TC Minutes 05-24-19880 0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AVON TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
The regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado,
was held in the Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado,
in the Council Chambers.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Allan Nottingham at 7:36-;p.m.
A roll call was taken with Emilie Harrison, Steve Miller, Clint Watkins,
Gloria McRory, Al Connell and Jerry Davis present. Also present were
Town Attorney John Dunn, Town Manager Bill James, Director of Engineering
Norm Wood, Director of Public Works/Parks and Recreation Larry Brooks,
Town Clerk Patricia J. Doyle, as well as, members of the press and public.
The Mayor called for Citizen Input. There being no one wishing to be
heard, the Mayor closed the Citizen Input portion of the agenda.
Second reading of Ordinance No. 88-6, Series of 1988, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 15.28 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON RELATING
TO SIGNS.
This ordinance was tabled at the May 10th Council Meeting.
Norm Wood stated that, following the second reading, and the tabling of
Ordinance No. 88-6, the direction of the Town Council was to return
back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to address freestanding signs
and to consider the possibility of placing some retrictions on those
signs. He stated that as a result of the Planning and Zoning Commission's
discussion, they concurred with the Council that additional restraints
were needed with regard to freestanding signs. The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended the following amendments to Ordinance No. 88-6
to provide those restraints:
Amend Section 15.28.080, Paragraph "0" to read:
Freestanding signs will generally be allowed only in vehicular oriented
areas. In general, sites shall be limited to one freestanding sign with
an area of forty(40)square feet and a height of eight(8)feet. The
Planning and Zoning Commission shall have discretionary powers to approve
more than one freestanding sign when a property has entrances from more than
one front lot line. The Commission shall also have discretionary
powers to approve a freestanding sign with a maximum total area of sixty-
four(64)square feet and a maximum height of twenty(20)feet. Freestanding
signs may not exceed the height of the tallest building on the site.
Mr. Wood stated that the Commission recommended that a section be
added to the ordinance to delete Subparagraph 6, Pa-tagraph Section
15.28.080 of the Code. This subpa;eagraph currently reads:
6. "The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have discretionary
powers in approving a sign program. The Commission may approve sign
programs allowing up to fifty percent increases in sign area or height
without requiring a variance request."
Mr. Wood stated that this provision would no longer be necessary with
the increased sign allowances in Ordinance No. 88-6.
Mr. Wood recommended that Council amend Ordinance No. 88-6, Series of
1988 to reflect these changes, and then move to approve Ordinance No.
88-6 on second reading.
Councilman Miller moved approval of Ordinance No. 88-6, Series of
1988 on second reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Davis.
Councilman Watkins moved approval to amend Ordinance No. 88-6 per the
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, adding paragraph "0",
and also add the section that would delete paragraph 6. The amended
motion was seconded by Councilman Davis.
The Mayor opened the meeting for discussion on the amendment. There
being no one wishing to be heard, the Mayor closed the discussion and
entertained a vote on the amendment. The motion was unanimously carried.
The Mayor opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no one wishing
to be heard, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor called for a roll call. Those Councilmembers voting aye were:
Emilie Harrison, Steve Miller, Clint Watkins, Gloria McRory, Al Connell
and Jerry Davis. There were no nay votes. The motion was unanimously
carried.
First reading of Ordinance No. 88-7, Series of 1988, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 12.04 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON AS IT
RELATES TO A BOND FOR WORK IN A PUBLIC WAY.
Norm Wood stated that this ordinance was prepared at the direction of the
Town Council to reduce some of the paper work and cost associated with
building in the Town of Avon. The current Code requires a corporate
surety bond or cash deposit in conjunction with all permits issued for
work within public street right-of-way. This ordinance would eliminate
the requirement for posting of a bond or cash deposit with permits issued
for installation of driveways when a driveway is to be installed in
conjunction with development for, which a building permit has been issued.
He stated that staff felt that adequate controls were available through
the building Code to assure satisfactory completion of these facilities
without the added bonding requirements. A permit for driveway installation
will still be required.
Mr. Wood recommended that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 88-7,
Series of 1988 on first reading.
-2-
0
Councilman Miller moved approval of Ordinance No. 8.8-7, Series of 1988
on first reading. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Harrison.
Those Councilmembers voting aye were: Emilie Harrison, Steve Miller,
Clint Watkins, Gloria McRory, Al Connell and Jerry Davis. There were
no nay votes. The motion was unanimously carried.
First reading of Ordinance No. 88-8, Series of 1988, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON AS IT PERTAINS
TO DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
Norm Wood stated that this ordinance was prepared at the direction of the
Town Council to reduce costs associated with building in the Town of Avon.
Building Permit and Plan Check fees are based upon estimated construction
cost or buildina valuation. Currently this valuation is based upon
national average construction cost data listed in Building Standards
Magazine, published by the International Conference of Building Officials,
times a local cost multiplier of 1.5. Ordinance NO. 88-8 eliminates
this 1.5 multiplier and would make Avon Building Permit and Plan Check
fees consistent with Eagle County.
