Loading...
PZC Minutes 070588RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING JULY 5, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on July 5, 1988, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 3enchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Pat Cuny. Members Present: Pat Cuny, Tom Landauer, Frank Doll, John Perkins, Denise Hill, Clayton McRory, Buz Reynolds Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Engineering and Community Development; Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant; Lynn Fritzlen, Planner, Valerie McCoy, Recording Secretary Lot A Avon Center Benchmark at Beaver Creek Temporary Sign Variance R quest, Continuation from 6/21/88. Wood stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission considered an application for a temporary sign variance request at the June 21, 1988 meeting, for the Avon Center. He stated that the proposed sign does generally conform with requirements of a temporary sign. The variance request is to allow the sign to be installed more than the seven days allowed. Basically it would be a permanent fixture throughout the summer months. Wood stated that in considering this request, the Commission should go through the review criteria. Wood reviewed this criteria. He also reviewed the findings required. He stated that if the Commission should make the required findings for the granting of the variance, Staff recommends that the approval be limited through September 30, 1988, to be consistent with other variances for similar type signs. Woods stated th:;t Jim Parks, representing Avon Center, was present to answer questions and pr•>sent any additional information. Mr. Parks stated that he had no other information to present. He compared his proposed sign to the Wal-Mart sign, except that it would be smaller. He stated that it would also be hung better. He stated that his sign would be consistent with all the other signs in the area. Discussion followed on the fact that the sign would basically be a permanent sig, (being up 24 hours a day, seven days a week) through September 30th. Cuny clarified the term "temporary sign" for Mr. Parks, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July J, 1988 Page 2 of 9 Lot A Avon Center Benchmark at Beaver Creek Temporary Sign Variance Request Continuation from _6721/88 (cont.) stating that the other signs that have been approved have been approved to be put up on a temporary basis i.e. 3 hours a day, or a special everts weekend. Parks stated that his circumstance is different in that rentals are not limited to certain hours of the day as the breakfast signs that were approved. Cuny asked why they did not pursue a permanent sign. Parks stated that it was not in the budget. They do plan to budget for it next year. They need the temporary sign now. Further discussion followed on the matter of this request being a permanent sign rather than a temporary sign. McRory asked about the colors of the sign. Parks stated it would be white background, blue lettering Hill asked if he would consider putting the sign up from Friday through Sunday. She stated she understood the neer; to generate revenues, but cannot approve seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Parks stated, eliminating special event weekends, that there is no difference between the normal weekends and the rest of the week. Discussion followed regarding the use o+ a vacancy sign or a sign stating hotel registration, rather than the use of a banner. Parks stated that he would comply with any dF_ision the Commission makes. Doll moved to deny the applicant's request and direct the applicant to pursue a permanent sign for his purposes. Perkins seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Portion Lot 46/47 Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Mountain Res prt Condominium Residences,. Phoenix Discovery Group Design Review. Wood stated that the Phoenix Discovery Group has submitted an application and plans for design review for a 12 unit residential condominium project on the easterly portion of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at heaver Creek. This is the easterly portion of what was the Chambertin Townhomes project. Proposed construction would be on the existing foundation which was originally constructed for the fourth building of the Chambertin project. The proposed project consists of twelve one -bedroom units, a laundry room and vending area and fourteen coverQd parking spaces. The proposed building is three story, each o+ the units are approximately 594 square feet of floor Ecea. Eight of the units have fireplaces. Under the proposed 594 square foot Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 5, 1988 Page 3 of 9 units, 1/3 of the development right would be utilized for each unit for a total of 4 development rights which are assigned to the site. building materials include stucco, tongue and groove redwood siding, part of the root is flat and part is a metal roof, proposed as Moss Green, accent trims and metal rails are also green. Landscape materials are basicall-I dry land type landscaping which includes clover with 20% wildflower mix, some red