Loading...
PZC Minutes 062194RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING N41NUTES JUNE 21, 1994 The Planning and Zoning Commission worksession was called to order at 6:50 PM. All members were present except Henry Vest. Mr. Vest arrived at T05 PM. John Dunn - Town Attorney - Ex Parte Contact John Dunn, Town Attorney discussed with the Commission members the matter of Ex Parte Contact. He stated that it is obviously up to each member whether there is any ex parte contact. He stated the members have the right to refuse to discuss any matter that is coming before the Commission, or ever could come before the Commission. The Commission members are under no obligation as a member of the Commission and a public official to respond to questions from the public That is just not the function of the Commission. That is what the staff is for and the members of the public should be directed to the staff He stated that if the Commission members do have contact with the public, the thing that they must keep in mind is that this is a quasi-judicial body, as is the Town Council. The Commission decides cases that come before them. He stated that the Commission is deciding, based upon the application of the regulation to the evidence they hear, what the results should be. He stated that he is sure that if somebody stated that they had a case pending before a judge and they had sat down and discussed the case with the judge, prior to the case, you would be shocked. Judges do not do that and he does not think that the Commission members should do that either He stated that the members could get influenced by what they hear in advance of the evidentiary hearing in the course of the meeting of the Planning Commission and if you are influenced in advance then the hearing before the Commission may not be entirely fair The other reason that judges don't listen to other sides before the hearing and the Commission members should not, is that judges and the Commission must decide cases based upon the evidence before them and it must be the evidence that comes before them in the hearing and evidence that is recorded in the record and can be transcribed if there is an appeal You do not wart to base a decision that was not evidence during the course of the hearing. On the other hand, the Commission members are all public officials The natural thing is for members of the public to contact you and to talk to you about issues that are going to be relevant to the Planning Commission and the people who contact you may be applicants or future applicants The contact should not be for the purpose of influencing your decision and if you sense that somebody is trying to influence you, that is the time to draw the line and inform them that the only time to present evidence is at the Learing He stated that they ought to limit their conversations to basically background information Any discussion should be kept general and not focused on a particular project He stated that once the hearing is held it becomes particularly important not to have contact. especially if an item is tabled to come back at another meeting The Commission members should absolutely refuse to talk to anybody about that project, because at that point you have heard some of the evidence, but you may hear more evidence when the matter is taken off the a 00 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 2 John Dunn - Town Attorney - Ex Parte contact (cont] table. The only place where people should comment on the evidence heard is right here in this room in the course of the hearing and after the evidence is closed. Once the matter is decided it is probably not a good idea to discuss it, especially if it was turned down and could possibly be resubmitted. There may be a temptation on the applicant's part to ask why it was turned down or why it was approved. Reynolds asked if it was wrong to answer them. Reynolds stated that he would say "as one member of the board, the reason I did it was.... _" The person wants to know what they would do differently. Patti Dixon stated that if they were to say "as one Board member this is my opinion..." then it should be alright. Jack Hunn stated that he thinks it is one thing to tell them why you voted a certain way, and avnth�r thing to give them an impression that if they change certain things they can come back in and get support. Sue Railton stated that they are usually given the hints at the review. Reynolds stated that he has people coming to him all the time to ask him about projects. He stated that he tells them, with one hat off and another on, up front that as a builder this is the way he feels, as a Commission member if it comes in, your driveway is great and your building stinks. your on your own. Reynolds asked if he is wrong in doing that. Dunn asked if they pay him. Reynolds stated no, if they pay him then he steps down. Dunn stated that if they pay him, which disqualifies him from sitting on the Board, fine, but free advice??"? Reynolds stated that everyone on the board has something to do with development within the Town. He feels that if you are up front with people and just tell them "I'm wearing my other hat now" or "I'm doing this as one Commission member", but never speak for the Board, or ever say "ohf this will be approved". Bill Sargis asked what is the risk they run. Dunn stated that neither the Town nor anyone of you as individuals have any risks. What they are talking about is fairness to the applicant. It is possible that the Town could get a claim against it say an applicant applies and is turned down and the applicant finds out that there is a really serious lobbying job done on behalf of some opponent of that project and there was a lot of information provided outside the hearing. The Town could have a claim against it for denial of due process and no fairness in the hearing, therefore they can't build their project, etc. Dunn stated that the Commission members should worry about the fairness of the hearing to the applicant Rhoda Schneiderman asked about furnishing people with information.that is a matter of public record Dunn stated that that is OK. Jack Hunn stated that some of the motivation for people to approach the Commission is as a convenience to them or to bypass Staff That can be a problem that works to the detriment for the applicant ultimately, to start out the process by bypassing the Staff Dunn stated that the information should either come through Staff or in the course of the hearing. Reynolds continued to stare that he has to wear the two hats. Dunn stated that they will not think that you will have one opinion personally and another as a Board member Hunn stated that they will not hesitate to quote you on previous conversations. Dunn stated that in the final analysis, since the members are the ones A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 3 John Dunn - Town Attorney - Ex Parte Contact. (cont) out there dealing with the people, it is a personal decision as to what you are comfortable with in the level of conversation that you are comfortable with. He stated that if the person has an item on an upcoming agenda and if the Commission member walks in here with his mind made up because of a conversation with that person, then the thing for them to do is to announce this and then abstain Avon Beaver Creek Resort Chamber, Facility Location Bill Sargis stated that he would step down regarding this item, even though there is no profit involved. Judy Yoder stated that they have looked at various sites, but the one she would like to discuss at this time is a piece of ground that will be donated by the builders of The Boulders She then named all the volunteers who are donating time working on a proposed building at this site. She provided a couple copies of the site which is on Tract C and partly on The Boulders. This is only an example to show that there should be enough room there to place a building. She stated that they do not know much about how large the building would be, yet They would like to have about 2000 square feet. They are going to try to find out what the largest footprint could work in this spot. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned if this spot would be visible enough. They felt it would be. Hunn asked how much traffic might be generated to this location, The applicant stated that they have now about 190 members the represent not only the activities and attractions and events associated with the Town of Avon and surrounding areas, but all of the services of their member businesses. She stated that over the weekend they had 140 people walk through Most people do not stay long, therefore they probably will only need about four parking spaces, plus employees Discussion followed on parking and the service provided. Jack Hunn stated that one of the reasons he asked about traffic is that the Commission has had some concerns over this intersection over the last couple of years for various proposals that have come Lefore the Commission and if the traffic is going to become through traffic he would be much more comfortable with any number of uses on this street than he would be if it was a dead end Yoder stated that she believes the connection to Eaglebend Drive is going to happen. Hunn asked what the process would be to make this developable Mary Holden stated that it would require an amendment to the PUD, notification, public hearings, etc , just to change the zoning Commission member comments followed One of the concerns was the taking of designated open space. Adequate parking was another concern and the suitability of the building for the site. The Commission felt they would have to see more detail w PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 4 The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Jack Hunn at 7.3 PM, June 21, 1994 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. All members were present Members Present: Jack Hunn, Bill Sargis, Patti Dixon, Sue Railton Rhoda Schneiderman, Buz Reynolds, Henry Vest Staff Present. Norman Wood, Town Engineer Mary Holden, Town Plannei, Chariette Pascuui, Recording Secretary CONSENT AGENDA Lot 44, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision, Baca Residence, Colors Mary Holden stated that a condition of approval for this project was that the colors be returned for Commission approval She stated that the color sample has been provided Mountain Star Entry Sign Mary Holden stated that all the information for this request has been included in the packet She stated that it does comply and Staff recommends approval. The applicant for the Baca residence colors pointed out where the colors would be used. Discussion followed. Sue Railton Moved to grant approval for Lot 44. Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision, proposed colors, and for the Mountain Star entry sign Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously Lot 16, Filing 2. Ea Ig_ebend Subdivision, Special Review Use Home Occupation, Public Hearing Mary Holden stated that this is an application to operate an interior design office out of his home There will be no clients, and no employees This request does meet the criteria for a Special Review Use She stated that a letter from Christine Morrison has been received a" W -H PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 5 Lot 16, Filing 2. Eaglebend Subdivision Special Review Use Home Occupation, Public Hearing. (cont) which is in opposition to this request Staff, based on the Staff Report would recommend approval of Resolution 94-11, with the findings and conditions set forth in said Resolution Mr Gary Finley stated that most of his clients are eithe+ building or remodeling, so traditionally what they do is meet on the site of the construction, or they meet in a restaurant, etc He does not care to have them come to the house He stated that Columbine Moving Storage takes care of all deliveries He stated that the letter mentioned seven cars They do share a driveway, so there are three drives that operate off of that one entrance Chairman Hunn then opened the public hearing. Hearing no public input, Chairman Hunn closed the public hearing Sue Railton stated she had no objections, most of the people on Eaglebend Drive run their businesses from their houses Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she feels the applicant has answered all of Nis Morrison's concerns. so she does not have a problem with it Bill Sargis had no problem, and Henry Vest stated that since there are no signs being proposed, he has no problem Patti Dixon stated that she had no problem Buz Reynolds stated that he has a concern that architects, and builders and home owners will start coming to the home He stated that he really doesn't have a problem with this, but what he would like to do is to put a six month trial on this and if it goes well let it go on Sue Railton stated that she does not think that is fair There are a lot of people working from their home and thev haven't even declared it Mary Holden stated that a condition on it that it can be reviewed after six months and revoked if problems arise If there are no problems within the six months it would just continue It would be for this specific individual and business and not transferable Jack Hunn asked the applicant how long he has been conducting business out of the home without reporting it The applicant stated that he just closed on the house two weeks ago, so there has been very very little business transpired through there He stated that it is not his long range goal to have an office in the house indefinitely He stated that he had no problem with the six month review, condition Patti Dixon moved to approve Resolution 94-11 the Special Review Use with the added condition of a review in six months Buz Reynolds seconded and the motion carried unanimously • A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 6 Lot 2. Foxx 4 Subdivision, Spieael/T-acey Duplex Side Yard Setback Variance, Public Hearine Mary Holden stated that this is for a side yard setback variance of 2.6 feet into the 10 foot setback. The variance request came about based upon the applicant's application that the pin was improperly placed and construction was built based on that pin placement, which has created the encroachment of the corner of the building. The criteria is listed in the Staff Report and this application does meet that criteria and Staff recommends approval of Resolution 94-12. Brett Heckman stated that he is at a loss as to what to present insofar as the Staff has addressed all the elements of code and that the opposition which appears in this record by way of a letter from a Mr Kirschner, Peter Kyle and Sally Brainerd, doesn't seem to address the relevant provisions of the code. He thinks he would be better able to convey anything the Commission needs extra if he could better understand what the objections are. He would prefer to hear exactly the relevant points of their objections. Chairman Hunn then opened the public hearing at this time. Jack Snow stated he is representing Peter Kyle. The current owner of the land is Frank Kirschner. He stated that he and Peter Kyle were partners on a project this past year. Briefly, they bought the land with a topo The snow melted off with a whole pile of dirt there. They went to t! - owner that they were under contract with and asked what the story was. He had given the neighbor permission to pile excess dirt from his construction on to this site. He stated that they were burned on this situation, therefore Mr. Kyle is a little concerned about this project. He stated that there has been concern with this neighboring project since about August. He stated that some of the