Loading...
PZC Packet 122094Al PLANNING Aril) ZONING COMMISSION STAFF. LPORT December 20, 1994 Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Sonnen Malde Vii,al Design Review -Modification of Color PROJECT TYPE: Multi -Residential ZONING: RLD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Sonnen Halde Home Owners Association has submitted an application requesting approval of revised paint colors. The colors will be presented at the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS The buildings have already been painted with the proposed colors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff i ecommends the Commission approve the application as presented. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4 Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary I lolde town Planner • PLANNING AA ZONING COMMISSION STAFF � PORT December 20, 1994 Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Sonnen Halde Final Design Review -Modification of Color PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: App;oved as submitted (V� Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied 1 ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date�� Sue Raiiton, Secretary , Approved as submitted. Oft PLANNING A,rD ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ..EPORT December 20, 1994 Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Recreation Center Final Design Review - Temporary Fuel Tank Storage PROJECT TYPE: Aquatic Center ZONING: GPEH COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Adolfson and Peterson, Inc. has submitted an zpplication requesting approvzl for the placement of a 100 gallon diesel fuel storage tank to be placed on the Recreation Center construction site. The tank is for the fueling of the equipment used on site and will be removed in June of 1995. It will be screened by orange snow tencing. STAFF COMMENTS: The Design .Review Rules, Regulations and Procedures stipulates, in Section 624, D I., "Oil, gasoline or liquid petroleum gas tanks will not normally be permitted on or aboveground. Temporary installations for a period not exceeding 2 years may be approved provided the installation complies with all applicable regulatic ns and is fully screened from view form all public right-of-ways and neighboring properties." The Fire Departm.nt has reviewed this request and has approved the placement regarding Fire Cade. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Should the Commission approve the application, the following conditions are recommend I The fuel storage tank be removed within six months from the date of approval RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission, Revie.t 4. Commission Action Res tfully submitted, i Maryfol e Town Planner 1 c V `/.,I #i ,-r� V�%- 1%L0 PLANNING A: -4D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ..EPORT December 20, 1994 Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Recreation Center Final Design Review - Temporary Fuel Tank Storage PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (44r Approved with recommended conditi-ns (✓� Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date .P'=vel Sue Railton, Secretary_ /� The Commission approved with the condition that the fuel storage tank be removed within six months from the date of approval. PLANNING Ai -4D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF .,CPORT December 20, 1994 Lot 96, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Condition of Approval — Material Approval PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING, YES INTRODUCTION. As a condition of approval for Final Design Review approval, this project was required to come back before the Commission for approval of different material below the belly band. It was proposed as all stucco and one color Dale Caldwell is noquesting the Commission approve all stucco, as proposed, and approve two colors for the upper and lower stucco STAFF COMMENTS This type of treatment has been approved in the past and the use of two colors and the belly band treatment will help diversify the one material STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the application as to esent RECOMMIENDED ACTION: I Introduc. Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3 Coninnission R, -view 4 Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary holden Town Planner ..' . 4 ' _ � - .. s • PLANNING ASND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF -,SPORT i December 20, 1994 Lot 96, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Condition of Approval -- Material Approval PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date/ Sue Railton, Secretary The approved as submitted. 10 l• 04 s►► PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFt .cEPORT December 20, 1994 Lot 6, Block 5, Wildridge Barrows Sia Plea Final Design Review - Modifications PROJECT TYPE: Six Plex ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Mr. Stan Barrows has submitted an application requesting approval for a design modification to his two triplexes. The modification will be to paint the bare foundation wall instead of stucco going to the final grade. Attached are elevations indicating where the bare foundation will be painted. STAFF COMMENTS: The Final Design Review approved plans indicate the stucco to the finished grade, however, upon a site inspection, the stucco on the sides does not reach the finished grade. The applicant would like to paint the foundation to match the color scheme of the buildings. The locations of the bare foundation walls are not visible from the public right- of-way or very visible from adjacent properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is for the Commission to approve the request with the following condition: The applicant make every attempt to reduce the amount of foundation shown, and that foundation that is visible be painted to match the color scheme. 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3 Commission Review 4 Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Hol en Town Planner RECOMMENDED ACTION: Z 11.�'a � © L-� ❑ E::D J L) 9 0 t• b =°yg PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ..EPORT December 20, 1994 Lot 6, Block 5, Wildridge Barrows Six Plex Final Design Review - Modifications PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date_" /yf- Sue Railton, Secretary, q.�-�4-e<<-� The Commission approved with the condition the applicant make every attempt to reduce the amount of foundation shown, and that foundation that is visible be painted to match the color scheme. Planning and e,oning Commission Staff .Report December 2Q i994 Semi -Mobile Vehicle Reuair Shop Special Review Use Lot 14/15, Block I. Benchmark at Be,7ver Creek PROJECT TYPE: Special Review Use -Public Hearing ZONING: IC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Upon Approval of SRU This is it Public Hearing for a Special Review Use to allow Rr a semi-mobile vehicle repair shop on Lot 14!15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. INTRODUCTION Paul Bennicofff has submitted a letter withdrawing his request for a Special Review Use of a semi-mobile vehicle repair shop and is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this application by adoption Resolution 94-29, which contains the findings for denial. RECOMMENDED ACTION I Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3 Open Public Hearing 4 Close Public Hearing 5 Commission Review 6 Commission Action Respectfully Submitted, -,/Ala AAr Mary Ifolden Town Planner Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report November 15, 1994 