Loading...
PZC Minutes 031882RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MARCH 18, 1982, 7:30 P. M. The regular meeting of the Design Review Board of Avon was held on March 18, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill Pierce. Let the record show that members present were: Cheryl Dingwell, Tommy Landauer, Bob Zeeb, Bill Pierce, Mike Blair, Jerry Davis, Jim Meehan. Staff Members present: Terrill Knight, Dick Evans, Norm Wood, Art Abplanalp. Art explained that certain lots within the original town plat were not bound by densities because the owners of the lots at the time of platting were not signatory to the plat. The purpose of the Ordinance is to include those densities by reference within the zoning code in addition to the present town plat by including density limitations in the zoning code it would then be enforceable against those properties. The adoption of this Ordinance would establish or recognize the densities designated on the town plat. Also recognizes past conveyances between property owners and recognizes the ability of transferring densities. Larry Kueter (Attorney from Denver representing Roadcal) - stated that Lots 29, 30, 31 b 32, of Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, makeup the six acres of land located at the southwest corner of the main entrance to the town and Interstate Highway. The six acres are presently zoned in the RHDC district. We are opposed to the Ordinance due to the effect it will have on Roadcal's property. Feels their client is not bound by the terms of the Benchmark Subdivision Plat with regard to the densities on it because the owners of the property had not signed that document. We ask that it not be approved because of the impact it may have on the ability of Roadcal to develop that hotel on that site. It is surounded by Town Center zoning on one side and the interstate and main access to town on the other. Feels this is a logical location for a major destination type hotel. Sixty units is inappropriate for the six acres. The land will be wasted. We don't think this should be recommended to the Town Council for adoption but would suggest that the Ordinance either be denied or defer it while there is a chance to look at the proposal submitted. Bill Pierce asked if Roadcal transferred units to Christie Lodge frDm the original zoning plat. Larry Kueter - At the time Roadcal did that, it was assumed that the densities applied to everyone. In reviewing all the documents, the 340 unit limitation on the town plat to all the lots owned by Roadcal did not apply because of the lack of signatures of owners on the documents. The transfer by Roadcal to U S Home was made in good faith, believing they were bound at that time. Bill Pierce - stated that the zoning ordinance refers to average allowable density per acre rather than specific allowable density. Bob Zeeb made a motion to allow the Town Attorney to be authorized to prepare a Resolution recommending approval of the Ordinance under consideration to the Town Council. Motion was seconed by Jerry Davis. Passed unanimously. draft Art Abplanalp s:vted that he had apResolution that would meet the Board's requirements and if adopted would be presented to the Council. Cheryl motioned to adopt the following Resolution: 1981, at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill Pierce. Let the record show that members present were: Cheryl Dingwell, Tommy Landauer, Bob Zeeb, Bill Pierce, Mike Blair, Jerry Davis, Jim Meehan. Staff Members present: Terrill Knight, Dick Evans, Norm Wood, Art Abplanalp. Item No. 1, Discussion of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1982, "An Ordinance emending Chapter 17.20 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Avon as it O I ertains to allowed densities." (Public Hearing) Art explained that certain lots within the original town plat were not bound by densities because the owners of the lots at the time of platting were not signatory to the plat. The purpose of the Ordinance is to include those densities by reference within the zoning code in addition to the present town plat by including density limitations in the zoning code it would then be enforceable against those properties. The adoption of this Ordinance would establish or recognize the densities designated on the town plat. Also recognizes past conveyances between property owners and recognizes the ability of transferring densities. Larry Kueter (Attorney from Denver representing Roadcal) - stated that Lots 29, 30, 31 & 32, of Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, makeup the six acres of land located at the southwest corner of the main entrance to the town and Interstate Highway. The six acres are presently zoned in the RHDC district. We are opposed to the Ordinance due to the effect it will have on Roadcal's property. Feels their client is not bound by the terms of the Benchmark Subdivision Plat with regard to the densities on it because the owners of the property had not signed that document. We ask that it not be approved because of the impact it may have on the ability of Roadcal to develop that hotel on that site. It is surounded by Town Center zoning on one side and the interstate and main access to town on the other. Feels this is a logical location for a major destination type hotel. Sixty units is inappropriate for the six acres. The land will be wasted. We don't think this should be recommended to the Town Council for adoption but would suggest that the Ordinance either be denied or defer it while there is a chance to look at the proposal submitted. Bill Pierce asked if Roadcal transferred units to Christie Lodge from the original