Mr. Wood recommended that Council adopt Ordinance No. 88-8, Series of
1988 on first reading.
Councilman Miller moved approval of Ordinance No. 88-8, Series of 1988
on first reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Connell.
Those Councilmembers voting aye were: Emilie Harrison, Steve Miller,
Clint Watkins, Gloria McRory, Al Connell and Jerry Davis. There were
no nay votes. The motion was unanimously carried.
First reading of Ordinance No. 88-9, Series of 1988, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON AS IT PERTAINS
TO TEMPORARY CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
Norm Wood stated that this ordinance was prepared at the direction of the
Town Council to reduce paper work and building costs associated with
building in the Town of Avon. He stated that this ordinance clarifies
conditions for issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. He stated
that it allows for the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
for a portion of a building prior to completion of the entire project.
The language is generally in accordance with that in the administrative
section of the Uniform Building Code.
Mr. Wood stated that it also adds a new Section 15.04.692 which provides
for the revocation of a temporary certificate of occupancy which may
have been issued on the basis of incorrect information or upon
determination that the building does not comply with the Town's regulations.
This language is also generally in accordance with that in the admininistra-
tive section of the Uniform Building Code.
-3-
0 0
He stated that the ordinance does not necessarily reduce building costs,
but should clarify issuance of temporary certificates of occupancy and
reduce some of the current paper work associated with temporary
certificates. Mr. Wood recommended that Council adopt Ordinance No.
88-9, Series of 1988 on first reading.
It-was stated that this ordinance does not allow for camp-out.
Councilman Miller moved approval of Ordinance No. 88-9, Series of 1988
on first reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Connell.
Norm Wood stated that this ordinance does apply to multi-buildings,
that if one unit was completed, a certificatelof occupancy could be
given eventhough the rest of the units were not complete, as long as,
the rest of the project was safe to occupy.
Mr. Wood stated that for single-.family, certains items had to be
completed, before entry could be"Possible, such as, restrooms, kitchen
facilities, wheather proofing. For Multi-family units, the entire
project would be looked at, such as, safety hazards, and the occupancy
unit itself.
After some discussion, the Mayor called for a roll call vote.
Those Councilmembers voting aye were: Emilie Harrison, Steve Miller,
Clint watkins, Gloria McRory, Al Connell and Jerry Davis. There were
no nay votes. The motion was unanimously carried.
First reading of Ordinance No. 88-10, Series of 1988, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON AS IT
PERTAINS TO DEPOSITS TO SECURE THE COMPLETION OF CLEANUP AND LANDSCAPING.
Norm Wood stated that this ordinance was prepared at the direction of the
Town Council to reduce paper work and building costs associated with
building in the Town of Avon.
He stated that this ordinance does not necessarily reduce building costs,
but may eliminate some of the paper work associated with certificates
of occupancy. The current code only allows issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy until all landscaping and site work is complete.
These revisions would allow issuance of a permanent, rather than a
temporary certificate of occupancy-:upon receipt of a satisfactory
landscape and cleanup deposit. Other provisions in this section are
essentially the same as in the current code, with the exception that the
interest rate has been changed from eight percent to twelve percent in the
event the Town should be required to complete the work and recover costs
in excess of the security deposit.
Mr. Wood recommended that Council adopt Ordinance No. 88-10, Series of
1988 on first reading.
Councilwoman Harrison moved approval of Ordinance No. 88-10, Series of
1988 on first reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller.
The Mayor called for a roll call.
Those Councilmembers voting aye were: Emilie Harrison, Steve Miller,
Clint Watkins, Gloria McRory, Al Connell and Jerry Davis. There were
no nay votes. The motion was unanimously carried.
-4-
E
Resolution No. 88-12, Series of 1988, A RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF
MARK DONALDSON FOR HIS TIME AND SERVICES ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION.
Councilwoman Harrison read the resolution. in its entirety.
Councilman Davis moved approval of Resolution No. 88-12, Series of 1988.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and was unanimously carried.
Next on the agenda was the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision. The Appeal request was from the Phoenix Discovery Group,
part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek/proposed 14 unit
Condominium Complex.
The Town Manager stated that this matter has been continued for a couple
of meetings. He asked that Norm Wood give a brief presentation in
regard to comments of the staff on this Appeal.
Mr. Wood reviewed the proposed project and the history which lead to
the Appeal.
At that point, Mark Donaldson representing the Phoenix Discovery Group,
approached the Council.
Mr. Donaldson asked Councilman Watkins if he did indeed have a conflict
of interest.
Councilman Watkins stated that he had no financial interest in the project
at all.