Semi -Mobile Vehicle Repair Shop Special Review Use Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver, Creek PROJECT TYPE. Special Review Use -Public Hearing ZONING: IC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Upon Approval of SRU This is a Public Hearing for a Special Review Use to allow for a semi-mobile vehicle repair shop on Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. INTRODUCTION Paul Bennicoff has submitted an application requesting approval of a Special Review Use to operate a semi-mobile vehicle repair shop at the Vail -Avon Commercial Park The space would be approximately 900 square feet. STAFF COMMENTS This project received a variance from the parking requirements during the review process and the approved parking plan does not allow for a use that requires more than I parking space per 800 square feet. Approval of this Special Review Use will increase the parking demand on the site and increase the potential for a parking problem for the site. Following are the criteria, as listed in Section 17.48.040, to consider for approvai of a special review use A Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, COMMENT: It appears the parking regulations may not be met with regards to the Special Review Use. B Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the to vn comprehensive plan, COMMENT The proposed use does meet the intent of some of the Comprehensive Plan goals C Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses Such compatibility may be expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features. site design, and the control of airy adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report November 15, 1994 Semi -Mobile Vehicle Repair Shop Special Review Use Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creel: COMMENT: This is a compatible use, however, the impacts of the use may not be comp -.1i, e._ Lie site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this application by adoption Resolution 94-29, which contains the findings for denial. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4 Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted, —1/ -'el Ct"_ �r Mary Holden Town Planner P. 01 December 9th, 1994 Town of Avon Attn. - Mary Holden P.O. Box 75 Avon, Cc 8162 Regarding - Special Use Permit for Auto Repair Shop at the Vail- Avon Commercial Park. owners - T.J. Conners As I have found an alternate location in Edwards for my Repair Shop, I have decided to withdraw my special use permit application for the Auto Repair Shop at the Vail -Avon Commercial Park. I do not inte:,d to repair any automobiles or Vans at the Vail - Avon Commercial Par:,. Sincerely, A.1,.� Q Paul Bennicoff Paul Bennicoff Inc. rd` Planning and . oning Commission Staff Report December 20, 1994 Semi -Mobile Vehicle Repair Shop Special Review Use Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( -1 Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date&WO,149(p. Sue Railton, Secretary_ The Denied the request. 7 tr i TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 29 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE TO ALLOW FOR A SEMI-MOBILE VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP ON LOT 14/15, BLOCK I. BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY. COLORADO WHEREAS. Paul Bennicot}; contract purchaser for a unit , has ,fled an application with the "town of Avon f'or approval of a Special Review Use to allow for a semi-mobile vehicle repair shop on Lot 14/15, Block I, Benchmark at cleaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, and, WHEREAS, this location is zoned Industrial/Commercial, in which automobile repair shops may be approved as a Special Review Use, and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the : 1wn of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Ilse, and WIIEREAS, following such public hearing and consideration of such irformation as presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows: A. The proposed use does not otherwise comply with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, and B. 7 he proposod use is not designed to be compatible with the site an which it SERIES OF 1994 .A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE TO ALLOW FOR A SEMI-MOBILE VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP ON LOT 14/15, BLOCK I, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Paul Bennicof, , contract purchaser for a unit , has filed an application with the Town of Avon for approval of a Special Review Use to allow for a semi-mobile vehicle repair shop on Lot 14/15, Block I, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, and, WHEREAS, this location is zoned Industrial/Commercial, in which automobile repair shops may be approved as a Special Review Use, and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use. and WI IEREAS. lullowing such public hearing and consideration of such information as presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows. A The proposed use does not otherwise comply with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, and 13 The proposed use is not designed to be compatible with the site on which it is located a NOW, THEREI`OiCE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Corrunission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies a Special Review Use of a semi-mobile vehicle repair shop on Lot 14115, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, ADOPTED THIS_ _DAY OF -102� 1994 Secretary Colorado. ADOPTED THIS o 022 DAY OF 1994 Secretary U TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 29 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE TO ALLOW FOR A SEMI-MOBILE VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP ON LOT 14/15, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Paw Bennicoff, contract purchaser for a unit , has filed an application with the Town of Avon for approval of a Special Review Use to allow for a semi-mobile vehicle repair shop on Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado; and; WHEREAS, this location is zoned Industrial/Commercial, in which automobile repair shops may be approved as a Special Review Use; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning an4 Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use, and WHEREAS, following such public hearing and consideration of such information as presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows: A. The proposed use does riot otherwise comply with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, and B. The proposed use is not designed to be compatible with the site on which it 1"'t -d SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE TO ALLOW FOR A SEMI-MOBILE VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP ON LOT 14/15, BLOCK I, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Paul Bennicofl; contract purchaser for a unit , has tiled un application with the Town of Avon for approval of a Special Review Use to allow for a semi-mobile vehicle repair shop on Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado; and; WHEREAS, this location is zored Industrial/Commercial, in which automobile repair shops may be approved as a Special Review Use; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by taw, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and repots regarding the proposed Special Review Use, and WHEREAS, following such public hearing and consideration of such information as presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows: A. The proposed use does not otherwise comply with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, and B. The proposed use is not designed to be compatible with the site on which it is located. 