PZC Minutes 041889RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
APRIL 18, 1989
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was
held on April 18, 1989, at 7:35 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: Frank Doll, Denise Hill, Clayton McRory,
John Perkins, Tom Landauer, Pat Cuny,
Buz Reynolds
Staff Present: Lynn Fritzlen, Department of Commuiity
Development; Charlette Pascuzzi,
Recording Secretary
Buz Reynolds stepped down as a voting member of the
Commission, due to a conflict of interest.
Lynn Fritzlen stated that Monica Reynolds has submitted an
application for a sideyard variance that would allow a
proposed detached du{ -,lex to encroach into the 10' sideyard
setback as setforth for the Wildridge Specially Planned area.
She stated that a site plan of the proposal and a prospective
drawing is posted for study. She stated that the proposed
building encroachment would allow the building corners to
come within 7.5 feet of the property line on the northwest
and southeast. She stated that this parcel was approved for
a duplex subdivision at the April 11, 1989 Town of Avon
Council meeting. She stated that she has included a reduction
of the approved subdivision plat as part of this report.
FritTlen then reviewed the final design review approval
meetings of February 7th and 21st, for this project.
Fritzlen stated that the staff has reviewed the plans and
elevations submitted February 21st and has the following
comments in regards to the compliance with the conditions
required at time of final design approval: Conditi-n #1:
Planning and Zoning
April 18, 1989
Page 2 of 11
Commission Meeting Minutes
Lot 46 Block 1, Wildridae Subdivision Duplex Residence,
Sideyard Setback Variarfie. Monica Reynolds (cont.)
The revised grading plan indicates a proposed driveway
length, from the drive entry at the property line to the
garage entry of the western building, of approximately 210
linear feet, proposed rise is approximately 20 feet creating
an average driveway grade of less than 10%. Fritzlen stated
that Staff recommends that although the submitted site plan
conforms with the applicable regulation that an engineered
grading clan, more thoroughly addressing disposition of
offsite and or, site drainage, necessary retainage and
relational grades to structure be submitted prior to issuance
of a building permit due to the difficult topography of the
site. Condition #2: The revised site plan and building
elevations indicate a two foot drop from the living area to
the garage level. Staff recommends that revised rear and
side elevations and `loor plans in accordance with the
engineered grading plan be submitted prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Fritzlen stated that the applicant -as provided response to
the applicable variance crit,aria. Regarding the practical or
unnecessary physical hardship, the applicant responded that
this lot consists of .58 acres, 50% of which is unbuildable
due to a steep slope. Staff responded that the lot is
relatively steep, particularly in the front setback. Average
grade across the lot is appro,�imately 18%. Fritzlen stated
that typically, a frontyard building setback rather than a
sideyard variance is requested, given these conditions.
Regarding the exceptional or extraordinary circumsta;rces or
conditions applicable to the site, the applicant responded
that this condition exists in many of the lots throughout the
Wildridge Subdivision.
Regarding the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcements of a specified regulation, the applicant
responded that the ability to develop a total lot is a rarity
within this subdivision. Staff response was that steep
slopes do dominate the subdivision and special design
considerations come into play, but many projects in the
subdivision have been approved without variances.
Fritzlen stated that she has included the criteria and
findings required in the staff report.
She stated that the Staff recommendation is that if the
Commission determines that there are adequate findings for
OAN
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 18, 1989
Page 3 of 11
Lot 46. Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex Residence,
Sidevard Setback Variance,_Monica Remolds (cont.)
the granting of a variance, approval is recommended. She
stated that typically a variance is granted prior to Design
Review approval and the variance is conditioned by any
further conditions imposed through the design review process.
In that this variance is being requc6ucJ subsequent to a
design review approval, conditioned by further staff review
and approval, it is suggested that the staff recommendations
condition the variance. She stated that Staff has prepared
Resolution e4--5 recommending granting of the variance with
the following conditions: 1. An engineered grading plan,
more thoroughly addressing disposition of offsite and on site
drainage, necessary retainage and relational grades to the
proposed buildings be submitted prior to issuance of a
building permit due to the difficult topography of the site;
2. Revised rear and side elevations and floor plans in
accordance with the engineered grading plan be submitted
prior to issuance of a building permit; and 3. Variance is
limited to the area of encroachment of Parcel A and Parcel B
as described on the approved plat.
Monica Reynolds stated that by putting the buildings at the
seven and one half foot easement they are hoping to create a
better view corridor for the adjacent properties and to
maximize the identity of each of the buildings, providing
each with a sideyard of approximately four and a half feet at
the closest point and at the ten foot setback that would only
give each sideyard approximately two and a quarter feet.
