Loading...
PZC Minutes 041988RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING APRIL 19, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on April 19, 1988, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The ineet.irg was called to order by Chairwoman Pat Cuny. Members Present: Pat Cuny, Buz Reynolds, Frank Doll Charlie Gersbach, Mike Blair, Mark: Donaldson, Tom Landauer Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Engineering and Community Development: Ray Wright, Engineering Technician; Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Lot 36. Block_1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek: Resolution 88-4, A Resolution Granting A Variance To Allow Parking Within 10 Feet Of The Metcalf Road Right-of-way Wright stated that at the April 5, 1988 meeting the Commission directed the Staff to prepare a resolution approving a request for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback for Lot 36, Block 1, Benrhmark: at Beaver Creek. The resolution is presented for adoption, citing the criteria and findings as directed by the Commission at last meeting. Donaldson and Reynolds stepped down as voting members due to a conflict of interest as indicated at last meeting. Gersbach moved to adopt Resolution 88-4, Granting a Variance to Allow Parking Within 10 Feet of the Metcalf Road Right-of-way, for Lot 36, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Blair seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Lot 51, Block 3, Wildridge Ray Duplex Addition Design Review Wright stated that Michael Ray has applied for Design Review of a 338 square foot addition he proposes to crnstruct on the west half of the Ray duplex, located on Lot 51, Block: 3, Wildridge. The proposed addition is one story high, has a roof pitch that matches the existing structure, and 1 x 6 wood siding on the Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 2 of 15 Lot 51 Block 3 Wildridge, Ray Duplex Addition. Design Review (cont.) exterior. Wright stated 'that Mr. Ray was present to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Ray asked if there were any questions. He stated that he thought every thing that was to be done was included on the drawings that have been provided. Discussion followed on the project. Cuny asked if the siding would be the same as the existing construction. Mr. Ray stated that it would be. Reynolds moved to approve the addition on Lot 51, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, to include the Staff comments. Doll seconded. Gersbach asked if Mr. Ray owned both sides^ Mr. Ray stated he did not own both sides. Gersbach asked if the other owner has approved this addition. Mr. Ray stated that she has verbally approved it and he will have written approval this week. Reynolds amended his motion to include the written approval. Doll seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. Lot 65 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Development_ Sian Design Review Wright stated that Otis Development Company has applied for design review of a development sign for 1_ot 65, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The proposed sign is approximately fifteen square feet. It is within all the requirements for a development sign. Cuny asked if there was a representative of the company present? Wright stated that he had talked to Pat Barron and that he had assured him that it would be a quality sign and the Staff would double check this. Cuny stated that if the Commission approves this the Staff recommendation that the sign must be 10 feet from the property and road right-of-way should be included in the motion. Donaldson moved to approve the development sign as submitted, with the stipulation that it be placed to feet from the property line or road right-of-way Gersbach seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 3 of 15 Part of Lot 46/47 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Phoenix Discovery GrOu2s 14 Unit Condominium_ Project Preliminary Desiqn Review Donaldson asked that the record show that he was stepping down due to a conflict of interest. Gersbach also stepped down stating that he had presented a letter of conflict of interest to the Recording Secretary. Wood stated that since this was a continuance of the last meeting -nd since Frank Doll was not present at that meeting, it should be cleared up whether he has made himself familiar with the previous discussion by listening to the tape. Doll stated that he had listened to the tape and was aware of the previous discussions. Wood stated that the Phoenix Discovery Group, owners of the easterly portion of Lots 46/47, formerly known as building one of the Chambertin Project, has applied for preliminary design review. The design review is based upon a fractionalized project containing 14 one bedroom condominium units. This would be a fractionalization of the four development rights which are currently assigned to that site. During the previous discussion there was a great deal of discussion regarding the suitability of the proposed project and that use of fractionalization. The building is a three story structure to be located on the existing foundation, with a stucco exterior, clad windows, and flat roof design. Parking is provided by a combination of surface parking and other parking spaces incorporated into the building. Staff review indicates that the proposal does conform with the zoning ordinance through the use of the fractionalization process and is within the building heights, setbacks, parking requirements, open space, etc. Wood stated that due to the discussion that has come up on fractionalization of development rights he would read the purposes of the fractionalization ordinance as it was adopted. Wood then read from Chapter 17.22 -Fractionalization of Development Rights, Sections A, B, C, and D. Wood then read from the Design Review Guidelines under Section 6 of the P&Z Rules and