Loading...
PZC Minutes 121890''01 to") RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING DECEMBER 18, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on December 18, 1990, 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, Sue Railton, Jack Hunn, John Perkins, Pat Dixon, Clayton McRory Staff Present: Jim Curnutte, Planner; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Chairman Doll stated that all members were present except John Perkins, Jack Hunn, and Buz Reynolds. Mr. Perkins arrived at 7:32 and Jack Hunn arrived at 7:36. Since no representative was present for the first item on the agenda, Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge, Landscape Plan, the Commission moved on to the next item Jim Curnutte reviewed the concerns that the Commission had stated at the time of continuing these three items. Curnutte stated that revised plans have been submitted, and it appears the applicant has adequately addressed the concerns. Steve Riden, representing KED Development, described the total landscape plan, as requested by the Commission, He stated that they have set up guidelines for the landscaping to facilitate the landscape design for the individual lots. The items listed will serve to unify -,he project and assist the individual owners in any additions they may want to make. There are four parts to the landscape plan; streetscape, lot separation, intimate areas, and natural or revegetation areas. Riden then described all four areas. The materials selected are: Trees - Pinion pine, ponderosa pine, blue PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 2 of 13 res_Subdiy_ision.,__ Steve Riders toon.___ and__ Vest Residgnce_s., rom December 4.,_ 1990_ spruce, bristle -cone pine, mountain alder, canadian red cherry, and as an alternate, russian olive. Shrubs - buffalo juniper, table top juniper, mugho pine, and clip-essifolia. Grasses - native grasses and kent.ucky bluegrass type. Riden stated that each lot will be provided with a series of hose bibs as needed, and a vacuum breaker, in addition to a rainbird drip system for the trees. Startup will be by KED Development and continued maintenance by the owners. He stated that rocks will be disbursed about the project and placed to provide planting beds or retainages needed. KED Development assumes no responsibility for maintenance after a successful startup. As per the request by the Commission, Mr. Riden then described the total subdivision site plan layout, showing all twelve locations of houses. He then described the color chart he had prepared. He stated that all stucco will have an elastomeric paint as part of the stucco process, all wood will have a semi -transparent, spray applied when possible, there will be some solid body stain listed. All others will be color impregnated, such as windows, or brush applied. All the fascia will be a mushroom color. The entry and garage doors are a mix of three colors; historic red -Benjamin Moore 66, and a Benjamin Moore 1024 and also a natural cedar stain. Basically the windows are all clad. The colors are white, terra -tone and beige. Sometimes the trim matches the body siding, or associates with the fascia color. The sidings will be - an Olympic outside white, an Olympic shammy, and an Olympic white birch. The stucco will be a sandstone, a beige, a white or a navajo white. He described the changes made to the individual houses as requested by the commission. Discussion followed on the landscape plan provided. Of most concern was the irrigation system, or lack of one. Discussion followed on the tree sizes. Discussion followed on the joining of the seeded areas and natural areas. Discussion followed on the need for top soil. Also discussed is the extent of the curb and gutter along the street edge. Riden stated that there is not much curb and gutter. He described where there would be curb and gutter. Discussion followed on the lack of some trees, i.e. asnans. Considerable discussion followed on the total landscape plan. Tne lack of an automatic irrigating system was of most concern by Jack Hunn. John Perkins agreed with him. Hunn PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MEETING December 18, 1990 Page 3 of 13 Lots 5 9. and 10. Wildridge Acres___Subdi_yisi_on,___Steve_Riden for Bob Kedrowski,_ Dubois_Huntoony andVest Residences,. FinalDesign Review_tcontinued_.fro_m__December 4,_ 1990._ also had s concern regarding the sizes of the trees. He stated that he would like to see the size ranges increase from something like five and all the way up to ten feet. Discussion followed on this matter. It was suggested that they do not use russian olives as they will not grow in this altitude. Discussion followed on the color scheme provided. One concern was the use of the red on the garage doors and entry door and nowhere else on a couple of the houses. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. It was suggested that the application of the accent color should be reconsidered. Chairman Doll recommended to the Staff that the landscape plan be brought back as a separate item at the next meeting. Piden stated that they need approval as each house is approved. Discussion followed on Lot 5. Riden described the changes, as requested by the Commission, to this house. It was suggested that a gutter be provided over the entry and garage doors. The use of the red color on the garage door and no where else on this house was discussed again. The lack of an irrigation system was also discussed, again. Clayton McRory moved to grant final design review approval to Lot 5, Wildridge Acres with the condition that the size of caliper and height of the proposed landscaping be increased by one foot. Sue Railton seconded. The motion carried with Jack Hunn and John Perkins voting nay. Lot 9, Wildridge Acres. Riden described the changes made to this house as per the Commission requests. The same concerns regarding the colors, landscaping and irrigation system were voiced. Patti Dixon moved to grant final design approval to Lot 9, Wildridge Acres Subdivision with the condition that the size of caliper and height of the proposed landscaping be increased by one foot. Sure Railton seconded. The motion carried i,ith Jack Hunn and John Perkins voting nay. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 4 of 13 Lots 5 9 and i0. WildridgeAcres_ Subdi__v__cny_._Stey_e_ R_iden for Bob Kedrowski, Dubois, . and_ Ves__Huntoont Residences,_ Final nesian Review, continued_from _December__4_,_ 1.99.0 Lot 10, Wildridge Acres. Discussion followed on the Commission's requested changes and how the applicant accomplished this. Discussion followed on the elevation that people will see coming down the road. It is a windowless facade and the Commission felt that a window should be added to the garage on that side. Clayton Mcrory moved to grant final design approval to Lot 10, Wildridge Acres Subdivision with the condition that the height of the trees be increased by one foot and that a window be added to the garage on the north elevation. Sue Railton seconded. The motion carried with John Perkins and Jack Hunn voting nay. Lot 89 Block 1. Wildrid_ge_Subdivision,__Deer Ridge, Landscape Plan Jim Curnutte stated that in June, 1990, Ken Sortland received final design approval for three duplex buildings, with conditions. One of the conditions was that the landscape plan be excluded from the approval and be brought back. The applicant addressed all the other conditions imposed, at the August 21, 1990 meeting. The landscape plan was to be presented prior to issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. The applicant is now asking for final design review of the landscaping plan. Curnutte stated that the plan appears to be suitable for this project, (species type, location, size, etc.), however, all planting materials north of the driveway have been removed, with the exception of grass/sage mix. He stated also, that the applicant is not proposing an automatic irrigation system. The applicant has indicated that the common trash disposal area has been deleted in favor of individual home garbage can pickup. BFI has agreed to do this. Curnutte stated that the project entrance sign is still located within the 10' front yard setback area. The shape of the sign appears to be different from the one shown on the previous drawings, however no new information has been provided. Ken Sortland stated thatthe center duplex is now nearing completion, therefore they need to obtain final design review approval on the landscaping. He stated that th- owners will be charged a monthly fee by BFI fcr the iodiviJual pickups. Sortland seated thrt the landscaping on the north side was removed because there is a deep gully through that area and it is all sage and native grass and they plan to revegetate PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 5 of 13 Lot 89 Block 1. Wildrida_e Subdiv_ision.,__Deer_ Ridge,_ -jandscaaPe Plan that area to blend with this area. He stated that there was no problem in moving the projcet entrance sign out of the 10' front setback. He stated that each unit will have hose bibs in front and in back of the buildings .nd this is the planned irrigation system. Each owner is responsible for taking care of the area around their units. Discussion followed on the grasses to be used. Sortland stated that it will be seeded native grass. He stated that he has plenty top soil that he plans to spread out over the project. Discussion followed on the sizes of the plant material. Sortland stated that there would be 5', 6', and 7' heights of Colorado spruce. The aspens will be 2" calipers. There will be alpine currants and red twig dogwood in the 5 gallon sizes. The concern of the Commission was the seeding without an irrigation system. It was felt that, because of the large amount of common area also, an irrigation system is needed. Further discussion followed on the amount of trees shown on this plan in comparison with the previous plan. There seems to be less shown on this plan. It was felt that some formal lawn area at each unit entry would benefit the project. It was suggested that some trees be placed on the north side near the entrance and also at the north east corner of building three. Considerable discussion followed on the matter of how to implement an irrigation system. Jack Hunn moved to grant final design approval to Lot 89, Block 1, wildridge, Deer Ridge. with the following conditions: Additional trees, spruce and aspen be installed on the northeast corner of building three; additional and s'gnificant plant material at the entry; formal landscaping or mowable sod be installed between building three and building two and to the edge of the pavement to the north of those two buildings, also between building two and the corner of building one and bounded by the edge of pavement between those two buildings; a small formal area north and east of the eastern unit of unit one. These areas receive a mowable mix, either seed or sod; addition of an automatic irrigation system and also provide for a drip system for the trees on the balance of the site. Perkins suggested t,ia` the additional number of materials be specified. Hunn amended his motion to include in the first landscape area adjacent to building three, two spruce - one 7' and one 5', and three aspen - ranging in size from 1-1/2" to 2" ..� PLANN:NG AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 6 of 13 Lot 89 Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision. Deer Rimae _Land_scape Plan caliper; In r.he area by the entrance to the poject, two spruce - one 8' and one 6' and three aspen ranging in size from 1-1/2" to 2" caliper. John Perkins seconded. Jim Curnutte asked that the motion also include that these additions be incorporated into a plan and that plan be presented to staff prior to a request for a TCO on the first building. Staff also asked that the sign be approved with the condition that the sign be moved out of the 10' front setback area. Jack Hunn so amended his motion. John Perkins amended his second also. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 18 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision,_ Mark Donaldson for Greg Kraft Wildflower Condominiums,___Fractio_nalizati_on of Development Rights Public Hearin -q Jim Curnutte stated that this is a request for fractionalization and there is a companion file for design review. He stated that Mark Donaldson is here representing Greg Kraft. He stated the lot currently has four development rights and the applicant is requesting fractionalization to eight rights. Curnutte then provided a chronology of past history of the lot, stating that in September, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval of fractionalization and design review approval, with conditions, to the Wildflower Condominium project. In November, 1986, a building permit was issued for Phase I (one four unit building). Due to lack of progress on the building these approvals and permit expired. In November, 1990 the unfinished/abandoned portion of the builaing was demolished and the site restored to its natural condition. This currently proposed development is nearly identical to that originally approved in 1986. The new plans show that the windows on the south and west walls of the third story "mechanical room" have been deleted. The proposed project consists of two buildings, each containing four two bedroom units. All units are less than 800 square feet (50% fractionalized project). There are two different floor plans. The residential portion of the buildings is located on the 2nd and 3rd levels with parking garages and some storace areas located on the first floor. Each building contains a common meeting room on the 2nd floor and a mechanical room on the 3rd floor. Each unit contains a '_%� ?04� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 7 of 1.1 Lot 18, Block 1, Wildridge_ Subd_i_v_ision,11-ark_Donal_dson Tor Greg Kraft, Wildflower Con_domin_i_ums,__Fraction.alizat.ion__-of Development ',ights, Public Hear_i_nq gas firQplace. Curnutte then revisswed the criteria for considering fractionalization, stating that the access to the site appears to be adequate to serve eight units. The driveway will be required to meet Town of Avon driveway/entrance standards. Public transportation is a desirable goal for all portions of the Town of Avon. The character of this project, however, will not necessitate the construction of public or private transportation facilities. Curnutte stated that there does not appear to be any definable impact to public and private services that are a result of this fractionalization request. He stated that the proposed project appears to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This project was originally found to be compatible with the surrounding area in 1986. Curnutte stated the two bedroom units would serve to address some of the needs identified in the recent Housing Needs Assessment completed by the Eagle County Affordable Housing Task Force. Staff recommendation is for approval. The lot is situated in a multi -family neighborhood and the unit mix is appropriate to both site and the community. Mark Donaldson, representing Greg Kraft, stated that he had nothing to add and he was ready for any specific questions the Commission might have. Chairman Doll then opened the public hearing. He stated that two letters have been received, basically opposing this project. Chairman Doll asked if the applicant had received copies, the secretary stated he had. The Chairman asked if there had been any other comments received. The secretary stated there had been no others. The Chairman asked if there was any one present that wishes to address this matter. Firooz Zadeh stated that they are one of the immediate neighbors in the area. He stated that they are concerned with the number of cars and traffic this project would generate. He stated that they also would hope that the down would have some sort of guarantee that the project would not be left unfinished for years and to be a hazard for the neighborhood. They wished to voice their opposition to this project. Chairman Doll stated that the two letters received were from Lawrence Ast and David Yoder, both protesting the fractionalization of this project. With no further comments, Chairman Doll closed the public hearing. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 8 of 13 Lot 18, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision_ Mark Donaldson for Greg Kraft Wildflower Condominiumy_ Fractionalization of Development Rights Public Hearing Mark Donaldson stated that the issue of fractionalization always seems to be a problem in terms of understanding the impacts and the translation of larger units into smaller units. He reviewed the sizes of the proposed project and compared them to the typical multi-family units in the area. The fitting of smaller units into the same area of a larger unit is the idea of fractionalization. He described the impacts of more front doors and the fact that they have mitigated that with a common entry hall. He stated that parking has been adequately provided in that they are required to have 19 parking spaces and are providing 23, ten of them will be covered parking. The feel that they have taken the fractionalization ordinance and put it to good use to create affordable housing in an appropriate neighborhood setting. Jack Hunn stated that he feels that fractionalization on this property is inappropriate, citing that the infrastructure's ability to support the current density that is zoned in Wildridge is kind of an unknown. Eight hundred eighty units is currently allocated up there and if built - it is a single outlet subdivision with limited capacity - He feels it is nct prudent to grant additional density to any property in Wildridge until there is assurance that the road can handle the density currently allocated. Also, fractionalizing this property into an eight plex lot would create a development that would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. The neighborhood is predominately duplex with an adjacent four-plex and two five-plex lots across the street. The character of the neighborhood would be changed, the price range, the number of cars, the number of dogs, etc. would have an impact on the neighborhood. Hunn stated he had a concern also, since this project failed once. Mark Donaldson disagreed with Hunn's statement of overloading the systems, etc. Upper Eagle Valley has reduced tap fees to fit the smaller units, etc. He feels that the additional four units would not impact the road system so much. He asked that Greg Kraft speak to the matter of the project failure. Mr. Kraft stated that when they started in 1986 they had sold off four units. They had structured the deal with Alpine Federal in Steamboat. They went ahead with limited capital and put the foundation in because they thought they might lose the buyers if they didn't start the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 9 of 13 Lot 18 Block 1. Wildrid9e Subdivision_,- Mark. Donaldson for Greg Kraft Wildflower Condom iniums.Fractionalizat_i_on_ of Development Rights Public Hearing project. That winter Alpine Federal started having problems and were closed down by the FDIC. They lost all their financing and could not secure appropriate financing for the purchasers. They had to give all their money back. He stated that now they have several purchasers on reservation agreements, ready to go forth. This time they will not start unless they have all of the commitments in hand. He stated that they have all the units sold. John Perkins shared Jack Hunn's concerns about fractionalization. He thinks politically and realistically most people associated with the Town of Avon and more particularly residents of Wildridge are not in favor of proceeding any further with the fractionalization up there and yet he realizes that option is still on the books even though the Town may or may not be moving toward eliminating it. He is also concerned with the track record of this developer. He feels that the financing situation at this time may be worse than it was in 1986. He feels a bit gun-shy about movinJ ahead with the same project four years later, when money is Very tight at this time. He is concerned that there will be a repeat performance of the last time out. Donaldson stated that fractionalization is legal and that is it. He has been hearing for years about changing fractionalization. To this date nothing has changed. He stated that they are here to deal with it and respond to any concerns in a responsible manner. He stated that he gets many mailings a week advertising loan monies available. Donaldson asked what financing has to do with the Board? Perkins stated that they were responding to Mr. Kraft's mitigating statements aboit his previous problems. Perkins started talking about the parking area, then realized that this would be part of the final design review. Sue Railton stated that if fractionalization is legal and it makes sense to have smaller units, she'is in favor of this project. Jack Hunn stated that fractionalization is not a right, everybody is not entitled to fractionall"Lation unless it meets certain criteria. The criteria that seems to be applicable to this application is compatibility with the neighborhood. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 10 of 13 vision, Development Rights, Public Hearing Clayton McRory stated he feels that this project would work well, but not in this location. He does not feel that increasing the density in that area will help the area at all. He feels that they would be gambling with the property values in that area. Chairman Doll stated he would like to make the observation that in the past couple years the Commission has approved probably a half a dozen of this similar type project and none of them have come into being. The single family houses seems to be where the market is now. If the money is out there, why hasn't the other approved projects been built. The only one is the Sonnen Halde project. John Perkins stated that he thinks that the general philosophy and approach to development in Wildridge has changed from the first time this project was proposed to right now. The Commission is seeing more and more interest in the single family solution. At this particular area there are no fractionalized projects in place. Mark Donaldson states that most of what he has heard from the Commission is very logical and good observations of what is going on. However, he doesn't believe that anyone has the answers in the development world. All zoning codes and design review criteria, including ordinances such as fractionalization are written to create boundaries and guidelines with which a developer must adhere and there is a certain amount of negotiation and give and take when they come before this Board to get the projects approved. He stated that he did not believe that he has ever set- a project, in fifteen years of practicing in this valley, be denied based on the feeling of marketability or financing or appropriateness in terms of what is going on right now as opposed to what will be going on four years from now. He believes the market will continue to change and he doesn't belive any one housing project is going to solve what is perceived to be a housing problem at this time. There is a variety of housing needs in this community and this is one of the types that is needed. He stated that they have to let the developer get out into the marketplace and find his buyers and either do a deal and build it, or find out that he doesn't have any buyers and come back in here and propose three single family residences, etc. He believes that the purpose of the Commission is to keep a boundary on these PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 11 of 13 Lot 18 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Mark Donaldson for Greg Kraft Wildflower Condominiums. Frac tionalization._of Development Rights Public Hearing types of projects, but he does not feel that what has been discussed in the last few minutes really fits within the criteria of the guidelines and he will leave it to the Commission's best judgement. Jack Hunn moved to deny the request for fractionalization on Lot 18, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, citing the finding for the motion is incompatibility with surrounding development. John Perkins seconded. The motion carried with Sue Railton and Patti Dixon voting nay. Chairman Doll advised the applicant that he has the right to appeal this deci3ion to the Avo,i Town Council. Since the fractionalizAtion request was denied, the final design review for Lot 18, Block 1, Wildridge was not discussed. ike Trujillo for g_n_ Review Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant was not present. The Commission decided to hear the request anyway. Jim Curnutte stated that at the site visit he had mentioned that there were three plans submitted by the applicant. ,-he applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the placement of a sign that is not in conformance with the sign program for Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The approved sign program for the building limits each tenant an identification sign not to exceed 20 square feet. Individual letters ranging from 6" to 18" high are to be mounted on a painted (white) steel mesh backing. The letters must be the same color as the corresponding tower color (blue or green). The number 5 tower is blue. Store #5 is the only store that has the ability to split their 20 sq. ft. sign between the north facing or east facing frontages. The applicant has chosen to use only the north facing side. All signs must be indirectly illuminated and the building does contain the lights for the towers. Domino's is requesting an internally 'it metal box sign with a plexiglass face. Sign color: are black, white, red and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 12 of 13 Lot 69 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver_Creek,. Mike_Tru,iillo for Domino's Pizza Sian variance and Desi n___Rev_iew blue. The applicant's preference is for a 2' x 8' Domino's Pizza sign and a 3' x 3' Domino's Pizza logo (25 square feet). This would be located in the north elevation of the tower. Curnutte then reviewed the criteria for considering a sign variance, stating that all of the applicant's proposed sign alternatives differ from the approved sign program in type, size, style, material and color. They are all over the allowed 20 square feet. The location of the sign is the only relationship to the sign program. The metal box signs do not relate very well with the strong architectural form of the building. The back side of the boxes would be highly visible to people viewing the building from the east. The degree to which the applicant has requested relief rom the strict provisions of the sign program appears to be excessive in order to relieve their perceived hardship. The Domino's Pizza brochure indicates that it is possible for franchisees to order blue individual letters. Since the sign program for the building allows the letters to be up to 1.5 feet high they shouold be easily visible from East. Beaver Creek Blvd. Curnutte then reviewed the findings needed before granting a variance. Staff feels that compliance with the sign program would not result in a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship for Domin's Pizza, therefore, staff recommendation is for denial of the variance request. Some discussion followed on the reasons for a sign program. Patti Dixon moved to deny the variance request, citing the finding that the strict compliance to the sign code would not result in a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship for Domino's Pizza. John Perkins seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Resolution 90-15, a resolution canceling the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting that falls on New Years Day, was presented. J h Perkins moved to approve Resolution 90-15. o n Clayton McRory seconded. The motion carried unanimously. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 18, 1990 Page 13 of 13 Reading and Approval of Planning_. cl Zonin_g__ Commi_ssi_pn Meeting of December 4, 1990 Clayton McRory moved to approve the minutes of the December 4, 1990, meeting as submitted. Jack Hunn seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Continued. Discussion followed on the Common Thread banner which is still up. Jim Curnutte stated that the time limit was to November 15, however, he has spoken with the owner and she is having problems with the lease, but one way or another the banner will be down next week. Discussion followed on the Hunt Electric truck parked up in Wildridge. Curnutte stated he had a call in to Malcom Hunt, but had not yet talked to him. Discussion followed on the problems of getting developers to provide irrigation systems. The meeting was then adjourned at 10:35 PM. P ctfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Commission F. Dol l J ./"Hunn _ J. Perki S. Ra1lt n C. McRor A. Reynold P. Dixon`_ l n Date I 1