Loading...
PZC Minutes 101789RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on October 17, 1989, 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 Chairman Frank Doll. Members Present: Frank Doll, John Perkins, Jack Hunn, Buz Reynolds, Clayton McRory, Denise Hill, Terri Jeppson Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Community Development; Jim Lamont, Acting Planner; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Lot 72 Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Buck Creek Plaza Building, Parking Variance, Public Hearing Jim Lamont reviewed the history of the Buck Creek Plaza Building, stating that, the building was constructed under County regulations, prior to the Town of Avon incorporation. The majority of the uses in the building have been considered as pre-existing conditions and have not peen required to conform with Town of Avon parking regulations. He stated that current regulations would require forty-two spaces for existing uses in the building. There are approximately twenty-five spaces on site. Lamont stated that in 1984, a Special Review Use was approved for the additcn of seven off-site parking spaces at Christie Lodge to allcw expansion of the applicant's business into a previously undeveloped and unoccupied portion of the building. This variance application is for the elimination of the parking required for the 1405 square feet of business floor area which was added at that time. The conditions of the Special Review Use approval were met through a lease between the applicant and the Christie Lodge Owners Association. Provisions within the lease permit permits the Town of Avon to cancel and rescind any Certificate of Occupancy that was issued to the applicant based upon the availability of parking spaces covered by to lease agreement. Approval of this variance would negate the need for the previously approved Special Review Use. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 17, 1989 Page 2 of 11 Lot 72 Block 2. Benchmark at Be __ -.1 Pa_z_a Building Parking Variance _ Public_ Hearing, cont Lamont stated that the requested variance is of greater magnitude than any previously granted parking variance in the vicinity. All buildings constructed under Town of Avon regulations have met parking standards. Lamont commented that the variance, reterred to by the applicant in his application, was granted for a building on Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Atter detailed site and parking layout analysis, the variance was requested for three parking spaces. The variance was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and appealed to the Town Council. The Council approved a variance for one parking space and required the remaining two parking spaces meet the size standard for compact car parking spaces. The one parking space variance was granted because, if the space had been provided, its location would have interfered with access to loading and trash facilities. Lamont stated that the variance request does not appear to significantly effect light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. However, the lack of availability of overflow parking may cause traffic congestion at the driveway entrance during peak traffic periods of the year. The adjacent street intersection could be adversely effected from the standpoint of public safety. No specific traffic survey and parking usage information exist to verify the actual usage of on-site parking and traffic flows for the building. Lamont commented that financial hardship, as stipulated in the application, is not usually considered as a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship in the review of a variance request. Lamont stated that, generally, all sites in the zone district would qualify for the off-site parking provision of the zoning code as a remedy for parking deficiencies. This provision is typically used to insure that the amount of parking is kept in balance for the entire zone district. No parking decisions have substantially affected the amount of parking necessary to insure that the zone district will have sufficient parking at full development and occupancy. Lamont stated that Section 17.32 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures, provides for remedy of nonconformance of structures which existed prior to the existence of the Town Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 17, 1989 Page 3 of 11 Lot 72, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver -Creek, Buck,Creek_Plaza Building Parking Variance. Public Hearing,�ont_1 of Avon. Because of the off-site parking lease agreement, the applicant appears to not have been deprived of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zone district. Lamont stated that the findings required are standard language. Regarding staff recommendations, insufficient information has been &ubmitted to determine that the applicant has been deprived of privileges granted to other property owner's in the district. Insufficient information has been submitted that the providing of required on-site parking through a off-site parking lease would cause practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Lamont stated that Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 89-12 has been prepared for denial of the variance application. He stated that the Commission should amend the Resolution, to incorporate the appropriate findings and the desired action of the Commission. This Resolution can be easily amended to incorporate the required t,ndings for approval as