They believe that this is the most beneficial and positive
placement of the buildings.
Chairwoman Cuny then opened the public hearing.
Steven Guiring, owner of Lot 35, Block 1, stated that he is
present to oppose the request for a setback variance because
of the impact that it would have on his property views,
property values and his privacy. He is also concerned about
the precedent it would set for the rest of the Wildridge
Subdivision. He urged denial of the variance request.
Gere Goldsworth, owner of Lot 36, Block 1, stated that he
opposes the approval of this variance for the same reason of
the blocking of the view corridor.
Cuny asked that tre record show that a letter from Joe
Tonahill, owner of Lot 38, Block 1, had been received, also
opposing the granting of the variance because he does not
Planning and Zoning
April 18, 1989
Page 4 of 11
Commission Meeting Minutes
want the applicant building any closer to the lot line than
is allowed.
Peter Hanson, owner of Lot 45, Block 1, stated that he
opposes because he bought in good faith with certain
provisions in the covenants for Wildridge, which he feels
that every owner that purchased and agreed to these covenants
should abide by them. He feels that tv:enty feet is close
enough for houses. He urged denial of the variance request.
Cuny called for any other comments from the public. With no
further comments, the Chairwoman then closed the public
hearing.
Discussion followed on whether other variances had been
allowed in Wildridge. Fritzlen stated that Lot 51, Block 4,
was the only one that she was aware of.
The Commission then discussed the locations of the lots
belonging to Mr. Guiring, Mr. Goldsworth, and Mr. Hanson.
Discussion followed on the locations of the proposed
buildings. Monica Reynolds stated that they can set the
buildings at 10 feet, their reasoning for the variance is tc
give more of a sideyard at the closest points of the
buildings and they think the view corridor between the
buildings will be better.
Further discussion followed on the placement of the
buildings. Ms Reynolds stated that they would abide by the
10 foot requirement, if the Commission so decided.
Buz Reynolds then reviewed the surrounding Lots, describing
how the proposed buildings will effect each, Lot.
Cuny then reviewed the criteria and findings required.
Perkins stated that he supports the people that have opposed
the granting of the variance. He feels that the applicant
has not demonstrated that the variance is necessary. They do
not meet any of the findings in the resolution.
Doll stated that lie would like to see the Commission respect
the Wildridge covenants when ever possible.
Perkins moved to deny Resolution 89-5, Series 1989, for Lot
46, Block 1, with the findings that the variance is not
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity.
Planning and Zoning
April 18, 1989
Page 5 of 11
Hill seconded.
Commission Meeting Minutes.
The motion carried unanimously.
A resolution of denial will be provided at the next regular
meeting.
Buz Reynolds then rejoined the Commission as a voting member.
1.0t 69 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek. 51 Beaver^Creek
Fritzlen stated that Mike Hazard, on behalf of Bruce Allen,
is requesting design review approval for proposed revisions
to the approved landscape plan. She stated that a reduction
of the landscape plan has been provided and the proposed
revisions are included. Also being requested is the addition
of two gas meter shed rooves on the west elevation.
Fritzlen stated that the majority of the site improvements
are in place, with the exception of the finish grading and
the landscaping. Two of the tenant spaces have been issued
temporary certificates of occupancy.
She stated that the amended landscape plan propses to delete
low landscaping elements, at the drive entrances and adjacent
to the project indentification sign. She stated that the
taller elements at the drive entries, being green ash trees,
will be maintained. The reason for the requested amendment
is concern on the owner's part for potential damage to low
lying landscaping by winter snow plow operations.
Fritzlen stated that additionally, approval is being
requested for shed rooves over the existing gas meters to
protect them from falling snow and ice. She stated that the
proposed rooves will encroach into the building
sideyard/utility and drainage easement, which is 7.5' from
the property line. In that the rooves are designed as an
accessory to a utility, a variance is not required.
Fritzlen reviewed the applicable design criteria: 1.
Section 15.28.060, Sign Design Guidelines, item E,
Landscaping, states "Landscaping is required for all
freestanding signs, and should be des4gned to enhance the
surrounding building landscaping. The deletion of the
,pproved landscaping surrounding the project identification
4W,
�I
401
®1
r-1
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Miuntes.
