Loading...
PZC Minutes 122088e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on December 20, 1988, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was caller: to order by Chairwoman Pat Cuny. Members Present: Frank Doll, Pat Cuny, Denise Hill, John Perkins, Buz Reynolds, Clayton McRory, Tom Landauer Staff Present: Lynn Fritzlen, Department of Community Development; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary; Norm Wood, Director of Community Development Home Occupation, Chairwoman Cuny stated, for the record, that a site inspection was conducted by herself, Denise Hill and Clayton McRory and Joe McGrath and Lynn Fritzlen, ear.ier in the day. Lynn Fritzlen stated that at the regularly scheduled meeting, December 6, 1988, the review of a Special Review Use for a Home Occupation at the Ekrem residence was continued in order to allow the Commission a site inspection, as offered by the applicant. The site visit was conducted this afternoon. She stated that much of the discussion at the last meeting was centered on the ironworks production. Concerns ware expressed in regards to the potential noise generated by the work and the commercial vehicles necessary to deliver raw materials to the site. She stated that the impact of these concerns will be more apparent as the neighborhood develops out. She stated that there are empty lots on either side. Fritzlen stated that if the Commission finds that the application falls within the definition of a home occupation, staff recommends considering additional conditions be added to Resolution 88-11 of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to address the concerns addressed in the staff report. The first additional condition suggested is that there shall he no noise , vibrations, smoke, dust, odor, heat or glare Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 2 of 10 noticable at or beyond the property line as a result of the home occupation. She stated that when they visited the site they did ask Mr. Zorichak some questions regarding the exhausting of the fumes and heat. It is exhausted through the hood above the forge and does go up through the top of the building. In that regard it seems to be taken care of. Secondly, selling stocks, supplies or products from the premises shall not be permitted, provided that incidental retail sales may be made in connection with other permitted home occupations. This would insure that all sales would be made off site and that the home occupation would not constitute any retail activity. Cuny asked if Ms. Ekrem wanted to add anything to Ms. Fritzlen's statements. Ms. Ekrem stated she thought that everything had been covered. Cuny asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to comment on this matter. Mr. John Railton stated that he is a neighbor of the Ekrem residence and that he has no objection to her request. Cuny then asked for comments or questions from the Commission members. McRory stated that it looked like a nice studio and as long as it is used for what they say it will be used for, he has no problem with it and the neighbors don't seem to mind. He stated that there will be some conditions added that they will have to meet. Cuny suggested that maybe a time limit be added, so it can be re-evaluated to see if they have met the conditions. Cuny stated that Mr. Zorichak did describe to them what he did and showed them the forge and showed them the system that public service had required. She stated that Joe McGrath did not have any concerns about the equipment or the way it was set up. Mr. Zorichak had reiterated that he would not be storing any metal works on the outside of the building and that he would be working on his own. McRory moved to adopt Resolution 88-11, adding the condition that it be reviewed in one year. Hill seconded. The motion carried with John Perkins voting nay. The Resolution will be signed at the next Planning and Zoning meeting, after the time limit condition has been included. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 3 of 10 Lot 17, Block 1 Filing No 1 Eaalebend Subdivision, John Fritzlen stated that John Railton, on behalf of Ron Jameison, is requesting a front yard building setback variance of 5'-0", from 25' to 20', for a proposed duplex on the subject property. Mr. Railton has provided a site development plan showing existing topography and proposed building and driveway locations as well as floor plans and building elevations. Fritzlen stated that Mr. Railton had responded on the variance application, regarding practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship, that: 1. The driveway grade becomes too steep; and 2. The house gets too close to the Metcalf Ditch and river bank, creating a small rear garden area. She then described the site plan provided. She stated that the Staff comment regarding this matter is: i. In order to preserve existing grades and maintain an 8% slope, it is advantageous to site the building closer to the front property line. She stated that this was a limitation that the Siebert duplex on Lot 12 encountered. They ended up raising the floor level several feet and exposing additional foundation; 2. Pushing the house further towards the ditch would lessen a proposed garden area. Fritzlen stated that the applicant's comment regarding exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions was: The existing two de* 'elopments on this street both have lesser setbacks than the 25'. The lots are considerably reduced in depth by the Metcalf Ditch Easement. She stated that the Staff comment is: There are three occupied residences in Filing No. 1, two are on lot 19 and one is lot 15. Lot 19 received a front setback variance. This lot is similar to Lot 17 in that it is reduced in depth by the Metcalf Ditch Easement. She stated that going west the ditch easement has a lessening impact. She stated that included with the staff report was an area pian showing the relationship of the ditch to the properties in that area. She stated that the applicant's comment regarding the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation was: 1. Lesser setbacks (have been approved on adjacent properties); and 2. Pushing the house forward (to the river) restricts the view by existing and future houses on each side of the lot. Staff comment regarding this is: 1. Metcalf ditch does lessen the buildable area. Regarding the second comment by the applicant, there is no provision to encourage staggering of buildings for more view privacy in our regulations, therefore, staff does not feel that this is