well as denial. Norm Wood stated that in addition, based upon more administrative review following the development of the staff report, this variance request onct be denied, as the original approval was for a Special Review Use, which requires approval of both the Town Council and Planning and Zoning Commission, whereas, the variance is not that degree of approval, and requires only the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission, unless appealed to the Town Council. That is based upon Section 17.20.020, paragraph C of the Zoning Code, which states, "No approved Special Review Use may be modified, structurally enlarged or expanded in ground area, unless such modification, enlargement, or expansion receives prior approval of the design review board and the Town Council. Which approval shall be obtained by repetition of the granting procedures provided in this chapter." Therefore, the applicant will be required to go through the same procedure for a Special Review Use to eliminate the need and then the approval of the variance in order to retain, or eliminate the requirement for the parking spaces. Wood stated that the onl., option would be to continue the variance request for a specific amount of time to allow for time to go through the Special Review Use procedure. Planning and Zoning October 17, 1989 Page 4 of 11 Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 72 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Buck Creek Plaza Building Parking Veriance, Public Hearing (cont) Pat Cuny, principal owner of C. J. Corporation, stated that it was her understanding that the Special Review Use was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission and was approved by the Town Council, in the form of a lease, and that lease says that it is in perpetuity, unless the Town Council rescinds the lease. She stated that it is her understanding that if the Planning and Zoning grants the variance, then she can go to the Town Council and ask them to cancel that lease they have under Special Review Use. She stated that she didn't believe the Council would cancel the lease unless she has the variance from the Commission. She stated that when Beaver Liquors opened they had one floor, and then in 1985 they went before the liquor license authority to change the footprint of the store. The Town Liquor Authority approved the change, and the State also approved the change. They spent all summer putting in the basement wine cellar, and two weeks before they were to open, the Town informed them that they needed more parking. The Town informed them that only option was for them to tend off-site parking, which they did with a leasa with Christie Lodge, which states that it has to be a perpetual lease. Since then they have seen people come through asking for variances, reterring to the variance granted by the Town Cuuticil to 182 Avon Corporation. She stated that, in her mind the Town Council granted a special privilege to this business and they want the same consideration and compromise. She stated that the 182 Avon Corporation changed the uses of the building, which created their parking problems. She stated that at the time of their expansion, they did not change any uses in the Buck Creek Plaza Building, they only expanded floor space. Cuny stated that in the time span of the lease not one car has used the off-site parking. They feel that they have gone overboard to work with the Town to get the lease signed, to continue to pay since 1985, and to work with Christie Lodge. Christie Lodge would not allow them to put up reserved signs, the spaces are behind the building on the upper level of the parking structure and it is impossible to educate or direct their customers to park back there. Cuny stated that she was a little concerned on some of the comments in the staff report. She stated, regarding the statc-;ent of more magnitude, The magnitude of the 182 Avon corporation changes in their building uses is much greater magnitude than what C. J. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 17, 1989 Page 5 of 11 Lot 72 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Buck Creek Plaza Building, Parking Variance Public Hearing,. cont Corporation did. Regardin: cho comment that all buildings constructed under Sown of Avon Regulations have met parking standards, Cuny replied that they would have too, if the Town had been here before them. She stated that the important words under letter B of the staff comments are "uniformity of treatment among sites". If the variance is denied tonight, she didn't see any uniformity of treatment among sites. She stated that the comment about the variance given to 182 Avon Corporation does not bring out the fact that the two remaining spaces meet the size of the compact car parking spaces. The Town ordinance states that the compact car parking spaces can only be underground. She feels that 182 Avon Corp got two variances, one for the parking space and one for compact car spaces on top of the ground. Regarding the comment that financial hardship is not usually considered as a practical difficulty or unusual physical hardship, she stated that people stand at the podium all the time and tell the Commission about monetary hardships. She used Palmer Development statement that they have a financial hardship that they could not buy all of the property for the Wal-Mart shopping center, so the Town of Avon bought the parking lot. Mr. Pesch, of 182 Avon Corporation stated that he could not lease the remaining space in his building without a parking