Regulations, Design Review considerations the items to be considered in reviewing a design of a proposed project. Sections 6.11 through 6.17 were quoted. Section 7.30 of the Planning and Zoning Procedure was also quoted. Wood stated that all the above were items that the Commission need to keep in mind in reviewing this project. Cuny stated that in the packets were additional correspondence received since the previous meeting. One from Jerry Burris, opposing this project and one from Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 4 of 15 Part a+ Lot 46/47 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Group 14 Unit Condominium Project Preliminary Design Review (cont.) Mrs Lisa Johnson Hammond a resident of Sherwood Meadows, stating concern about the blind curve and the traffic coming out of the proposed project. Also included was a letter from Mr. Donaldson that was sent to the Chambertin Homeowners Association. Cuny asked if the applicant had any additional information to present. Thomas Weber, on behalf of one of the partners in Phoenix: Discovery Group, Stated that after the last meeting they held a brief meeting with John. Graham and Linda Pell at which they confirmed that the documents Nhich Ms. Pell had mentioned were in fact the same as the recorded documents which the Phoenix: Discovery Group had referred to. Mr- Weber stated that Mr. Graham had stated at this meeting that he would oppose any development on the property which did not conform with the previous development and would pursue the developmFsnt, quote "all the way" and that the Chambertin Homeowners voted unanimously to support that position. Mr. Weber compared the proposed units with the one bedroom units at Sherwood Meadows, stating that their proposed units were larger than the ones at Sherwood Meadows. Mr. Weber then presented the Commission with another letter from Silver and Hayes. Weber then discussed the matter of devaluation of adjacent properties comparing the various multi -family units that are built next to single family units in both Fail and Avon. He then stated that the value recently established by Mr. Watkins purchase establishes values at $35.27 per square +not. The values established by Mr. Fleisher's purchase set these values at $59.67 per square foot. He stated that the latest appraisal, that he knows about, set the values at $53.44 per square foot_ He stated that it is not this development that will devalue this property. Regarding the Chambertin efforts to complete their- project, the punch list for completion has been known since 1984 and it still is not complete. Weber stated that the Chambertin owners had the opportunity to purchase this property if they so desired and could have seen that it was completed the way they desire. However, they made no effort to do so. Weber read excerpts from a local newspaper stating that Watkins also planned similar uses for his units. He stated that he felt it was ludicrous to assert that they would be devaluing the Chambertin property by improving their property. Mr. Weber stated that if they did not have pre -sales, they would not continue with the project. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 5 of 15 Part of Lot 46/47. Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Group, 14 Unit Condominium Project_ Preliminary Design Review (cont.) Mr. Weber stated that Mr. Donaldson would now review some of the issues from the Commission. Mr. Donaldson stated that one of the regrets that he had from the last meeting was that they did not get into Jim Lamont's planning review report. Donaldson proceeded to compare their fourteen one bedroom units with the units of Sherwood Meadows and with Chambertin, which he stated has 18 bedrooms in each building. Donaldson stated he could not understand why Watkins was objecting to their one bedroom units when he has already stated publicly that he would like to do the same thing. Curly asked if there was anyone else that would like to add information. Clint Watkins stated that he would like to address the comments made by Mr. Weber and Mr. Donaldsun concerning the article in the newspaper. He stated that he had told the newspaper that the units were designed where the bottom part could be locked off, but that he has never indicated that he desired to separate the units. He stated that if ever he did consider this action he would get approval from the Homeowners Association before trying to push it through the Planning and Zoning Commission. John Graham reiterated the objections that the Homeowners Association has regarding this project. Mr. Graham stated, regarding Mr. Weber's comments about the units not being completed, that the items to be completed are a part of the Associations legal proceedings against the insurance company. He stated that the Association has undertaken on its own behalf, without any funding from the insurance company, additional safety and light requirements, as required by the Town of Avon. Two of the major concerns and the reasons they are objecting to this project, deals with property values and also access to the units. Mr. Graham stated that their- sole purpose is to protect the quality and integrity of the property as it was originally designed and developed. Mr. Graham stated that at the conclusion of the last meeting they offered to sit down with the applicant regarding the proposal. To date that has not happened. He quoted from a letter received from Mr. Donaldson stating that they plan to continue through the review process in an expeditious manner. Mr Graham stated that he felt that this was not a very willing attitude in trying to reach a reasonable compromise. He stated that the Homeowners are firmly resolved to see this thing through to a conclusion. He Planning and Zcning Meeting Minutes April 14, 1488 Page 6 of 15 Part of Lot 46/47, block 1 benchmark. at Beaver Creek Phoenix Discovery Group 14 Unit Condominium Project