an applicable justification. She stated that she had included the approval criteria and findings required in the staff report for Commission consideration. She stated that the staff recommendation was: If the Commission finds that the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 4 of 10 Lot 17, Block 1 Filing No 1 Eaglebend Subdivision. John . .. I .,.._11,-- Varinnr:e variance request meets the approval criteria and has adequate findings to grant the variance, approval of Resolution 88-12 is recommended. Cuny asked if Mr. Railton wished to comment. He stated that he felt that Lynn had pretty much covered everything. He stated that there is a genuine hardship in the property because of the ditch. He stated that the development on the site will be under the allowable development for the site. Discussion followed on the placement of the building. Railton explained that it will actually be the carport that will extend 5' into the setback, making it a 20' setback instead of the required 25' setback. Discussion followed on the setback granted for Lot 19. Doll commented that he does not see anything wrong with this application. He stated that he feels Mr. Railton does a very good job with his projects. Cuny then opened the public hearing and asked if there were any comments from the audience. She asked if there had been any correspondence or phone calls regarding this matter. The Secretary replied that there had been none. Cuny then closed the public hearing and opened it up for discussion from the Commission members. The Commission members could see no problems. Doll moved to approve Resolution 88-12 as written. John Perkins seconded. Cuny commented that the Resolution included the criteria and findings. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 20, Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Bucchieri & Lochet Inc Sign Variance P.eguest. Fritzlen stated that Linda Rodgers, sign administrator of the Benchmark Sign Program, is requesting a variance for a proposed sign not in compliance with the Benchmark Plaza Sign Program, in regards to content and depending on interpretation, not in compliance with the size limitations. The Benchmark Plaza Sign Program limits sign verbage to the trade name of the business only. She stated that the proposed sign is dominated by a description of services "Taxes, Investments". The applicant has indicated that the Securities and Exchange Commission has certain signage Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 5 of 10 Lot 20 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Greek. Bucchieri & Lochet Inc Sian Variance Request (cont.) requirements they must adhere to. She stated that the Avon Sign Code does not regulate content of a sign, therefore, the sign is not in compliance with the Benchmark Plaza Sign Program, but is it-; compliance with the Avon Sign Code. Town of Avon policy requires t,at a sign not in conformance with an approved sign program must receive planning and zoning approval. She stated that for the purpose of determining the sign area, it could be given our definition interpreted two ways. Sign area definition is: "Sign area" means the entire surface within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of writing.. The sign area for signs with display area on more than one side shall be the largest total of all sides, which is not applicable at this point. Fritzlen stated that the first interpretation would define the sign area as that within the outer limits of the letters. In this case there are sign facias at the Benchmark Plaza Building that are permanently attached to the building, made to incorporate signs. These boards are in excess of 30 square feet. The limitation for signage in the Benchmark Sign Program is 20 square feet. In this case if you take just the letters themselves, it is 18 square feet, which is within the sign program limit. The second interpretation would define the sign area as the entirety of the sign board which is 36 square feet. She stated that this intrepretaticn is justified in that the entire sign area is lit. This interpretation would require a variance. She stated that the staff report contains the criteria and findings required for granting a variance and staff recommendation is that if the Commission finds that the sign area justifies a variance and in turn finds the sign meets the criteria for granting of a variance, approval is recommended. Linda Rogers, representing Benchmark Plaza Condominium Owners Association, stated that she did not have a particular problem with the sign. She stated that Mr. Bucchieri has told her that the National Association of Securities Dealers, The Securities and Exchange Commission require him to tell his clients what services are offered, before they enter his doorway. She stated that since this is required, she has approved the sign. She stated that her interpretation has always been to take the square footage of the letters, rather than the entire area of the sign, because the signs were designed to fit in with the mass of the building and make them readable from the street. Discussion followed on the fact that the sign is already installed, even without an approval from the Planning and 40 ab • Planning and December 20, Page 6 of 10 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1988 Zoning Commission or an approved permit. cuny stated that she feels that as far as interpretation of the sign, you would have to take the entire sign into consideration because of the colors of the background. Linda Rodgers stated that she is asking for a variance from their own sign program, riot the Avon Sign Code. Discussion followed on the entrance to the business which is off the foyer. Reynolds moved to approve the sign variance for Bucchieri & Lochet, Inc., citing as a finding that the variance is warranted because there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity. Doll seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Cuny stated that she would like the Recording Secretary to convey to Mr. Shaw that it was discussed at the meeting the matter of installing the sign before approval was given. Sunroad Properties Development Sign Variance Fritzlen described the location of the Sunroad Subdivision. She stated that Chris Eddy, owner of the described lots, hes requested variances for two development signs located on Lot 1 and Lot 2, Sunroad Subdivision. Both signs are to be identical and are proposed to be 32 square feet in area. Town of Avon Sign Code limits square footage of development sign to 16 square feet. She