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies a Special Review Use of a semi-mobile vehicle repair shop on Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1994 Secretary Chairman Colorado. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1994 Secretary Chairman Planning and zoning Commission Staff Report December 20, 1994 Special Review Use -Residential Unit, Retail Sales, Personal Service, Offices Lot 30/31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 1 PROJECT TYPE: Special Review Use -Public Hearing ZONING: IC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Upon Approval of SRU This is a Public Hearin! for a Special Review Use to allow for residential units, a veterinar/ hospital, offices, kennel, retail pet supply business and other retail space on Lot 30/31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. INTRODUCTION Douglas and Kim Bryant ha\ e submitted an application requesting approval for residential units, a veterinary hospital, offices, kennel, retail pet supply business and other retail space. They intend to phase the project (site plan attached). Following is a break down of the square footage of the uses, parking and which phase they will occur STAFF COMMENTS The proposed uses a, a allowed with approval of a Special Review Use permit One aspect of the use that is of concern relates to a dog run area The concern is with maintenance of the area, noise and keeping the area clean of debris This use has the potential of creating odor and noise by lack of maintenance and supervision Traffic generated from the proposed uses has the potential to create more than standard industrial zoning The Transportation Master Plan recommends the intersection with Metcalf Road be widen to three lanes to accommodate turn lanes but does not recommecd Nottingham Road be widened anywhere else These recommendation are based on existing and future demands that will be placed on Nottingham Road The project has adequately assessed parking However, the final location of road cuts and parking configuration will be decided at the Final Design Review PHASE 1 PARKING PHASE 11 PARKING USE SO FT SPACES 57. FT SPACES Kennel 2,500 7.5 (3/1000) 0 0 Vet. Hospital 2,240 6.75 (3/1000) 0 0 Retail Pet Store 3,500 14(4/1000) 0 0 Other Retail Space 0 0 3,000 12(4/1000) Office 1,120 3 35 (3/1000) 3,000 9(3/1000) Residential Units 3.0001 units) 6 (2/unitl _ 1900C 4 units) 8 (2/unit TOTAL 12,360 38 9,000 29 (provide 32) STAFF COMMENTS The proposed uses a, a allowed with approval of a Special Review Use permit One aspect of the use that is of concern relates to a dog run area The concern is with maintenance of the area, noise and keeping the area clean of debris This use has the potential of creating odor and noise by lack of maintenance and supervision Traffic generated from the proposed uses has the potential to create more than standard industrial zoning The Transportation Master Plan recommends the intersection with Metcalf Road be widen to three lanes to accommodate turn lanes but does not recommecd Nottingham Road be widened anywhere else These recommendation are based on existing and future demands that will be placed on Nottingham Road The project has adequately assessed parking However, the final location of road cuts and parking configuration will be decided at the Final Design Review Planni..g and zoning Commission Staff Report December 20, 1994 Special Review Use -Residential Unit, Retail Sales, Personal Service, Offices Lot 30131, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek The applicant is proposing seven rental housing units. Our Zoning Code allows for only one residential unit per lot in conjunction with the proposed buisness. Following are the criteria, as listed in Section 17.48.040, to consider for approval of a special review use: A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code; COMMENT: The proposed use, as proposed, will comply with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code with the exception of the additional residential units. B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan; COMMENT: The proposed use meets the intent of the following Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: Goal Al. Ensure that all land uses are located in appropriate locations with appropriate controls. Goal A2. Locate land uses to make the most efficient use of existing land and community resources Goal B2 Enhance the Town's role as a principal, year-round residential and commercial center in the Vail Valley. Goal C1 Provide for an appropriate mix of residential dwelling unit types for owner permanent residents and tourists Goal C2 Affordable housing, both rental and owner occupied, should be made available through a combination of private and public efforts C. V.'hether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Such compatibility may he expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features, site design, and the control of any adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc. COMMENT Design Review Approval of the proposed project should address compatibility of the requested Special Review Uses with the adjacent uses STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt Resolution 94-33, which approves the Special Review Use with conditions 0% of^ APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL REVIEW USE The undersigned hereby reauests that a SPECIAL REVIEW USE be granted in accordance with the terms of the Town of Avon Municipal Code. In support of this application, the undersigned states: 1. The Special Review Use requested is: o C=- IJrltiArf Ac,5,# -IA cr f -dT A1I Sna 2. Legal description of property: 3. Address of property is: 07 3Q 10c){-><in�l� eo.ad �4,3--,11� 4. Owner of described property: / s 5. Applicant for Special Review Use: �A L•.�%YAnf >` 4 �1M 1\. U/Y.IA/� ���""/4Lr 6. Zoning classification of property: L rYAr7 4 L, n R, b'3f.4 JI 1. Existing improvements on property consist of: l ),IC -1l 8. Duration of proposed Special Review Use is: Permanent -�L Temporary Years 9. There is hereby attached a list of the names and addresses of all property owners within 300 feet of the property upon which the Special Use permit is requested, and the required notices fo mailing and posting. 10. Additional comments: : do hereby certify that the above statements are true and correct and the application is signed as an acknowledgement of that fact. I am the owner of the above described property or autnorized to act as agent for the owner. 6. ApDpltcarprt p AddressPhone Number Da ted Owner Address & P'-une Number Da ted e"i Planning and ioning Commission Staff Report December 20, 1994 Special Review Use -Residential Unit, Retail Sales, Personal Service, Offices Lot 30/31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek I Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4 Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6 Commission Action Respectfully Submitted, 411�" Mary Hold Town Planner RECOMMENDED ACTION PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (�) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date Sue Railton, Secretary /90�� The Commission approved with the following conditions: 1. The uses shall not exceed the following square footage: Kennel 2,500 square feet vorThytal ?0240 —square eet - Retail Pet Store 3,500 square feet Other Retail Space 3,000 square feet__ ice 4,120 square feet Residential Units 2,000 square feet (2 units) 2. The applicant must adequately address the impacts of the use on the site through the design review process. 