zoning plat. Larry Kueter - At the time Roadcal did that, it was assumed that the densities applied to everyone. In reviewing all the documents, the 340 unit limitation on the town plat to all the lots owned by Roadcal did not apply because of the lack of signatures of owners on the documents. The tran8fer by Roadcal to U S Home was made in good faith, believing they were bound at that time. Bill Pierce - stated that the zoning ordinance refers to average allowable density per acre rather than specific allowable density. Bob Zeeb made a motion to allow the Town Attorney to be authorized to prepare a Resolution recommending approval of the Ordinance under consideration to the Town Council. Motion was seconed by Jerry Davis. Passed unanimously. draft Art Abplanalp stated that he had ap Resolution that would meet the Board's requirements and if adopted would be presented to the Council. Cheryl motioned to adopt the following Resolutioe;• WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Avon has reviewed a draft Ordinance amending the Zoning Code of the Town of Avon, and entitled, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17.21 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Avon As It Pertains To Allowed Densities, and -1- [so WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Avon heard public comment on the said draft Ordinance at its regularly scheduled public hearing on the 18th day of March, 1982, and has considered such testimony, and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Avon has determined that the proposed Ordinance is necessary and in the best interests of the Town of Avon, and further is consistent with past and present interpretations of to the Zoning Code of the Town of Avon, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board of the Town of. Avon, that the Board recommend that the Town Council. adopt an Ordinance 40Amending Chapter 17.20 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Avon As It Pertains 1� to Allowed Densities." The motion was seconded by Bob Zeeb, passed unanimously. 2 Market Martin Jones made the presentation. Would like for the Design Review Beard to approved the Garden Center at City Market which will essentially be the same operation as last year. There is an error on the application which states they are requesting 5400 square feet of commercial space. Only requesting 3600 square feet. The time period will be from April 15, 1982 thru October 31, 1982. Proposing a modular with a fence for the purpose of selling bedding plants, nursery stock and associated materials. City Market has supplied a letter allowing this to happen. Terrill Knight - The Board should consider that the applicant is requesting this approval for more than one year although City Markets agreement is on a year-to-year basis. Commercial uses are allowed. Could be approved as a permanent use. One concern is that the Design Review Board be sure the paperwork is done correctly so that if there is any change, the permit would end. The sign should be reviewed on a separate basis. Last year it was done with the Special Review Use. Needs to be done more properly. In addition, under the standard regulation, 3600 sq. ft. of commercial space would require nine (9) parking spaces. These should be committed by the owner of the lot. The 3600 sq. ft. includes all sales area inside and outside. Seems to be a logical location. Before the sign is approved the Board would need a more detailed scale and more information. Bill Pierce - The Board should address the Special Review Use issue, whether this particular use should be permitted on this site and whether the parking adjustments are proper. Martin Jones stated that the use will be the same as last year. Jerry Davis - asked if it is approved for more than a year, would the applicant consider building a more permanent structure? Martin Jones - stated he would but City riacket doesn't want to make long term committments because of the parking. Art stated that the Special Use permit applys to the land rather than the person. Mayor Alpi stated that the Garden Center was done nicely last year. They never had any complaints regarding the business and the Town welcomed the sales tax that was generated. As far as the long term committment, doesn't know if the Town Council would look favorable up.n. it. Cheryl Dingwell - made a motion to approve the Special Review Use for this year only as requested by the applicant with the building the same as last year. Seconded by Tommy, passed unanimously. The Sign would need to go through standard sign requirements. Only would be allowed 12 square feet if apl:roved by the DRB. Applicant needs to make a separate application. Amending Chapter 17.20 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Avon As It Pertains to Allowed Densities." The motion was seconded by Bob Zeeb, passed unanimously. Item No. 2. Planters of Vail Martin Jones made the presentation. Would like for the Design Review Board to approved the Garden Center at City Market which will essentially be the same operation as last year. There is an error on the application which states they are requesting 5400 square feet of commercial space. Only requesting 3600 square feet. The time period will be from April 15, 1982 thru October 31, 1982. Proposing a modular with a fence for the purpose of selling bedding plants, nursery stock and associated materials. City Market has supplied a letter allowing this to happen. Terrill Knight - The Board should consider that the applicant is requesting this approval for more than one year although City Markets agreement is on a year-to-year basis. Commercial uses are allowed. Could be