Preliminary Design Review (cont.) stated that it is their request that the project be denied as it is being proposed to the Commission. Robert Hegameyer, appearing as the corporate secretary of Syndicate Glass, the owner of Unit 13, Chambertin. Mr. Hegameyer asked the Commission to consider a couple factors regarding the design review guidelines. Consider, if the Commission is so inclined to approve the project, whether Mr. Donaldson would be required to modify the project to allow free ingress and egress from either direction in the event of a snow problem, or rock problem or the need to get a fire truck or ambulance up there. There must be free access for travel and to terminate it may violate the zoning codes or ordinances. He stated that the Commission should consider the compatibility of design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties and comF aibility of proposed improvements with site topography. Would Mr. Donaldson be willing and is it within the power of the Commission to mandate that he modify the foundatign in the same fashion as the Chambertin foundations were modified. What impact will there be on the hillside if this project is built on that foundation and what impact will there be on the Chambertin foundations. He stated that this is a serious consideration of theirs and they ask- that it be one of the Commission's also. He stated that the visual impact was another one of their concerns. They do not feel it will be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Hagerman asked if Mr. Donaldson would provide them with a financial guarantee that the wort, would not damage the remedial work that Chambertin has done. Would he be willing to post a hcnd and is it within the power of the Commission to require one. Greg Peterman, an owner of Unit IA, Sherwood Meadows stated that they have only recently heard of this project and is authorized to state that David and Lisa Hammond, Jan and Jim Hackett,Bill and Kim Andree and Donna Haskins as well as himself are opposed to the project at the present time. Cuny asked him to state his reasons why. Mr. Peterman stated that they believe that the density of the project is such that it is out of character with the neighborhood and are concerned with the valuation and the potential soils impact at the west end of their project. Mr. Donaldson responded to the comments from Mr. Graham regarding the fire lane sign stating that it has nc bearing on ownership, development rights or use of property. He stated that the letter sent to the Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 7 of 15 Part of Lot 46/47 Block 1, BanchmarL: at beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Group,_ 14 Unit Condominium Project Preliminary Design Review (cont.) Homeowners Association came after Mr. Graham informed him that they would oppose them on anything other than another 4 unit project. That is why the letter states that they plan to proceed with the project as submitted. He stated that he was confused with all the objections, as he thinks that anyone that has invested money in that neighborhood would welcome development of that site. He stated that he was also confused about Mr. Hagermeyer requesting free access. He said he could not understand why the gentleman would think that they would give free access across their property. Also, regarding the caissons, 25 of the 29 have already been installed by the same contractor under the supervision of the same structural engineer-, and they intend to follow through with the remaining four or five that are required. These requirements will be taken care or at the time of application for a building permit. Mr. Donaldson stated that as far as posting a bond to protect something that they have been through, he stated that the project would be undertaken with the pr,per liability, workmans compensation, etc. He stated that in terms of the comparison of their property to the other three filings of Charrbertin, they are approximately one third larger in land area, in terms of the overall impact. Mr. Donaldson stated that Avon is largely made up of second homes and resort homes for weekend skiers. He stated that he believes that Chambertin only has one or two full time owner occupants and one or two long term rental properties. Also, they have the right to rent out their properties without coming before this board or without talking to their neighbors. He stated that they were only asking that the Commission review the project within the guidelin-s of the ordinances and documents that Norm Wood statr l at the beginning. Jim Lamont stated _nat there will be some modification or elaborations to his comments, since he will be taking into consideration the comments made at the last meeting and at this one so far. Regarding Section 6.11; there is general agreement that the zoning requirements and other applicable rules and regulations have been attained. Regarding 6.12; provided that there is sufficient investigation on the soils condition, the site is suitable for a wide varity of residential structures. The type and quality of material of which the proposed structure is to be constructed is consistant with standards for multi -unit residential structures. Regarding 6.13; The design does not appear to adversely effect the distribution of light and air of Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 8 of 15 Part of !sot 46/47 Plock l,lenchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Group, ':4 Unit Condominium Project Prelimin.:ry Design Review (cont.) adjacent properties. This is one of the key criteria in evaluating :'Impacts on adjacent properties. The acces•.e of fire safety equipment to adjacent properties may be adversely effected by the site design. Mr. Lamont stated that he felt that this is a key issue. Site drainage and landscape plans are of insufficient detail to determine their compatibility with existing or proposed site plans