3. The dog run area will be kept clean and free of debris at all times. 4. Final Design Review of the project shall include evaluatior of compatibility with adjacent properties and uses. TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION t.J. 94 - 33 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE, FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A VETERINARY HOSPITAL, OFFICES, A KENNEL, RETAIL PET SUPPLY STORE, AND OTHER RETAIL SPACE ON LOT 30 .AND 31, BLOCK I, BENCHMA&K AT BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO "I ILRLAS, Douglas and Kim Bryant, contract purchasers of Lot 30 and 31, Block I, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, has applied for a Special Review Use to allow for residential units, a % Oct inary hospital, offices, a kennel, retail pet supply store and other retail space on Lot 30 and 31, Block I, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, and WHEREAS, this location is zoned IndustrialiContmercial, in these uses may be approved as a Special Re%iew Use, and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Corrin -fission of the I own of Avon, pursuant to notices required b} law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use application Ivor residential units, a veterinary hospital, offices, a kennel, retail pet supply store and other rettul space on Lot 30 and 31, Block I, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, and WHEREAS following such public hearing and consideration of such infor=mation as presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows: A. T1,_- proposed use will comnlh with all roquirements minosed RESOLUTION NO 94 - 3'� SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE, FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A VETERINARY HOSPITAL, OFFICES, A KENNEL, RETAIL PET SUPPLY STORE, AND OTHER RETAIL SPACE ON LOT 30 AND 31, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Douglas and Kim Bryant, contract purchasers of Lot 30 and 31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, :ias applied for a Special Review Use to allow for residential units, a veterinary hospital, offices, a kennel, retail pet supply store and other retail space on Lot 30 and 31, Block I, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, and WHEREAS, this location is zoned industrial/Commercial, in these uses may be approved as a Special Review Use, and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required 6y law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain iraormation and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use application for res;dential units, a veterinary hospital, offices, a kennel, retail pet supply store and other retail space on Lot 30 and 31, Block I, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, and WHEREAS, following such public hearing and consideration of such information as presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows A The proposed use will comply with all requirements imposed a LZ by the Zoning or Uniform Building Code; B. The proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the comprehensive plan; and C. Th:. proposed use is designed to be compatible: with the surrounding land uses and uses in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves the requested Special Review Use for Lot 30 and 31, Block I, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, subject to the following conditions: I The uses shall rot exceed the following square footage. Kennel 2,500 square feet Vet. Hospital 2,240 square feet Retai! Pet Store 3,500 square feet Other Retail Space 3,000 square feet Otlice 4,120 square feet Residential Units 2,000 square feet (2 units) 2 The applicant must adequately address the impacts of the use on the site through the design review process. 3 The dog run area will be kept clean and free of debris at all times. 4 Final Design Review of the project shall include evaluation of compatibility with adjacent properties and uses, ADOPTED THIS eiir,. Lf� DAY OF 1994 Secretary uses and uses in the arcn. 42M NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves the requested Special Review Use for Lot 30 and 3!, Block I, Benclimark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, subiect to the following conditions: I. The uses shat not exceed the following square footage: • Kennel 2,500 square feet Vet. Hospital 2,240 square feet Retail Pet Store 3,500 square feet Other Retail Space 3,000 square feet Office 4,120 square feet Residential Units 2,000 square feet (2 units) 2. The applicant mus? adequately address the impacts of the use on the site through the design review process. 3. The dog run area will be kept clear and free of debris at all times. 4. Final D' -sign Review of the project shall include ev-duation of compatibility with adjacent properties and uses. ADOPTED TFtIS DAY OF _ ,���` fS`W 1994 Secretary PLANNING A,rD ZONING COMMISSION STAFF _.EPORT December 20, 1994 Lot 12, Filing 1, Eaglebend Final Design Review - 480 Square Foot Addition PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Brian Judge, on behalf of the owners, has submitted plans for a 480 square foot addition to the east unit of the duplex. It will be constructed over the existing garage. STAFF COMMENTS: The addition will consist of a master bedroom, bathroom and closet. All new materials and color will match the existing materials and colors. The window styles will be generally the same witl, the exception of the window on the north and east. They have a peaked element not constructed on other windows. The existing windows cave a flat plain above them. The peaked element introduces a new style for the window., however, the roofs are peaked. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is for approval with the following condition: 1. The addition match existing mate.ials and color. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Maty Holden Town Planner 7487'--- - - --SS STEE CITY LJOUIRFVENTS I �S I 9 - 00 �- 40.00 N I I I N p l / SS 0 SS S 74e4'71 SJsT¢,Afrs' F/- -- \'�\ �SS 3.50 S.F.I \ I',•4 _ 1 1\ N NSNOM ST AGF ... _ 6 i �'.fIJ. M 375 SE Ac _ r )�F Al - COC. APRON 4 I. G I yanluw�-- .. SS f_._ -• _ G.B 1 I II V \ 'I G Ol FLILLu7 . B'S. INSLLAIE - � t- Cj N/ FILL 1BOT F.G. BATTS. I � M TCLOS!WAT 11 BOTTOM N/ PRFSSIiF.TREAIE. iLY., u0 CAU.IfIGA{L1GE I .f. T•,6IJaB0'_ _ APA Ai _l55'11w0N I� FIN.R71. AT OlIRY Y)58..5• - 100'-6' is 7478•—a� -- 4 0 V � -_ J,fIN.FLfI. AT KITOEN Ln •/`� (n NAT AT KlTCo 4420 B I I V77B7 5• - e8- 0• � N N I4420 A ,•.I_r _ m 1 1 l JryfiM.FAT I,MNG 5' I� 1• I' JO Buu--_ 1 -- --^_- TJ12.5—•-P7.