PZC Minutes 051788RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES EF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
MAY 17, 1498
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was
held on May 17, 1488, at 7:35 PM in the gown Council Chambers
of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road.,
Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chairwoman Pat Cuny..
Members Present: Pat Cuny, Tom Landauer, Frank Doll,
John Perl.ins, Denise Hill, Clayton McRory,
Buz Reynolds
Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Engineering and
Community Development, Ray Wright,
Engineering Technician, Charlette Pascuzzi,
Recording Secretary
Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Beaver Creek
Place. Variance to Allow Parking Within 10 Foot Front Yard
Setbacks, Public Hearing
Wright stated that Morter Architects, representing the owners
of Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, are requesting
approval of a variance to allow parking within the 10 foot
front yard setbacks along both Beaver Creek Place and East
Beaver Creel: Blvd. in conjunction with a retail development
they propose to build on the site. Wright provided plans for
the proposes; development and stated that the applicant was
present �.o answer any questions the Commission might have.
Jim Morter of Morter Architects stated that they had a new
set of plans for the Commission to review, which he provided.
He stated that these are different from the previous plans in
that they have net wi*-h Staff and resolved all of the
questions that were raised with the first plans. Morter
stated that the are asking for the variance because they
feel that it will give them a better quality in the building
and in the quality of es:perience of pedestrians who will be
using the project as part of the pedestrian mall system.
What they want to do is move parking two and one half feet
into the setbacks to allow additional landscaping adjacent to
the building and allow more architectural interest in the
building.
Considerable discussion followed on the revised plans.
Doll asked about the concern r.rgarding the easement that
Upper Eagle Valley has.
Morter stated that they had received a letter from them and
all issues had been resolved.
Reynolds ask: Norm Wood if the snow storage would be a
problem.
Wood stated that it might be tight but not really any
problem. I'_ might be that they will have to haul it oiit at
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 17, 1988
Page 2 of 10
Lot- 69 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Cree}�A__Beayer Creek
Place, Variance to Allow Parking—Within 10 Foot Front Yard
Setbacks. Public Hearing_(Cont.>
times.
Discussion o! open space followed.
Cuny reviewed the criteria for granting or denying a
variance.
Discussion followed on the Master Plan's proposed walkway.
Doll moved to approve Planning and Zoning Resolution No.
88-5, Series of 1988, A Resolution Granting a Variance to
Allow Parking Within the 10 Foot Front Yard Setbacks for Lot
69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek., citing the findings
as:
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent witFi the limitations
on other properties classified in the same district;
B. That the granting of the variance will riot be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurous to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
C. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons:
1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty
or unnecessary physical hardship incon=sistent with the
objectives of this title;
2. There are exceptional or eytraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do
not apply generally to other properties in the same zone;
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
S.of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
same district.
Reynolds seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
Lot 69, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek
Place. Preliminary Design Review
Cuny stated that since the project had already been
introduced with the previous item they could go on to
discussion of the plans. She asked if there was a name for
the project.
It will be called 51 Beaver Creek Place.
Morter stated that they think that they have addressed all
the concerns with the new plans and once the Staff has
reviewed the new plans, they can address any that have not
been covered.
Discussion followed on the drainage for the project.
Morter stated that the building is a 7000 square foot all
retail space commercial building. They are using a
combination of stucco, scored concrete block, metal roofing,
and glass. Morter described the various colors to be used.
Perkins asked about signage.
i .
40
40
41111111
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 17, 19881
Page 3 of 10
Lot 69. Block 2. Benchmark_ at beaver Cr_eek_,_ Peaver Creek
Place, Preliminary Design Review (Cont.)
Morter stated that the signage will be in each of the tower
elements and each of the dormer elements.
Discussion followed on the metal roof and any possible glare.
Morter stated that it would be a matt finish.
Landauer questioned the turning space for the loading dock
and if there would be a traffic flow problem.
Morter stated that it met the requirements of 24 feet and
should not cause problems. He stated that there would be no
semi -trucks, only vans etc.
Reynolds asked about the roof overhang encroaching into the
7.5 foot setback.
Morter stated that this concern had been corrected when they
redesigned the building to 7000 square feet.
Further discussion followed on the parking lot and 1oa.dirig
dock.
Discussion followed on the signage tower. Morter stated that
the freestanding sign would be twenty feet high.