approved as a permanent use. One concern is that the Design Review Board be sure the paperwork is done correctly so that if there is any change, the permit c4oieid end. The sign should be reviewed on a separate basis. Last year it was done with the Special Review Use. Needs to be done more properly. In addition, under the standard regulation, 3600 sq. ft. of commercial space would require nine (9) parking spaces. These should be committed by the owner of the lot. The 3600 sq. ft. includes all sales area inside and outside. Seems to be a logical location. Before the sign is approved the Board would need a more detailed scale and more information. Bill Pierce - The Board should address the Special Review Use issue, whether this particular use should be permitted on this site and whether the parking adjustments are proper. Martin Jones stated that the use will be the same as last year. Jerry Davis - asked if it is approved for more than a year, would the applicant consider building a more permanent structure? Martin Jones - stated he would but City Market doesn't want to make long term committments because of the parking. Art stated that the Special Use permit applys to the land rather than the perP,,n. Mayor Alpi stated that the Garden Center was done nicely last year. They never had any complaints regarding the business and the Town welcomed the sales tax that was generated. As far as the long term committment, doesn't know if the Town Council would look favorable upon it. Cheryl Dingweli - made a motion to approve the Special Review Use for this year only as requested by the applicant with the building the same as last year. Seconded by Tommy, passed unanimously. The Sign would need to go through standard sign requirements. Only would be allowed 12 square feet if approved by the DRB. Applicant needs to make a separate application. Units Bill Pierce stated that due to the Conflict of Interest Ordinance that has been passed, this item is to be tabled until the next regular meeting due to not being notified in sufficient time period. -2- OOWN ,ro^i Review Lot 10, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Nyle No. U -J -b. Eddie Dan'.el represented Mr. Henry Wolf. Would like to build four units to help the housing situation of his employees of the High Country Warehouse. Exterior materials will be brick for first level, stucco on the second level, cedar shake roof, wood trim around the windows and on the soffets and facias. The frontside of the building is the road elevation. Backside will show only one level and will be all brick. Tommy Landauer felt that it looked like another warehouse. The garages are all under the building. Bill Pierce agreed and suggested maybe doing something with the roof. The building needs more visual interest. Terrill Knight - It is under the proper zone district and does meet the general zoning requirements. Feels it is admirable that this is committed to employee housing, yet that can't play a part unless there is some kind of long term committment. Norm Wood commented that there will have to be something done with the grading and drainage because of the water cominu off the hill and being diverted around and also will have to be careful with grading into the parking lot off the street because of the steepness of the hill which may mean a steep grade or a lot of excavation. Terrill explained to Mr. Wolf that the issue is the building program and the reason the Board can't tell him exactly how to build the building is because each one may have a different idea. He suggested that Mr. Wolf may decide to change the plans based on the comments that have been heard by the members and re -submit again. The Board did not agree with the concept and suggested that some changes be made and then come back. No action by the Board. Item No. 5. Avon Center Main Project Sign & Snow Fences, Lot A, Block Nick Dalba made the presentation. Requesting approval to put up the main sign and also approval to put up snow guards. Because of the problem of snow flying off the roofs, it is being proposed that these snow guards be put up for next year. Especially for the Post Office area. Concerned with the safety of people. They will be painted to match the roofs. Jim Meehan stated that a structural calculation should be performed to make sure that the butterfly bolts can support the load. The weight of the snow is going to be on the stops. The Board had no objections to granting approval for the installation of the snow fences on the roofs of the Avon Center building as needed. They are to be painted to match the color of the roof and is to be properly engineered to resist shearing off. Main Project Sign - proposing approximately fifty square feet. It will be located on the northern most property line. It will be stone and a part of the landscape. Similar to to Beaver Creek entrance sign. Terrill Knight - size of the sign meets requirements. The total sign program was approved by the Board earlier, so this should be included as an amendment to the program. It appears to be built up on a berm and the sign is about four feet above the berm. There may be a sight distance problem. Norm Wood - could be a potential problem with the cars coming from the west creating a blind spot for cars pulling out. Nick suggested that he and Norm meet at the site and look to see if it needs to be moved back or to another location. If that is what needs to be done then it will be done. Bill Pierce stated that if the sign is moved to another location, then a new site plan will have to be submitted showing the proper location. Nick stated that this sign is for the first building only. Terrill stated that 64square feet is based on the building or the lot. These are separate buildings and lots. Could have a maximum of 3 signs. Flags - Nick stated that they would like to put up flags such as an American, a Coloradi and whatever group of people may be staying in the building. Also Tommy Landauer felt that it looked like another warehouse. The garages are all under the building. Bill Pierce agreed and suggested maybe doing something with the roof. The building needs more visual interest. Terrill Knight - It is under the proper zone district and does meet the general zoning requirements. Feels it is admirable that this is committed to employee housing, yet that can't play a part unless there is some kind of long term committment. Norm Wood commented that there will have to be something done with the grading and drainage because of the water coming off the hill and being diverted around and also will have to be careful with grading into the parking lot off the street because of the steepness of the hill which may mean a steep grade or a lot of excavation. Terrill explained to Mr. Wolf that the issue is the building progrsm and the reason the Board can't tell him exactly how to build the building is because each one may have a different idea. He suggested that Mr. Wolf may decide to change the plans based on the comments that have been heard by the members and re -submit again. The Board did not agree with the concept and suggested that some changes be made and then come back. No action by the Board. Center Main Project _Sign S Snow Fences, Lot A, Block 2, Nick Dalba made the presentation. Requesting approval to put up the main sign and also approval to put up show guards. Because of the problem of snow flying off the roofs, it is being proposed that these snow guards be put up for next year. Especially for the Post Office area. Concerned with the safety of people. They will be painted to match the roofs. Jim Meehan stated that a structural calculation should be performed to make sure that the butterfly bolts can support the load. The weight of the snow is going to be on the stops. The Board had no objections to granting approval for the installation of the snow fences on the roofs of the Avon Center building as needed. They are to be painted to match the color of the roof and is to be properly engineered to resist shearing off. Main Project Sign - proposing approximately fifty square feet. It will be located on the northern most property line. It will be stone and a part of the landscape. Similar to to Beaver Creek entrance sign. Terrill Knight - size of the sign meets requirements. The total sign program was approved by the Board earlier, so this should be included as an amendment to the program. It appears to be built up on a berm and the sign is about four feet above the berm. There may be a sight distance problem. Norm Wood - could be a potential. problem with the cars coming from •.he west creating a blind spot for cars pulling out. Nick suggested that he and Norm meet at the site and look to see if it needs to be moved back or to another location. If that is what needs to be done then it will be done. Bill Pierce stated that if the sign is moved to anot'ier location, then a new site plan :ill have to be submitted showing the proper location. Nick stated that this sign is for the first building only. Terrill stated that 64square feet is 'cased on the building or the lot. These are separate buildings and lots. Could have a maximum of 3 signs. Flags - Nick stated that they would like to put up flags such as an American, a Colorado and whatever group of people may be staying in the building. Also would like to put up Avon Center @ Beaver Creek flags. The ordinance doesn't say anything about. flags. The poles will be the same as in the mall. Terrill stated that Avon Center @ Beaver Creek flags could be considered signs. Suggested that this matter be discussed at a later date due to not being on the agenda. Needs to apply under a new application. Nick requested to be put on the next meeting. -3- A" ^^ Buzz Reynolds Jr. made the presentation. Requesting approval to put skylights in the duplex. There are a total of 9 skylights 24" x 48" in size. There are also two solar panels under the deck (4' x 8' each) which can't been seen by any adjacent lots. The skylights will be clear. Aluminium finish with no sheen. Mike Blair commented that the covenants should be checked to see if this is allowable. The Board granted approval for the skylights and solar panels. Secretary is to notify the Wildridge Committee of the Board's approval. No 7, Pacific Heritage Extension of time for 2 Office Trailers 4_ Ronehmnr4 Ruhdivinion. File No. 82-3-8. Richard Langston made the presentation. Requesting approval from the DRB to extend the time period for 2 office trailers. There are presently 4 trailers. They will be pulling 2 of the trailers out and leaving 2 for general office space for Pacific Heritage Corporation. Would like an extension for 9 months. Originally, the trailers were allowed on the site until they built an office building on Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision. Due to the economic situation in the past 12 months they have not been able to build. At the present time they cannot make a committment as to when an office will be built. The trailers have been used as general offices for Pacific Heritage. Tommy Landauer - stated that the trailers should not be allowed to stay if they are not planning to build the office building. Jerry Davis agreed. Terrill Knight - the Ordinance does not allow office trailers on any lot. Both the Town Council and the Design Review Board have determined that sometimes these are needed. The applicant needs to follow the proper standards for permanent buildings such as driveways, parking, and in some cases landscaping. Some of the Board members were concerned with the business being conducted from these trailers. Terrill stated that the Board is supposed to be concerned with the design and visual effect of the trailers only. Bill Pierce suggested that the zoning ordinance be modified, if the Board desires, to have sales trailers for a specific project that has been approved on a site that the project will occupy. Jerry made a motion to approve a six month extension of time for the Pacific Heritage trailers with the assumption that because of the financial hardship that they are claiming, that they be allowed to continue the use of t,tose trailers and at that time, if we so desire we can discontinue that use. Motion was seconded by Bob. (3 voted yes, 4 voted no. motion did not pass). Mike motioned to approve the application for an extension for office trailers on Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision for six month period as they were originally approved. Seconded by Jim. Passed unanimously. Approval was granted for six (6) months until October 1, 1982. Item No. 8, Avon Commercial Complex, (ROADCAL) Lots 29-32, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-3-11. Steve Isom of i -plan, inc., stated he was working on the overall design and planning of the complex. They met with the Town Council worl.shop on 1/29/82 to discuss the ramifications of what was found legally dealing with the regulations of the Town of Avon, and also to give them an overview of the proposal. They received various comments from some of the Council Members such as the Council should look at it on its own merit. The Council was concerned with how this could be done legally. One way would be to actually go ahead as we feel we have a legal right for a zoning of RHDC which would allow a mixture of 75 hotel units per acre or 25 condo units per acre. Based ou that the Developer decided to submit to the DRB a proposal of what is intended for the site. Proposing 50 condo units, 299 hotel units, approximately 75,000 square feet of The Board granted approval for the skylights and solar panels. Secretary is to notify the Wildridge Committee of the Board's approval. Item No. 7. Pacific Heritage, Extension of time for 2 Office Richard Langston made the presentation. Requesting approval from the DRB to extend the time period for 2 office trailers. There are presently 4 trailers. They will be pulling 2 of the trailers out and leaving 2 for general office space for Pacific Heritage Corporation. Would like an extension for 9 months. Originally, the trailers were allowed on the site until they built an office building on Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision. Due to the economic situation in the past 12 months they have not been able to build. At the present time they cannot make a committment as to when an office will be built. The trailers have been used as general offices for Pacific Heritage. Tommy Landauer - stated that the trailers should not be allowed to stay if they are not planning to build the office building. Jerry Davis agreed. Terrill Knight - the Ordinance does not allow office trailers on any lot. Both the Town Council and the Design Review Board have determined that sometimes these are needed. The applicant needs to follow the proper standards for permanent buildings such as driveways, parking, and in some cases landscaping. Some of the Board members were concerned with the business being conducted from these trailers. Terrill stated that the Board is supposed to be concerned with the design and visual effect of the trailers only. Bill Pierce suggested that the zoning ordinance be modified, if the Board desires, to have sales trailers for a specific project that has been approved on a site that the project will occupy. Jerry made a motion to approve a six month extension of time for the Pacific Heritage trailers with the assumption that because of the financial hardship that they are claiming, that they be allowed to continue the use of those trailers and at that time, if we so desire we can discontinue that use. Motion was seconded by Bob. (3 voted yes, 4 voted no. motion did not pass). Mike motioned to approve the application for an extension for office trailers on Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision for six month period as they were originally approved. Seconded by Jim. Passed unanimously. Approval was granted for six (6) months until October 1, 1982. No. 8. Avon Commercial Complex,_ (ROADCAL), Lots 29-32, B Steve Isom of i -plan, inc., stated he was working on the overall design and planning of the complex. They met with the Town Council workshop on 1/29/82 to discuss the ramifications of what was found legally dealing with the regulations of the Town of Avon, and also to give them an overview of the proposal. They received various comments from some of the Council Members such as the Council should look at it on its own merit. The Council was concerned with how this could be done legally. One way would be to actually go ahead as we feel we have a legal right for a zoning of RHDC which would allow a mixture of 75 hotel units per acre or 25 condo units per acre. Based on that the Developer decided to submit to the DRB a proposal of what is intended for the site. Proposing 50 condo units, 295 hotel units, approximately 75,000 square feet of commercial space, contains 2 restaurants, 2 bars, a nightclub, conference center, meeting room, travel agency, gift shops, car rentals, clothing shops, and other functions. The 50 condo units may be permanent residents or short term. -4- Bill Pierce stated that this proposal is in direct conflict with the Resolution which was passed earlier. Art Abplanalp stated that the Board has heard the testimony earlier regarding the history of the density units on this tract and the one across Avon Road which is the conveyance by Roadcal of 280 units to U S Home, leaving 60 hotel/ accommodation units. That would be the effect of the Town Council adopting the Ordinance which the Board earlier recommended. The Design Review Board has its criteria set in the Regulations (Section 5.10 a,b,c). The difference is now there is a pending Ordinance that will give sanction to that. Additionally the DRB Rules & Regs states (Section 1.30). Earlier in the evening I would have recommended that the Board table this matter but now I would recommend that the Board deny it with reasons being that you have a building permit that has been characterized by the Colorado Supreme Court in a similar circumstance, or an application for a building permit. This was characterized as a tactic in a 1969 case out of Boulder County. An individual applied for and obtained a building permit from the County for land which was about to be annexed by the Town and under the Towns imminent zoning, the use for a service station would not have been allowed. The obtaining of that building permit was construed by the Court as a tactic. That is exactly what we are looking at here. The testimony earlier from the attorney for Roadcal clearly indicated that they knew last September that there were considered to be limitations on the land. They applied virtually simultaneously for this building permit. While I earlier thought there might be some jeopardy as far as the Town denying this particular application pending final decision by the Town Council, I no longer think there is any jeopardy of that. The one concern the Court seemed to look at is the amount of money expendedin the issuance of a permit. Here we don't even have a permit. The Courts generally don't look at expenditures before permits. Here we have the tactic which so closely fits the case and should be handled the same way. In fairness to the applicant, I would recommend that while the Board deny the application simply on the basis of the application which states there are 345 units proposed by where the earlier testimony there are only 60 units available. But I do think in fairness to the applicant I would recommend that the DRB suggest to the Town Council that the applicant be permitted to withdraw the application and that the filing fee be refunded. They knew what was going on and I think that is part of their method in building up their case before this Board, for the Town and for the Courts. I would respectfully suggest that at this time the Board deny it and I would suggest that the DRB follow the regulations in specifying the reasons. The ones I have suggested and any other ones that the regulations require, notify them in writing of the denial and additionally suggest to the Town that the fee for the DRB be refunded if the developers choose to withdraw the application. Bill Pierce - based on that, does anyone have a motion to present at this time? Jerry Davis - the application may be good and may fit well into the Town, but we have a legal question here. We're looking at a lot that only has 60 units and you are applying for a project that has 345. 1 don't believe that we can even consider it. Bill Pierce - We had the same situation with Christie Lodge when they came in They had no right to build any units. Their application at that time tabled, at their request, was not heard. I don't believe that we have any right to listen to an application that has not the potential actually occuring under what we considered to be our legal rights of the Township of the Town of Avon. Steve Isom - I thinkthe only question that really arises from our point of view is whether or not we were Grandfathered in that we had applied for this development prior to any Resolution in our meeting with the Town Council and that we had submitted an application to the DRB prior to any adoption by the DRB of that Resolution. We felt we were a legal use addmittedly we found just cause in the way that you have structured your Master Plan for the Town that you did not restrict this mot. Cheryl Dingwell - made a motion that we deny the application based on the fact that we have an amendment to the Ordinance pending and until that question is resolved, that a decision on this matter cannot be made. Art - stated that because of the fact that litigation may arise from this I think that you should be careful to include all of the reasons why. The regulations require that you recite the specific reasons. (Section 6.40 Rules & Regulations) (Section 1.0 Purpose/Rules & Regs.) (Section 17.28.070 of the the D" kules & kegs states (SecLiun i.30). Earlier in Luc evening i would ha -v, - recommended that the Board table this matter but now I would recommend that the Board deny it with reasons being that you have a building permit that has been characterized by the Colorado Supreme Court in a similar circumstance, or an application for a building permit. This was characterized as a tactic in a 1969 case out of Boulder County. An individual applied for and obtained a building permit from the County for land which was about to be annexed by the Town and under the Towns imminent zoning, the use for a service station would not have been allowed. The obtaining of that building permit was construed by the Court as a tactic. That is exactly what we are looking at here. The testimony earlier from the attorney for Roadcal clearly indicated that they knew last September that there were considered to be limitations on the land. They applied virtually simultaneously for this building permit. While I earlier thought there night be some jeopardy as far as the Town denying this particular application pending final decision by the Town Council, I no longer think there is any jeopardy of that. The one concern the Court seemed to look at is the amount of money expended in the issuance of a permit. Here we don't even have a perm'_t. The Courts generally don't look at expenditures before permits. Here we have the tactic which so closely fits the case and should be handled the same way. In fairness to the applicant, I would recommend that while the Board deny the application s?mply on the basis of the application which states there are 345 units proposed by where the earlier testimony there are only 60 units available. But I do think in fairness to the applicant I would recommend that the DRB suggest to the Town Council that the applicant be permitted to withdraw the application and that the filing fee be refunded. They knew what was going on and I think that is part of their method in building up their case before this Board, for the Town and for the Courts. I would respectfully suggest that at this time the Board deny it and I would suggest that the DRB follow the regulations in specifying the reasons. The ones I have suggested and any other ones that the regulations require, notify them in writing of the denial and additionally suggest to the Town that the fee for the DRB be refunded if the developers choose to withdraw the application. Bill Pierce - based on that, does anyone have a motion to present at this time'.' Jerry Davis - the application may be good and may fit well into the Town, but we have a legal question here. We're looking at a lot that only has 60 units and you are applying for a project that has 345. I don't believe that we can even consider it. Bill Pierce - We had the same situation with Christie Lodge when they came in They had no right to build any units. Their application at that time tabled, at their request, was not heard. I don't believe that we have any right to listen to an application that has not the potential actually occuring under what we considered to be our legal rights of the Township of the Town of Avon. Steve Isom - I think the only question that really arises from our point of view is whether or not we were Grandfathered in that we had applied for this development prior to any Resolution in our meeting with the Town Council and that we had submitted an application to the DRB prior to any adoption by the DRB of that Resolution. We felt we were a legal use addmittedly we found just cause in the way that you have structured your Master Plan for the Town that you did net restrict this lot. Cheryl Dingwell - made a motion that we deny the application based on the fact that we have an amendment to the Ordinance pending and until that question is resolved, that a decision on this matter cannot be made. Art - stated that because of the fact that litigation may arise from this I think that you should be careful to include all of the reasons why. The regulations require that you recite the specific reasons. (Section 6.40 Rules & Regulations) (Section 1.0 Purpose/Rules & Regs.) (Section 17.28.070 of the Municipal Code) (Section 5.10 a,b,c, Rules & Regs.) Cheryl modified the motion to include Section 1.30 and Section 5.10 a,b,c, of the DRB Rul:s & Regs, and specifically that the number of units requested is not available on that particular lot. -5- Art stated it should be that the number of units which would be available under the pending Ordinance is not available. It is not sufficient to approve this application. Motion was seconded by Tommy. Cheryl amended her motion to include that we refund the Design Review Board fee is the applicant withdraws the application. Tommy modified his second. The Board voted and it was a unanimous disapproval of the project based on the considerations stated by the Attorney. Steven Isom requested that they appeal to the Council. Bill Pierce stated that he needs to make the request through the Town Clerk. Other Business: Ordinance Pertaining to Removal of DRB Members. Some of the Board Members felt that it is very evasive. Conflict of Interest Resolution, Art explained that this is more of a guideline and also clarified that it is a Resolution not an Ordinance. Some of the members felt that the wording is a problem and the time period is short due to not knowing what is on the agenda for the meetings. Terrill commented that he would be working with the Board members for a while longer due to the Town not hiring a Planner until the new Manager is hired. Addition to the minutes of March 4, 1982, regarding lockoff units: Art stated that the way to handle it would be through the subdivision regulations. The division of a condominium unit into a lockoff unit is a subdivision of that property. Recommend that lockoff units be handled as subdivision exemptions. A lockoff can be permanent unless the impact caused is inconsistent with the regulations which may not be corrected except by the elimination of the lockoff system. If done in this manner, then the developer and future owner would know that if there is a problem with the impact then the lockoffs could be eliminated. Cheryl made a motion to approve the minutes of 3/4/82 with the additional comments from Art, Motion was seconded by Mike, passed unanimously. Jim made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Cheryl, passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted Melody Recording Secretary