Mr. Donaldson then proceeded. He discussed the size, design and the amount
of units of the project with the Council. He stated that he felt that
there was a large shortage of units, of this type of housing,in Avon,
in this price range. He stated that there were three different plan
types, a variety of one bedroom, shapes, options, etc.
Mr. Donaldson reviewed the site plan with the Council.
He stated that they were using the existing driveway and were creating
parking along the northside of the project, and would have parking
spaces that would be covered. He stated that they were eliminating some
balconies to the lower area so there would not be a lot of clutter on the
Nottingham road side, and the highway side.
He stated that the project would have a different drainage system then
did the previous condominiums in that area.
George Rosenberg, attorney representing the Phoenix Discovery Group,
approached the Council.
Mr. Rosenberg too, had concern of Councilman Watkin's interest in the
project.
The Town Attorney stated that he did not think that appropriate, and ruled
that Mr. Rosenberg was out of order.
Mayor Nottingham ruled it out of order and asked that Mr. Rosenberg proceed.
-5-
Mr. Rosenberg indicated that there was an article in the Vail Daily
on March 22nd, 1988 that indicated that Mr. Watkins was a part-owner in
six units, the project known as the Chambertin Townhouses, which were
adjacent to the proposed property. Also, there were documents which
stated that Mr. Watkins presently was representing a Mr. Morino who had
purchased units in the Chambertin project. He then proceeded.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that it appeared that the issue before the Council
was one of Fractionalization.
Councilman Davis did not feel that Fractionalization was the issue.
He stated that he believed that the Appeal was on the design of the building,
which was denied based on the preliminary review and not necessarily on
Fractionalization.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that it was unclear of what the Planning and Zoning
Commission did because, their decision did not give specifics.
Councilman Davis stated that the Council was brought together to
determine whether or not the Council would uphold, or overturn, the
decision, of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
At that point, the Town Attorney asked that Mr. Rosenberg proceed and to
make his statement, so the matter could be brought to an issue.
Mr. Rosenberg proceeded and reviewed the guidelines of which the
Planning and Zoning Commission followed. The guidelines which were
cited were: Section 6.13 and Section 6.16.
He reviewed the transcripts of April 5, 1988 and April 19, 1988 of the
Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, with the Council.
Mr. Donaldson stated that all indications of the transcripts of those
two meetings, was that the project was in conformance with all the Town's
requirements, and that it really came down to the design of the building.
He stated that he also was at a loss of what the issues really were.
Discussion followed on those issues.
Mr. Rosenberg asked that all the materials that were presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission, be part of the record, such as, exhibits,
transcripts, various other documents(see attached to these minutes).
Mr. Rosenberg stated that these units were split; 450 square feet per
unit in some, and 600 square feet per unit in others.
The fire lane access was discussed.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that it was the problem of the adjacent land owners,
and not the problem of the Phoenix Discovery Group. He gave a brief
history of the Chambertin Project,which went back eight years. He
stated that this project at this time does meet the requirements of the
fire department, and that his clients had been advised,that the building
official, and the fire department, do not have any problems with this
property, as far as, access lanes and safety requirements.
-6-
• 0
Mr. Rosenberg, in summary, requested that the Council overturn the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Commission on the grounds that the design
review requirements have been met. He stated that there was nothing
in the records that indicated a problem with the design review aspects
of the project. He stated that this was a preliminary design application,
and not the final.
Mr. Rosenberg requested the privilege of rebuttal in respect to any
discussions that would coming before the Council at this time.
The Mayor so agreed.
Councilwoman McRory moved to affirm and uphold the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, to deny the application of the Phoenix
Discovery Group, that ';portion of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek. The motion was seconded by Councilman Connell.
The Mayor opened the meeting for discussion.
iidvid Hammond, resident of Avon, and property owner of Unit 1-B of the
Sherwood Meadows Condominiums, approached the Council.
He stated that he was strongly opposed to the 14-one bedroom units.
Fie felt that it would have a direct impact on his unit value, and was
not comfortable with the density that it might generate.
He stated that he was the representative for the Sherwood Meadows
Condominiums, and they too were opposed to the proposed project.
Robert Hegameyer, Corporate Secretary of Syndicate Glass, which was
the owner of Unit 13 of the Chambertin Townhomes, approached the Council.
He stated that at the April 19th Commission's meeting, it saw a 5 to 0
vote, the vote being centered on Section 6.13 and Section 6.16 of the
Design Review. Some of the Concerns at that time were; fire and emergency
access. He stated that he felt the Commission members were also
concerned of a proposed modification to lower the density; concerned about
the fire and emergency; concerned about the desires of the neighbors, and
the compatibility of the project; concerned of certain information that
was lacking on that type of a building; concerned whether it was in the
best interest of the neighborhood; concerned of the absent of site data.
He stated that the Chambertin people and their insurers, have spent
1.7 million dollars shoring up the three buildings that already exist.
He stated they were concerned of the proposed building and the undermining
of the project, concerned of the drainage and landscaping.
