Loading...
PZC Minutes 092088RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on September 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 called to order by Chairwoman Pat Cuny. Members Present: Tom Landauer, Frank Doll, Buz Reynolds, John Perkins, Denise Hill, Clayton McRory, Pat Cuny Staff Present: Lynn Fritzlen, Director of Community Development; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Lot 1. Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek.__Coastal Mart jDerby Station). Siem variance Request Lynn rritzlen stated that in response to the citation that Joe McGrath of the Building Department gave to Coastal Mart regarding the unapproved signage that they have put up, Danny Schulze of Coastal Mart is requesting approval of the additional signs that are above the gas pumps. She stated that they already have a variance approved due to the square footage and height of their signs. She stated that the figures in the Staff Report reflect the new sign code in which only one side of the freestanding sign is counted. When the variance was approved, both sides of the freestanding sign was counted. She stated that Coastal Mart is asking for an additional 25.7 square feet. She stated that the Commission should take into consideration the criteria for granting a variance. Fritzlen stated that the Staff recommendation is that since freestanding signs are allowed in vehicular oriented areas, the proposed signage seems appropriate. Meaning that the freestanding signs associated with the gas pumps is in line with the sign criteria. If another variance is to be granted, Staff recommends that the Commission provide guidelines to the Applicant for type, location and size of future signage. Chairwoman Cuny asked if the Applicant was present. There was no representative of Coastal Marc present. Discussion followed on the exact size of current signage and requested signage. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 1988 Page 2 of 8 • Lot 1 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Coastal Mart. (Derby Station Sian_Variance__Reguest (cont • Cuny stated that she felt that the granting of this variance would constitute a granting of special privelage inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity because it has not been allowed before. Doll stated that he had gone over there to look at the signage just before the meeting and on the building itself, they have a lot of signs and they are all extremely disorganized and he feels that they could utilize the space on the windows to advertise the same things that they are advertising out on the gas pumps. Dell moved that the variance be denied on the grounds that the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. Perkins seconded. The motion carried unanimously. The Applicant is to be notified to remove the signs and also it was requested that they provide the exact dimensions of the C Mart signs already installed. Fritzlen stated that Joe McGrath, Building Official and enforcement officer would be willing to attend the next meeting to discuss enforcement if the Commission so desired. The Commission agreed that this would be beneficial and it was decided that there would be a 7 PM worksession scheduled for October 4, 1988. Revised_ Design_ Fritzlen reviewed past action taken on this project, stating that it had been denied by the Commission and the denial overturned by the Council with conditions, which are listed in Resolution No. 88-17. She stated that the Resolution was drafted from the Council minutes, verbatim. Fritzlen stated that Mark Donaldson, on behalf of Otterman and Associates is submitting revised plans in response to the required conditions of Resolution 88-17, adopted August 23, 1988 by the Avon Town Council. The conditions were: Inclusion of laundry rooms; Inclusion of inside amenities that would be in the form of at least one unit on each project that ties to an outside recreation area of value; and inclusion of a designated manager's unit. She stated that Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20 Page 3 of 8 Lot 3. Block 5, Wildridge Subdivsion, Lot 6,. Block 5, the Applicant is seeking final design review approval for the revisions. She stated that the proposed revisions add approximately 400 square feet of grade level amenity area to Beaver View East and approximately 500 square feet to Beaver View West. The Beaver View West amenities area is split into two levels with the lower level on grade. Both proposed areas are adjacent to laundry facilities, have a deck and exit to the backside" of the building, and include kitchen and toilet facilities. She stated that she feels that these are all positive aspects to the proposed amenities areas. Fritzlen stated that the drawbacks are as follows: Although the proposal for Lot 3 does not increase site coverage, a new 8 foot to 10 foot retaining wall is necessary to incorporate the changes; Area outside the proposal for Lot 3 slopes away from the building at a 20% slope. This does not meet the intent of "an outside recreation area of some valje"; Proposed interior areas for Lot 3 and Lot 6 break up the square footage into equal areas, diminishing their ability to accomodate group activities.; Proposal for Lot 6 increases building site coverage; Both proposals do not meet the intent of the Council to drop one unit from the total allowed for each project as stated in the Council minutes; and No designated manager's unit is shown on the revised plans as required by the conditions. Fritzlen stated that Staff recommends that the Commission deny this application, based upon the non-conformance with the conditions as stated in Resolution 88-17. Cuny reiterated to the Commission members that the task of the Commission is to look at this application according to the Resolution that was drafted by the Council. The Commission needs to determine if the applicant has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution. Mark Donaldson, representing Otterman and Associates, stated he would like to describe the changes that have been made on the amenities. He stated that on Lot 3, the retaining wall is really only relocated from the north end. They have pulled it back to create the area for walkout. He stated that they are in conflict with the written resolution. His client disagrees with the taking of two units, in terms of having been grandfathered in as 44 units and then turning around, by way of conditional approval, taking away two units for recreation and one unit for the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 1988 Page 4 of 8 mamager's unit. The have not designated the manager's unit because there may be off site management contracted for, or there may be the need for a manager's unit in each of the projects. They will not know until the sales are completed how the home owners association would deal with that issue. He stated that on the Lot 6 project they have expanded the existing laundry facility building and split it so that it can be entered at two levels. The upper floor is designated as the laundry area, which has a loft area which connects to the entire lower floor. Regarding the objection of breaking the area into smaller spaces, this can in fact be opened up to a larger space, creating a larger meeting or gathering area. He stated that both of the facilities provide great access and are pretty much central within the project. Regarding the 20% slope on Lot 3, the first 15 feet across the entire front is less than 10%, which was negotiated with the fire