are researching this project? Rhoda Schneiderman replied you may put things in priority but you do not do certain things, you have to do everything, that is your job. Chairperson Hunn noted that Mike was making a point very subtly. There is a lot of baggage with this project and we have to be very impartial as we make decisions and not allow that track record to jade our judgment. 2) Chairperson Hunn also questioned the fence surrounding the CME vans. Mike replied they have come in to apply for approval. They are still in the process 3) Chairperson Hunn for the record wanted to suggest the Swift Gulch project which is in a planning process now for certain temporary or permanent improvements be brought through for the normal design and review process. It is important for the Town of Avon to subnut its project through the same process that it expects everyone else to come through. 4) Chairperson Hunn read 2 definitions that might help with a decision of whether or not retaining walls need variances. Lot setback. In the Zoning Code (Sec. 17.08.480) "lot setbacks mean that the distance from a lot or site line, creek or stream measured horizontally to a line or location within the lot or site which establishes the permitted location of uses, structures, or buildings on the site." Structure. In the Zoning Code (Sec. 17.08.770) "means anything constructed or erected; which requires location on the ground or attached to something having a location on the ground, but does not include poles, lines, cables, or other existing transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities. 5) Rhoda Schneiderman asked staff to get the new landscaped guidelines to everyone. Staff take care of. 6) A tour of the proposed Avon Village is scheduled for Thursday, July 20, 1995 at 4:OOpm. Please meet at the Avon Municipal Building. 7) Rhoda Schneiderman again requested a time limit on the applicants for their presentation. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 18, 1995 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 12:30 AM. Respectfully submitted, Sheila Kremski Recording Secretary Commission Approval r u� ' Date B. Sargis S. Railton R. Schneiderman A. Reynolds E F J 17