Loading...
PZC Minutes 040588RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING APRIL 5, 1988 The regular meeting of '_he Avon Planning aid Zoning Commission was held on Opril 5, 1988, at 7:40 PM in the Town Council Chambers or the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 benchmark Rd., Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Pat Cuny. Members Present: Pat Cuny, Buz Reynolds, Tom Landauer- Charlie andauerCharlie Gersbach, Mike Blair, Marl: Donaldson Members Absent: Frani: Doll Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Engineering and Community Development, Ray Wright, Engineering Technician, Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secreta -y Lot 36 Block 1, Benchmark at Heaver Creek Expansion of Existing Special Review Use for Automotive Repair and Storage Lot Public Hearing Donaldson asked that the record show that he was stepping down due to a conflict of interest. Reynolds also stepped down due to a conflict of interest. This left fou,- voting memhc--rs which constituted a quorum. Wright stated that on May 26, 1987, the Town Council granted final approval for a Special Review Use to allow Automotive Repair on Lot 36, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. A fenced storage lot was also part of the project. At this time the applicant is requesting approval to expand the Special Review Use in conjunction with the second phase of development on the site. They would also like to have approvaj. to perform mechanical repair on automobiles as well. Right now the approval only includes auto body work. The existing auto body shop is proposed to be expanded by approximately 1150 square feet and the storage lot will be expanded to accomodate an additional 12 vehicles. Additiona' paved parking spaces are being provided in order to meet the increased harking requirement for the expansion. A site olan and building elevations have been submitted for Commission review. Tom Backus, general partner of Lot 36 Ltd. Partnership, owner of the ._ot stated that this is the second phase of the improvement=_ on the lot. He stated that Rich's Auto Body business has grown such that he need= to expand in Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 5, 1988 Page 2 of 11 Lot 36 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Expansion of Existing Special Review Use for Automotive Repair and Storage Lot, Public Hearing (cont.) size. The expansion of Rich's use is being done in coordination with the development of a facility for Benchmark Cleaners. Cuny asked if there had been any noted problems with the Special Review Use. Wood stated that at one '_ime there had been a -omment about some parts on the bank, but that has been cleaned up and there have beer. no other complaints on the Use. Discussion followed on the storage lot site and access, etc. Blair asked if there w:=re any problems with fire access. Wood stated this had been reviewed with the Fire Department and there were no problems. Cuny opened the public hearing for comments. Wood stated that Staff had not received any response to the public notices. Cuny then closed the public hearing. Wood stated that a Resolution has been prepared for adoption if it suits the Commission action. Blair moved that this application be approved in accordance with Resolution 86-3, Series 1928, including the conditions so stated. Landauer seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Lot 36 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Variance to Allow Parking within 10 Foot Front Yard Setback, Public Hearing Wright stated that the owner of Lot 36, Bloc': 1, has requested a variance to encroach approximatel' 18" into the required 10 foot front yard setback for parking. "urrently, there is approximately 25 to 26 feet of paved area in front of the auto body shop and the applicant feels that with the additional 18" of pavement they can get three full size parking spaces there. Additional parking is being provided to accomodate the proposed expansion of the body shop. The site plan provided shows the proposed encroachment into the setback. Donaldson stated that he was representing Tom Backus in this application. He stated that this minor encroachment would allow them to park three g=ars in the area as opposed to two. Cuny opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who wished to comment or if Staff had received any comments. :food stated that there had been no correspondence or calls received. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 5, 1'788 Page 3 of 71 Lot 36 Block 1 Benchmark at Bever Creek, Variance to Allow Parking_Within 10 Foot Front Yard Setback, Public Hearing (_cont_) Cuny closed the public hearing. Cuny stated the approval criteria and findings required. Staff recommended that the Commission continue the application to the next meeting, and direct Staff t. - prepare a resolution for adoption by the Commission reflecting the decision and reasons for approval or denial. Gersbach moved to direct the Staff to prepare a resolution for adoption by the Commission at the next meeting to approve this application , to include findings Sections A, B, C, and 1, 2, and 3 of C. Blair seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Lot 36, Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Addition to Existing Projects Design Review Wright stated that the owner of Lot 36, Block 1, has applied for Design Review of the second phase of development on the property. The first phase included construction of the buildino that houses Rich's Auto Body, along with a fenced storage lot. The proposed second phase consists o� an 1150 square foot addition of Rich's Auto Body, a 3280 square foot facility proposed as a cleaning plant for Benchmark Cleaners and an expansion of the existing storage lot. All new construction is proposed to match existing, which is painted stucco with a wood accent band at roof level. A site plan, building elevations and floor plans have been submitted for Commission review. Tom Backus stated that this is the balance of development on the lot. Discussion followed on the site area, building area and open space. Parking requirements were then discussed. Blair asked about the grading. Wood stated that this application should be subject to a detailed grading plan prior to the issuance of a building permit.. Some preliminary plans have been received, but no final has been received. Blair asked if `here were any major problems that can't be taken care of according to this design. Wcod stated that not as far as we know. Donaldson stated that they had engineers do some site surveys to determine the existing conditions and plans will be forthcoming. Cuny asked if there was gas to the site. Backus stated that there will be. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 5, 1988 Page 4 of 1.1 Lot 36 Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Addition to Existing Project' Design Review (cont.) Gersbach stated that he sees no problems with the guidelines as recommended by Staff. Landauer moved for final approval, subjezt to the applicant meeting the Staff recommendations of, 1. Submittal of a fully dimensioned site plan and a complete grading and drainage plan, prior to obtaining a building permit; and 2. Provide a sigr, program, conforming to the requirements of the sign code, prior to obtaining a building permit. Gersbach e-conded. The motion passed unanimously. At this point, Gersbach had to leave for anc'_her commitment. Reynolds returned as a voting member of the Commission. Donaldson stepped down due to a conflict of interest regarding the next item on the agenda. Part of Lot 46/47. Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Group 14 Unit Condominium Project, Preliminary Design Review Wright stated that the Phoenix Discovery Group, owners of the eastern portion of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, have applied for Preliminary Design Review 9f a 14 unit condominium pr03ect they propose to construct on the existing foundation located on the site. The 1,oposed three story building has a stucco exterior, clad windows, and a flat roof design. Parking is beim provided by a combination of surface parking and carport parking which is incorporated into the building. The aoplicant proposed to utilize the Town's Fractionalizstion Ordinance to build the 14 units. A site plan, that includes floor plans and building elevations and a dimension floor plan for fractionalization has been provided. Thomas Weber of Great Divide Construction, on behalf of one of the partners and representing Phoenix Discovery Group stated that they would be developing a property that has been a blemish in Avon for sir, years. In order for the project to be successful, they are utilizing Avon's fractionalization code. After research, they are gearing these units toward the weekend skiier with families. These will be small but efficient units, with a reasonable price structure. He stated that they will be addressing the Town of Avon's requirements concerning the structural integrity of the foundation and the ce-tification of the area in sanitary drains when construction begins. He stated that they have also Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 5, 1988 Page 5 of 11 Part of Lot 46/47, Alock 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Phoenix Discovery Group, 14 Unit Condominium Project, PreliminarY_Design Review (cont_) started cleanup on the site. He stated that they have eliminated the problem of ice buildup on the north side by designing a flat roof, which will be drained through the building. No living quarters have been designed over the garages or any parking areas, thus they have eliminated these liability problems. The stucco will blend with the previous designs of the neighbors. At this time he introduced Mark Denaldson for discussion of design and materials to be used on the project. Mr. Donaldson stated that he was representing the Phoenix. Discovery Group. He stated that they had gone to great lengths to design a project that is very compatible with the neighborhood while honoring the goala and objectives of the Avon fractionalization ordinance. There are eight 1/4 dei:sity right unit=_ that are one bedroom designs that are less than 450 square feet and six. 1/3 density right units that are about 599 square feet or less. This is a tctal of 4 residential development rights, which is assigned to this particular lot. He stated that this project is no longer associated with the Chambertin Townhomes and will not be a part of that. It will be a project unto itself. It will be compatible but with its own individual style. Donaldson then asked for any questions regarding the design review. Reynolds asked about the closing off of the road that goes through and if it would cause problem=_ with the Fire Department. Donaldson stated that they had met with the department of public safety and they have expressed concerns and what they tnink that can be negotiated is an emergency lane access so that the neighbors cavi ue provided the access in such a situation. Wood stated that this is a preliminary design review and staff is recommending as a condition before any kind of final design review that a condition be attached that an acceptable emergency access would be provided as part of any final design plan and that would be subject to approval by the department of public safety. Bill Fleisher, an owner of Chambertin, asked about the intent of the fractionalization ordinance. Donaldson read from Chapter 17.22 paragraph .010, Purposes: To encourage the development of a wide variety of residental housing types, particularly affordable dwelling units either by purchase or rental to persons of all income levels, visitor and resident alike. Fleisher expressed concern regarding the type of people Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 5, 1988 Page 6 of 11 Part of Lot 46/47 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix. Discovery Group 14 Unit Condominium Project L Preliminary Design Review (cont.) that would be occupying these units. Discu=,sion followed on the reasons that fractionalization was adopted by the Town. Cuny stated that this application was within the Town ordinance as to