department for their ladder access etc. He agreed that it was difficult to read on the plans. Fritzlen stated that it was difficult to interpret the contours from these plans. There was no site section, or building section given. Cuny asked if the Applicant received a copy of the resolution after it was approved and Fritzlen stated that they had received a copy and were aware of the conditions of the resolution. Cuny stated that as she sees it, the conditions of the resolution have not been met. Perkins asked what the problem was with designating a manager's unit? Donaldson stated that this is a condominium project and there will be 44 separate owners and they do not feel that the taking of units from each project should be required and they feel this could best be handled by the home owners association. Discussion followed on the requirement for a manager's unit. Tom Leroy, of dtterman and Associates, stated that they feel that this should be handled by the home owners association. He stated that he felt that some of the Council members did not agree with the resolution. Doll stated that there seems to be a lot of confusion or contradiction. He stated that the resolution couldn't pass 40 Planning and September 20, Page 5 of 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1988 without the majority of the Council voting for it. As far as he is concerned it is a valid resolution. As he sees it, the Council asked for these conditions and asked the Commission to see that these conditions are met and as far as he can see it hasn't happened. Leroy asked what hadn't been met and Doll responded, "the manager's unit". Hill stated that there were the six drawbacks that Staff had pointed out also. Doll stated that the laundry room condition had been met. The amenities provided are in question and no designated manager's unit is shown. Cuny stated that the options are that the Commission can take a vote on it or if the applicant would like to continue the matter to allow them to look over the resolution again, this could be done. Leroy asked if the manager's unit was the only issue holding up approval? Cuny replied that also the inside amenities that would be in the form of at least one unit on each project that ties to an outside recreation area of value. She stated that they have not used a unit from each project for recreation and they have not provided a designated manager's unit. Discussion followed on the amenities provided. Discussion followed on the discrepancies regarding the slope as shown on the plans submitted. Donaldson reviewed the slopes, retaining wall and building elevations, and recreation areas as shown on the plans. Cuny stated, based on the Staff recommendation, a suggestion would be to continue this matter until the Staff and the Applicant can work it out so that it meets the conditions of the resolution. Leroy asked what exactly did the Commission want? Cuny stated that there were a lot of unanswered questions that the Staff could not find solutions to on the submitted plans. Secondly, is the use of one unit in each project for recreation. Leroy stated that they have given the equivalent of one unit in each building and if the only item holding up approval is the manager's unit, they will give them a manager's unit. Cuny stated that this would mean approving with conditions. The Commission has been asked to approve the project if it Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 1988 Page 6 of 8 Lot 3 Block 5 Wildridae Subdivision Lot 6 Block 5, meets with the conditions of the resolution and it doesn't meet the conditions. She asked the Applicant again if they would prefer to have this item continued, or would like to have a vote on whether these plans are in compliance with the resolution that has been approved by the Council. This is the only question before the Commission at this time. Fritzlen stated that Councilwoman McRory was present and asked if she had any comments. Councilwoman McRory restated the conditions of the resolution, stating that this is what the Council required. Discussion then followed on the fact that the Applicant has increased the site coverage for the recreation area, rather than use a unit from each project for said area. Leroy stated that he had a problem using a unit from each project for recreation. He stated that the project is a small as they can make it for 20 units on one and 24 units on the other. He stated that they had received preliminary approval without any recreation area provided because it is to be an adult project. He felt that they have met the requirement by adding the additional space instead of using two units. Fritzlen stated that Staff would feel more comfortable if there was more time to review the drawings since these were only submitted on Thursday. She stated that she did not feel comfortable without having further detail. Cuny stated that it bothers her that 'ohe Applicant has had a copy of the resolution for approximately three weeks and is just now offering to provide a manager's unit. Reynolds stated that the footprint of the building has been increased, which is a change from the original drawings that the Council has approved. Perkins stated that he felt that there is enough information on the drawings to work out the grade problem, and if the Applicant is willing to designate a unit as a manager's unit, he could support approving this, because he feels that the problems could be resolved. He suggested maybe expanding the deck, but this might cause a problem with the fire department. Cuny stated that the resolution states that the Council grants approval of the project as submitted to the Town and Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 1988 Page 7 of 8 and we are now looking at a different footprint. McRory stated that there is a need for this type of housing and if the problems could be worked out with the Staff, it should be possible to do this project. Further discussion followed on the non-conformance of the project with the conditions of the resolution. Cuny called for a motion. Leroy requested that the Commission vote either yes or no and not table it. Reynolds moved to deny this project based on the Staff recommendations. Doll seconded. The motion carried with Perkins and McRory voting nay. Reading and Approval of the Planning and Zoning Minutes of 9/6/88 Regular Meeting Doll moved to approve the minutes of the 9/6/88 meeting. Landauer seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Perkins inquired about the new r9sidence in Eaglebend that is operating a blacksmith shop. Doll stated that this was approved as a hobby. Perkins asked that this be checked out as it seems to be more than a hobby. Fritzlen stated that the Staff is watching this very carefully and would continue to do so. Cuny asked that copies of the minutes where this was approved be provided to the Commission at the next meeting. Discussion followed on the need to check out the possibility of this being a commercial situation rather than a hobby. Discussion followed on the latitude of enforcement. Fritzlen stated that the Special Review use could be revoked. Reynolds stated that he hoped that Councilwoman McRory would take the Commission's ideas back to Council regarding the previous item. 40 40 • n \ ,Afts Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 1988 Page 8 of 8 Perkins moved to adjourn. Reynolds seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary�� Commission approval✓lG- Da P. Cuny T. Landauer_ F. Doll J. Perkins . D. Hill C. McRory _ A. Reynolds