variance. She stated that they feel that having to have the lease for the seven parking spaces is a financial hardship because th:y are not being used. If the parking places were right next door, it would be easy to tell their customers to use them. She stated that the practical difficulty is that the off-site parking is behind a building across the street. Regarding the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, they feel that the fact that they were here before the Town was is an extraordinary circumstance. She stated that another bulla ig in the same zone district, built under County regulations has been given a parking variance. Rick Cuny, also a stockholder in C. J. Corporation and principal stockholder in Beaver Liquors and Lips Too, which resides in the building, stated that common sense should count for something , and what common sense dictates is that these spaces have never been used and will never be used, because they are so far away. He stated that the monthly Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 17, 1989 Page 6 of 11 Lot 72 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Buck Creek Plaza Building, Parking Variance Public Hearins,_(cont price he pays almost becomes a ransom note so that he can do business in the Town of Avon, as opposed to paying for something that gives him some value. He doesn't feel that this should go on any longer. Pat Cuny stated that they have never had any adverae traffic effects from not using those parking spaces. Doll then opened the public hearing. Lynn Weas, Maraging Director of the Christie Lodge, stated that he did not want his comments to be influential. He stated teat his position is to state the condition relative to the variance and his present status. He would take exceptian in that the lease is not in perpetuity by any means. The lease has very distinct periods within it. As far as Christ?e Lodge is concerned, the lease is non-existent at this time. Vie lease is defaulted. The lease, as provided for in paragraph four, was never renewed under the terms of renewal. Therefore, the lease was terminated on June 30, 1988. He stated that he is very intF-ested because this variance, as it addresses Resolution 84-30, also effected the Christie in a change of parking from 430 spaces to 401 spaces. He asked that this not be disturbed, regardless of the outcome. This is his main concern in being here. Wood explained that, at that time, in order to qualify for a mixed use, large lot parking reduction, it required the Special Review Use. The regulations have since been revised. Perkins asked if the Christie would consider leasing spaces in the front east lot to Beaver Liquors. Weas stated that the businesses that are now in there and are coming in will tax that area and he would feel uncomfortable with lea -A ng those spaces. Doll asked if there was any other public input regarding this matter. With none forthcoming, Doll closed the pohlic hearing. Discussion followed on the fact that the applicant only added space to an established business, not adding a new business. Rick Cuny stated that adding the space did not mean that they would have more bodies coming in the door. Discussion followed on the vehicles that are parking in the vacant lots. .W� Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 17, 1989 Page 7 of 11 Lot 72 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek � Buck_Creek Plaza Building Parkins Variance Public Hearin�,__con�. Rick Cuny stated that this is a condominimum association problem and no matter what is done, there will never be enough parking for the businesses in that building. It was suggested that some of the employee vehicles could be parked there. Cuny stated that this will be approximately two cars. It was suggested that the other businesses could participate in using off-site parking for employees. Cuny stated that the other businesses in the building are not willing to do this. Discussion followed on the matter of the lease being terminated. Wood stated that there is a provision in the lease that if it is terminated the Town has the right to revoke the certificate of occupancy for that space that it was issued to cover the parking requirements for, and also it would be in violation of the Special Review Use, which states as one of the conditions that the lease for the parking spaces shall be perpetual in nature and shall endure for as long as the requirement "•r which they were leased exists. once the lease is not in place, they are in violation of tl.L� Special Review Use. Dol" stated thatthere is a problem here that is beyond the cPpability of the Commission to resolve. There is a violation of a Town ordinance that allowed this to take place, through the non-payment and the expiration of the lease and he does not think that the Commission has the power to go ahead and do anything except deny the variance and instruct the applicant to appeal to the Town Council. He stated that the Commission has never approved a variance for parking. Considerable discussion followed regarding whether the applicant should go to Town Council first or if the variance should be granted or denied first. Perkins asked Norm Wood if he felt that the Commission should act on the variance. Wood stated that under the variance provisions, if you have specific information that you need to make a good decision with, you can table or continue action for up to a thirty day period, for further information and review. Perkins asked Lamont what information does the applicant need to provide. Lamont stated that from