Perkins moved to grant preliminary design apFroval for 51
Beaver Creel: Place, with the conditions that the applicant
continue to work with the staff for direction toward final
approval and address the following Staff recommendations:
1. Final design include a fully dimensioned site plan
conformino_ with building setback requirements, parking and
access, loading clock requirements, and pedestrian
circulation;
2. Final design include a complete grading and drainage plan
addressing detention and treatment of parking lot runoff;
3. Final design include a Comprehensive Sign Program
detailing sizes, locations, and materials for all signage for
the project;
4. Final design must conform with the requirements of the
Zoning Code, Planning and Zoning Commission Design
Procedures, Rules and Regulations.
Doll seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
Lot 10, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, Gosshawk Townhomes,
Television Antennas Design Review
Wright stated that Circuit Doctors, Inc., representing Bolduc
Realty and Management is requesting design review approval
for a Master Antenna Television System to serve the Gosshawk
Townhomes in Wildridge. The proposed antenna would be
mounted on the exterior of Unit b as shown on the site plan
which has been provided. The proposed tower and antenna will
extend approximately 7 feet above the ridge line of the
building. Wright stated that the applicant was present to
answer any questions.
Michael King, of Circuit Doctors stated they they wish to
•A
awl
QDI
• I
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
May 17, 1988
Page 4 of 10
Lot 10 Block 5 Wildridge Subdivision, Gosshawk Townhomes,
Television Antenna Desion Reveiw (Cont.)
provide the Gosshawk Townhomes with television service. The
only alternative at present is to receive an off -air signal
or satellite signal, due to the fact that the local cable
company does not serve those townhomes.
Mr. Bolduc stated that the only alternative is for each of
the ten units to have their own antennas attached to the
outside decks. He stated that it would cost $261000.00 for
cable, which really isn't a viable alternative.
Discussion followed regarding the placement of the antenna
and the fact that this type of antenna would be impossible to
screen.
Doll asked if the tenants had approved this application.
Bolduc stated that the owners had given approval.
Doll moved to grant approval of this application as
submitted.
McRory seconded.
The motion passed with Perkins opposing the approval.
Lot 6. 5.
Ass_ociatesBlo24 Unit Condominium rn"
umPoject, PreliminaryDesion
Review Continued from. May 3. 1988.
Wood stated that since both Lot 3 and Lot 6 were basically
the same type of project, they can both be covered at the
same time, however when action is taken they should be
treated as two separate projects. He stated that the items
were continued from the May 3, 1988 meeting to give the
applicant the opportunity to make revisions based on
discussion received from the Commission at the May 3rd
meeting. He stated that they had received revised plans and
that they appear to address many of the issues raised at the
previous meeting. He stated that less of the site will be
disturbed, it provides access around the units as requested
by the Fire Department, and provides a wildfire break between
the landscape areas around the building and the natural site
grading. A four foot walkway has been added between the
parking lot and the building front. Also the buildings now
include a small storage area, one for each unit in the
project. The revised plan shows 1:1 slopes, which would
require special precautions, but which allows for the
disturbance of the site to be reduced. Another concern is
that it will require treatment of parking lot runoff and
erosion control. Lighting is shown on the building, but
thought should be given to lighting for the parking lot and
in particular at the entrances. The building design has been
changed substantially, however there is no change in the
a
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
May 17, 1988
Page 5 of 10
Lot _ _ Plock 5 Wildridoe Subdivision, D'_terman and
Associates, 20 Unit Condominium Project, Preliminary Design
Review Continued from May 3, 117ais (cont.),
Lot 6 block 5 WildFidge Subdivision Otterman— and
Associates. 24 Unit Condominium Project Preliminary Desi
Review, Continued from May 3, 1988 (Cont.).
units themselves. Offsets and gabled roofs have been added.
Wood stated that the Staff recommends that the Commission
review this application :in conjunction with the design review
guidelines.
Mark Donaldson, representing Tom Leroy and Ken Otterman,
stated that they appreciated the opportunity to discuss the
design changes with the Commission. He then introduced Ken
Otterman and Tom Leroy. Donaldson then provided some color
versions of the design. He described the changes made in the
grading and revegetat.ion. He stated that they are prepared
to provide the engineering analysis and the revegetation
analysis for the steeper- grade for final review. He stated
that they had addressed the Commission's concerns about the
flat roofs with the heights of the parapet walls and by
offsetting the building masses. He stated that with the
add' -tion of the four foot walkway, it would allow them to
provide parking lot snow removal as well as keep pedestrian
ways open. The parking spaces in front of the stairwells
have been kept open for fire department access. Dori aldson
stated that in general they have addressed or have no problem
addreE.sing the other fire department concerns listed in the
previous report. They have no problem in providing a
dry --standpipe as suggested by the fire department.