dissatisfaction has been with the Town of Avon Neither Peter or Frank felt it was their job to monitor the neighbors. He stated that there are some serious negative impacts. They have a 25% encroachment on to a side setback that they have been trying to raise a flag on for a while. He Mated that Frank Kirschner has not been able to close the deal because they do not know what they are dealing with He stated that Mary told him that she doesn't feel it is a significant issue, but Peter Kyle, who is dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars into this, has a right to feel that he has got a car without a ding when he buys it new Their feeling is that this product has been damaged They have not been able to break ground, because they have not been able to close the land There was never any landscaping proposed in this area, and there should be some sort of reasonable buffering What they are asking for is some significant landscaping in this area He stated that at a meeting a couple weeks ago one Commission member stated that there is a responsibility as Wildridge builds out, to respond to your neighbors, to screen yourself, etc , and that is what they are asking for. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 7 Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision. Spieael/Tracey Duplex Side Yard Setback Variance Public Heariny(cont) Frank Kirschner, current property owner, stated that at the very start of this project, last August, there were problems with the boundaries between the two properties The owners never ever asked if they could store soil on his property from the scale back. He stated that he had expressed concern to Rick Pylman, who was with the Town at that time, and he was concerned to the point where he knew the people involved and knew that they were homeowners that were trying to do it yourself and keep the cost low and were a little inexperienced. He mentioned some deposits of building materials on another site, when the lumber came it was dropped at the wrong place. He stated that he asked Pylman to request of those people that the soil is removed in a timely manner and it be revegetated to the point where it would blend a little nicer with no scar. The soil was removed and then there was an excavation made for the second part of the duplex and that is where the proUe ;, real. That is where the excavation was made across the line on to his property, again without any kind of response or any kind of comment, any kind of acknowledgment from those people Since then they have had acknowledgment from them and their lawyer that, yes they did encroach on to his property and the house was within the minimum setback. He stated that the point here is not necessarily the setback encroachment as much as a penalty for making a mistake and impounding and impacting his property negatively without any prior request, may we drive a truck to your land, may we use your land for access, etc. He feels, being neighborly to start this whole process with the soil and maybe this thing with the buffer and landscaping they are requesting would be a compromise or a chance for them to repay almost a favor in a neighborly fashion. That this would be settled neighborly in a sense that he did not raise a stink when they impacted him to begin with He stated that he started contacting the Town when he noticed the encroachment of the actual excavation on to his property He stated that they told him that they thought everything was fine up there, that they had been in contact and it seemed reasonable The pins and the locations of the pins are clearly marked The contractor for the development on the other side of the lot had no problems with the pin placements If anybody had taken the time to eyeball this, walk up to that comer pin and look down the line, or string a line the way he did, it is really obvious that there was an excavation made, over and impacting his property Because of that, the deal has been in jeopardy, because of the uncertainty of what kind of compensation he would receive to make the property valuable, or worth developing Because of that he has lost some of the asking price, a considerable amount He feels that there has been acknowledgment by the other party that there has been something wrong, they made a mistake. they encroached on to my property, my property has been negatively impacted and he feels that the only way to grant this variance would be that it hinge upon them compensating him for the loss that he has incurred by them not being tidy with their pin lines He stated that he cannot understand that Qb L] PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page g Lot 2. Foxx 4 Subdivision, Spiegel/Tracy Duplex, Side Yard Setback Variance. Public Hearin cont M when he spoke to the Town of Avon, no one would take the five to twenty minutes to string a line and check it. Months later, during the fall and winter a foundation was laid there. That was after his first request to check this out. So now they have allowed the foundation and nothing was done Now there is a whole home there He stated that he feels there has been ample effort on his part to consult the Town of Avon and have them make an official visit to make sure that this was in order and it never was. In April they finally had a meeting of everyone that was involved and the house was already built there If it had been done back in the fall when the excavation was made, the adjustment could have been made then. He feels that he has been negatively impacted and suffered considerable loss and from the very start, trying to take a low key approach and be neighborly about this, nothing has resulted positively. He feels that, in the Town's best interest, if the setbac',. doesn't mean anything, somebody can encroach on someone's property with out any kind of penalty. ...Mr Kirschner stated that he needs some kind of compensation for being wronged in the first place, even though the area has been revegetated. He stated that he does not think it is right, sure 2.6 feet is not much, but there are rules about this and that is why there is a ten foot setback and he expects it to be upheld, That is the way he feeds as a resident of this town He stated that he would hope that his rights would be protected. He stated that he had an extremely long talk with Mr. McGrath about this and he assured him that i:e would be protected and as it turns out he hasn't been and that is the part he feels most strongly about and he feels something should be done. With no further public input, Chairman Hunn closed the public hearing. Brett Heckman provide some photos of Mr Kirschner's lot and the Spiegel/Tracy duplex. Chairman Hunn stated he would like to comment that this is not a court of law, this is a planning commission and they must look at this on the merit of a setback variance and if there is going to be some punitive damages imposed that doesn't necessarily happen here Mr. Heckman stated that he sympathizes with Mr Kirschner for the problems he has had in the past, but frankly he doesn't think that they are relevant. Secondly, he doesn't think that the comments regarding soil being deposited on property which smacks as some sort of trespass civil action are relevant to this planning commission's hearing and decisions The relevance, if anything to his complaints are the fact that there is an encroachment The Planning Commission has set forth some pretty specific standards in Section 17 36 of the code for approval of a variance, and the Staff has addressed every single one of those elements and have found that they have been met. He stated that he thinks, quite frankly, that Mr- Kirschner is trying to exact a kings ransom where a pawns penance might be more A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 9 Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision Spiegel/Tracy Duplex, Side Yard Setback Variance, Public Hearing. (cont] appropriate He has asked for $20,000 00 for revegetation for a 2 6 foot variance He stated that he submits that he is trying to use this commission to penalize the Spiegels If he wants to do that then he should go to a court of law The criteria has been met for a variance Mr Heckman reviewed some variances that had been previously granted in the Town Mr Heckman stated that he is here to answer all the questions to support all the Staffs report He stated !hat basically, he understands what is going on here He feels he has been wronged He thinks that there is a forum for redress for the wrong This is an unfortunate incident where frankly Johnson and Kunkel have made a mistake It was not intentional There is nothing being done to circumvent the spirit of the zoning laws This is exactly what your variance code is about, an accident, or something to prevent hardship They have revegetated and have suggested reasonable mitigation and he is trying to get $20,000 00 from them so he can sell his property Buz Reynolds stated that the ILC that he has shows not only the encroachment, but it also shows a roof overhang which should be included in the encroachment He asked Norm Wood when you are regrading a property there is utility easements and drainage easements within the side setbacks properties, when you regrade some of those sometimes you have to use right up to your property line in order to regrade in order to get the drainage away from your building, you know so if some of the soil goes into the drainage easement on the neighboring property, does that make it wrong, or has someone done something wrong there You can't put any din on a neighbors property, or drive on it, or you can't do anything in that easement Norm Wood stated that there is a common easement along the lot line and one of the provisions is for drainage, and that is basically the intent of that is for the two properly owners to provide for drainage within that When the plans are reviewed they try to see that the grading stays within the property line lie stated that in reality it is not unusual that they do spill over Reynolds stated that he runs heavy equipment and he knows for a fact that sometimes you just do the best you can to not wreck everything. but sometimes these things are 30 feet long and the easements are only seven and a half to ten feet Reynolds stated that he feels for both sides, but he does not think. this is such a small encroachment on the property and the roof overhang, he doesn't think is screwing up the neighboring property lie stated i�at he does not see any problem with the variance Bill Sargis state.l that having listened to Mr Kirschner this evening and having read his letter he understands tha! he is very upset, but what the Commission has in front of them is a variance in the setback He asked if some landscaping is done would this problem with the W PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 10 Lot 2. Foxx 4. Subdivision Spiegel/Tracy Duplex. Side Yard Setback Variance, Public Hearing (cont) variance become not a problem. Mr. Kirschner stated that the $20,000 00 is a gross exaggeration of what he is asking for He stated that they had suggested ten and they were hoping for some sort of compromise on that. Bill Sargis asked Staff if there was some provision in a variance request for a side yard setback that requires a landscape or landscape plan or anything to occur before that variance. Norm Wood replied that the criteria is outlined in the staff report for the review and is the basis for denying or approving the variance. Patti Dixon stated that she would be in favor of granting the variance Henry Vest stated that generally he is in favor of this variance request just because it sometimes is a problem, you get on the property and push some dirt on other peoples property. You are not trying to do it and Buz's comment that it primarily is the roof overhang does have a lot of merit. He stated that he does feel bad for Frank Kirschner, because he has contacted the Town at a time when they were going through quite a few changes. Rick Pylman quit his job, a new guy came in, the planners changed .. He thinks that was as much of the problem as anything. He thinks he would support the variance, but he thinks he would recommend that they all get together and try to find a harmonious solution. Mr. Heckman stated that, just for the record, their office has been in touch with Mr. Kirschner. Thele have been offers and ccunter-offers. He stated that they are negotiating it. Vest asked Mr. Kirschner what he felt about that. He stated that he feels as they grossly estimated $20,000.00, his offer was the complete opposite end, grossly in adequate. Sage and natural grass is fine, sure that is all that was there, but his point is that he did not get the service from the Town that was offered by the building department, or planning and zoning, or whatever He should not have to be marking and walking his property line continuously to make sure they are not being violated, especially after requesting with several phone calls He stated that the dollar value and to the extension of the revegetation, first of all should hinge on that impact that he was violated Secondly, they can't just sluff it off. "well we made a little mistake so" .. There are three people involved there, the surveyor, the Town of Avon, and them being not responsible for their own side of the property line. If he had done it to them they would be screaming too, so you have to look at it that way. There have been several stop signs along the way to make these adjustments, none of them were ever acknowledged, they were just rolled through. They just fell through the cracks of the system. He feels that is not good enough for the Town of Avon What are they trying to say here... O K build where you want, six inches, two and a half feet, three feet, four and a half feet... we'll give you a variance.. whats the big deal.... so what if a little soil spills over This is a� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 11 Lot 2. Foxx 4 Subdivision Spiegel/Tracy Duplex Side Yard Setback Variance, Public Hearing, (coni) more than a little spilling over It is a huge pile with a whole scabbing of the site He stated we are not talking a few backhoe shovel fulls, we'rt- talking a conscious effort to move this across the lot and pile it there Secondly, there was a gouge taken out of the hillside on his property You can't tell me that that is OK to do He stated that he was told by several people in the Town that there is a bond that anything that is disturbed would be addressed To his knowledge he has yet to see the bond lie wants to make sure that when these guys, when they go through and buy this land, that in a year or so when they revegetate and landscape their place, that there is some money there for them That is all that he is asking Just for the point of impact That there is some kind of neighborly effort rather than throwing some seed down, putting some sage in and putting on some straw He does not think it is too much to ask for Discussion followed on the ILC and the possibility of further encroachment of a roof overhang Mary Holden stated that she had assumed that this was the entire buildinu. including overhang Rhoda Schneiderman asked what Johnson and Kunkel says is their responsibility in this matter" The applicant replied that they say that the Town of Avon plat does not clearly specify that there is a ten foot setback Mary Holden stated that she received a phone call questioning the Wildridge setbacks and where they were indicated and she proceeded to ask them if they had the Wildridge Subdivision plat maps and the title page. the setbacks are outlined in visual form and verbal form Rhoda Schneiderman stated that the letter indicates that the Town of