April 18, 1989
Page 6 of 11
sign does not meet the ini:ent of this regulation. 2. The
suitability of the improve;nent - Other landscaping plans in
District One use a variety of landscaping elements both
upright and prostrate. Quality and variety of landscape
materials, particularly adjacent to the public right-of-ways,
tends to be more varied and highly de-igned due to the lower
percentage of total landscaped area required in the SC
district. Berming the area adjacent to the right-of-way and
parking lots appears to aid in protecting the plant material
from snowplow operations.
Fritzlen stated that the new rooves are to be identical to
existing, so they are compatible.
Fritzlen stated that no topographical changes are proposed
although increasing the height of the berm adjacent to the
public right-of-way may help protect the plant materials.
Regarding the visual appearance, Fritzlen stated that a
variety of landscape material adjacent to the drive entries
enhances visual identification as well as appearance.
Fritzlen stated that the Staff recommendation is that if the
Commission has adequate findings, approval of the additional
rooves is recommended, but the deletion of the previously
approved landscaping is not.
Michael Hazard stated that it was his client's desire to try
to minimize some of the landscaping for practical purposes.
He stated that he would contact his client and maybe make
some compromise between the original plan and what was
proposed this evening. Discussion followed on the necessity
of having landscaping around the standing sign.
Buz Reynolds moved to table this item until the next regular
meeting.
Landauer seconded.
The motion carric-d unanimously.
Discussion followed on the rooves For the gas meters.
Michael Hazard stated he would like a decision on the rooves
at this time.
Reynolds amended his motion for tabling the item to the
Planning and Zoning
Aprill8, 1989
Page 7 of 11
Commission Meeting Minutes
landscaping only.
Landauer seconded the amendment.
The motion carried unanimously.
Doll moved to approve the rooves as presented.
McRory seconded.
The motion carried unanimously.
Fritzlen stated that Don Chaplin of Vacation Properties, on
behalf of Section 36, Inc., is requesting approval of an
existing real estate development sign not in compliance with
applicable square footage limitations. She stated that the
sign advertises that there are 420 rooms and the realtors
logo. Total sign area is approximately 34 sq. ft.
Cuny asked if this is at the same place that Tom Backhus'
sign was and if it had just been changed to a different sign.
Fritzlen stated that it is in the same place• and is an
existing sign.
Fritzlen stated that the Swift Gulch Annexation has 105
assigned residential development rights and no approved SPA
plan. She stated that any development on a parcel zoned SPA
with no approved plan must be approved by the Town Council as
an amendment to the zoning district map. Zone districts
other than RHDC, TC and SC may fractionalize development
rights at a ratio of 2.5 to 1.
Fritzlen stated that real estate development signs are
allowed up to 16 sq. ft. and may be retained for up to two
years. Development signs not meeting tr.:,ae criteria mayy be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon
determination a variance is warranted.
Fritzlen stated that on September 6. 1988, Thomas Backhus of
Slifer Real Estate, received a variance for a 32 sq. ft.. sign
advertising the property for sale. The variance was
determined to be warranted based on the exceptional size of
the property and the vehicular orientation of the sign
location.
Fritzlen stated that she has included in the staff report the
Planning and Zoning
April 18, 1989
Page 8 of 11
W
Commission Meeting Minutes
Swift Gulch Annexation, Section 36 Inc. Real Estate
Develoament Sign Variance (cont.)
criteria for approval of a sign variance.
She stated that the staff recommendation is that if the
Commission has adequate findings that the granting of the
variance is warranted, approval is recommended with the
following conditions: 1. Information on the sign be amended
to accurately reflect the status of the current zoning; and
2. The sign be allowed to remain, until September 6, 1990,
two years from the date of the previous approved variance.
Don Chaplin stated that in his enthusiasm for the site and
the progress that has been made in the Town of Avon, he
aggressively assigned that lot with 420 rooms, using the 4 to
1 ratio. He apologized to the Commission for his
aggressiveness and lack of adherence to the codes. He will
comply by changing the number of rooms. The size of the sign
is to try to generate an 'inquiry level from I-70.
Discussion followed on the location and the size of the sign
and the fact that he is asking for 2 more feet than was
approved previously.
Doll moved that the sign variance be approved as presented
with staff recommendations.
Landauer seconded.
The motion failed with two aye votes and five nay votes.
Reynolds moved that the sign be approved at the 32 sq. ft.
that was originally approved, with the staff recommendations.
Mckory seconded.
The motion carried with Doll voting nay.
Reading and Approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of 4/4/89 Regular Meeting
Doll moved to approve the minutes of the April 4, 1989,
meeting as presented.
Hill seconded.