He stated that the laundry facilities might be better placed
in the building itself and would like to have the Commission
consider this aspect.
Cuny asked if this project was still apartment rentals.
Donaldson stated that at the previous meeting he had stated
that these would be apartment rentals, but now he has a
better understanding of the situation and these will be
condominiums sold to individual investors which will be able
to either use the unit themselves or rent it.
Cuny asked if the federal government rent rate would still
apply.
Donaldson stated that this would apply to any unit in the
United States, if the owner wishes they could put it into
this type of program they would be able to. The owners of
this project are not dealing with this program.
Discussion followed on this matter.
Hill asked if there would be an on-site manager?
Tom Leroy stated that there would be an on-site manager.
Cuny asked about the fact that no recreational or green belt
area had been included.
Donaldson stated that they are open to doing something alone
that line and probably should have addressed the matter.
dw1
iwil
•]
•1
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
May 17, 1'i'88
Page 6 of 10
Cuny reviewed the Staff concerns and Donaldson stated that
they have no problem with meeting the Staff requirements.
Hill asked about the drainage system on the flat roof.
Donaldson stated that it would be an internal drainage
system.
Further discussion followed on the 1:1 slope and the need for
the soils analysis etc., to see if this was a workable
alternative.
Discussion follo'.+ed on some of the fire department concerns.
Landscaping of the two lots was then discussed. A landscape
plan will be submitted.
McRory asked if the unit sizes could be changed.
Donaldson stated that they could not be as they are aiming at
a specific market and it is his client's desire to pursue
this market.
Hill asked if his client was aware that there was no
transportation system to that area.
Donaldson stated that they were and that they hoped that, this
project would heip get service to that area.
Comments were again made about the maximizing of the
fractionalization ordinance for th.s type o -F project.
The matter of this being a whole new project from the one
presented a' the previous meeting was discussed.
Doll stated that as it stands now the project is within 'the
Town zoning regulations and is within the fractionalization
regulatimn and the applicant has done everything that he was
asked to do at the previous meeting. He stated thet the
Staff concerns need to be addressed before final desig^.
Discussion followed regarding the driveway grades.
Reynolds was concerned with the massing of the building on
the downhill side. He suggested possibly using more
vegetation on that side.
Discussion on the storage element followed.
It was suggested that a good quality of wood siding be used.
Tom Leroy stated that their desire is to build a quality
project, but their concern is that they are providing units
which are needed at this time for affordable housing.
He stated that they would do all they can to build this as a
quality project.
Perkins asked if there was a government program involved in
the development of this project.
Leroy stated that there are no government dollars involved
whatsoever. Tax credits are offered to all property owners
and can be used if a owner wishes to usa the program.
Perkins asked why all one -bedroom.
Leroy stated that they have tried to satisfy a unit that
would rent very reasonably and would basically cater to an
adult, not a family, more to make this an adult complex..
Leroy stated that they had spent considerable time regarding
the needs of the community and this is what they feel s
needed.
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
May 17, 1988
Page 7 of 10
Lot 3 Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Otterman and
Associates. 20 Unit Condominium Project Preliminary Design
Review Continued from May 3 1988 ( Cant.):
Lot 6 Block 5 Wildridge Subdivision Otterman and
Associates 24 Unit Condominium Project, Preliminary Design
Review, Continued from May 3 1988 (Cont.).
Cuny reviewed the design review guidelines.
Perkins moved to grant preliminary design approval for Lot 3,
Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, with the conditions that the
applicant continue to work with the Staff and that the Staff
recommendations, as follows, be addressed:
1. Include slope stability analysis by soils engineer for
graded slopes steeper than 2:1.
2. Include special provisions for revegetation of steeper
slopes.
3. Include provisions for treatment of parking lot runoff
and erosion control.
4. Provide area lighting for parking lot and entrances.
5. Provide fire protection facilities as required by
Fire Department based upon occupancy, available fire flaws
and access.
Other conditions were: A redesign of the storage element at
the entries of the building; Specific emphasis on the soils
analysis and engineering analysis of the 1:1 slopes; the
applicant provide landscaping around the entrance to the
site.
McRory seconded.