He stated, he thought that was the reasons for the 5 to 0 vote to deny
the project.
He stated that he was speaking for the Chambertin Homeowners Association,
and requested the sincere consideration from the Town Council to deny
the project.
Councilman Connell had concerns of the fire trucks entering the project.
It was stated that possibly, the small trucks could make the turn, but
the bigger trucks would have to go to the end of Nottingham Road, turn
around, and then back track to enter the project.
-7-
•
Bill Fleisher, owner of Unit 12 of the Chambertin Townhomes, and secretary
to the Association, approached the Council.
He stated that he was totally opposed to the project. He stated that he
would not mind 4 or 5 units on that site, but not 14 units.
George Rosenberg then returned in response to the citizens that spoke
in opposition of the project.
He stated that density was not the issue as some of the neighbors so
indicated. He stated that that issue was a zoning matter. It was not
the issue. He stated that they have a Use By Right, that the proposed
project was in the right zone, they were entitled to fractionalize as a
matter of fractionalization falls within the formula, they were not asking
for any more fractionalized units than they were entitled to.
He stated that with respect to the fire lane issue, it was not a
dedicated road or fire lane in any fashion. It did not belong to the
Town, it did not belong to the people next door, and that it was not
subject to the covenants, and that there were no letters from another
law firm, which represented a title company.
He stated that it was their opinion that those covenants had no effect
on the fire lane issue. He stated that if there were any approvals based
on the fire lane, they have long since expired. He stated that there
was nothing that said the his clients could not go out and block off that
road. He stated that the Town was trying to take that property to solve
someone elses problem at the expense of his client. He stated that if
the Town wanted to condemn it, and pay for it, that was fine with them,
but that was not the way to solve the problem, unless there was
cooperation.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that the above was not the issue before the Council,
but that the issue was whether or not the Planning and Zoning Commission
had the basis to deny, based on design review. He stated that there was
nothing in the record to indicate so.
Mr. Rosenberg felt that the Town was being put in a position by the
neighbors, that the Town should deny the project because of their personal
tastes and desires.
He stated that his clients have complied with all the ordinances, rules
and regulations, and therefore should be entitled to their approval.
The Mayor called for a vote on the motion.
The vote was 5 to 1 for denial for the project with Councilman Watkins
abstaining.
Councilman Connell reported on the proposed Teen Center. He stated
that the Committee had sent a survey form to the Battle Mountain High
School to be filled out by the students in respect to a proposed Teen
Center. He stated that there were 230 responses in favor of a Teen
Center. A meeting would be scheduled to discuss a location for a Center.
He stated that the students were asked if they would pay for memberships.
He stated that out of 230 surveys, 200 were in favor of a fee, which
ranged from $2.00 to $5.00.
Councilman Miller stressed the importance for such a Center.
-8-
a
The Town Manager reported that a meeting has been scheduled for Thursday,
May 26, 1988 at 12:00 noon in the Council Chambers with the Transportation
Committee. Mr. James has invited the Councilmembers to attend if they
so desire. The Committee was to review some of the scenarios that they
have discussed and have come up with.
The Financial Matters were next presented to the Council.
Councilman Miller moved approval of the General Fund of Accounts Payable
for May 24, 1988. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman McRory and
was unanimously carried.
Councilman Miller moved approval of the Reconciliation Sheet of Accounts
Payable for May 24, 1988. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman
McRory and was unanimously carried.
The minutes of the May 10, 1988 Town Council Meeting was next presented
to the Council.
Councilman Miller moved approval of the May 10, 1988 Council Meeting
Minutes with a correction on page 6, 12th line, change, "appropriate"
to "inappropriate", page 7, 5th line, change that sentence to read:
"Mr. James requested authorization to proceed to draft two separate
agreements; 1) with the Town of Avon and Benchmark; 2) with the Town of
Avon and the School District."
With those corrections, Councilman Connell seconded the motion and was
unanimously carried.
Next on the agenda was an item under Other Business.
Councilman Miller stated that he again had attached a cover letter to the
statement that he read at'the May 10th Council Meeting in respect to the
Town of Vail's adopted ordinance on "No Smoking.' He stated that at the
last meeting, the majority agreed not to discuss his concerns. He stated
that he would like to bring this matter back on the table for possibly
a rule or regulation, or both, as it may apply, both this time and the
first time, in his approach to no smoking in any buildings, either owned,
or managed, by the Town of Avon. He stated that he was still concerned
of the health and welfare of the staff, ourselves, and the visitors.
He stated that he would like to know the concerns of those who do smoke,
review the potential to come up with either an ordinance, rule, or
regulation that would relate to no smoking.