-0• /IY/ 9fIM _FlA_AT LIMN. 74 76' JI c m Tuq' —_' —7474- I S I q• 7173'_- `I mss 7470'-- N fFn AT G' N I �J IF, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAR .cEPORT hi'sDecember 20, 1994 lb Lot 12, Filing 1, Englebend Final Design Review - 480 Square Foot Addition PLANNING AND ZONING ACTtC Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued (4 Denied ( ) Withdrawn()Conceptual, No Action ( ) �J� �%� Date .204 4411SueRailton, Secretary � /r-Eu-�`^� The Commission tabled the request. Z01V/NCjViews Dealing with Bias Conflicts of Interes DEC f By Mark S. Dennison I TOWN OF NOVEMBER 1994 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION lti' I zoning bias. On the other hand, most courts consider rezonings lgC!,L to be'legislative in nature. The rezoning is presumed to be as valid as the enactment of the original ordinance, and the burden is on the challenger to overcome that presumption. The court 1 nbt invalidate the grant or denial of a rezoning on grounds AVO fl' f' Zoning officials must be mindful of ethical di emmasl and prevent improper influences from swaying their decision making. A landowner applving for variances, special use permits, rezonings, and other local zoning approvals is entitled to a fair and impartial decision by the local zoning body. If an official has a personal bias or conflict of interest regarding any aspect of the application, he should remove himself from the proceedings to ensure a decision free from any taint of bias. This issue of Zoning Netts examines various types of ethical dilemmas faced by local zoning and planning officials and offers guidance on how to handle potential conflicts and improper influences during the decision-making process. Stas and Conflicts of Interest Although zoning ordinances and state enabling legislation provide standards and criteria for deciding variances aid other types of applications, zoning decisions do not always turn on straightforward assessmef of objective factors. Community pressur and outside interests often infiltrate the process and threaten an applicants rightto an impartial decision. UnfortunatelV, the ad hoc, discretionary nature of many zoning decisions exposes them topotential abuse and unfairness. Zoning officials are susceptible to community pressures, political influences, and personal bias because of the localized nature of zoning regulation. Zoning officials are generally appointed because of their close contact with the community, understanding of community needs, and interest in promoting the public welfare. But an official's close association with the community increases the chance of bias or conflict of interest arising in regard to a particular zoning decision. Quasi -Judicial vs. Quasi -Legislative Decisions The distinction between quasi-judicial and quasi -legislative zoning actions can be especially important in challenges alleging zoning bias. Some courts will accord substantial deference to decisions labeled quasi -legislative, deciining to question the motives for the zoning body's decision, notwithstanding the possible presence of bias or conflict of interest. For purposes of reviewing zoning decisions, this distinction arises predominantly in the context of rezonings. Courts universally agree that decisions on variances and special use permits, building permits, and the like are quasi -adjudicatory in nature and, therefore, subject to judicial review for evidence of las or con tct o mrerest—or for any other reason—unless the rezoning is clearly shown to be "arbitrary and capricious," "an abuse of discretion," "totally lacking in relationship to the public health• safety, and welfare." or some variation on the highly deferential standard ap nted to legislative acts. This legislative label may not settle the issue, however, because some courts will look bevond the legislative label to evaluate the type of rezoning action taken by the zoning body. [See, e.g., North Point Breeze Coalition v. Pittsburgh, 60 Pa. Commw. 298, 431 A.2d 398 (1981) (when a governing body applies specific criteria to a single applicant and a single piece of property, the governing body is acting in its adjudirative capacity and not its le.islative capacity).] A minority of DOESNT COMM155IONER GURKIN OWN PROPERTY PC OVER HERE -z ��11 1_� RS A.p AL &16n 1 Pb. At.,.. jurisdictions including Oregon, Washington, and Idaho make a distinction between comprehensive runnings and piecemeal rezonings that affect single or small parcels of land. These courts characterize small parcel rezonings as quasi-judicial in nature. [See Fasano v. Board ofCounry Commissioners, 264 Ore. 574, 507 P.2d 23 (1973).] Impartiality Standards The law governing bias and conflicts of interest in zoning decision making has been refined through ongoing judicial analysis. A finding of zoning bias depends on individual facts and circumstances. If the evidence shows that a zoning decision was tainted, the usual remedy is for the court to invalidate the decision because the biased decision maker should have disqualified himself from participation. Courts have said that when a zoning official must disqualify himself because of bias or a conflict of interest, the disqualification is absolute and cannot be waived. [See, e.g., McVay v. Board ofAdjurtment ofthe Township ofMontcktir, 213 N.J. Super. 109, 516 A.2d 634 (App. Div. 1986).] A biased decision maker's participation in the actual vote on a zoning application is not necessary for invalidation. A biased zoning official may disqualify herself from voting, and the court will still invalidate the decision if it finds that she participated in the proceedings or otherwise influenced the zoning body's voting members. [See, for example, Ssoke v. Zoning Board of Adjustment ofthe Borough of,llonmorsh Beach, 260 N.J. Super. 341, 616 A.2d 942 (App. Div. 1992); Manookian v. Blaine County, 112 Idaho 697, 735 P.1d 1008 (1987).] Likewise, the decision would be invalidated if the biased official voted, even though the zoning action would carry without the necessity of counting that vote. Further, courts may invalidate a zoning decision even when the biased official is only a member of an advisory board that makes findings and recommendations to the zoning body that ultimately makes the decision [see Buell v. City ofBrenrerton, 80 Wash. 2d 518, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972) (biased planning board member participated in recommendation to city council concerning zoning change)]. Courts have said that the self-interest of one official infects the action of the other members of the zoning body, regardless of their disinterestedness. One court denounced a township supervisor's appearance before the zoning board over which he had appointment powers as an imposition of duress on members of the decision-making body and a violation of basic due process. The supervisor appeared on behalf of a variance applicant. [Abrahamson v. Wendell 76 Mich. App. 278, 256 N.%X'?d 613 (1977).] Courts have developer! a number of approaches and standards for evaluating problems of bias and conflicts in zoning decisions. These approaches vary by state and take particular factual circumstances into account. Courts have articulated several tests or standards for addressing zoning bias. Many courts may use a combination or variation of more than one approach. Actual Bias. The actual bias standard is the most stringent test and distinguishes between situations where a clear benefit will be conferred on a zoning decision maker and instances when only a potential for benefit exists. Courts applying this approach require clear and tangible evidence of actual bias as opposed to the mere appearance of impropriety or the potential for partiality. Substantial Interest or Temptation. Under this standard, an aggrieved landowner must show more than a mere appearance of unfairness but need not prove the existence of "actual" bias. This standard is premised on the need to remove public officials from situations where a potential conflict of interest would have the capacity to tempt or improperly influence an official's decision. Under this rest, direct and substantial interests provide grounds for disqualifying an official from participation in a zoning decision, whereas indirect or remote interests do not. Thus, the focus centers on the probability that particular interests may affect the ultimate outcome of a zoning decision. Appearance of Unfairness. Some courts, in weighing evidence of potential bias, will disqualify an official and invalidate the zoning body's decisions if