stated that she ;las requested that Mr. Eddy amend his application to reflect a 15 square foot sign on Lot 2, adjacent to Beaver Creek Blvd., due to the pedestrian orientation. Mr. Eddy agreed during a telephone conservation of 12/19/88. She stated that Sunroad Properties has allowed the use of their undeveloped property in conjunction with several Town of Avon Special Events. This year the property will be used by the Vail Foundation for the Alpine Championships. She stated that Mr. Eddy has indicated that Suoroad is more than happy to continue to cooperate in the future with any similar request although he is concerned about the land Planning and December 20, Page 7 of 10 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1988 continuing to appear salable and he feels that there is a need for signage. Fritzlen described the locations of the two signs on the provided map. The Avon Road sign would be 32 square feet with signage on both sides and the Beaver Creek Blvd. sign would be 15 square feet with signage on both sides. Fritzlen then reviewed the criteria for granting the variance as follows: 1. The combined area of Lots 1 and 2 is 4.9 acres. This is one of the largest undeveloped parcels within the Town proper. The lot is large enough that it would be difficult for the passerby to determine the extent of the property without a sacond sign. 2. The parcel has two frontages. This the unique aspect to this parcel, further justifying the need for a second sign. 3. The proposed Avon Road sign is more vehicularly oriented, therefore, a larger sign is required for adequate readability of vehicular travelers. 4. The signs will be visually competing with the parking lot use for recognition. Fritzlen stated that if the Commission finds that the variance is within the approved criteria, staff recommends approval. Discussion followed on the placement of the signs. The Commission discussed the restrictions of the sign code of 16 square feet and the request for 32 square feet. The Commission was concerned that the 32 square feet was too large for the location. Discussion followed on the amenability of the owner in allowing the Town to use the undeveloped property for parking during special events. Discussion followed on the possibility of having the applicant move the sign back to the center of the lot in the spring. Doll moved to approve the variance for one 15 square foot sign and one 32 square foot sign, citing the finding that the variance is warranted because there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity, with the condition that the 32 square foot sign be moved to the center of the property prior to the first of May. McRory seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 8 of 10 Reading and Approval of the Planning and Zoning Minutes of the 12/6/88 Recular Meeting Reynolds moved to approve the minutes of the December 6., 1988, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting. McRory seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Reynolds asked Staff to look into getting the Avon Center sign repaired. Fritzlen stated that they were already working on it. Reynolds stated that the foundation in Wildridge is an eyesore and also a safety hazard. He asked staff to see if something could be done about it. Either build or remove it. Reynolds then commented on the on going problems with the moving and storage company. It is still a hazard for traffic coming down the hill, the cars cannot stop on the hill when the trucks are sticking out in the road. Another concern was the pallets that are stacked all over the place. The safety factor outweighs any other considerations. The Staff was asked to get this matter solved. Norm Wood stated that what the Staff is trying to do is arrange a meeting with the planning and zoning department and police department to lay down some ground rules. If the ground rules are not complied with then they will be ticketed. Wood stated that, hopefully, within the next couple weeks this can be accomplished. Reynolds stated that he would like to express his personal thanks to the Town for inviting the Commission members to the Christmas party. The other, members of the Commission e -hoed his thanks. Cuny then read into the record a letter received from Jim Comerford, owner of Subway Subs, regarding the measures he has taken to try to gain the approval from the Christie Lodge. One of the concerns stated in the letter was that, even though Subway Subs has provided full handicapped services in the restrauant, however, due to the deterioration and construction of the exterior of the Lodge handicapped cannot get access to Subway Subs. He stated that his intention is full cooperation with the Planning and Zoning Board for full compliance and approvals to be met. He stated he would keep the Commission informed of any developments and J r-, C Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 9 of 10 Other Business (cont. hopes to supply the approval as soon as he can. Cuny asked Fritzlen if she had done any research on the matter of changing densities. Fritzlen stated that you can redesignate a SPA as a 3FA, but you have to submit the same type of application as for the previous SPA. Discussion followed on the Jamar project and the fact that he had presented an application without a designed building and site plan. Wood stated that in the past some level of detail has always been required when an applicant is requesting assignment of residential development rights. Wood stated that they are not asking for detailed building plans, but at least how big of a building they are asking for. Discussion followed regarding the 38 residential development rights that Jamar is asking for. Wood stated that what staff is asking for is enough information, how big will the building be, how do things relate? What is needed is just a massing diagram so some indication is given of size, footprint, height, and how the parking will relate to that. Fritzlen reiterated the 4th condition for the Ekrem Special Use Resolution, stating that the Special Review will be evaluated at the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1990. Cuny stated that the next meeting would be January 3, 1989. Fritzlen reiterated the direction from the Commission to break apart the approval of fractionalization and the approval of the design review. The Commission stated that that was correct. Perkins moved to adjourn Reynolds seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 10 of 10 Commiss P. Cuny T. Land; F. Doll J. Perk D. Hill C. McRo A. Reyn .a 40 OD :7