the amount of units he can put on this property. Fleisher was concerned about the use in their area. He stated that he didn't think that the ordinance was designed to take place where it would be detrimental to adjoining properties. He stated that Donaldson was aware a year ago about the Association's desires regarding this proposal. He also mentioned the problems of debris and felt that the cleanup should have been done sooner. Cuny stated that the Commission was aware o{ the problems and that the applicant had agreed to do the cleanup as sgdn as the snow melted, and as Donaldson had mentioned, they have utarted this work. Clint Watkins, a prospective buyer of some of the units at Chambertin, stated that he disagrees with the statement made by Dot.aldson, that this project is designed to be compatible with the neighborhood. He feels that the application should be denied on the basis of number 6 of the design review guidelines, which states: The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. He feels that this project is about as dissimilar as you can get for the whole neighborhood. John Graham. President of the Chambertin Townhome Homeowners Association, introduced Steven Meyer, Management representative for the Association, and Ms. Linda Pell, Vice President of the Homeowners Association Mr. Graham stated some of the major problems that have occured with the Chambertin Townhomes and elaborated on the considerable amount r money the homeowners had expended on making these homee livable. Graham stated that in the original plat filing on this particular project that: " the filing of this plat shall also serve as the vacation of the lot line between Lots 46 and 47, the resulting lot shall hereinafter be known as Lot 46/47". This basically makes this a continuous piece oiproperty. The Homeowners Association views the entire lots 46/47 as one contiguous piece of property and as a member of the Homeowners Association. Mr. Graham sited the original design, plans of the developer, the articles u+ incorporation, the by-laws, Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 5, 1968 Fage 7 of 11 Part of Lot 46/47, Block l iBerchmark at Beaver Creek, P_hoenir Discovery Groua 14 Unit Condominium Project, Preliminary Design Review (cant.) the declaration of covenants and restrictions on the property also give architectural control to the Association over any outbuilding or structure of any kind that goes on the property that is part of the Association property. Graham stated that to date they have had no communication from Mr. Donaldson and his group that they would like to pursue a particular project. The Homeowners want to see the project completed as was originally designed and developed. They strongly object to a structure being put on the property representing 14 units when the original concept called for 4 buildings and 4 units per building. They feel that they must protect the integrity and quality of the project. Graham stated that they would like to welcome Mr. Donaldson into the Association as a developer, pending his presentation of a proposal to the Homeowners Association Architectural Review Committee, at which time they would be more than happy to discuss his plans. They understand that Mr. Donaldson and his company would like to make a profit on this project, however, they do and will object to any structure being placed on the property that is different from the original design. Cuny asked about the vacatior of the lot line. Wood stated that the property was re—subdivided through a foreclosure deed of trust action, which is an exemption from the subdivision regulations. This is now a separate property. Donaldson read into the record a letter from Silver & Hayes out of Denver, legal council for several insurance underwriters that underwrite title insurance c3mpanies. The letter states that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions of Chambertin Townhouses, Filing No. 1 do not effect, burden or encumber the real property covered by the title insurance commitment for the Phoenix Discovery Group property, bae.ed on the following: 1. The property as defined in section 1 of article 2 of the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions, is only a westerly portion of lots 46/47 of Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creel:, Amendment No. 4. This westerly portion is identified and shown as Chambertin Townhouses Filing No. 1 on the plat filed December 19, 1980. 2. Section 2 of article 2 of the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions expressly provided for the addition at the election of declarant of the balance of Lot 46/47, a replat of lots 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Amendment No. 4. Any such addition was, however-, conditioned upon the Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes Apr�.l 5, 1988 Pace 8 of 11 Part ot_ Lot 46/47 Block 1, Benchmark at Feaver Creek, Phoenix Discover Grouop 14 Unit Condominium Project Preliminar Design Review (cont_) filing of a supplementary declaration of covenants and restrictions with respect to the addition of property which shall extend the scheme of the covenant and restrictions of the declaration of such property. Tile right of the declarant to make such an addition expressly expired June 1, 1986. The chain of title prepared by Eagle County Title Corp. does not disclose the execution or recordation of any such supplemental declaration. 