a mere appearance of unfairness exists. Courts using this lesser standard, most notably those in the state of Washington, emphasize the need for public perceptions of fairness and confidence in the zoning proress. In virtually even.zoning bias cue, the courts will discuss the importance of the appearance of fairness in zoning decisions. Most courts will not, however. rely on it as a separate standard Mark Dnaniron is an atronrey ,and author who practices environmental. Land -este, artd:znung law in Ridgewood. Atw leney. and will nor hold that an appearance of unfairness alone suffices to invalidate a zoning decision. Instead, they will consider the appearance of fairness in combination with evidence of"actual bias" or "substantial interest or temptation." In this sense, the threat to public confidence in the zoning process is viewed as coterminous with actual or potential conflicts and operates as an additional rationale for regulating bias. Typos of Bias or ConfIle# of Interest In applying their various approaches to determining bias and conflicts of interest in zoning decisions, the courts will review evidence of several relevant factors. T:. -rious types of zoning bias and conflicts of interest can be grouped into fairly distinct catego- ries, one or more of which determines every zoning bias case. Financia[ influences. Financial interests represent the most prevalent type of conflict. When zoning decision makers stand to benefit financially from ruling in a certain wa) on a zoning application, the zoning official's failure to disqualify himself from participating in the decision clearly arouses an appearance of unfairness and may be evidence of actual bias or "substantial temptation," which may provide sufficient justification for the court to invalidate the zoning decision. Zoning decisions tainted by financial influences especially undermine public confidence in the process because this type of bias creates a strong impression of local government corruption and dealmaking. Courts have invalidated zoning decisions both in cases where a local official actually benefited and in situations where the decision maker could potentially benefit. Zoning decisions have been struck down when a zoning official stood to gain finar-cially as a neighboring landowner, as an employee, as a business associate of an affected landowner, or as the seller or purchaser of property impacted by the zoning decision. The most obvious type of financial conflict arises when the zoning official's own property will be affected financially by a proposed zoning change. Attocsational Interests. This type of bias arises in situations where a zoning official's impartiality may be compromised because she has a personal or business relationship with State Laws Regulating Zoning Conflicts of Interest Ala. Code § 1 I -43-54 (prohibits councilmen from deciding issues where special financial interest exists). Ala. Code § 36-25 (code of ethics for all governmental officials and employees). Alaska Stat. § 29.20.0 10 (prohibits having a "substantial financial interest"). Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-222 (member of board of county supervisors shall not vote upon any measure in which he, any member of his family, or his partner is pecuniarily interested). Ark. Stat. Ann. § 21.8-304 (public officials or state employees cannot use office to advance personal interests except incidental). Conn. Gen. Stat. A.in. § 8-11 (prohibits participating when there is a direct or indirect, personal or financial interest). Fla. Star. Ann. § 112.3143 (requiring public officer to disdosc interests within 15 days of vote). Ga. Code Ann. § 36.30-6 (illegal for a council member to vote on any matter in which he/she is perwnally interested). Ga. Code Ann. § 69.209 (prohibits paru;iparion when it concerns a matter in which [the decision maker is) personally interested"). someone who will be affected by the decision. Although this relationship may not involve a financial conflict of interest, courts recognize that the associarional interest may just as improperly bias the zoning official's decision. Although the evidence is generally circumstantial that a zoning official's familial. business, or other relationship actually has caused a biased deci,ion, an appearance of unfairness is usually evident. Courts applying this standard will invalidate decisions when an associational interest raises the specter of improoriery. As with other types of potential conflicts of interest, the courts must weigh the evidence to determine whether the associational conflict is great enough to jusrif , invalidating the zoning decision. They will generally examine the nature of both the association and the underlying interest to derermine whether it warrants invalidation. Generally, the underlying interest has a greater impact on the court's determination of the issue of impartiality, but a close personal relationship may indicate just as strong a propensir' toward bias. Close family relationships are usually subject to greater judicial scrutin'v. More distant familial relationships are generally tolerated. although the nature of the underlying interest may justiR, invalidating the zoning decision. The potential for bias also may exist because of a zoning official's relationship to various community organizations, although rhe nature of the underlying interest is usually the determining factor. For instance. courts have found that mere membership in a ch itch that has an interest in proceedings before the zoning body is not enough to warrant invalidating a zoning decision without evidence of actual bias. Prejudire and Bias. This category is generally based on statements made by a zoning official that reflect a prejudgment of the merits of a particular zoning application. If the landowner can prove that the zoning decision maker was somehow predisposed to decide his application in a certain way, a court may choose to invalidate the decision. However, a zoning official's particular political view or general opinion on a given issue will generally not suffice to show bias. Ga Code Arn. § 89-953 (stating code of ethics for public officers and employm). Idaho Code § 67-6501 (prohibits panicipatioir by rncmbcn of governing boards or committees in matters in which there is an economic interest by self or by relations). Idaho Code § 67-6506 (regulates the economic interest of members of the governing board, their relatives, employer, and employee). Ind. Code Ann. §§ 36-7-4-223. 36-7-4-909 (regulating planning commission and board of adjusrmenr conflicts). Md. Ann. Cafe art. 40A, § 3.101 (prohibits public officials from participating in maters in which they have a conflict of interest). Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 225 10) (prohibits direa and indirect pecuniary intere[). Mo. Ann. Stat. § 105.462 (prohibits participation by member where decision may result in direct financial gain or loss to him) Mont. Code Ann. § 2.2-125(6) (prohibits an officer or employee of local government from participating in official acts in which he has a direct and substantial financial interest). Courts recognize that public officials have opinions like everyone else and inevitably hold certain political views related to their public office. in fact, zoning officials are typically chosen to serve in their official capacity because they are expected to represent certain views about local land - use planning and development. For instance, a zoning official maw have campaigned for office on a pro- or antidevelopment stance. The courts tolerate this type of opinion because it is part of the political process. Moreover, official opinions concerning land development generally represent community values and preferences that may implicate important public welfare concerns. Only when the opinion rises to a level of personal or self- interest or shows prejudgment of a specific situation is the right to an impartial decision violated. This might occur if a zoning official made statements prior to or outside of the ordinary decision-making process that indicated a strong presentiment about the decision. Whether a particular statement would be strong enough evidence of bias is a fact -based determination for the courts. In one case, a Rhode Island court found sufficient evidence of bias when a zoning board member told opponents of a variance application prior to the hearing that "we are going to shove it down ,your throat." (Barbara Realty Co. v. Zoning Boan4 128 A.2d 342, 343 (R.I. 195" ).j .Ev Parre Contacts. Proof of ex parte contacts may also show that a zoning decision was tainted by bias. although the courts mac tolerate this as a part of the political process. Ex parte contacts—discussions of a topic outside official proceedings— frequently occur through lobbying efforts by various interest groups seeking to influence the decisions of public officials. In the context of quasi -legislative decisions, such as rezonings, the courts are especially reluctant to scrutinize ex pane lobbying efforts because of the separation of powers and First Amendment rights to influence the political process. However. when ex pane contacts are present in the context of quasi-judicial zoning decisions, such as variances and special use permits. courts will be more receptive to challenges on grounds of zoning bias. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 673.14 (regulating zoning board of adjustment, building code board, planning board. or historic district commission conflicts of interest). N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40.55D -23(b) (regulating planning board conflicts of interest). N.M. Star. Ann. § 3-10.5 (any member of a governing board having s ,y possible financial interese in any policy or decision is required to disclose main). N.Y. Gen. Mun, law § 800-809 (prohibiting conflicts of interest of municipal officers and employees). Ore. Rev. Seat. § 244.120(1)(a) (requiring elected public officials other than legislators to announce potential conflicts prior to acting thereon). R.I. Gen. I-aws § 36144 (prohibits participation when there is a "substantial conflict of interest"). S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-410 (no municipal official or employee shall use his/her position for financial gain). Va. Code Ann. § 21.639.1 (state and local government conflict -cif -interest act). Wis. Stat. Ann. § 1246 (no public official shall take official action on any matter in which he/she has a substantial financial interest). Courts that apply the "appearance of unfairness" standard of impartiality are the most likelv to consider ex parte contacts as evidence of partiality in zoning decisions. In one case, a Washington court declared that ex parte communications, "however innocent they might be ... tend to create suspicion, generate misinterpretation, and cast a pall of partiality, impropriety, conflict of interest, or prejudgment over the proceedings to which they relate ..." (Chrobuck P. Snohomish County, 78 Wash. 2d 858, 480 P.2d 489 (1971).) State CoaflietarefraInterest Statutes A few state statutes specifically regulate bias and conflicts of interest in zoning decisions. Three states—Indiana, New Jersey, and New Hampshire --have statutes that prohibit members of a planning commission or zoning board of adjustment from participating in hearings in which they have a direct or indirect substantial interest. These statutory prohibitions are limited to parrialiry by zoning bodies that function in an adjudicative capacity'. A few other states, such as Virginia. New York, and Connecticut, have broader regulations that require impartiality by zoning decision makers who act in either a legislative or adjudicative capacity. Connecticut's statute has the most comprehensive scheme. For example, it prohibits zoning officials from participating in any hearing or decision in which they have either a direct or indirect personal or financial interest. Several other states have general governmental ethics and conflict-of-interest statutes that provide a basis for regulating various types of bias and conflicts by public officials. At least 19 have statutes that prohibit participation by local of Lials in decisions in which they or a particular associate have a financial Interest. Relatively few cases have been decided under these statutes, however, so the precise scope of their application in the context of zoning bias is uncertain. In the Public Interest Zoning.officials should make every conceivable effort to protect the intcgriry of the zoning and land -sue planning process through impartial decision making. Biased decisions not only undermine public confidence in the local zoning body but are more susceptible to unwanted and costly court challenges. Big Box Retail in the Big Applo? The New York City planning department wants to give big retailers the key to the city—and much of the small business community is preparing to change the lock if it does. Seeking to reverse the city's significant decline in retail sales and employ- ment, the department is proposing to change the zoning of manufacturing and industrial districts to encourage specialized discount retailers and warehouse stores. The 20,000 acres targeted include abandoned and underused industrial land in every borough but Manhattan. Current zoning allows only 10.000 square feet for food, department, and clothing stores and an array of other retail uses within areas zoned for light and heavy manufacturing. Large retail stores seeking to locate in these districts must apply for a special permit, which can take years. The proposal would allow any retail development up to 100,000 square feet to be permitted as -of -right on wide streets. Others would need a special permit from the planning commission. The planning department argues that making it easier for discount stores to locate in abandoned industrial areas will promote investment in new retail developments, generate employment opportunities, and increase sales and property tax revenues. But many small storekeepers oppose the plan, claiming it creates an unfair playing field. Should 1Mavor Rudolph Giuliani support it, the city planning commission would then review it. A stare -mandated environmental impact study and approval by both the borough presidents and community boards would follow before it could go to the city council. Kevin J. Krizek 2on►inW3eports Montgomery County Open Space Preservation: Program Recommendations Open Spare preservation Task Force, Montgomery Counry Court- house, Norristown, PA 19404. September 14. 1993. 60 pp. Free. Late last year, Montgomm County in suburban Philadelphia approved a 10 -year, $100 million program for open space acquisition. This document details the rationale behind the program as developed by the task force assigned by the county board to study the issue. Modeling Future Development on the Design Characteristics of Maryland's Traditional Settlements Maryland Office of Planning (in cooperation u,irh the School of Architecture. University of Maryland), 301 W. Preston St., Room 1101, Baltimore, MD 11201. August 1994. 