Avon does not have clear standards for setbacks, which is totally false. thev are very clear, and everybody else in the world that builds in Avon seems to adhere to them She would think that Johnson and Kunkel would be their first stop on redress She is sure that they have error omissions as well as liability insurance in order to do business Secondly, has anybody looked at that retaining wall, that rock wall . It looks to her that that is in the setback Also, it says in the letter in the second to last paragraph on the last page that the building was moved to the west Was that after approval The applicant stated that they came back in for design approval because they were in the setback So they had it relayed out Mary Holden stated that was when they came in for the deck Mary Holden stated that, to the best of her recollection, that move did not create any encroachment into the setbacks Sue Railton stated that it must have documented correctly at some stage Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she has bought a lot of trees and what she calculates Al EJ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 12 Lot 2 Foxx 4 Subdivibion Spiegel/Tracey Duplex Side Yard Setback Variance Public Hearing. (cont what they are asking for is approximately $3,500 to $4.000 dollars worth of trees, including planting. She thinks it is excessive, considering it is one little corner and if you screen that one little corner with all those trees, you will have a really strange looking situation. She asked if any landscaping was proposed for this side of the building. Mary Holden stated that it was to all be natural Schneiderman stated that she does not think it is the function of the Commission, she thinks it is a court of law's function if it ever gets there, a civil suit, to address this matter. She stated that she hates this after the fact thing and the project has gotten her up to here... she means both of the duplexes.... every other day something comes back to be redone... and always done wrong in the first place. In this particular case she thinks Johnso:r and Kunkel is responsible and she thinks they ought be made to pay for it. She thinks it should have been monitored better She stated that at this late date, she wishes they could make them tear it down, but she doesn't think that they can. Sue Railton asked how Johnson & Kunkel could be responsible.. The applicant replied that they set the building pins wrong. Railton stated that it is not the Commission's case to settle between Frank and the owners... They have to do that themselves. She thinks people should approach things in a neighborly manner. If you had to deposit soil somewhere, you should have worked out where it was going. You know that you don't put anything on somebody else's property.. ever... without permission Railton asked Frank if he had put everything in writing when he was citing these problems. He stated no. Railton stated that he should have written letters to the Town. She stated that unfortunately it is after the fact, and she resents these sort of things coming before the Commission when people haven't taken the time to do them properly. So, she supposes they have to grant the variance because whats the point in pulling the building down. Jack Hunn stated that he wants to explore the concept of the roof overhang possibly being further into the setback, which is not just the perview of the Town but also certain utility companies. Buz Reynolds stated that the building envelope itself has to incorporate the roof and overhangs for liability purposes also and when you purchase a piece of property with an ILC you are getting the piece of ground underneath you and everything that hangs over, if something runs into it or hits it and it is above, it is still part of your ground He stated that evervtime he gets an ILC done he is trying to figure out where the roof is going to end up He stated that he doesn't want to have inches anymore so he would rather go the other way and crunch the building so it will be in further rather than have to come back to this board for 4 inches, etc. Roof overhangs seem to be the encroachments the Commission usually gets, because people plot the building and put the footprint down on the land within the ten foot setbacks and forget all about the roof overhangs 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 13 Lot 2. Foxx 4 Subdivision, Spiegel/Tracey Duplex, Side Yard Setback Variance, Public Hearing, (g cont) Jack Hunn asked Staff if their recommendation would be any different if thev had knowledge that the roof overhang is encroaching into the setback Norm Wood stated that their recommendation is based upon the information as presented. There is a drawing showing a two and a half foot encroachment and the way the resolution is structured, what you are approving is the two and a half foot encroachment. If indeed the roof overhang is beyond that, you are not approving that They would have to come back in front of the Commission again Brett Heckman stated that he would suggest that they approve the 2 and a half foot encroachment and if there is any difference, they come back for further approval rather than tabling this and making the applicants wait Discussion followed on whether or not the resolution should he amended or not Jack Hunn stated that if you look at finding A, Staff states that it meets that. In Finding B, there is a portion of this that says or materially injurious to properties and that is really where Mr Kischner comes in and then C, i, 2, or 3 So in making any motion the Commission has to feel comfortable that it does in fact meet this criteria He stated that he, as one Commissioner, hopes this is the last problem they have with this particular development, as there has been many He does feel that there is room for improvement in terms of how development is monitored Ile stated the fact is it is existing and the remedies are limited He stated that he does not know if twenty trees is a reasonable mitigation for whatever impacted the neighbor and he does not know that it is the Commission's place to impose that penalty Rhoda Schneiderman asked John Dunn what, if any, responsibility does the Commission have to mitigate the dispute tetween these two parties John Dunn replied none whatsoever He stated that the only responsibility the Commission has is to consider the request for the variance against the criteria Bili Sargis moved to approve Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision, for a side yard variance of 2.6 foot encroachment, subject to Resolution No 94-12 Patti Dixon seconded Hunn asked if Sargis wanted to include that if the roof overhang encroaches, it should be brought back John Dunn stated that if this is not an adequate variance it must come back and the responsibility of Staff is to red tag the building until they come back Norm Wood stated that the applicant will need to submit a signed survey showing the encroachment into the setback as verification He stated that he does not believe it is appropriate for staff to go out and do their own survey To take it back a bit lurther Staff has to assume that the surveyor staked it as shown on the plans [00 ;r F, 0 PLAN74ING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 14 Lot 2. Foxx 4 Subdivision Spiegel/Tracey Duplex Side Yard Setback Variance Public Hearing, (cont) Henry Vest stated that he does not feel that B of Resolution 94-12 has been met, but he does not feel they should delay this. Chairman Hunn called for all those in favor of the motion to grant a variance and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 96, Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Cooke Duplex Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that the material sample is in front of you. This will be three levels. The building and plant materials are called out