of adjacent properties. He considers this as a matter of further design study that can be resolved. Regarding 6.14; Insufficient information exists to determine the impact upon soils movement and landscaping or retaining wall on north side of exterior parking lot. Make sure that the retaining wall is of a sufficient stature that it would not allow for any soils movement. That may reduce the concern for limiting emergency access for all the properties. Regarding 6.15; The visual appearance of the proposed improvement does not inhibit principal views nor block the solar exposure of adjacent and neighboring properties. He feels this is a key element when you look at how the building is sited. Insufficient information exists to determine if landscaping will have an acceptable visual appearance from the public ways. One of the concerns from the aesthetic standpoint for the entire neighborhood is that many of the existing developments to the east have taken great pains to insure that a quality landscape has developed along Nottingham Road. He suggested that that quality landscaping be carried entirely along Nottingham Road. The exterior and enclosed parking areas are not located in principal views from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. On further study of the neighborhood, it is possible with this particular site plan to improve the landscaping of the rear parking area so that it is more mitigated for public ways. Regarding 6.16; The apprarent mass of the three story flat roof structure is consistent with two and three story structures an adjacent properties. Building offsets on the south elevation are significant enough to be similar in appearance of structures on adjacent properties. It carries through a similar theme throughout the neighborhood. Exterior materials, architectural detailing and color can be modified to emphasis wood siding which is the prevalent siding material in the vicinity. Through minor modifications of the building mass, the exterior could have a little bit more wood that would bring it more in compatibility with the neighbors which are stucco and wood. Again, provisions Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 9 of 15 Part of Lot 46/47 Block 1 Benchmark at Deaver Creek: Phoenix Discov=ry Group 14 Unit condominium Project Preliminary Design Review (cont.) should be made for adequate fire safety access to adjacent properties. Landscaping improvements should be qualitatively and quantitatively increased and maintained to the standards consistent with existing improvements in the vicinity. No information or standards are available that indicates that either the proposed use nor the aesthetics of the improvement are so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. The burden of proof in determining values and aesthetics lies with the applicant. The overriding concern from a public body is a consistency compatibility and desires of the neighborhood. Those are the two criteria that are significant considerations that this Commission should take under advisement. There is no body of information within the Town of Avon, nor has there been presented any information by the applicant which gives indication of the types of units existing in the neighborhood. The whole neighborhood is sort of mix -blended together, so that what we have here is the first instance of a mono -culture type building coming into the neighborhood. The ordinances of the Town of Avon, not the goals and the policies and the programs, particularly the fractionalization ordinance, were written in the spirit of continuing a mixed-use policy. It would be his observation that it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood to continue that mix. How that mix is achieved has to be the burden of the applicant. There is clear- indication that, at least on adjacent properties, there is a desire for continuing the mixed-use residential development. There is only one other site besides this in the immediate neighborhood that remains to be developed, so the degree of which the neighborhood is developed is fairly well established. The desires of the neighborhood in compatibility is a very important issue. Fractionalization and mixed-use will become more and more an issue for Avon, so this particular project has brought forth the first real sense of community and sense of neighborhood. In terms of value, Mr Lamont stated that he has yet to see, in this valley, where any particular development nay down -value any values in the neighborhood. This is an economic issue and no one in the room is qualified to make this judgement, however the Commission is qualified to make the judgement in terms of the aesthetics and impacts on the neighborhood. It is his professional recommendation that the Commission take a long hard look at the unit mix and 1 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 10 of 15 Part of Lot 46147 Block I Benchmark at beaver Creek: Phoenix Discovery Group 14 Unit Condominium Project Preliminary Design Review (cant.) that you consider as one of the conditions of approval the reconsideration of the unit mix that is being proposed. Mr. Donaldson stated that the fractionalization of Falcon Point caused quite a controversy, where the entire neighborhood came to oppose it. It was approved and the values were not shown to be detrimental to the neighbors. Mr. Donaldson stated he has a problem with the review comments and that was that they had made every effort to meet on a pre -planning basis with the entire staff and at that time you did not address many of the issues you brought up tonight. You were asked about three days ago if you had any modifications to your staff report as previously written and you said no. Mr. Donaldson stated that they did not :-save any problem with providing emergency access. We have maintained this all along. They have worked out the grading plan so that the driveway slopes away from the