Councilwoman Harrison stated that freedom was slowly being legislative
taken away. She stated that piece by piece, little by little, freedom
would be given away. She stated that in the end, it would become such
a surprise to all. She stated that laws should not be made to keep people
from smoking. It has gotten to the place where even the Town Council
passes laws that regulate what happens in the municipal offices. She
stated that she was begging the Council to take another look at these
kinds of ordinances, rules and laws, and look at it again for what it was.
-9-
E
She stated that these kind of laws should not be passed.
Councilman Watkins had concerns of how the press was printing the wrong
information. He stated that the Council had not adopted any ordinance
on no smoking. He stated that he would hope that the press try and
inform the citizens correctly.
Councilman Davis stated that personally it was difficult to sit at the
council meetings with cigarette smoke in the room. He felt that laws
would not have to be passed if the smokers would have the courtesy
of not smoking.
Councilwoman McRory suggested that Council volunteerly refrain from
smoking in the Council Chambers, post a "No Smoking" sign in the
Chambers, but the rest of the building would be on its own.
After discussion, the Councilmembers agreed to compromise and take
smoking breaks every two hours during the Council Meetings.
Bill Fleisher once again approached the Council. He requested that
Council amend the fractionalization ordinance to allow notification
to residents of the area, of such projects as the one that was before
them this evening. He felt necessary to allow a longer time frame
for notification. He felt that the ordinance did need some revision.
He also was concerned of the Wal-Mart sign. He stated that it was
too bright for this area.
Buz Reynolds, Commission Member of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
approached the Council. He also agreed that the fractionalization ordinance
needed to be revised. He suggested that a combined meeting between
the Town Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission be scheduled
to discuss the ordinance.
After some discussion, the Council agreed that there be a combined
meeting. The meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, June 7, 1988 at 5:30 p.m.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilman
Miller moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman
Harrison. The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Nottingham at 9:40 p.m.
PECTFULLY SU
~L - -10-
;;6U
v -
- 4-1 P tricia J. D yle, wn Cler}
s
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNIMG AND ZONING COMMISSION - 4/5/88
Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discovery Group
14 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
INTRODUCTION:
The Phoenix Discovery Group, owners of the eastern portion of Lot 46/47,
Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, have applied for Preliminary Design
Review of a 14 unit condominium project they propose to construct on the
existing foundation located on the site. The proposed three story building
nas a stucco exterior, clad windows, and a flat roof design. Parking is
being provided by a combination of surface parking and carport parking
which is incorporated into the building. The Applicant proposes to utilize
the Town's Fractionalization Ordinance to build the 14 units. A site plan,
building elevations and floor plans have been submitted for Commission review.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A review of the plans submitted for this application has resulted in the
following information:
Site Area = Approximately 38,331 square feet.
Building Area = 7260 square feet or 19 of site (50`, allowed)
Open Space = 21,060 square feet or 55`; of site (25' required)
Building Height = 30 feet (60 feet allowed)
Parking Requirements:
14 - 1 bedroom units @ 1 112 spaces/unit = 21 spaces
4 guest spaces per Zoning Code = 4 spaces
Total 25 spaces required
(25 spaces provided)
Parking consists of 11 surface parking spaces, and 14 parking spaces in a
carport incorporated into the building design. Two of the covered spaces
meet minimum size requirements for compact car spaces (8' x 16'). According
to the Zoning Code up to 30% of covered parking spaces may be reduced in size
for use by compact cars.
0
M E M 0
TO: Bill James, Town Manager
FROM: Norm 'good, Director of Community Development
DATE: May 6, 1988
•
RE: Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Proposed 14 Unit Condominium Complex
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Decision
Phoenix Discovery Group presented a preliminary design for a 14 unit condominium
complex to the Planning and Zoning Commission at April 5, and April 19, 1988,
meetings. The proposed project consists of fractionalization of four residential
development rights into 6, one-third development right units and 8, one-quarter
development right units. The project would be located on the eastern portion
of Lot 46/47 which was previously approved for the fourth phase of the Chambertin
project.
Following review of the application, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied
preliminary design review approval based upon non-conformance with Design Review
Guidelines:
Section 6.13 The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to
adjacent properties.
Section 6.16 The objective that no improvement be so similar or disimilar
to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired.
On April 20, 1988, Victor Mark Donaldson, Architect for Phoenix Discovery Group
submitted a letter to the Town Council appealing the Planning and Zoning
Commission decision. On April 28, 1988, we received a letter from Victor Mark
Donaldson requesting a written opinion from the Town Attorney to explain the
provisions of subsection 17.22.010 of the Avon Municipal Code. This particular
subsection of the Code states the purposes of the Fractionalization of the
Development Rights chapter of the Municipal Code.
On May 5, 1988, we received a letter from Victor Mark Donaldson requesting that
the Town Council postpone action on the appeal to the May 24, 1988, meeting.
This request is based upon a personal conflict as well as a decision regarding
the requested legal opinion.