111 pp. $2. Neorraditional and cluster designs for rural and suburban communities have been attracting increased attention in recent years as planners seek new solutions to the problem of urban sprawl. This effort, the result of a university research seminar on small town paradigms, examines a scries of traditional Maryland communities and concludes with alternative models for zoning ordinance language to facilitare traditional design. The appendices include sample provisions of local comprehensive plans and toning ordinances from existing communities. Ze.,eg Neo, u . mamhly n<wdcucr published by the American Planning bw wwn Subunpuom are ....table for $45 iU.S.) ane $54 (foreign). Mi.had B Barker, Eseiunve Duecroc Frank 5. So. Drpi ty E.ecmrv< Duvem,; Will,,. R Klein. Dueno, of Reuarch Z�mrg V,., a psnduerd a, APA. lim Schub. Editor, Michel Barnette. Dan B,err. Sarah Bohlen. Fry Dolmck. Mahell< Gregory. Sappy leer. Beth M,Gun<, Mary, Morn.. Dead Smith. Rep, .„.... Cynthia Choke. Austrian, Utter: Liu Banon. Design and P,ndu.,i,m Cuprughr 01994 b. Amenia. Planning A..,anon. 1113 E Wth So, Ch,e.ge, IL tick, 1• Fhe Amen..n Planning As.uautton has headquarters oRco at 1774 M.s,,.husrn. As.. N W . Washing,i... FIC M16 All ,ph,, reierved N„ pan u1 this pubhouon may be rap..dueed or unlra<d in any' form sir by me m ..... .Inuoms or mnhamul..clud.g phurueopymg. n mdmg. es by am ,mer mu,... uougr and rnnevil .ystem. ruhuut pet mstuon in .ung Gem the Amman Planning Msw anon Printed nn mvcled p.prt..iludmg 5P-oaa nmvand fiber and IOM% pou.umu.er was,, Courts that apply the "appearance of unfairness" standard of impartiality are the most likely to consider ex parre contacts as evidence of partiality in zoning decisions. In one case, a Washington court declared that ex parre communications, "however innocent they might be ... tend to create suspicion, generate misinterpretation, and cast a pall of partiality, impropriety, conflict of interest, or prejudgment over the proceedings to which they relate ..." IChrobtsck P. Snohomish Country, 78 Wash. 2d 858, 480 P.2d 489 (1971).] State Conflict-ef-Interest Statutes A few state statutes specifically regulare bias and conflicts of interest in zoning decisions. Three scares—Indiana, New Jersey, and New Hampshire—have statutes that prohibit members of a planning commission or zoning board of adjustment from participating in hearings in which they have a direct or indirect substantial interest. These statutory prohibitions are limited to partiality by zoning bodies that function in an adjudicative capacin•. A few ocher states, such as Virginia. New York, and Connecticut, have broader regulations that require impartiality by zoning decision makers who act in either a legislative or adjudicative capacicv. Connecticut's statute has the most comprehensive scheme. For example, it prohibits zoning officials from participating in any hearing or decision in which they have either a direct or indirect personal or financial interest. Several other states have general governmental ethics and conflict-of-interest statutes that provide a basis for regulating carious types of bias and conflicts by public officials. At least I have starurrn that prohibit participation by local officials in decisions in which they or a particular associate have a financial mlcrest. Relatively few cases have been decided under these aamtes, however, so the precise scope of their application in the context of zoning bias is uncertain. In the Public Interest Zoning offiaal.s should make every conceivable effort to protect the integrity of the zoning and land -use planning process through impartial decision making. Biased decisions not only undermine public confidence in the local zoning body but are more susceptible to unwanted and costly court challenges. Big Bos Retail in the Big Apple? The New York City planning department wants to give big retailers the key to the city—and much of the small business community is preparing to change the lock if it does. Seeking to reverse the ciry's significant decline in retail sales and employ- ment, the department is proposing to diange the zoning of manufacturing and industrial districts to encourage specialized discount retailers and warehouse stores. The 20,000 acres targeted include abandoned and underused industrial land in every borough but Manhattan. Current zoning allows only 10,000 square feet for food, department, and clothing stores and an array of other retail uses within areas zoned for light and heavy manufacturing. Large retail stores seeking to locate in these districts must apply for a special permit, which can take years. The proposal would allow any retail development up to 100.000 square feet to be permitted as -of -right on wide streets. Others would need a 0 special permit from the planning commission. The planning department argues that making it easier for discount stores to locate in abandoned industrial areas will promote investment in new retail developments, generate employment opportunities, and increase sales and properrY tax revenues. But many, small scorekeepers oppose the plan, claiming it creates an unfair playing field. Should Mayor Rudolph Giuliani support it, the city planning commission would then review it. A state-mandared environmental impact study and approval by both the borough presidents and community boards would follow before it could go to the city council. Kevin f. Krick =n►inGl�eorts Montgomery County Open Space Preservation: Program Recommendations Open Spare Preservation 7ask Force, Montgomery Coumy Court- house, Norristown. A4 19404. September 14. 1993. 60 pp. Free. Late last year, Montgomery County in suburban Philadelphia approved a 10 -ye :. : S 100 million program for open space acquisition. This document derails the rationale behind the program as developed by the task force assigned by the county board to study the issue. Modeling Future Development on the Design Characteristics of Maryland's Traditional Settlements Maryland Office of Planning (in cooperation with the School of Architecture. Univerrity ofhlaryland). 301 W. Preston St., Room 1101, Baltimore, MD 11201. August 1994. 111 pp. $2. Neotraditional and cluster designs for rural and suburban communities have been attracting increased attention in recent years as planners seek new solutions to the problem of urban sprawl. This effort, the result of a university research seminar on small town paradigms, examines a series of traditional Maryland communities and concludes with alternative models for zoning ordinance language to facilitate traditional design. The appendices include sample provisions of local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances from exis-ing communities. Zamng.\'nn n a momhly-,clot, published by the American Planning Asyo. u,.on Subwnpuona are anilablr for S45 IU.S.I and SN (foreign). Mnhael B Barker. Eie..,.ve Dorocn. Frank S. So. Deputy Eae.uuve Darner: William R. Klein. Dstnm, of Rrarateh .7 ..eg Nits+ n pmducrd or APA. )im S.h-ab. Ednor. Michael Bumtor. Dan Barer. Sarah Bohlen. Far Dol..k. kinhdle Gregory. Sanjay )err, Beth McGuire. Maria M.rr.y. David Smnh. Re ,wc Cyn,hu Cheski. Asinuin Eduor: Lw Baron. Deng. and trod..,... C.pvngh, 01994 by Amerman planning Aa.o`--'nm 1313 E both Sl , Chicago. IL 6061' the Amen,., Planning A.t..0,..n hay headquarter. oFf tea or 1776 Muu.huyuu Aye . N w , Wa,hmgt.n. DC 200% All ngho rmen<d No parr .it this pubbca,.on may be teprwru.ed or uolued in any form or by any mean.rle.mmr or mrahanral. including phuanpymg. wording. or b. any iw ... m.....n,touge and retrieval system, mhout rionistron m.reiong ftnm the Amen... Manning {..ruts.,. printed .m rc.,.lyd page, in.ludmg $0 'ray .,,,led fiber and 10^v p ... . ony.mrr wase