building and in doing so it becomes about a five foot cut between the two properties. They want to get their project approved as submitted so they can go to the market and test their design in the marketplace. The drainage issue is a sensitive concern to them. Two weeks ago they hand delivered a notice to Mr. Graham of the Homeowners Association stating that they did not want them to continue to access the property in the fashion that they have been. No easement exists, no access rights exists and they asked them to refrain from doing so for liability reasons. What he was getting to was the drainage issue. They have a need to install a proper drainage Swale down the west side of the property. This was indicated in the letter to Mr. Graham. Since that letter was distributed, the neighbors have taken it upon themselves to construct a drainage facility on Mr. Donaldson's property for their project. Mr. Donaldson is concerned about the drainage issue. He stated that they were prepared to work with the neighbors to agree on proper drainage for bath properties, but do not intend to be precluded to have good drainage an our own. As far as the retaining wall requirements, we have worked out all the regrading and the contours and reviewed the soils reports and basically the tallest wall they .,ill construct is six feet high which is about half the height of the other walls that have been constructed on the site to support their buildings. Donaldson stated that preliminary review does not require landscape review and yet over half of Mr. Lamont's review included comments regarding the Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 11 of 15 Part of Lot 46/47 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Phoenix DisCDVer/ Group 14 Unit Condominium Project Preliminary Design Review (cont.) landscaping. They plan to do intensive landscape treatment, more than exists on the neighboring properties. Donaldson asked Lamont to elaborate on his comment that their landscape appears to be less than adequate for the neighborhood. Lamont compared their landscape with the landscaping to the east. Theirs is more arid than manicured as the easterly landscape is. Donaldson reminded Lamont of the limitations the soil engineer placed on the property. The property cannot be sodded or irrigated. They intend to do the best possible with the dry land approach. As to the comment about the wood treatment on this project, Mr. Donaldson stated that, after 12 years of designing buildings in this area, he is a little tired of wood, and the upkeep of wood is more, and Chambertin is an example. He stated that they would consider some wood treatment if necessary for this Commission. As far as the burden of proof being on the applicant, Mr. Donaldson stated he had a problem with that, but would do the best he could off the cuff. He stated that they had surveyed the units available in the Avon market area. He stated that when you consider projects like 5unridge, where units are selling for 40 to 45 thousand dollars that once sold for 90 to 100 thousand dollars and the Chambertin project itself that once sold for as high as 450 thousand dollars, those values cannot be protected. He also doesn't believe that those values exist today. He can't see where they are effecting their values. Regarding the mixture that Mr. Lamont referred to, they feel that they are providing a mixture in the fact that they are a mono -culture building. In closing Mr. Donaldson stated that thFy would appreciate the Commission allowing them to market this project because they believe that they are right on target. They have considered lesser larger units which would be directed at locals, but the prices are not where the market is. The number of two, three and four bedroom units available in Avon is staggering. Cuny asked if there was anyone else that would like to comment on what Mr. f.amont has said. Mr. Graham commented an the french drain system and the retaining walls. Weber stated that they do not intend to use the french drair, system that is there. Cuny asked the Commission members for comments. Blair stated that the foundations , retaining walls and the drainage is a technical area that is beyo9d this Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 12 of 15 Part of Lot 46/47 Block 1 Benchmark at beaver Creek. Phoenix. Discovr_ry Group 14 Unit Condominium Prosect Preliminary Design Preview (cont.) Commission and their technical ability and has to be addressed when the building permit is taken out. Doll stated that he had listened to the tapes of the previous meeting and reviewed the minutes also and now he has listened to another hour of discussion tonight and mostly what he has heard is an argument between two parties, the applicant and his neighbor=_ and he finds it very difficult at this time to sort out from all this argument what the Commission needs to know to approve or disapprove the design review. He stated that he did not have any particular fault to find with the building, the way it looks or the way it will sit on the property. He stated that he was very supprised to see any buildings built on any of that property. The thing in the design review that concerns him more than anything else is the argument about the access through the buildings. He stated that it is imperative that an access be available. He is disappointed that the applicant and the neiohbors Have not settled this matter before putting all this smoke up in front of this Commission. He also agrees with Blair regarding the foundations, walls etc. Blair stated that maybe the two questions of. density and design should be separated. He asked the Staff if the current zoning allowed for the fractionalization. Wood stated that one of the purposes of the fractionalization ordinance was to permit development rights to be fractionalized into a combination of smaller units, provided that the aggregate gross square footage of all