0 0
Memo to Bill James from Norm Wood
May 6, 1988
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Decision
Proposed 14 Unit Condominium Complex
Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Continue review of appeal regarding Planning and Zoning Commission
decision denying preliminary design review approval for proposed 14 unit
condominium complex on Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek as presented by Phoenix Discovery Group;
2. Direct Town Attorney to prepare written legal opinion of subsection 17.22.010
of the Avon Municipal Code.
o •
VICTOR MARK DONALDSON • ARCHITECT
Oox, 5300 • Avon, C6orodo 81620 • 303/949-5200
May 4, 1988
Town Council
Town of Avon
Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
HAND DELIVERED
Honorable Councilpersons:
As you know we have requested an appeal to you with regard
to our proposed development known as a part of lots 46/47,
Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision.
In speaking with Mr. Norman Wood, P.E. this week, I under-
stand that you may wish to table our appeal for one more
meeting due to the lack of a certain legal opinion from your
Town Attorney.
I too have a possible conflict with being heard before your
council on the May 10, 1988 Council agenda. My wife has been
enduring a very difficult pregnancy and the delivery date is
now scheduled for the afternoon of May 10th.
We will appreciate your postponing our appeal until the regular
meeting of your council on May 24, 1988. Thank you for this
consideration and we will appreciate hearing from a staff mem-
ber as soon as possible to confirm this request.
Sinc
naldson, Architect
for
Phoenix Discovery Group
cc: Ms. Arlette Weber
:,rpi-je Town of Avon
MAY 5 VN
8 Zo A- M
~j'
A-.•- 1 70
, Ot2c
y_ . Will-am D.
o:•:^ of Avon
?ox 975
Avon, Colorado-
ear Rill.
•
VICTOR MARK DONALDSON • ARCHITECT
Box 5300 • Avon. Colorodo 81620 • 303/949-5200
James, Town Manager
81620
As „VL Ta„ be
aware, Off ice is presently working or. the
n of several development projects ir. the Tow^. of Aron
Some of ' hese involVe ut_liz or.
ati of t h; fractionalization
of development s as spec • ed c':ap ter 17.22 of the
niciYal_ code.
At a recent planning and zo.^,i^7 co^missio^ meeting, Mr Jim
aT^._', S'Our planning CO.n.St:ltan+ stated h:s C^ ern about
the unit mix of one of my designs and labe_ed it
' as be-;--,,
mcnocultural_' . Since then, other siail ar co:n:rents have been
made to me from the staff about another of our ^ .
rro;,ec*_s.
The reason for this letter is
to request a :•,ri++e., opinion F `:e Torn Attorney ,-jith respect +c from
` the interpretation of cer*_ain
sectio^s of chapter 17.22. 1 am very aware of the concept
behind the creation of this
particular regulation but do not
share the current opinion of your planning staff with regard
its interpretation. to
.;o-- 1 d like for the T
f• own Attorney to render a written opinion
possible, to explain what the provisions of subsection. 1722 010
mean. in other words, what does 'monocultural' mean and what does
it have to do with growth in Avon.?
T thank you, in advance for your assistance in this matter. As you
can i^:agine, this is a very important issue to myself and my clients
:•,hic'.= does indeed add to the confusion regarding Avon's attitude
toward development" and growth.
f y ~ J
s_- ;
onaldso^, Architec*_
cc:
VICTOR MARK DONALDSON • ARCHITECT
Box 5300 • Avon, Colorado 81620 • 303/949-5200
April ?n :p8p
Town Council
Town of Avon
Box 9? 5
Avon, Colorado
HAND DELIVERED
Honorable Cou c_lperscns-
r e hereby respect fu,1„ r es
hereby I cq~ + +L,c 'zr. or+,_,ni+~~ to appeal +
-I Y
to this Town Council the dec_ _ the 8,
~C- Commission to e.,,.,, our ap- Ca+ - 5
._..n .7 Z YY - inn
l
Design Review at their .meet;r of A^- 191-998.
Our application for this project is known as part of tot 46/47
?lock 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Phoen;x Discover- Grou-
a Colorado genera; now the owner of this ,-cal
estate and we 1 appreciate being heard before this ccun '
c'
at -cur earliest convenience. Thank y
I„ C e f o 2" .,.,ul,.
consideration of cur request - I -
P`:oeni- Discovery Group
cc- Ms. Arlette Weber
n
LJ
Town of Avon P. O. Box 975, Avon, CO 81620 (303) 9494280
April 20, 1988
Phoenix Discovery Group
P. 0. Box 5300
Avon, Colorado 81620
RE: Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discovery Group, 14 Unit Condominium Complex
Design Review
Gentlemen:
J 1
Thank you for your presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on
April 19, 1988.
The following action was taken regarding the above described request.
The Commission denied this application as submitted, citing non-conformance
with the following Design Review Guidelines: Section 6.13 - The compatibility
of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties; and Section
6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others
in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired.