3. The certification of dedication and ownership on the plat of Chambertin Townhouses, Filing iVo. 1, specifically recites "the owner laid out, platted and subdivided only ,Part of lots 46/47, Blk 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Amendment No. 4 as Chambertin Townhouses, Filing No. 1. Wood stated that all this is a civil matter and the Commission should deal only with Town regulations and Town criteria. Public input shoula be considered in making the decision, but the actual review should be based on design review criteria. Cuny stated that letters objecting to this project had been rec,ived from Mr. Fleisher, Mr. Orval Paul, Mr. John Graham, Mr. Joel Karten and Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald, all owners of Chambertin Townhouses. Donaldson stated that they had been negotiati,19 on the property for about 18 months and were aware of the easement situation. He stated that correspondence with the FDIC had been copied to Mr. Graham and that they had never received any response from him. Cuny stated that the Staff report and designs show that the building is in compliance. The fractionalization is in compliance. Linda Pell stated that she had never seen any corres3pondence or had any contact with Mr. Donaldson regarding this matter. She stated that there has been a later recording than the one DonsIdson had quoted. Blair stated that lie was not inclined to matte a decision at this time after hearing all this discussion. He stated that he felt an increase in units would not necessarily be incompatible in the neighborhood. He felt that there should be some way for an agreement or understanding between the property owners. It muy be unrealistic to see this project completed with just 4 large unit=_. Reynolds stated that even though the outside of the proposed building is similar, the use of the building is a dramatic change from the concept of the whole area. He feels that the value of Donaldson's project will Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 5, 19eB Page 9 of li Part of Lot 46/47, Block IBenchmark at Beaver Creek. Phoenix Discovery Group, 14 Unit Condominium Projects Preliminary Design Review, (cont.) devalue the adjacent properties. Landauer stated that he agreed with Mr. Reynolds. Donaldson stated that he would like the Commission io take action on this application at this time. He feels that the project has beer. presented well enough that the Commission can act on a preliminary design review basis at this time. Discussion followed on the market for units. Further discussion followed on the design review guidelines and Town ordinances. Blair stated that he felt that all design review guidelines have been satisfied with the exception of number 6. Donaldson stated that. they would try to work with the neighbors regarding the driveway. Cuny ste.ted the recommendations from Staff if this preliminary design review application is approved. Blair moved to approve the preliminary design review with the condition that agreement be made with the adjacent property owners and that the Staff conditions be satisfied and that the plan be brought back, however - it might be modified, at the convenience of the applicant. This motion received no second. It was felt that the Commission could not require the suggested agreement. Landau=r moved to continue this application until the next mei-ting. Reynolds seconded. Donaldson asked that rather continue this matter the Commission either- approve or deny this project on a preliminary basis. Landauer then clanged his motion from continuance to denial of this application, quoting design review guideline number 6 as the reason. Reynolds seconded. The motion failed with Landauer and Reynolds voting aye and Cuny and Blair voting nay•. Further discussion followed -in the need to develop this property. Landauer moved again to deny this application as submitted stating item number L as the reason. Reynolds seconded. The motion failed agair. ::;th Landauer and Reynolds voting aye and Blair and Cuny voting nay. Blair restated his previous motion regarding some sort of agreement or at least some evidence- showing that the applicant '-'as attempted to reach some sort of agreement with the ridjacent owners. LJ • • Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 5, 1988 Page 10 of li Part of Lot 46/47 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Phoenix Discovery Croup 14 Unit Condominium Project, Preliminary Design Review (cont.) No second was received. Cuny stated that since two members were absent from the commission, possibly there should be a motion to continue this to the next meeting so that the full Commission would be in attendance. Landauer moved to continue this application until the next meeting. Reynold- seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mark Donaldson resumed his position as a voting member of the Commission. Lot l Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Derby Station Design Review Wright stated that Coastal Mart, Inc., owners of the Derby Gas Station has submitted a letter requesting that their application for design review of a storage building be withdrawn at this time. Staff requests that the Commission move to accept the withdrawal for the record. Landauer moved to accept the withdrawal. Donaldson seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Sin Code Amendments, Oridnance 88-6 Wood stated that a draft of Ordinance 88•-6 has been provided, amending the sign code, as per the previous directions from the Commission. He stated that the attorney, under paragraph H. "Development Signs", number 5, changed the wording to read "Development signs not meeting these criteria may be approved by the planning and zoning commission only upon a determination by the planning and zoning commission that a variance should be granted pursuant to Section 15.28.090 (B) of this Code." Cuny stated that she would like to have time to study this Ordinance and then consider it at the next meeting. Commission members agreed. Reading and Approval of the Minutes of 3/15/88 Regular Meeting Donaldson moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Landauer seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Landauer asked about the plan for the seeding of the lot next to Wal-Mart. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes April 5, 1988 Page 11 of li Other Business (cont.) Wood stated that this will be dealt with at the time of the Certificate of occupancy for the retail shops. Cleanup, landscaping and completion of the parking, etc. will be addressed. A motion was made and seconded to adjourn at 10:05 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Commission approval eS Date r / f7-an�Z ( q.69& M. Blaii P. Curry T. Land. M. Dona C. Gersl A. Reyn F. Doll