The motion carried unanimously.
other Business
Chairwoman Cuny asked where the letter from the Eagle Valley
Home Builders Association came from. The Secretary stated
0
rte,
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 18, 1989
Page 9 of 11 40
Im Other Business (ccnt.Z
that she had received the copies, along with a note from Bill
James asking that they be included in the packets.
Perkins suggested that Robert Warner, President of the
Association, should be asked to come in and discuss the
concerns voiced in the letter. He stated that he did not
feel that the Town of Avon Design Procedures, Rules and
Regulations are more stringent.
Reynolds stated that he felt he could speak for the majority
of the builders within the Vail Valley, that there is a fear
and awareness that they have a hard time of building within
the Town of Avon. He stated that the commercial spaces,
that are usually built by larger contractors, get built with
less of a hard time, but as far as the residential stuff,
they feel it is a lot easier to build in other areas, and it
shows, Berry Creek has almost 25 building starts this year.
Cuny stated that she did not think that our regulations are
keeping Wildridge from being developed. Reynolds stated that
he could bring five contractors in that do not want to build
in the Town of Avon. He stated that the bottom line is that
it is more expensive to build in the Town of Avon. He stated
that the overall procedure for building in this town is very
hard. It is very time consuming and by the time you add it
altogether it becomes very expensive.
Landauer stated that he has built in Eagle Vail, West Vail
and Avon and everybody has their hoops that a contractor has
to go through. He can't see how Reynolds can say it is more
expensive.
Further discussion followed on building in the various areas
and what has been approved recently in the Town of Avon.
Reynolds stated that another matter is just the filing of the
plat within the Town. The amount of signatures that are
required on the plat is incredible. He proceeded to name
them all. This was not required in the past. He stated that
for a triplex or less, he sees no reason why it has to be
brought before the Town Council. It should be handled on a
staff level by the Town Engineer. He is concerned about the
time it takes to do all this.
Discussion followed on writing a letter to Mr. Warner, asking
him to attend a worksession to discuss this matter.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 18, 1989
Page 10 of 11
Other Business (cont.)
Doll stated that he did not feel it was up to the Commission
to write the letter. He feels it should be up to the Town
Council to respond.
It was suggested that maybe a joint worksession could be ,eld
with the Town Council and ask Mr. Warner to attend. 'he
Commission all agreed. Staff was directed to set this up for
a later date.
Cuny asked how many were going to the conference this
weekend. Fritzlen, McRory, Hill and t..aybe John Perkins will
go.
Cuny suggested a worksession at the next meeting so those
that go can update the rest of the Commission. It was
decided that the worksession should start at 7 PM.
Considerable discussion followed on the continuing problem of
trucks with advertising being parked around town and left
there. The Commission directed Staff to check with John
Dunn on what can be done regarding this matter and have some
k;nd of answer for the Commission at the next meeting.
Hill asked if there had been any progress on the question
raised at the last meeting regarding the trash cans.
Fritzlen stated that she had drafted a letter regarding the
matter.
Fritzlen stated that she has an article regarding adopting
regulations for portable signs. She stated that this article
is not positive about the situation. It is a difficult item
to regulate.
Landauer suggested that maybe other towns have had the same
problem and we could check to see if '..hey have been agile to
solve it.
Fritzlen read a suggested definition for a portable sign -
Any sign that is designed to be transported, including but
not limited to signs not limited to signs with wheels
removed, with chassis or support constructed without wheels,
designed to be transported by trailer or wheels, converted to
A or T frame signs attached temporarily or permanentlt to the
ground or structure or other signs, mounted on a vehicle for
advertising purposes parked and visable r••m the public
right-of-way, except signs identifying the related business
when the vehicle is being used in the norma! day to day
operations of that business. Menu and sandwich boards,
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 18, 1989
Page 11 of 11
Other Business (cont.)
searchlight stands and hot air or gas filled ballons or
umbrellas used for advertising.
Discussion followed on the possibility of designating parking
areas. Again, the Commission directed the Staff to furnish
some direction for the Commission to act on.
Cuny stated that the regulations state that you cannot
designate parking, except for handicapped parking.
Further discussion followed on this natter.
Perkins stated that he felt that some of the Commission
should be involved in some of the master plan planning. He
feels that some of the Commission should go to the meeting
when they interview the consultants.
Cuny agreed, she stated that she was very put out that they
have not even asked for any input from the Commission.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlette Pascuzzi
Recording Secretary
Commiss'
P. Cuny
T. Land
F. Doll
J. Perk
D. Hill
C. McRo
A. Reyn
, / _.._ .n/7,., _7 X04',0
r