the technical side, occupancy figures, usage of the lot, and monitoring of the parking lot. Buz Reynolds moved to continue this application for a period Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 17, 1989 Page 8 of 11 Lot 72 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver_Creek.Buck—Creek Plaza Building Parking Variance Public Hearing. lcontj of 30 days to allow the applicant to approach the Town Council. Jack Hunn seconded. Further discussion followed. McRory asked if a variance could be granted with the conditions that if it approved by Council that they do not have to come back to Planning and Zoning. Wood stated that the Administrative interpretation at this time is that the variance cannot be considered until the Special Review Use has been modified, which means that it has to come back to the P & Z for the Special Review Use and then go to Council. Further discussion followed or why this parking requirement was required. The motion carried unanimously. Lo'' 63 Block Z bencnmarn aI,- r ina. Sign Variance Jim Lamont stated that the applicant requests a sign having two sign faces with different copy on each face be given a variance for the size of the sign from the required 16 square feet to that of 24 square feet. Lamont, commented that the proposed sign does not appear to have an adverse relationship with existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. No existing sites in the vicinity have been granted similar size variances for development signs. Compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity has been consistent. The size variance does not appear to adversely effect light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No other factors and criteria appears to be applicable to the proposed variance. Insufficient information has been submitted to determine that the applicant would not receive a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the same vicinity. Planning and Zoning October 17, 1389 Page 9 of 11 Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 63 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek _ Peregrine Building Sian Variance (cont) Charlie Gersbach, Vail Associates Real Estate, stated that since making the application, they have discussed with staff to take the sign and put the back to back and put them perpendicular to the building, which would reduce the size by half, this would be the 24 square feet they are requesting. The owners want to incorporate the Fuller name with Vail Associates. Lamont stated that the sign location had been received belatedly and the requirements are that they have to be 10 feet back from the property line. McRory moved to grant the sign variance for Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Peregrine Building, with the condition that it is set 10 feet back off the property line. Jeppson seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 2 Block 1. Filing 11 Eaglebend _ Subdiv_ison__, Inter -Mountain Engineering. Ltd.. Color Change. _Desi-qn_Review Lamont stated that the applicant requests that the exterior for the residence located on Lot 2, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision be changed from Cape Cod Gray to a natural cedar color. He stated that the project appears to meet the applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. The type and quality of proposed color is compatible with the existing structures in the vicinity. The visual appearance of the proposed color does not appear to pose any deleterious effects from adjacent and neighboring properties. The proposed color change does not appear to impair monetary and aesthetic values, and the proposed color change appears to be in general conformance with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Staff recommendation is that specific color samples should be available for review by the Commission. Jeff Spanel, Intermountain Engineering, Ltd. provided a sample of what was approved and what is being requested as the change in color. They are semi -transparent colors. Hill moved to approve the color change for Lot 2, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision, from the previous gray to Devoe ST92 Desert Beige, as presented by the applicant. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 17, 1989 Page 10 of 11 Lot 2. Block 1 Filing 2 Eaglebend Subdivision. Color Change, Design Review (cont) The motion carried unanimously. '_(89 Regular Nunn moved to approve the minutes of the October 3, 1989 minutes as submitted. Hill seconded. The motion carried unanimously Other Business Doll stated that since this is the last meeting for Jim Lamont, he wanted to express his thanks and appreciation for the work that he has done. The Commission unanimously seconded this comment. Doll then thanked all the members for their attendance at the Master Plan meeting and for their participation. He stated that the next meeting is in three weeks. Doll stated that there is nothing new to report on the railroad crossing other than they are proceeding. The next big step is to appear before the district highway commission in Grand Junction on October 25th. Further discussion followed on the total parking situation in the area of the variance request previously discussed and the process for getting the vehicles off the vacant lots. Wood stated that what would be needed would be a complaint from the owner of the property. Further discussion followed on the problem of employee parking. Reynolds moved to adjourn. Perkins seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary