Loading...
PZC Minutes 111588RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on November 15, 1988, at 7:35 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Pat Cuny. Members Present: Frank Doll, Pat Cuny, Denise Hill, John Perkins, Buz Reynolds, Clayton McRory, Tom Landauer Staff Present: Lynn Fritzlen, Department of Community Development, Norm Wood, Director of Community Development, Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Center Building. Les of Special Review Use Lynn Fritzlen stated that the Commission had been provided with new first pages of the stRff report showing corrected figures. She stated that Les Shapiro, on behalf of Jerry Vekre, Jerry's Auto Repair, has requested to modify the original application by Staff approval. The original application indicated a 2100 square foot space on the first floor of the building and that is the present location of Jerry's Auto Repair. The business is requesting to move to the basement where there is 7920 square feet of space that was previously approved as mini -storage and had no parking requirements associated with it. The applicant has submitted a plan that allocates 1/3 of the space for parking, 1/3 of the space to a drive aisle, and 1/3 of the space to work area. The area for parking can accommodate 12 cars per Town of Avon parking standards. The space also has in place a mechanical exhausting system that is designed to expel automobile fumes. At present this system is not utilized. Fritzlen stated that some of the impetus behind this move came through the building department in that there were a number of regulations that the applicant had to meet in order to get the proper exhausting and heating system. The move will lessen the burden on the applicant to make improvements related to building code compliance. She pointed out on the 1 Planning and November 15, Page 2 of 12 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1968 on the plans provided, the previous space that was approved and the proposed new space, describing the differences in the access to each space. She stated that the 7920 square feet would require 23.76 cars. She stated that the total requirement for the site, without Jerry's is 45.17. If the Commission finds it reasonable, to credit the use of 12 parking spaces which the applicant has indicated on the drawing, the total add would be 11.76 parking spaces, for a total required parking spaces for the entire complex of 56.93 and a total available for the approved site plan is 57. She stated that t1:e applicant has requested modification by staff approval, but the regulations say: Subsection 17.20.020 of the Town of Avon Municipal Code - "No approved Special Review Use may be modified, structurally enlarged, or expanded in ground area unless such modification, enlargement or expansion receives the prior approval of the Design Review Board and the Town Council by this repetition of the granting procedure pro✓ided in this chapter." Which means it would require another public hearing. It would require that the applicant apply for a new Special Review Use. The applicant would not be able to receive final approval until December 13, 1988 if a new application is required. She stated that the applicant feels that this is unduly burdensome and points out that the Resolution does not specify the location of the physical space within the Mountain Center Building. Fritzlen stated that the use is in conformance with the Zoning Code. As proposed the solution would lessen parking impacts to the site. The proposed location improves circulation by separating Jerry's Auto Repair auto access from other tenants. The visual appearance presumably is improved by keeping more of the cars out of sight. She stated that the staff recommendation is that if the Commission feels that the application falls within the discretionary powers of the staff, it is recommended that the staff be authorized to provide approval as a modification to the original application. She felt that this was reasonable in that to some extent they are mitigating the impacts that they had prior to this. She stated that she also spoke to Jeff Spanel of Inter -Mountain Engineering, which is the unit next to the proposed space. His main concern was the control of fumes between the spaces. Wood stated that there should be a clarification on the staff r! r; ®1 i Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November '1E, 1988 Page 3 of 12 Lot 26/27 Block 1. recommendation. It shouldn't be an approval for the staff to modify. What is needed is an interpretation from the Commission that it is in conformance with the Special Review Use. The original application did not identify a specific space and so the use has not changed. Discussion followed on the mini -storage and parking requirements. Jerry Vekre stated that. he feels the basement will work much better for his business, as far as getting the cars in and out, his customers will not be blocking any other parking spaces. Discussion followed on the exhaust system in the proposed space. Vekre stated that the system is adequate. He stated that the building inspector suggested that he put a tube down the wall so that the exhaust fan can be turned on and still save the heat. Doll asked if they wi:l require any outdoor parking. Vekre stated that they would still need some. They will be able to store more inside, but will still need to store some outside. Discussion followed on this matter. The SRU and the use of the outside parking will come up for review in June. Discussion followed on the idea of parking all cars inside. Vekre stated that this was very hard to do. Shapiro stated that the outside lot is only a temporary measure, when the next Phase is built, there will be more parking provided for Jerry's around the rear. Discussion followed on the procedure for handling this matter without having the applicant apply for a new Special Review Use. Discussion followed on the comparison of the two spaces and the parking requirements for the spaces. Doll moved to find this change in spaces in conformance with the Special Review Use previously approved. Landauer seconded. Fritzlen asked that the findings be included in the motion. Perkins requested that the applicant give the building C_ 7 �1 4W1 •1 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 15, 1988 Page 4 of 12 e0 Wu 17 department some sort of documentation that the mechanical equipment in the building is adequate to meet the mechanical code. The applicant agreed to do so. of Doll amended his motion to include the findings in the staff report as follows: Section 6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. - The use is in conformance with the Zoning Code. As proposed the solution would lessen parking impacts to the site. Section 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with site topography. - Proposed location improves circulation by separating Jerry's Auto Repair auto access from other tenants. Section 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. - More cars will be out of sight, presumably a visual asset to the development as a whole. Landauer seconded the amendment. The motion carried unanimously. Fritzlen stated that Don Tandy is requesting a sign variance for his newly located barber shop in space M 102B of the Benchmark Shopping Center. Mr. Tandy is proposing to mount a barber pole nest to the entry of his business. Our sign code defines sign as "a means of identification ... that directs attention to a... place, activity ... or business. She stated that she took the interpretation that the barber pole was a sign. The barber pole is in addition to the 10 square feet of signage allowed pf-r the approved sign program for the Benchmark Shopping Center. The sign area of the pole, per our sign code is 5 square feet, which is the greatest amount of area you can see from one point of view. The pole is internally lit and is stationary. She stated that barber poles are a universally recognized symbol of a barber shop. The goal of the sign program is to regulate visual clutter and discourage an environment dominated by competing signage. Symbols or signs that have an accepted meaning are less likely to confuse and more likely to effectively communicate. She stated that she felt that a barber pole is a fitting symbol in the context of a shopping center with a variety of uses. Staff recommends approval of the sign variance as Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes November 15, 1988 Page 5 of 12 submitted. She asked Mr. Tandy if his identification sign would comply with the Benchmark Shopping Center sign program. He stated it would. Discussion followed on the location of the barber shop. Perkins asked whore the pole would be mounted. Mr. Tandy stated just in front of the shop, but one of his concerns is that he wants to mount it high enough that no one will walk into it. He displayed the actual barber pole for the Commission. Cuny stated that there is a letter from the manager, Mike Phillips, who agrees with tha application. Perkins moved to approve Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Benchmark Shopping Center, Barber Pole Sign Variance Request as presented. Landauer seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Amendment to Wildridge SPA, Public Hearing Fritzlen stated that Linda Roger, on behalf of Section 36, Inc. is requesting a zone change to transfer one unit from Lot 64, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, which currently has four residential development rights, to Lot 23, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, which currently has two residential development rights. Lot 64 is a .52 acre lot with grades of 3% to 10% over the entirety of the lot and approximately 320 lineal feet of street frontage. She then pointed out Lot 64 and Lot 23 on the map. She stated that Lot 23 is 1.40 acres. She stated that Lot 23 has grades of approximately 10% to 15% over the lower half of the lot and grades of over 30% over the upper half of the lot. She stated that Lot 23 has a public access easement along it's western edge that constitutes approximately .12 acres. Lot frontage is equal to 25 feet outside of public access easement. She stated that Lot 23 has approximately the same buildable area, i.e. lot area under 30%, as Lot 64, but not the street frontage that is desirable for efficient site vehicular circulation on a multi -unit project. If Lot 23 were to receive a third unit the parcel could be fractionalized and therefore up to seven residential units could be built on the site. Lot 23 presently has two units assigned to it. Planning and November 15, Page 6 of 12 zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1988 Parcels with two or less units cannot be fractiona'ized. Fritzlen stated that the application is in conformance with applicable codes. It is a residential use that is being transferred in a residential neighborhood. Regarding the compatibility of the proposed improvements, Lot 64 is more suitable for higher density than Lot 23 due to its generous street frontage and gentler topography. Regarding the objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired, Lot 23 would be one of six properties in Block 4 that has more than two residential units assigned tc it. The proposed transfer of density, is within Block 4. She then described the area that constitutes Block 4. Perkins asked her to point out the lots that have more than two units allowed. Fritzlen stated that they tend to be more in the southern area of Block 4. She stated Lot 39, Lot 42 and 43, Lot 64, Lot 89 and 90 were the six lots. Fritzlen stated that the recommendation is approval, with the condition that the site may not be fractionalized. Cuny stated that a Resolution has been provided if this request is approved. Perkins asked if this condition was acceptable to the people that are wanting to enter into this transaction. Linda Rogers, representing Section 36, Inc. stated that Allan Nottingham, who is purchasing, or purchased today, Lot 23, Block 4, wanted an additional unit to store, to use elsewhere at a future time. At the same time they had someone ask to trade Lot 64, for another lot that they were intrested in, in Wildridge. About a week later Henry Wolff called and said the Town of Avon said call you, you have a unit. So we were able to come up with a residential development right for Henry Wolff and a residential development right for Allan Nottingham, but under the Town of Avon requirement that no residential development right float, we had to assign it somewhere. We decided that the best thing to do would be to transfer it to Lot 23, Block 4, having no intention of raising the matter of fractionalization. She stated that Allan Nottingham has committed to no fractionalization, now or ever. She stated that she believed that he has written a letter to that effect. Cuny asked Nottingham if he could live with the recommendation of Staff that the lot cannot be fractionalized. Nottingham replied absolutely. He stated that he would never Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 15, 1988 Page 7 of 12 consider that and will go on record stating that Lot 23 will never be fractionalized and only two units will be built on it, not three. Cuny then opened the Public Hearing. Robert Gosiewski stated that he had provided a letter to the staff today. H stated that he was representing the nine people that are within 300 feet of the proposed transfer. Out of the nine, five are against approval if a three-plex or fractionalization is allowed on that lot. He stated that none of the people would have a problem if Mr. Nottingham would produce a letter stating that neither three units or fractionalization would occur on that lot. He stated that he did not want anything decided until such a letter is produced. He stated that he owns Lot 22 and he is the agent of Larry Goad, Lot 15; Carol French, Lot 16; Darrell Hanna, Lot 24; and there is a consensus from Gary Hill, who is present. Larry Goad stated that he had thought he would not be able to be here, :.herefore he had given his approval for Mr. Gosiewski to act as his agent. He stated that he has talked with Mr. Nottingham and he believes that he will produce the letter as requested. Technically, Mr. Nottingham cannot produce such a letter until the deed is filed. He stated that 'e has no problems under the circumstances. Cuny asked if there were any other comments or calls on this matter. There being none, she then closed the public hearing. McRory asked what would happen if Mr. Nottingham sold the property to someone else. Could they in turn fractionalize it? Gosiewski stated that the letter is to include Mr. Nottingham or his assigns". This is the important verbage of the letter. This would mean that the restriction would be included with any sale of the property. Cuny asked if this restriction is included in the Resolution. Fritzlen stated that she sees it as the same as with the covenants, in that it is not up to the Town to enforce a private deed restriction on property. Cuny asked if the Commission approves the Resolution and are saying that there is to be no fractionalization could be made perpetual for whoever owns that lot. Planning and November 15, Page 8 of 12 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1988 Amendment to Wildridge SPA, Public Hearing. (cont.) Wood stated that, while you are looking at this as a Special Review Use, you are: also looking at a recommendation for a zone change and so if it is attached to the zoning that it cannot be fractionalized, that becomes part of the Zoning Ordinance, so no matter who owns it, it cannot be fractionalized. Hill asked if it could also be stated, not more than two units? Wood stated that this is something that should be checked with the Town Attorney, but he does not believe that limitation can be put on the property by the Town, because you are saying here is three development rights, but you can't put more than two units on it. This will be in the letter from Mr. Nottingham. Discussion followed on the way development rights were assigned and the problems with the possibility of a third unit on Lot 23. Wood stated that if a document is recorded with the County that says that only two units will be built there, it will baa enforceable by the Town. Nottingham stated that as soon as he is the legal owner of the lot, he will execute the letter. Cuny stated that this is only a recommendation to the Council, that the Council will have to look at the application at their next meeting. Wood stated that since it requires an ordinance it will require two Council meetings for approval and this would require a public hearing. Reynolds moved to approve Resolution No. 88-9 with the stipulation that Mr. Nottingham's letter be attached to this resolution. Doll seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Fritzlen stated that Linda Rogers, on behalf of Section 36, Inc., and Henry Wolff and Ester Wolff, is requesting a Planning and November 15, Page 9 of 12 "'. Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1988 the IC Zone District (cont.) Special Review Use from Lot 64, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, of one residential development right and a residential use in connection with a business on Lot 23, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, commonly known as the Wolff Warehouse. Section 36, Inc. is the owner of the residential development right and the Wolffs are owners of Lot 23. She then pointed out Lot 64, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision and Lot 23, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, on the map. Transfer of residential development rights in other than a SPA and a residential use in connection with a business district are both Special Review Uses. Residential uses not in connection with a business are not allowed in an IC Zone District. Residential use in connection with a business would typically be restricted to employees of the business, therefore offsetting additional parking needs. Currently there exists a two bedroom residential unit on the second floor of the building as indicated on the plan with the staff report. She described where the unit was. She stated, in terms of conformance, if the use is limited to the employees of the businesses, no additional parking will be required. Approval of Special Review Use should be contingent upon compliance with current building codes. Particular areas of concern are egress, and fire protection for the residential use. In that this is not new construction it is important that it be determined that it is suitable to a residential use and not grandfathered in under the building code. The staff recommendation is approval of both Special Review Uses conditioned by the following: Residential use is restricted to employees of the tenant businesses and residential use comply with all current technical codes adopted by the Town of Avon. The third recommendation is to adopt Resolution 88-10 which incorporates the above conditions. Linda Rogers, on behalf of Section 36, Inc., stated that Henry Wolff had called her regarding purchasing a residential development right, so he could comply with the: Town requirements. She stated that that is about the extent of her knowledge regarding this matter. The Wolffs were not oresent to answer questions from the Commission. Cuny opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was any one in the audience that wished to comment. There being none, she asked if the staff had received any correspondence or -N Planning and November 15, Page 10 of 12 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1988 calls. The Secretary stated that she had received one call from Gallegos Masonry, wanting to know which lot was involved. She stated that she had informed him that he was free to come to the meeting if he had any concerns, but he didn't seem to have any. Cuny then closed the Public Hearing. The question was asked on how this unit came about. It was stated that it had been included when the warehouse was built and it was never a legal unit. Discussion followed on the illegal use of the unit followed. Discussion followed on how to police the use. Wood stated that as well as he remembers, the unit was originally put in as an office. It could be used as an office and parking has been calculated for that space. Cuny asked if Mr Wolff had indicated to Fritzlen that he would use the unit as employee housing? Fritzlen stated that he was made aware of the restriction. Linda Rodgers stated that when iA . Wolff called her he told her that he had to have employee housing. It was the general consensus that he is a very difficult man to understand and that no one was sure that he understands. Doll asked if it would cause any problems for anybody if this application is approved? Further discussion followed on the conditions of the Resolution. The general concern was whether Mr. Wolff would abide by the restriction of residential use for only employees. Perkins move to approve the Special Review Use for the transfer of one residential development right from Lot 64, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, to Lot 23, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, as presented with the attached conditions and the Staff recommendations as presented in Resolution 88-10. Doll seconded. The motion carried, with Reynolds and McRory voting nay. Reading and Approval of the Planning and Zoning Minutes of 11/1/88 Regular Meeting Hill moved to approve the minutes of November 1, 1988. McRory seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 15, 1988 Page 11 of 12 Other Business It was decided that there would be no worksession on December 6, 1988. Cuny asked if Fritzlen had checked with Joe McGrath on any of the other business question from the last meeting. Fritzlen reported that a certificate of occupancy was not required on a R3 or single family residence, therefore, Chris Ekrem is allowed to reside in the residence without a certificate of occupancy. Cuny asked about the screening for the dumpster at Wal-Mart. Fritzlen stated that they are still checking on this matter. Doll asked why there are still six trailers parked over there? Fritzlen was asked to check on it. Perkins asked about the policy for putting a mobile home on a temporary basis on a site in the Town of Avon? Fritzlen stated that there is only one area that is zoned for that. Construction trailers can be allowed on a site. The Catholic Church has a mobile home that they may want to use as an office, on a temporary basis. Fritzlen stated that Pat Barron, Otis Company, was in attendance to present some new drawings. He proceeded to explain the proposed access as requested by the Town. He stated that it is their desire to get the project approved so that they can open on June 1st. He proceeded to describe the redesign..=d commecial building. Discussion followed on the back of the building. Discussion followed on the covered walkway. Landauer stated that he seemed to be contradicting himself in that he said that they could put glass around the back and basically have two fronts and then he stated that they would have the trash and loading in the back. He then asked about the request for a walkway through the building. He also asked about fire truck access around the back of the building. Barron stated that part of the back of the building will be fronted, but the rest will be for trash and loading. He stated that he did not know why they eliminated the walkway through the building. The backside of the building is a concern of the Commission. Perkins asked about the design for the fast food building and if it would be compatible with the oroposed commercial building. He stated that he thought it would be compatible. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes November 15, 1988 Page 12 of 12 other Business (cont. Considerable discussion followed on the proposed accesses and the adjourning properties as shown on the plans provided. Further discussion followed on the building design. The Commission stated that they would like to see more details. Landauer moved to adjourn. Doll seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, 12 Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Comi P. T. F. J. D. C. A.