Loading...
PZC Minutes 071988RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING JULY 19, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on July 19, 1988, at 7.30 PM in the Town Council ,hambers of the lown of Avon Municipal Complex, 4u0 benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Frank Doll. Members Present: Tom Landauer.; Frank Doll, Buz Reynolds, John Perkins, Denise Hill, Clayton McRory, Members Absent: Pat Cuny Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Engineering and Community Development; Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant; Lynn Fritzlen, Planner, Charletta Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Lot 45,_Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Falcon Pointy Requested Color Change Doll stated that tlis item had just been brought in for presentation. He sta:.ed that the Staff has already reviewed this matter and asked Lynn Fritzlen to present it. Fritzlen stated that the Staff would like to recommend approval for the repainting of Faicon Point, and she provided a rendering of the proposed color change. Kathy king, General Manager of Falcon Point stated that the new owners of Falcon Point were not pleased with the current colors of Falcon Point and wished to change them to the more neutral colors as provided. Perkins moved to grant approval to the Falcon Point Association to repaint the building as presented. Reynolds seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 4 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Ridgeline Condominiums, Phoenix Disco_yeCy Group Final Aesign Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project. Fritzlen stated that the Phoenix Group is seeking final design approval. She stated that this is concurrent with the public hearing on this project in compliance with the requirement for a public hearing for fractionalized projects. She reviewed the approval criteria for fractionalized projects as follows: 1. The adequacy of access to the site with respect to the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July i9, 1988 Page 2 of 16 Lot 4. Black 1. Wildridge Subdivision Ridgeline Condominiums, Phoenix Discovery Group Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.) width of the adjacent streets, their grades, intersection safety, visibility and entrance into the lot to be developed; 2. The need for, and availability of public or private transportation to serve the proposed development; 3. The impact of the proposed project upon public and private services and facilities serving the area; 4. The compatibility of the proposed unit sizes and unit mix with existing and potential development in the vicinity. She stated that the Staff had reviewed the site plan and feel that existing roads and proposed drives will accomodate the total potential vehicular traffic of the neighborhood. On the issue of public transportation, she stated that at present there is no existing or proposed transportation for Wildridge. Although easy access would be desirable, the number of potential residents does not easily justify the creation of a public transport system. A van service, at peak hours, provided by the Homeowners Association, was suggested. Regarding available public arid private facilities, she stated that this project is centrally located in Wildridge, and is within walking distance of commercially zoned and designated park land. Staff feels that this is a positive aspect for tine location of this project. Regarding compatibility, she stated that the building type and design generally conforms with existing development and the Wildridge Protective Covenants. She reviewed the differences as: 1. Existing units are larger; 2. Existing units have primarily on grade access; She stated that the conditions required at time of preliminary design approval have been addressed. Mark Donaldson, representing Phoenix Discovery Group, reviewed the modifications made since the preliminary design approval as `allows: reduction of the sod area on the east side of the 6-plex building and returned that area to native grasses and provide some regrading of that area. - The fire protection requirements have been resolved and will be more clearly detailed on the building permit application. The drainage facility at the southeast portion of the paved area is now a sod treated area facility which has been worked out with the Town Engineer. Automatic irrigation will be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1968 Page 3 of 16 Lot 4 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision, Ridgeline Condominiums, Phoenix Discovery Group Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont_) provided for all landscape areas. The low roofs have been added on the parking lot side of the 6-plex building to deter the snowfall from the upper roofs. Trash enclosure drawings have been included. Fritzlen stated that this project is now in conformance with the current fractionalization ordinance. Doll then opened the Public Hearing for comment. Greg K.ra+'t, representing Suncrest I and S'uncrest II Homeowners Association, stated that he has received from four owners, letters stating that their main concerns were density and the effect on the value of the surrounding buildings. Mr. Kraft stated his concern was the view corridors. Doll asked for any other comments from the public. With none forthcoming, Doll closed the public hearing and a= -ked for any comments from the Commission or Staff. He asked if Wood, from an engineering standpoint, was satisfied. Wood stated he believed that his concerns had been addressed from an engineering standpoint or easily addressed within the site plan. Fritzlen stated that the project has received pr-eliminary design approval and it does conform with the SPA-egulations which include height limitations. Reynolds asked if there had been other letters received. The Secretary stated that there had been no others received. Discussion followed on the letters received and the +-eet that the applicant has met all requirements. Perkins moved to grant final design review approval to the Ridgeline Condominium Project, Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision as presented with the conditions that Staff recommendations: 1. Final design conform with Fire Department regulations for emergency access, fire flows, etc.; and 2. Criteria as determined by the Town Engineer., be addressed. Landauer seconded. The motion passed four to two with Reynolds and Hill voting nay. Portion Lot 46/47 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Group Final Design Review Public Hearing. for Fractionalized Project Fritzlen stated that :,:-ie Phoenix discovery group is seeking final design approval for the proposed ten unit project on a portion of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. She stated that the project conforms with the newly adopted fractionalization ordinance, which limits density to 2-1/2 units per development right. Concurrent with this meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1988 Page 4 of 16 Portion Lot 46/47, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Group Final Design Review Public Hearings for Fractionalized Project (cont.) will be the public hearing for fractionalized projects as required by the Administrative Procedure for Fractionalized Project of the Town of Avon Design Procedures Rules and Regulations. She stated that on July 5, 1988, the Commission granted preliminary design review approval for general building exterior design and site improvement plan. She stated that in addition to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Design Review Procedures, Rules and Regulations the approval criteria for fractionalized projects must also be considered. Fritzlen stated that the applicant has responded to some of the initial design concerns of the Commission She then discussed the Staff comments regarding Site Access, stating that Staff had reviewed the site plan and feels that existing roads and proposed drives will accomodate the total potential vehicular traffic of the neighborhood. Regarding public transportation, she stated that there is no existing or proposed public transportation for Nottingham Road. This concern is offset by the project's proximity to the Town Core. The proximity to the Town Core is a decided asset to this facility. Although established park and commercial facilities are not within walking distance they are within a few minutes drive on level roads. Proximity to Fire and Police protection will insure a quick response time. Other fire protection requirements have been discussed with the applicant and conceptually agreed upon. Fritzlen stated that the unit type and design is generally compatible with existing neighborhood development. She then compared the differences stating that the existing development tends not to stack more than two units above each other; existing units are larger; existing units do not cater to short term rental. She stated that there is a rental management office indicated on the third level of the plans. Fritzlen stated that if the Commission finds that this application conforms with Approval Criteria for Fractionalized Projects or can be modified to be brought into conformance, Staff recommends that final design approval be granted subject to: 1. Final design conform with Fire Department regulations for emergency access, fire flows, etc.; Criteria as stated in the Engineering Report.; and 3. Use is restricted to the intention and uses of the Residential Medium Density zone district which reads as follows: Intention - areas primarily for long term occupancy in attached or multi -unit family dwellings on separate lots, and Allowed Uses- Duplex, multi -family dwellings, townhouses, condominiums, apratments, accessory buildings. Staff feels that the building type is within the allowed use. Commission Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1988 Page 5 of 16 Portion Lot 46/47 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek,_ Phoenix Discovery Group, Final Design Reviec_ Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.). must insure that it stays within the intention of the zone district. The question is the matter of the rental office and perhaps the applicant could better address how that is to be used. Mark Donaldson, representing Phoenix Discovery Group, described the modifications made since preliminary approval was granted. Density was reduced to ten units to conform with the fractionalization ordinance and in doing so some additional space was created on the third level which they have shown as a management office for on site management. They do not intend to have short term rentals. Fire protection problems have been identified and resolved with the Department of Public Safety and will be detailed fully for the building permit application. The drainage facility on the northwest portion of the paved area has been modified, per the Town Engineer's request, and no project sign is being submitted for approval at this time. Discusssion followed on the unit sizes. At this time Doll opened the public hearing. First speaker was John Graham, President of the Chambertin Townhomes Homeowners Association. He gave a brief review of the history of the Chambertin project for the benefit of the new Commission members. He stated that their main concerns are maintaining the monetary value of their investment, emergency access to the Chambertin project, access for trash pickup. The trash truck now has to back out, making a severe turn and creating a very severe safety problem on the roadway. The S-curve in Nottingham road is also a very severe safety hazard. He feels that the three story structure is incompatible with the neighborhood. A major concern is that these will be short term rentals. Total project is incompatible. Mr. Graham stated that other owners, that could not be at the meeting would be sending lstters asking for denial of this application. Linda Pell stated that -tie is representing Syndicate Systems, owners of one unit at Chambertin and that she is also Vice President of the Homeowners Association. She stated that she agrees totally with everything that Mr. Graham has stated and would like to add that she feels it is very important that the foundation is stable. She stated that she is against the small units, but her main appeal is to have the Commission consider how the whole Chambertin project was originally planned, how the roadway in front is and how the back roadway is and for the Commission to consider the safety of human lives and the emergency access needed through the back roadway. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1988 Page 6 of 16 Portion Lot 46/47 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Group, Final Design Review Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.) Bill Fliesher, owner of unit #12, stated that he was totally shocked that a project such as the one proposed, could be allowed next to a projec.such as Chambertin. He stated that when the owners of Uiambertin bought it was with the knowledge that all other projects within the area would be compatible. He stated that he is totally against fractionalization. Clint Watkins, owner of units 5, 6, 7, and 8 at Chambertin, stated that he agrees with John Graham in that he doesn't feel the proposed project is compatible with the existing Chambertin. He questioned the lack, of deminsions on the drawings. He submits that what they have presented is not in compliance with the Administrative Procedures for Design Review in that the plans are incomplete. Jerry Burris, from Syndicate Systems, stated he purchased his unit in 1980. He enjoys coming to Colorado and wanted to personally let the Commission know that he agrees with all that has been said regarding the concerns voiced about the proposed project. Claudia Peterman, of Sherwood Meadows, stated that since their neighborhood is 80% developed, they would like to see the remaining 20% remain the same type of development. They do not want to see a transient situation in their neighborhood. Doll asked if any member of the Commission had any comment=_ or questions for the public. He stated that he would like to make a few comments relative to the comments from the public. He stated that, as far as the Planning and Zoning Commission is concerned, fractionalization has been changed, requiring the lowering of the density of the units allowed, and as stated in the Staff report the project as presented is within the fractionalization requirements. In relation to the foundation, lie stated that he would like to think personally, that the engineering staff will not allow the project to be started until the foundation problems are addressed completely. He stated that the back roadway is a concern. He stated that the number of units and sizes are within the regulations. Watkins questioned the language and compliance of the fractionalization ordinance. He stated that when the Council made the changes they made it not E. right to convert to the 2-1/2 to 1, but that they may apply for it. Perkins stated that he did not believe the Staff would have Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1988 Page 7 of 16 Portion Lot 46/47 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Group Final Design Review. Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.)_ let this come before the Commission if this application met every intent and letter. He asked the Staff if they felt that the Commission is looking at a valid application. Fritzien stated that she felt that this was a valid application. Watkins asked if the exterior or interior dimensions were shown an the floor plan provided. Wood staled that only the basic information had been brought down. The other plans were used for the staff review. Discussion followed on the requirements for fractionalization. Perkins aeiked of the drawing with the exterior and interior dimensions could be provided. Perkins stated that he would like to return to the access question. He stated that at the last meeting the applicant told the board that they had made attempts at contacting the Chambertin Association regarding the resolution of any differences with the access situation and had no response from the Association. Graham stated that Donaldson had written to the Association stating that if they would like to have access across the back he would be willing to talk to them about how much it would cost them. Perkins stated he would like to see the letter. Donaldson provided a copy of the letter. Discussion followed on the emergency access and trash pickup access. Thomas Weber stated that the problem was the liability, and any damage that may be done to the roadway or their parking lot. Discussion followed on the size and the type of people that will be housed in the units. Devaluing of neighboring properties was discussed. Greg Amsten, realtor from Vail, stated that the the market value of the Chambertin units is approximately $50.00 a square foot on a resale basis. If the new smaller project is built there, the smaller unit will have a little bit higher dollar per square foot resale because of the size of the unit. Donaldson stated that the last four units sold at Chambertin sold for about $32.00 per square foot and tney are anticipating going on the market at about -three times that price on a square footage basi.s. He stated that they feel they will be effecting the value in a positive way. Doll called for anymore comments from the public. With none forthcoming, he closed the public hearing. Doll polled the members of the Commission for questions or comments and the general concensus of most of the members was that the project was incompatible for that site. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1988 Page 8 of 16 Portion Lot 46/47, Block I. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Group, Final Design Review Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.) Further discussion followed on the size of the units, and the access. Fritzlen stated that the Commission's duty is to review the building design and the conformance with the zoning regulations and design criteria. She stated that the Commission needs to decide if the size of the units is justification for denying the project. Perkins moved to approve the project as submitted, with the conditans: 1. The management office on the third floor be removed from the project.; 2. That access arrangement be worked out between the Phoenix Group and the Chambertin Group to allow for trash pickup and emergency access behind all four buildings and any necessary insurance policies involved in the trash removal operation would be shared between the two projects. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Landauer moved to deny the application as submitted, citing the incompatibility of the number and size of units of this project with the other units in the neighborhood. Reynolds seconded. The motion passed 4 tc, 2 with Perkins and Doll voting nay. Lot 3 Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision_, Otterman and Associates, 20 Unit Condominium Project, Final Design Review,. Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project Lot 6, Block 5, Wildridoe Subdivision, Otterman and Associates 24 Unit Condominium Project, Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project Doll stated that due to the fact that both of these projects are in the same area, served by the same road and built by the same builder, we are going to consider them simultaneously. He stressed that they are two different projects and there will be two motions made regarding these projects. Fritzlen stated that Otterman and Associates is seeking final approval for the proposed 20 unit project on Lot 3, Block 5, as well as Lot 6, Wildridge Subdivision. Preliminary design approval was granted on May 17, 1988. Concurrent with this meeting will be the Public Hearing required by the Administrative Procedures for Fractionalized Projects of the Town of Avon Design Procedures Rules and Regulations. She stated that a number of design issues have been addressed prior to this request for final approval and public hearing. 1. Roof lines were changed from the original submission to create more visual interest. 2. Engineered site plans were submitted which more fully Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1988 Page 9 of 16 Lot 3 Block 5L Wildridge Subdivisio, Otterman and Associates, 20 Unit Condominium Prosect Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Prosect (cont.) Lot 6, Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision Otterman and Associates 24 Unit Condominium Prosect Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Prosect (cont.) address grading and drainage. 3. Parking lot lighting has been indicated. 4. Landscaping and retaining walls were redesigned to lessen site impart and improve appearance. She also stated that the density was approved under the previous fractionalization ordinance. She stated that in addition to the Planning and Zoning Commission Design Review Procedures, Rules and Regulations, the Approval Criteria for Fractionalized Projects should be considered when reviewing this prosect for final approval. Fritzlen stated that Staff has reviewed the site plan and Feel that the existing roads and proposed drives will accomodate the total potential vehicular traffic of the neighborhood. Since there is no existing or proposed public transportation it was suggested that probably the most effective means of addressing this concern would be a van service, at peak hours, provided by the Homeowners Association. She stated that the units proposed for Lot 3 and Lot 6 will almost double the number of existing units in Wildridge and will have a significant effect on the presently nominal availability of public and private facilities in the area, i.e. parks, passive and active recreational areas, neighborhood commercial facilities, and fire protection. She stated that the impact is further compounded by three additional factors: 1. The project's lack of any on site amenity or usable open space suitable for active or passive recreation.; 2. The remote location from central Wildridge will continue to isolate the project from future neighborhood facilities in that the probable development of such would be on the opposite side of Metcalf Road.; 3. The project's lack of accomodation for an on site management. Fritzlen stated that fire protection is also presently inadequate, but the need for an additional hydrant e.s well as standpipes within the stairwells of the structure and an offsite truck turnaround has been discussed with the applicant. The drainage and erosion matters are addressed in the engineering report as follows: 1. Erosion protection must be provided at inlet and outlet to Filter Pit.; 2. Depth of Filter Pit is not indicated. Volume cannot be calculated.; 3. If 2' deep, holding capacity for 10 year runoff would be approximately 1.0 minute. This does fiat seem adequate for a reasonable level of treatment,. Recommendation is approval Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1988 Page 10 of 16 Lot 3. Block 5 Wildridge Subdivision, Otterman and Associates 20 Unit Condominium Project, Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.) Lot 6 Block 5 Wildridoe Subdivision Otterman and Associates 24 Unit Condominium Project, Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.) subject to submission of acceptable drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. Regarding compatibility, Fritzlen stated that Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision currently has one developed lot, which is a ten unit townhouse complex, on Lot 10. Block 5, is a relatively isolated cul de sac of lots zoned for multi -unit residential complexes, rotal build out for Block 5 would be 90 units taking into account fractionalization and the development of this project. The concurrent construction on Lot 3 and Lot 6 will cor�titute half of the total unit build our of Block 5, therefore, these projects will dominate the character of the immediate neighborhood. The project varies from existing residential development in Wildridge in that existing development has larger units; incorporates enclosed parking as required by the Wildridge Covenants; has primarily on grade entry access; has less monolithic building proportions; and incorporates private lawns or yards. In conclusion, Fritzlen stated that this project as proposed, would offer a desirable housing type for employees in the Avon/Beaver Creek area. The neighborhood has the potential to become an affordable medium density residential district surrounded by ample open space and interesting views. This area is isoiated from other lots. The remote location of Block 5 from Wildridge will isolate it from the lower density projects on the west side of Metcalf Road which is a positive planning aspect. As presently platted, Block 5 does not include any designated park land or lots zoned for commercial use, therefore, it is important that all developments in Block 5 be relatively self-sufficient in nature and adequately address the remote location. It is also noted that the site, due to its topography, does not easily accomodate the density proposed and that a highly engineered solution is necessary. Fritzlen stated that if the Commission finds that this application conforms with the approval criteria for fractionalized projects or can be brought into conformance, Staff recommends that final design approval be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Final design conform with Fire Department regulations for emergency access, fire flows, etc.; 2. Criteria as stated in the Engineering Report.; 3. Incorporation of on site, clearly usable open space, which would address the amenity issue. Staff recognizes that the addition of open space will require additional grading, possibly more retainage or a built deck, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1989 Page 11 of ib Lot ; Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision, Otterman and Associates 20 Unit Condominium Project, Final Desing Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.) Lot 6 Block 5 Wildridge Subdivision. Otterman and Associates 24 Unit Condominium Project Final Design Review Public Hearing _for Fractionalized Project (cont.) but feels that the advantages outweigh the additional site impact. Recommendation is that the clearly usable open space have less than a 5% grade, for indoor or outdoor passive and/or active recreation, this must be other than the parking lot, and that it is not less than 5% of the habitable area of the structure and easily accessible to all inhabitants.; 4. The covenants restrictions of covered parking need to to reconsidered, equal to 50% of covered parking would brinq it into more compatibility with existing development in Wildridge.; 5. The designation of at least one onsite manager, between Lot 3 and Lot b, for security reasons.; b. Construction of an off site turnaround as previously discussed with the applicant. Mark Donaldson stated that represents Ken Otterman and Associates, the developer of the project. He stated that both Ken Otterman and Tom Leroy were present also. Donaldson stated that they do not agree with the application of the new criteria and findings for fractionalization ordinance as applied to this project. He stated that the only provision of the newly revised fractionalization ordinance that would apply to this project, because it has already received preliminary approval, was the requirement for notice of public hearing. Regarding the Staff recommendations, item number one, they have no problem with addressing their concerns. He stated that he had given Norm Wood a letter from Intermountain Engineering, just received, regarding acknowledgement of Town Engineer's concerns and stating that they are in the process of modifying the design to conform to those concerns. He stated that, in view of the lengthy review of the preliminary approval, they do not agree with the incorporation of the clearly usable space as suggested. He stateu that they are surrounded by open space, natural forest and greenbelt and feel that anything they would do would only be a duplication. He stated that item number four, regarding the covenants, they have had discussions with Linda Rogers, benchmark Company, and she stated that they monitor the Town's process and take action when they feel necessary and that no action on their part is acknowledgement of approval on their part and they have not pressed the matter of covered parking. Regarding the site manager unit, there will be one, but it may rotate around. Donaldson stated that they were willing to participate to some degree with the construction of the offsite turnaround, however he feels that this is really not Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1988 Page 12 of 16 Lot 3 Block 5 Wildridge Subdivision Otterman and Associates 20 Unit Condominium Project, Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont._) Lot b Block 5 Wildridge Subdivision Otterman and Associates 24 Unit Condominium Project Final Design Review,_ Public Hearing for Fractional__ized Proiect (cant.) a problem of this developer. The road leading to this project simply comes from the wrong direction at this time. Eventually there is planned a Wildwood Station and that would be the most proximate station to respond at these two projects. They did widen the entrance radius and expand the access to both sites at the request of the Fire Department. He stated that Wood has suggested that there is an area that borders on the corner of the section of Wildridge Subdivision, and Forest Service that they are willing to build the area out and create the turnaround. Donaldson stated that they are not a rental project, they are a condominium project. Discussion followed on the open space question and the grading problems. Donaldson reviewed the conditions upon which the preliminary approval was granted. He stated that all conditions either have been met or are being worked out. Fritzlen stated that she thinks it is up to the Commission to deem whether it is appropriate that the approval for fractionalization be incorporated for the final review. Donaldson objected to this. Doll opened the public hearing. Gary Hill, a homeowner in Wildridge, objected to the size of the project and that is will not be compatible with future development. Greg Amsten stated that Ile wanted to make it known that he has no interest in the resale of the project, but that he feels there is a need for the housing in the valley. This project will provide housing at a reasonable rate for people in the Avon area. A good part of the buyers of this project will be locals and some outside investors. He described the values in Wildridge and stated that this project will determine a value for that area. He feels that this project could benefit everyone in the Town. Michael Ray, a property owner in Wildridge, stated that he feels this project is inappropriate for the area. He does not feel it is a good looking project. He feels that this project would effect his property values. He feels the Commission should consider the future development in Wildridge and how this project will effect it. Paul Jankowskus, a landowner in Wildridge, stated that he plans to build a house in the next year or so and he asked why so many units on so small an area. He feels it is not appropriate and will effect the quality of life in Wildridge. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 19ee Page 13 of 16 Lot 3 Block 5 Wildridge Subdivision, Otterman and Associates, 20 Unit Condominium Project Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.) Lot 6, Block 5 Wildridge Subdivision, Otterman and Associates 24 Unit Condominium Project Final Design Review Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.)_ John Singleton, a property owner in the Town of Avon, stated that he feels that the project is appropriate for the area. He feels it would be good business for the Town of Avon to have this project that would provide affordable housing. Torn Leroy commented on the design and the fact that they had addressed all the concerns voiced by the Commission prior to preliminary design approval and met all conditions required at time of preliminary design approval. There is another complex in the area that is similar in character and similar in total monolithic mass size. Mass size of this project is less than Gosshawk. Leroy stated they have met all requirements and they are not bringing a slum project. He stated that the number of units has already been approved and grandfathered. Jack Hunn, a property owner in Wildridge, stated that he had never heard of fractionalization when he purchased his property in Wildridge. He feels this project is inappropriate in scale and density. He believes that the Wildridge covenants should apply to this project. He reviewed various requirements of the covenants that this project does not meet. He agreed that there is a need for housing, but feels this is not the location for it. This type of housing should be developed in the mown proper. There have no proposals solving the need for mass transportation that will be necessary with this project. He stated that Heaver Creek, Arrowhead and The Town of Vail are obligated to provide employee housing when the need arises. He feels that less