osier dogwood, purple -leaved sand cherry, flowering crabapples and cottonwoods. Irrigation will be by hand due to site limitations and soil constraints of this particular site. Parking provisions include 12 full sized covered spaces, L compact covered spaces and 8 full sized surface spaces for a total of 22 spaces. Parking required for 12 one bedroom units include 1-1/2 spaces per unit plL.s 4 guest spaces for a total of 22 spaces. Wood stated that the Staff comments are based on Staff review of the proposed project based on plans received through June 29, 1988. He stated tiiat the proposed project does not conform with requirements of the zoning code as amended by Ordinance No. 88-11 and as adopted by the Town Council on June 28, 1988. The zoning code allows a maximum of ten units on a property assigned four residential development rights. The proposed project exceeds this by two units. He stated that the application does not coni�orm with the notice requirements for public hearing required prior to final design approval as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure for Fractionalized Projects as adopted by the Town Council on June 28, 1988. Wood stated that these were two major concerns in review of the project. In going through the review the Commission should consider the Design Review Guidelines from Section 6.00 of the Planning and Zoning Commission Design Procedures Rules and Regulations. in addition to that, the Commission should consider the criteria from the Administrative Procedure for Fractionalized Projects. Wood then reviewed the criteria. He stated that the applicant was present to answer any questions the Commission might have. Thomas Weber, of Great Divide Construction, stated he was representing one of the partners and representing Phoenix Discovery Group. He stated that they had made their application prior to the adoption by the Council of Ordinance No. 88-11 and the Administrative Procedure for Fractionalized Projects and they feel they are not required to comply. He stated that they feel they have addressed all previous concerns of the Commission. He described changes that they have made from their previous design. He stated that they have communicated to the Chambertin people their- willingness to help solve the emergency access problem to the Chambertin property. He stated that they are restricted by the drainage 01 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 5, 1988 Page 4 of 9 Portion Lot 46/47, Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Mountain Resort Condominium Residences Phoenix Discovery Group, Desing_Review, (cont_) problem created if the access is developed entirely on their pr-operty. They feel that: a ramp can be cut into the Chambertin drive that will enable emergency vehicles access all year round. The cut would maintain proper drainage away from their unit as well as from the number two Chambertin Unit. He stated that they have included the emergency access, to their property line, as part of their site plan. He stated it was their intent to complete the remaining five of the 29 piers that need to be placed under their foundation at the time of construction. He stated that the retaining walls had been inspected and found to be sound due to the fact that neither the area drains nor the sanitary drains were hooked up. They plan to create new sanitary drains and area drains at time of construction. The foundation will be inspected by the structural engineers and will be certified prior to being built on. He stated that Mark Donaldson would present the information regarding the design Df the project. Cuny stated that the only grandfathering the Town Council did when adopting Ordinance No. 88-11 was for any project that had received preliminary approval prior to adoption of the ordinance. She asked, since the proposed project is over the maximum by two units, if the applicant wanted to proceed with the design review. Donaldson stated that they object firmly to that interpretation of the law and do wish to continue. Discussion on the colors for the project followed. Discussion followed on the emergency access lane and the drainage problem and the maintenance of the access. Cuny asked if Wood saw any problem with the emergency access? Wood stated that it can work.. It would not be a connection that would be a driveway, but would be adequate to allow emergency vehicles from one project to the other. Discussion followed on the need for the Commission to review the project under the new criteria as set forth with Ordinance 88-11 and the Administrative Procedure for Fractionalized Project. Jim Lamont reviewed his comments regarding this project and the Goals for Development District Three. Discussion followed on the building design and site plan. Doll moved to grant preliminary approval to site plan and exte'rior building design, with the condition that the applicant comply with the Fractionalization Ordinance No. 88-11 regarding the maximum of ten units and the Administrative Procedure requirements for Public Hearieg Notices. McRory seconded. The motion carried with Landauer and Hill voting nay. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 5, 1988 Page 5 of 9 Lot 4 Black 1._,_ Wildridge Subdivision. Ridneline Condominiums Phoenix Discovery Group Design Review Wood stated that Phoenix Discovery Group has submitted an application and plans for design review for a 10 unit residential condominium project oo Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. The proposed project consists of four, 796 square foot, two bedroom units in one building and six, 592 square foot one bedroom units in a second building. The proposed project utilizes the fractionalization provisions of the zoning code, using four development rights to construct ten residential units. The proposed project is located in an SPA Zone District with four residential development rights assigned to the particular lot. Both buildings are three story with a garage for each unit on ground level and living units above. Building materials include tongue and groove redwood siding with semi -transparent stain, stucco in Nicy morn'r color, clad windows, wooden shingles and facias and trim is also proposed with a semi -transparent stain on redwood. Proposed landscaping materials include serviceberry, potentilla, pfitzer juniper, cottonwood, blue spruce, flowering crabapple and kentircky bluegrass sad. Irrrigation system is not noted. Wood stated that additional plans may have been received after the Staff report was written, so there may be some variation on some of the comments made. Parking is provided with a garage for each of the ten units, six spaces in central parking area and four spaces in front of the four-plex garages. Wood stated that the proposed project appears to generally conform with requirements of the zoning code, including the amendments in Ordinance No. 8e-11 as adopted by the Town Council on June 28, 1988. The application does not conform with the notice requirements for public hearing as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure for Fractionalized Projects as adopted by the Town Council June 28, 1988. Elevations for the four-plex do not appear to match the floor area. Differences appear to be in the garage entry area. These have been corrected on later versions. Four of the required 20 parking spaces are located in front of the four -plea garage entries. Site topography does not extend to the easterly lot line. This has been corrected. Brading behind the six -plea units extends beyond existing topography limits. vue to steep grades in this area, care should be taken to assure that fill slope can tie into existing grades without exceeding maximum slope of 1-1/2:1. Limited drainage details do not appear to provide positive treatment of parking lot runoff. Concentrated drainage discharge could create serious erosion problems to steepness of grades on this and the adjoining properties. Irrigation system for proposed landscaping is not shown. Design details for trash enclosure Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 5, 1988 Page 6 of 9 Lot 4 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Ridoeline Condominiums Phoenix Discovery Croup, Design Review, (cant.) have not been provided. Entrance sign and lighting details have not been provided. Wood state that in reviewing this project the Commission should consider the Design ''eview Guidelines from Section 6.00 of the Planning and Zoning Commission Design Procedures Rule=_ and Regulations and in addition the Administrative Procedure for Fractionalized Projects criteria should be considered. He then reviewed this criteria. Wood stated the applicant was present and may wish to present additional information. As noted, a number of the Staff comments have been addressed, but when acting on the application, he suggested the Commission stay with the review comments from the plans that they have, since these are the plans that the Staff review was based upon. Thomas Weber again objected to the requirement of notification since they had applied prior to adoption of the requirement. He stated that they have noted tela concerns regarding the drainage off the steep slope and they are trying to find a solution to address this problem. The site lighting was addressed, landscape near the buildings was addressed. He stated that. Marl: Donaldson would answer any questions regarding design. Discussion followed on the entrance off the main road. Weber stated that it would be widened. Discussion followed on the conditions recommended by the Staff. Donaldson stated that the difference between the four-plex elevations and floor plan have been resolved. He stated that the parking places in front of the garages is a customary standard and has been used extensively in Eagle County. Existing topography has been completed. The drainage plans will be more complete once they receive the soils report, etc. The irrigation system will be provided. The trash enclosure information is on the plans. He stated that they are not proposing an entrance sign at this time, but lighting details have been provided. He then described the colors to be used. Lamont then reviewed his comments regarding this project. One issue was view preservation. Discussion followed on the view preservation, the steep cliff face and fencing problem, landscaping at the entryways, the driveway, landscaping of the site, drainage and erosion Problems. The roof and snowfall matter was also discussed. Parking was also discussed and it was decided that the condition for the two additional parking spaces was not necessary. Reynolds moved to grant preliminary design approval for Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge, Ridgeline Condos, with the Staff conditions and recommendations, except for recommendation Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July _,, 1988 Page 7 of 9 Lot 4, Block � Wildridge_ Subdivision, Ridgelino Condominiums,__PhRenix Discovery Group, Design Reviewer (cont.). 2(b) 7. additional parking spaces to be provided), and to include the use of natural vegetation on the east side of the 6-plex on the steep slope area and modifications to the garage side of the 6-plex to reduce the concentration of snowfall in that area. Landauer seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Wal-Mart, :220 _Beaver Creek Place, Temporary Banner -Variance Request Wood stated that Wal-Mart is requesting a variance to hang two temporary signs to promote sidewalk sale activities at various times during the summer. Typically, one weekend, Memorial Day, which has passed, July Fourth, and L_aoor Day weekend. The banners would be mounted on the wall on each side of the entrance. The proposed banners are 3 ft. by 18 ft. for a total area of 54 sq. ft. each. The proposed use conforms with the temporary sign provisions of the sign code, with the exception that the banners are over 35 sq, ft. and they are requesting two rather than one sign. This would require a variance. Wood reviewed the review criteria for granting a variance. He also reviewed the findings required. He stated that should the Commission grant a variance for the oversized banners and the additional banner, the approval should be limited to a specific time frame such as September 30, 1988. At that time the Commission should re -review the use of banners for additional display. He stated the applicant was present to answer any questions. Sean O'Brien, representing Wal-Mart, stated that this is a company program that they are required to do. He stated that they will work with the Town in meeting the Town's requirements. Discussion followed on the various sizes of the banners and the mounting of the signs and length of time the banners would be displayed. O'Brien stated that normally the sales only run three days on special events weekends. He stated that the 3 x 18 sign was the smallest he could locate in his sign catalog. Cuny reviewed the criteria and findings. Discussion on approving one sign followed. Reynolds moved to grant approval for one (1) 3 x 18 temporary sign , for a 3 day period over Labor Day, citing exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity in that the square footage of the building is large enough to support the size of the sign. Landauer seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 5, 1988 Page 8 of 9 The motion carried with Perkins and Hill voting nay. Reading and Approval of Planning and Zoning_ Commission M_eetino Minutes of 6/21/88. Doll moved to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning meeting as submitted. Landauer sezonded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Wood stated that the Commission had been provided with a draft of the Development District Goals and Objectives for Development District Seven, which is Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions. He suggested that the Commission review this draft. Once this is done, meetings should he scheduled to review and present to the public and then make a recommendation to the Council. At this time we have no goals and objectives for projects that come in for Wildridge and Wildwood. It was suggested that a work shop be scheduled before the the next regularly scheduled meeting. Cuny asked what is being done regarding Christie Lodge? Wood stated that they are scheduled to talk with the Municipal Judge sometime the first part of August. Cuny asked about the ugly totem pole at Benchmark Shopping Center':' Wood stated that he would refer that to the new zoning administrator. Reynolds mentioned the lights at the Mountain Center and how bright it is. Landauer asked about the re -landscaping of the lot between Benchmark Shopping Center building and the Wal-Mart property. Wood stated that all the landscaping will be done by July 18, 1988. The removal of the dirt and landscaping of that lot it included. Cuny mentioned that Rich's Auto Body has a huge exhaust coming out of the top of the building that is not painted silver. Wood stated he would check into it. Cuny stated that Wal-Mart has not painted the satellite dish. Hill asked if something could be done about the old wonder building on the way up to Wildridge. Reynolds moved to adjourn. Landauer seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlotte Pascuzzi Recording Secretary :- 14 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting (Minutes July 5, 1988 Page 9 of 9 Commission approval r'r,:- J _ Date_ P. Cuny T. Land F. Doll J. Perk D. Hill C. McRo A. Reyn