The following is the procedure for filing an appeal to the Town Council, taken
from the Planning and Zoning Commission Design Procedures, Rules and Regulations.
Section 10.00 - Appeal to Town Council:
10.10 - A decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission may be appealed to the
Town Council by the applicant or any aggrieved person or at the request
of the Mayor at any time before the decision becomes final.
10.20 - Not more than thirty days following the filing of an appeal, the Town
Council shall review the action of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The Town Council shall, in writing, confirm, modify or reverse the
decision of the Commission within thirty days following the commencement
of review. If it deems insufficient information is available to provide
the basis for a sound decision, the Town Council may postpone final
action for not more than thirty additional days. Failure of the Council
to act within thirty additional days shall be deemed a granting of the
approval, unless the applicant consents to a time extension.
0
April 20, 1988
Phoenix Discovery Group
Planning & Zoning CoRnission Action
April 19, 1988 Regular Meeting
Page 2
is
10.30 - Any decision by the Town Council which results in disapproval of the
Planning and Zoning Commission decision shall specifically describe
the reason for disapproval.
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Charlette Pascuzzi
Recording Secretary
Copy/File
• -.0
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 5, 1988
Page 4 of 11
Lot 36~Block 1 , Be_nc hmar k at Beaver Creek. Addition to
Existing Proj-ect1_ Desian Review (coat. )
Gersbach stated that he sees no problems with the
guidelines as recommended by Staff.
Landauer moved for f i nal approval, subject to the
applicant meeting the Staff recommendations of, 1.
Submittal of a fully dimensioned site plan and a
complete grading and drainage plan, prior to obtaining a
building permit; arid Provide a sign program,
conforming to the requirements of the sign code, prior
to obtaining a building permit.
Gersbach seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
At this point, Gersbach had to leave for another
commi tment.
Reynolds returned as a voting member of the Commission.
Donaldson stepped down due to a conflict of interest
regarding the next item on the agenda.
Part of Lot 46/47. Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix: Discovery Grous~l4 Unit Condominium Project,
Preliminary Design Review -
Wright stated that the Phoenix Discovery Group, owners
of the eastern portion of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark:
at Beaver Creek, have applied for preliminary Design
Review of a 14 unit condominium project they propose to
construct on the e;: i st i ng foundation located on the
site. The proposed three story building has a stucco
e>:terior, clad windows, and a flat roof desion. Parvint;
is being provided by a combination of surface parkir,G_
and carport pari,in7 which is incorporated into the
bui 1 di ;tg. The app: i cant. prcpc(=_ed to uti 1.1 Ze the Tow!-: s
Fractionali--stion Ordinance to build the 14 units. A
site plan, that includes floor plans and building
elevations and a dimension floor plan for
oildii:atIC•i-1 h&S teed provided.
Thor;as Weber cf Great Divide Construction, on behalf of
one of the partner and representing Phoenix. Discovery
Group stated that they would be developing a property
that has been a blemish in Avon for six, years. In order
for the project to be successful, they are utilizing
Avon's fractionalization code. After research, they are
gearing these units toward the weekend skiier with
families. These will be small but efficient units, with
a reasonable price structure. He stated that they will
be addressing the Town of Avon's requirements concerning
the structural integrity of the foundation and the
certification of the area in sanitary drains when
construction begins. He stated that they have also
o •
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 5, 198e
Page 5 of 11
Part of Lot-46/47,-Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creel:,
Phoenix Discover Groqp
14 Unit Condominium Pro ect~
Prel i mi narr Desi gn Review (cont. )
started cleanup on the site. He stated that they have
eliminated the problem of ice buildup on the north side
by designing a flat roof, which will be drained t.hrouq_h
the building. No -living quarters have been designed
over the garage=s or any parl:ing areas, thus the, have
eliminated these liability problems. The stucco will
blend with the previous designs of the neighbor t
this time he introduced Marl: Donaldson for discussion of
design and materials to be used on the project.
Mr. Donaldson stated that he was representing the
Phoeni). Discovery Group. He stated that they had gone
to great lengths to desion a project that is very
compatible with the neighborhood while honoringthe
goals and objectives of the Avon fractional izatit--,n
ordinance. There are eight 1/4 density right units that
are one bedrooms design that are les=s than 450 square
feet and six 1/3) density right units that are about 599
square feet or less. This is a total of 4 residential
development rights, which is assigned to this
lot. He stated that this project is no longer
associated with the Chambert i n Townt-hoates and wi l i rfc,t bs
a part of that. It will be a pro jest untc itse; It
w i I I be cc,aipr.tIbie but with it Own ind vidLk St•.IE.
Donaldson then asked for any quesci ons regard: nc: the
design re`ew. -
Reynolds as:.ed about the cl osl no Gf T G?- the roav that
toes through and if it would ca.usE Purc,t l e-ms r-s th the
Fire Deprrtaser,t.