density on the site would be appropriate. He feels that the open space around the project is not usable. Discussion followed on the fact that the Town is not bound by the Wildridge covenants. The public asked that the letter from Linda Rogers be read for their benefit. Doll proceeded to read the letter. Wood stated that this letter should be treated as publjr_ input, the same as all the other comments received. Discussion followed on the open space around the property. Donaldson read a letter from Jim Nosaf into the ecord stating that he feels that a project such as this w well ovedue. Hunn stated that he feels the project might be workable if it was brought into conformance with the covenants guidelines. Doll closed the public hearing. Ken Utterman stated that the size of the building would not be any different if it were an eleven unit building or as Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1988 Page 14 of 16 Lot 3Block 5, Wildridoe Subdivision Otterman and Associates. 20 Unit Condominium Project. Final Design Review Public Hearing for Fraction:elized Project (cont_) Lot _6. Block 5. Wil drilea Subdivision, Otterman and Associate=., 24 Unit Condominium Project,Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.) proposed. He discussed the fractionalization law and the fact that the public had an opportunity to voice their opinions at the time this was trade a law. Further discussion followed on the open space land available around the project and Fritzlen pointed these lands out on the map provided. Reynolds commented on the massing of the building, snowstora.ge, parking and the corpatibility of the project . Discussion followed on these matters. Fritzlen again reviewed the difference:; of this project with other projects in the arec.: and the lack of amenities. Perkins commented on it not being the proper place for employee housing. He feels the site is too steep for this proposal. Donaldson reiterated that the project was granted preliminary approval an May 17, 1988 and the provisions for conforming were clearly stated. He stated that they had conformed to all provisions. Discussion followed on the turnaround for the emergency vehicle- and snowplow, the need for transportation, the need to address the 'sire protection concerns, the compatibility with the existing and potential development in the vicinity and the lack of unit mix. Leroy commented that not one property owner contiguious to the proposed complex has responded negatively. Mone of the proper'y owners at this meeting are contiguious to the proposed project. He reviewed the objectives of fractionalization. Doll asked Wood about the status of the drainage situation. Wood stated that the letter from lntermounatin Engineering takes it far enough that he feels reasonably comfortable with the concerns that have been addressed. Wood reaffirmed some of the actions taken by Council in the adoption of the amendments to the zoning code with regard to fractionalization. He stated that there was a specific amendment to the ordinance that Council adopted that exempted this project from the additional requirements with the reduction of unit numbers. This project was the only project that had received preliminary design approval prior to the adoption of the amendments. They did address the requirements for a public hearing, but that was the only Stipulation the Council placed on this application. Hill moved to deny the project for Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge on the basis that the proposed unit sizes and unit mix are Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1998 Page 15 of 16 Lot 3 Block 5 Wildrid a Subdivision Otterman and Associates 20 Unit Condominium Project Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.) Lot 6 Block 5 Wildridge Subdivisions OttLrman and Associates 24 Unit Condominium Project Final Design Review, Public Hearing for Fractionalized Project (cont.) not compatible with the existing and potential development in the vicinity. Furthermoro*, this project does not minimize site impacts to adjacent properties or the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent or neighboring properties and public ways as stated in the Design Guidelines Sections 6.13 and 6.15. Additionally, the proposed improvements are not compatible with the site topography as required in Design Guidelines Section 6.14. Landauer seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Hill moved to to deny the project for Lot 6, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision on the basis that the proposed unit sizes and unit mix are not compatible with the existing and potential development in the vicinity. Furthermore, this project does not minimize site impacts to adjacent properties or the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent or neighboring properties and public ways as stated in the Design Guidelines Sections 6.13 and 6.15. Additionally, th% proposed improvements are not compatible with the site topography as required in Design Guidelines Section 6.14. Landauer seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reading and Approval of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of 7/5/88 Reynolds moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Landauer seconded. The motion passed unanimously. With no other buisness to Reynolds seconded. The meeting was adjourned Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary discuss, Landauer moved to adjourn. at 11:30 PM. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1988 Page 16 of 16 Comf P. I T. I F. J. D. C. A.