Reynolds asked that the motion be amended to include
provisions for landscaping on the downhill side to downgrade
the building massing.
Perkins so amended his motion.
McRory seconded the amendment.
The motion carried with Hill opposing.
McRory moved for approval of preliminary design for Lot 6,
Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision with all conditions that were
stated for Lot 3, Block 5, applying for Lot 6, Block 5.
Doll seconded.
The motion carried with Hill opposing.
Sign Code Revisions
Wood stated that one of the concerns the Town Counc,'_ had, in
reviewing the proposed sign code ordinance on their second
reading, was that with the change of only counting one side
of a double sided freestanding sign, that this might tend to
promote proliferation of freestanding signs. They felt that
there were no controls on these signs.
Discussion followed on the suggested revisions to the
ordinance Section 15.28.080, paragraph "O" and the deletion
of Section 15.28.080, subparagraph 6 of Paragraph "Q".
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
May 17, 1988
Page 8 of 10
Sign Code Revisions (Cant.)
Considerable discussion followed regarding the wording
regarding freestanding signs and what areas should be
considered as being ad3acent to state or federal highways.
Wood reviewed the suggested revisions as follows:
Section 15.28.080, paragraph "O"
Freestanding signs will generally be allowed only in
vehicular oriented areas. In general, sites shall be limited
to one freestanding sign with an area of forty square feet
and a height of eight feet. The Planning and Zoning
Commission shall have discretionary powers to approve more
than one freestanding sign when a property has more than one
front lot line with entrances. The Commission shall also have
discretionary powers to approve a freestanding sign with a
maximum total area of 64 square feet and a maximum height of
20 feet. Freestanding signs may not exceed the height of the
highest building on the lot.
The Commission recommended that Subparagraph 6 of Section
15.28.080, Paragraph "G" be deleted.
All Commission members agreed on the above suggested changes
and recommended that they be forwarded on to the Town Council
for approval.
Reading and Approval of the P 8a Z Minutes of 5/3/88 Regular
Meet i n�C
Cuny stated that she had a question regarding the statement
by Wright that the Wynfield Inn had been purchased by a
nationwide chain.
Wright replied that he did in fact make that statement,
therefore, the minutes should stand as submitted.
7_andau2r moved to approve the minutes as corrected
Perkins seconded.
The motion carried unanimously.
Other Business
Cuny mentioned the letter from the Vail Valley Foundation
regarding the Gold Medallions for skiing and golf.
Discussion regarding the necessity of recopying items that
have been continued from one meeting to another led to the
decision that the Commission members will leave their pacKet
folders with the rcicording secretary after each meeting so
that items can just be added to the next packets
Cuny asked about the landscaping that was supposed to be done
at Beaver Creek West around the satellite dishes.
Wood stated that he would be checking with them.
Cuny stated that she felt that the Commission should draft a
letter to the Town Council, detailing the Commission's
concerns regarding the fractionalization ordinance.
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
May 17, 1988
Page 9 of 10
Other Business
Wood suggested the Staff draft a letter for consideration by
the Commission at the next regular meeting.
Reynolds asked about the painting of the Christie Lodge.
Woods stated that when he contacted them, he was told that
the Owners Association meeting is scheduled fDr the next week
and this is a test section to see if they want to paint the
building or not. They were informed that they would have to
appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission if they
decide to change the color.
Wood reviewed, again, the matter of an applicant that is
building in Wildridge and the fact that the Planning and
Zoning Commission has no jurisdiction on whether or not an
applicant presents his proposal to the Wildridge Covenants
Committee. He reiterated that the Commission could only
consider a project under the Town's guidelines.
Discussion foliowed on conceptual and final design reviews
and what each review entails. Also discussed was the
maximizing of the fractionalization ordinance.
Cuny suggested that possibly the Commission could have more
work sessions to be able study projects in more detail prior
to the meetings.
Per kin=_ asked why the Staff didn't make recommendations for
approval or disapproval?
Wood stated that he felt that if a firm recommertidation is
male it is like the Staff making the decision and this way
t:ie Commission can be more open in they way they approach a
project. The Staff feels that the action taken should be up
to the Commission.
Perkins stated that he would like to see a stronger Staff
recommendation.
!flood stated that most design review staff reports are based
on more technical aspects than on aesthetics.
Cuny stated that the next meeting would be on June 7th.
Reynolds moved to adjourn.
Hill =seconded.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlette Pascuzzi
Recording Secretary
I