in the packet. The main comments are outlined in the report which are the first 20' of the driveway cannot exceed 4%; construction fence will need to be placed prior to site disturbance due to the grading taking place from lot line to lot line; drainage needs to be worked out prior to building permit application; slopes cannot exceed 2:1; thirty five feet is the maximum building height. She stated that the application does meet with the design review criteria and Staff recommends approval with the conditions outlined in the Staff report. Kevin Cooke stated that he agrees to all of the Staff comments. He stated that the sample provided are the actual materials and colors to be used. Patti Dixon asked what the garage door would be. The applicant stated it would be the cedar to match the soffits. Chairman Hunn stated that at the last review there were four concerns: driveway grade; width of driveway from the entrance to where it opens up to paved areas; type of roof and the entryways being under the deck. He asked if he had responded to each of those concerns, The applicant stated that they are still in the discussion stage with his architect about what they would be doing with the decking. He stated he is suggesting fiberglass and the architect is suggesting tongue and groove fir. It will be one or the other. Either one will provide drainage Buz Reynolds stated that he likes the building and the finishes and he thinks it will be a nice project He commented about the grading going from lot line to lot line. Discussion followed on the hand rails The applicant stated that they have added a lot of shrubbery because that was one of the concerns at the last meeting Patti Dixon had no questions. a ''r PLANNING AND ZONING, ( iMISSION MEE1"NG MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 15 Lot 96, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Cooke Durex, Final Design Review. (cont) Henry Vest asked if this landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. Mary Holden stated that it did meet the minimums He stated that Rhoda will probably require more trees. Vest stated that the bottom of the picture on the west elevation shows it shaded beneath :.'le belly band. He asked if that was a different color. The applicant stated it is the same color The belly band will be raised stucco. Vest stated that there is a little window that is not in line with anything. He asked if that is a bathroom window. The applicant stated it was. Vest asked if there was any reason that he couldn't line it up, The applicant replied no, but some of the other Commission members liked it the way it was. Vest suggested that with such a large building the applicant might want to consider using two stone stucco, with a darker on the bottom to ground the building. The applicant stated that they thought about that. he feels it will be broken up pretty well with the decking and garage doors, etc., so that will give them the break in the height. Bill Sargis stated that he thinks the house is fine. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she would have done the landscape plan exactly the same. She thinks it is absolutely very nice. Sue Railton asked if there was more landscaping added than what is shown. The reply was that that was it. Railton stated that she thinks that with water restrictions an automatic system is needed and she does not feel that there is nearly enough landscaping. She thinks four aspen trees is not enough for a duplex. She stated that Eagle Vail requires twelve aspen trees for a duplex, four fir trees and four flowering trees. She thinks four aspens, two spruce and two cottc °wood are far too little Chairman Hunn stated that he tends to agree that the landscaping is needing some bulk. His biggest concern is an irrigation system With the water restrictions, lie does not think the landscape materials will survive. Also, all the graphics indicate a darker shaded technique on the lower portion of the building, which does a lot graphically to communicate a lower building and he is truing to imagine it all one stucco He thinks the building would be perceived much taller He feels that a second, slightly darker color stucco would add interest and change the perception of height successfully, just like the graphics do. The applicant stated that they feel that the cedar decking, etc , will accomplish that. Fiona stated that there is quite a bit of wager shedding on to one of the garage doors. The applicant stated that there will be gutters there Buz Reynolds stated that the shading on the bottom of the building in the graphics is one of r-2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 16 Lot 96. Block I. Wildridate Subdivision. Cooke Duplex, Final Design Review. (cont) the reasons he likes the building. He agrees with Jack about adding the other color The applicant asked if he decided to add another color, would he have to come back to another meeting. Chairman Hunn stated that it could be submitted to Staff to be put on the consent agenda for the Commission to look at and if there is any real concern then he has to come back. The applicant asked if the Commission would have any objections if he went with stone. The Commission stated that he would have to carry it around the sides. The applicant stated that he would research it a bit and submit to Staff. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design review approval with the following conditions: 1. The first 20' of the driveway may not exceed 4% grade. 2. Finished slopes may not exceed 2:1. A construction fence be placed on site and the location approved by Staff prior to any site disturbance 4. The building may not exceed 35' 5. The drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the application for a building permit. 6. Meters be placed on the building. 7 All flues. Flashings and vents have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building. 8. Colors be called out on the plans submitted for a building permit 9. An alternative lower level, below the belly band treatment be brought back for approval and it be put on the consent agenda Bill Sargis seconded Schneiderman amended her motion to add a strong recommendation that an automatic irrigation system be added Sargis seconded the amendment and the motion carried with a six to one vote, Henry .'est voting nay PLANNING AND 'ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 17 Lot 23, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Miller Residence, Site Modifications Mary Holden stated that Todd Miller is requesting various site modifications which are listed as follows. 1 The addition of a dog house 2 The addition of lattice under the deck 3. The elimination of the second driveway, only that is not a request, that is a requirement 4 Driveway width of hard surface reduced to 13' and 2' foot rock shoulders on both sides for a total of 17' 5 An area that is 25'x 18' that would remain road base 6 Revised landscape plan which is outlined in the packet Holden stated that should the Commission find these requests appropriate, Staff would recommend approval Patti Dixon stated that the applicant needs to come up with a way to buffer the edge of the road base area with !andscaping or berming or something The applicant suggested putting some rock Dixon stated maybe some rock with some landscaping. Dixon stated that she thinks that the lattice under the deck is definitely an improvement and the whole site looks a lot better Also, the dog house being painted to match the house Discussion followed on the doe house Henry Vest stated that he had no problems Bill Sargis also had no problems Rhoda Schneiderman stated that the spruce trees must be a minimum of 6' and the cedar trees must also be a minimum of G She stated that she cannot approve tht doy, house It looks like it was thrown together It just doesn't fit with the