units fractionalized is governed under a maximum limitation. Development rights may be fractionalized only on lots zoned either through conventional zoning or SPA designation for triplex or larger multi -family use. Blair asked if the fractionalization has to be approved by the Town Council. Wood stated that the fractionalization is approved through the design review process, then if it becomes a condominium project, in order to sell those units, it is also approved by the Town Council through the subdivision process. Blair stated that he did not believe the design and uses as proposed are incompatible with the neighborhood. He feels that if the drainage and the foundation and access for safety and traffic considerations can be resolved and if the design is found not to be inconsistent with the area and not inconsistent with the Town ordinances and goals, the only incompatibility is with the preference of the adjacent owners. Cuny stated that L.amont's comments about the Planning and Zor:,,;g Fleeting Minutes April 14, 1488 Page 13 of 15 Part of Lot 46/47 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creel- Phoenix Discovery Group 14 Unit Condominium Project Preliminary Design Review (cont.) mono-cultirr�- building helped clear up some of her understanding of Section 6.16 regarding it being similar or dissimilar. Landauer stated that he felt that Doll stated some good points and he goes along one hundred percent. He also thinks they need to take into consideration the views of the neighboring property owners and these comments and letters are extremely negative. He feels that the density is too much for one project. The emergency access is very critical and this must be worked out if this project is to be approved. Reynolds stated that at first he thought this project would work, but there is so much strong feeling against it that he feels that he should look out for the community. Cuny stated that some action should be taken on this matter tonight. Bill Fleisher stated that he objects to having 14 more neighbors and he feels that this is too many. He has no problem if they want to build another 4 unit building. Blair moved to approve the application with the conditions that the Staff has suggested, which includes emergency access through the properties and that the fractionalized unit density be limited to not cure than .line units, unless agreed upon by the adjacent property owners and the fractionalization is approved by the Town Council when it comes before the Council. Wood stated in order to conform with the conditions being attached, they need to have design guidelines section numbers attached to them, such as design guideline for emergency access as included in the staff report can be based on section 6.13 and section 6.14 of the design guidelines. The second condition that the Staff had recommended was that the previously agreed upon roadway easement along Nottingham Road be incorporated in the final plat, based on section 6.11. With the condition of the limitation of not more than nine units, that could possibly be based upon section 6.13 and section 6.16. Blair stated that he would be glad to include these specific references in his motion. Cuny asked for a second to the motion. Hearing none the motion failed. Blair asked the Staff what the consequences would be if the Commission failed to take action. Wood stated that the project would be approved as submitted, by default. Reynolds asked the applicant what he things of the motion. Planning am ming Meeting Minutes April 14, 1, Page 14 of V Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery --Group, 14 Unit Condominium Project_ Preliminary Design Review (cont.) Mr. Donaldson stated that he didn't think it had anything to do with the application and that he thought it would be an illegal motion. They are not asking to amend their- application. Landauer moved to deny the application as submitted, citing Section 6.13; the compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties, and Section 6.16; the objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Doll seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Wood stated that the decision of the Commission sha;l become final if no written appeal is made to the Town Council by any aggrieved person within twenty days following the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ordinance 88-6 Sign Code Amendments Donaldson and Gersbach resumed their status as voting members of the Commission. Donaldson asked if the temporary sign provision was satisfactory. Cully stated she thought it was since number four had been added. Discussion followed on the description of a sign. Wood stated that everything in the ordinance was as discussed in previous meetings with the exception of additions to the development sign (no. 5) and the same addition. to Section t=our of the temporary signs section. Discussion followed on these additions. Discussion on temporary signs followed regarding the time period. Doll moved to change Section Two to state: thirty days instead of one hundred twenty days. Gersbach secondee!. The motion passed unanimously. Reading and Approval of P cu Z Minutesof 4/5/436Regular Meeting Reynolds moved to approve the minutes of the 4/5/88 regular meeting as submitted. Landauer seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 19, 1988 Page 15 of 15 Other Business Charlie Gersbach stated that he wanted to say goodbye as this is his last meeting as a member of the Commission. He also made the recommendation that every thirty or forty days the staff change the placement of the name plates so that members sit next to different members. It would crea',:e more comradery among the group. Gersbach moved to adjourn. Donaldson seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi recording Secretary Commissio�;Ees,�l Date_ P. Cuny 5 T. Landauer F. Doll M. Donaldwo Ac �- c rCc< �/ 31�� J. Per ' D. Hill I�/�I�gI�✓�7