house She stated that the house deserves better Mary Holden stated that this project received approval prior to the minimum standards being set Schneiderman stated that then he will have to be grandfathered in Discussion followed Mary Holden stated that the original plan is grandfathered in Schneiderman argued that since he was revising the plan he should meet the standards Schneiderman stated that she is inclined to approve the landscape plan. but not the dog house Sue Railton stated that she thinks the dog house needs some work Railton stated that the hammerhead must have some landscaping around it Half of Wildridge looks down on your snowmobile and vour cars stored there She stated that the snowmobile needs to be a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 18 Lot 23, Block I. Wildridge Subdivision. Miller Residence. Site Modifications. (cont) stored somewhere else. The applicant stated that there are snowmobiles ali over Wildridge. Jack Hunn stated that he has been looking out at this project for several years now and he commended the applicant for building an attractive house, but he thinks that the landscaping has been a struggle He stated that there were trees proposed on the north side of the home that, to his knowledge, have never been planted with the exception of one, and the proposed plan shows five trees existing out there and he is not aware that they are out there. Hunn stated that he has a concern that this landscape plan that exists out there today is pretty much a one sided solution It doesn't address all four sides of the home, it isn't sympathetic to neighboring properties and it should be a more complete solution. He thinks the proposal for this gravel area to remain gravel constitutes the Commission permitting him to not pave his entire driveway. That is really what it is, part of his driveway. It is strategically necessary to maneuver and to store the vehicles you have. He thinks it is important to landscape and try to screen the things that are stored in that portion of the driveway He stated that another concern he has had for a long time is the way the site was regraded west of the home The proposed and original grading plan show actually cut in these areas and there is a pretty significant fill section that is up quite high and is an unnatural kind of grading and it does impact some views of adjacent properties He suggested that the applicant take some of that dirt and work it around the north side of the home and use it as a berm to help screen the north side of the parking area. The applicant stated that there is no where to put it. The applicant stated that there is not that much difference from the original grading. Hunn stated that he thinks that the- dog house detracts from the overall quality of the project He stated that he sees a lot of progress that has been made recently, but it has taken an awful long time The applicant stated that he had not received a lot of cooperation in the past. it has been a lot better dealing with Mary Hunn asked if the five trees shown north of the home actually exist. The applicant stated that he has about three or four more coming that will go there Hunn stated that it would maybe considerate if the snowmobiles could be stored in closer proximity to the home, so they are not so visible This site is very visible to everyone going up to Wildridge Buz Reynolds stated that he agrees that using some Flat stones and berming it down will help with the erosion for the runof, and throw seed in there and let it grow through the stone Reynolds stated that if he could work on the dog house he doesn't think it will be a problem Further discussion followed on the landscaping Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant approval for Lot 23. Block 1, Wildridge, landscape plan, the lattice work, and that the dog house either be removed or remodeled and brought back to P & Z The motion failed for lack of a second Mary Holden asked if they want t*A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 19 Lot 23. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Miller Residence Site Modifications. (cont) to approve all requested revisions, or just the one specifically called out and deny the others. Chairman Hunn asked that she review those. Holden stated that basically they are: the dog house; the lattice work; the driveway width; the 15 x 18 hammerhead and the revised landscape plan. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she would amend her motion to state approval of lot 23, Block I, with the elimination of the dog house and all other items approved. This motion also failed due to the lack of a second. Discussion followed on leaving the hammerhead in gravel. Mary Holden stated that even without that area being paved, they still have adequate turnaround. Sue kaiiton stated that it is just a load of gravel dumped there. The applicant stated he would level it off and edge it. Buz Reynolds moved to grant approval as follows 1. The dog house either be remodeled or removed. 2. 1 he addition of lattice extending from the bottom of their deck to the ground 3 The elimination of the second drive area. 4 Driveway width totaling IT, with 13' of concrete and 2' rock shoulders on each side. 5 15' x 18' hammerhead on the east portion of the site to be left with road base b In the revised landscape plan, an addition that some flat stones be placed at the end of the hammerhead and be seeded to stop erosion and make it look more presentable Patti Dixon seconded Discussion followed on the dog house being at the front entry Reynolds stated that it is the applicant's house and if he wants the dog house at the front entry that is his business Henry Vest stated he doesn't think the dog house should be at the entry Chairman Hunn called the motion which carried with Jack Hunn abstaining Lot 24. Block 2 Benchmark at BeaKcr Creek Subdivision, Avon Plaza Final Design Review Mary Holden this will be approximately 19,500 square feet of retail and office the project will consist of two buildings She stated that the building and plant materials are called out in r PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 20 Lot 24 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Plaza_ Final Design Review, cont the staff report. the sidewalks should be six feet, entrances line up with the Christie Lodge, there isthe possibility of eliminating one entrance and having onlyone main entrance, landscape materials meet minimum requirements. She stated that this project does meet the design review criteria spelled out in the report and Staff recommends approval with the conditions outlined in the report. Jerry Dokken stated that he is joined by a co-owner of the project, Kim Peterson He stated that the building has changed slightly from what was presented at conceptual design review. Mary Holden stated that she had included the towers in the packet. Mr. Dokken pointed out where they would be. He passed around a color sample board. He stated that it is a metal roof building, with synthetic stucco, and store front glass as the materials. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if this was a standing seam roof and how far apart. The applicant stated that they are looking at a foot to 16 inches. Schneiderman asked about the gauge The applicant stated it was a 26 gauge Schneiderman stated it looks awful shiny Schneiderman asked what it is with architects lately and these towers. Every single building has a tower She feels these buildings were much better off without it. The applicant stated that the first building presented had a tower and they went away thinking it was a good idea Schneiderman stated she liked everything except the towers Buz Reynolds asked about the finish for the utilities. He asked if that would be a delivery corridor The applicant replied no, it would be landscaped except for concrete paths outside the doors Reynolds and the applicant were away from the microphones and transcription is difficult, but they were talking about a connecting path. The applicant stated they have been discussing it with staff but they have to find a place that makes sense with the adjoining property. owners Reynolds asked if parking spaces within the 25 foot setback are allowed The applicant stated they are. Reynolds stated he sees them and the Town sharing snow storage and getting crowded with snow in a hurry Reynolds asked what Norm Wood thought. Mr. Wood stated that the snow will have to be hauled out Reynolds asked about the lighting. The applicant pointed out where the lighting would be Reynolds stated that he feels that there needs to be a good pedestrian way provided Patti Dixon stated she had no comments as yet Henry Vest asked if it was the same size as thev had it last time The applicant stated it has changed configuration He stated that the first time they just had retail, one story, and now I AWL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 21 Lot 24. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Avon. Plaza, Final Desitin Review cont they have retail and 5,000 square feet above on the second story and it occurs in three locations on the two buildings. He pointed out on the drawings where they were located Vest asked about the parking The applicant stated that they are at 76 and they are three spaces over the parking requirement Vest asked if the em rance currently aligns with Christie Lodge. The applicant stated it did not. They have been discussing it with Norm Wood. They think there is a solution there Vest asked what the difference in height of the building that is on the bottom of that plan, the east face, in comparison with the Dominos Pizza building The applicant stated he could not answer that as he did not know how high the Dominos building is, He stated that the tower is about a thirty six foot high element. Forty feet is allowed Bill Sargis stated that he liked the colors and what they have done lessens the mass considerably. The towers do seem to work and the variations and pitches in the roof is very attractive as viewed from all sides. He asked if the sidewalks have increased to six feet The applicant stated that the one they are talking about is the one at the street and the public right-of-way, and yes that will increase to six feet Discussion followed on the drainage Norm Wood stated that this will have to be coordinated with the neighboring properties Sargis asked what was the proposed enclosure for the dumpster The applicant stated that is a wood enclosure Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks the trees are adequate, but she thinks that they need some variety in the shrubs Just potentilla will not work. Sue Railton also was concerned about the landscaping, particularly where the planter areas are in the angle of the buildings and on the ends of the buildinbs They should at least come up to the same standard as at the corner of Wal-Mart and Columbine, etc Buz Reynolds asked about the signage The applicant stated that this was not a formal sign plan He stated that they are individual channel letters similar to what you see at North Court, etc , and they would be attached to the same sign band, hopefully near the stores There would also be a couple panels for either project or main tenants There is one freestanding sign that they are looking to add at the elbow of the two buildings That would be a sign for tenants in that area rn PLANNING AND ZONING COWvIISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 22 Lot 24. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Plaza Final Design Review, cont Reynolds asked if all loading will be loaded from the front, The applicant stated it would Reynolds asked if the landscaping in the back would be formalized and irrigated, etc. The applicant stated that it is a building to building situation and then the setbacks. It will be grass. Sue Railton stated then there should be some way to keep that alley way from becoming a rubbish dump, maybe by closing it off. Jack Hunn stated that would probably encourage storage of things back there. The applicant stated that there will be landscaping with some trees. Patti Dixon asked how access would be gained to the offices The applicant pointed out where the stairs would be. Jack Hunn asked about potential restaurant tenants. Kim Peterson stated that they have had probably ten to fifteen requests for restaurants in this project and because of the significant parking requirements for restaurants, he does not think they will have any restaurants, because it really doubles the demand for parking. Buz Reynolds stated that what has been done in the past is if it is open t'or dinner only He thinks this would be a nice building to have a restaurant in. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that this is a retail building and if they keep normal retail hours, especially during season there would not be parking. Reynolds stated if you have a restaurant in a building like this that takes up a large square footage it lessens the parking used by the rest of the building and allows more parking which we are always short of. Hunn stated that right now they only have three surplus spaces to meet the requirement for a restaurant. The applicant stated he likes their thinking, but the practicalities of that is that restaurants cannot be profitable being a dinner only restaurant. Jack Hunn stated that at :he last review the Commission was concerned about the prominence of the loading area The applicant stated that it is at the front of the project and they have landscaped and tried to screen the asphalt and trucks that will be there, but there were few options. Hunn stated he thinks'.he applicants have responded to all of the concerns, but the landscape plan appears to still be preliminary in nature and if there is some question as to where the final driveway entrance will be it would effect parking and landscaping and he would like to suggest that the Commission see the landscape plan again Sue Railton moved to grant final design review approval with the following conditions 1. The entrance align with the existing Christie Lodge entrance across E Beaver Creek Blvd A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEicTING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 23 Lot 24. Block 2. -Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Avon Plaza. Final Design Review. cont 2. The landscape plant material meet the minimum Town of Avon standards 3. The meters be placed on the buildings. 4. Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the buildings. 5. The sidewalk be a minimum of 6' in width. 6. The landscape plan be brought back when the road access is established. Buz Reynolds seconded, Mary Holden stated that as a point of clarification she asked the applicant if they were aware that, regarding the streetscape, there are certain types of light poles to be used. The applicant stated that they were aware of this. Henry Vest stated that they should include the drainage on the property being cleared up prior to the issuance of a permit Railton amended her motion to include that as a condition, and Buz Reynolds seconded the amendment. The motion carried with a six to one vote, Rhoda Schneiderman voting nay. Reading and Approval of the June 7. 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. Buz Reynolds moved to approve the June 7, 1994 minutes as submitted. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business With no further business, Buz Reynolds moved to adjourn, Hemy Vest seconded The meeting was then adjourned at 10'05 PM Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary h PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 21, 1994 Page 24 Commission Approval Date )G& S /Q,