Don cal dsor: St2_ed that- thEV h_c meL with the depa! Ci?,cf?
of public safety and they ha.,e expressed concerns a.nc::
what they thin.: that can be negotiated is an emergency
lane access so that the neighbors can be provided the
reces=s in such a st.uation.
4.GC" =_tatec t-:&4- tni s is e E i] tiu !:c C= E _
staff is r ecommendi ne as a coed] ticirs L-E-cire i',I +;:1:c c-
final design review that a condition be attached that ar,
acceptable emergency access would be provided as part or
any final design plan and that would be subject to
approval by the department of public safety.
Bill Fleisher, an owner of Chambertin, asked about the
intent of the fractionalization ordinance.
Donaldson read from Chapter 17.22 paragraph .010,
Purposes: To encourage the development of a wide
variety of residental housing types, particularly
affordable dwelling units either by purchase or rental
to persons of all income levels, visitor and resident
al i l:e.
Fleisher expressed concern. regarding the type of people
PI anr,inq and
April Ss 1986
Page 6 Of 11
•
Zoning Meeting Minutes
Part of Lot 46/47,_ Block 1 , Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoen_1>:_Discovery Groupi_14 Unit Condominium Project,
Pr_el i mi nary Design Review (cont. >
that would be occupying these unit=s.
Disct,sssion followeo on the reasons that
fractionalization was adopted by the Town.
Cuny stated that this application was within the Town
ordi nar,ce as to the amount c.4 units he car: pact on this
property.
Fleisher was concerned about the use in their area.
He stated that tie didn't think that the ordinance was
designed to tai:e place where it would be detrimental to
adjoining properties. He stated that Donaldson was
aware a year ago about the Association's desires
regarding this proposal. He also mentioned the problems
of debris and felt that the cleanup should have beer,
done sooner.
Cuny =stated that the Commission was aware of the
problems and that the applicant had agreed to do the
cleanup as soon as the snow melted, and as Donaldson had
mentioned, they have started this work.
Cl int Wet i;i ns, a prospective buyer o4 soine of the ur,i 4, S
at Chaniberti n, stated that he disagrees with the
statentent made by Donaldson, that this project is
designed to be compr.tibie with the neiohbGrhoGd. He
feE'_ that the app;1 1 crti on =_1-,ou, d be denied on the bas.
G4 nUntber 6 of the design review guidelines. which
titdtes: The Cab lect i ve that r:c 1 (TiP!"C,VeME,I' t;e SO =1,T,: . ar
dissimilar to others lr. the :~iCir,ltY tr.at V210eS.
or aesthet_c will ce impa:reo.
He -r-els t`,at this project is about as ~.~.3,Ttt
can cet +ot the who; e r,ei nh crhooo .
Graham. Presid£•r,t G7 the Charrtn•ert-.r: TUw!-:hCmE'
Howc-owners Association, introduced Ste•"en Mte,'er-,
Management representati-ve for the Association, and Ms.
L 1 ndd- Pel ; , Vice Press dr`ri. r.4 the Hcr.,ec,t-jners. Association
si r.,Le , _ _•f U- tftt' :c _ L.r L iF;i,= tt:c_ !t= F
C =CL Ur Ed W2til the Char!ber tin Toa:n;-,oa,es' &n el abot at E_ p%-;
the con=siderable arrtGUnt of money the homeowners had
e::pended on mai:ing these homes livable.
Graham stated that in the original plat filing on this
particular project that: " the filing of this plat shall
also serve as the vacation of the lot line between Lots
46 and 47, the resulting lot shall hereinafter be known
as Lot 46/47". This basically makes this a continuous
piece of property. The Homeowners Association views the
entire lots 46/47 as one contiguous piece of property
and as a member of the Homeowners Association. Mr.
Graham cited the original design, plans of the
developer, the articles of incorporation, the by-laws,
o •
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 5, 1988
Page 7 of 11
Part of Lot_46/47s Blocl: 1.Benchmark at Beaver Creel-,
Fhoeni_Discovery Group, 14 Unit Condominium Project,
Preliminary Design RE-view (cont.)
the declaration of covenants and restrictions on the
property also give architectural control to the
Association O\ er arty outbuilding or structure o4 any
kind that oc,& on the property that is part of the
Association property. Graham stated that to date they
have had no communication from Mr. Donaldson and his
gr-OUP that they would like to pursue a particular
project. The Homeowners want to see the project
completed as was originally designed and developed.
They strongly object to a structure being put on the
property representing 14 units when the original concept
called for 4 buildings and 4 units per building. They
feel that they must protect the integrity and quality of
the project. Graham stated that they would like to
welcome Mr. Donaldson into the Association as a
developer, pending his presentation of a proposal to the
Homeowners Association Architectural Review Committee,
at which time they would be more than happy to discuss
his Plans. They, understand that Mr. Donaldson and his.
company vioul d 1 ; i:e to make a pro-it on this project,
however, they do and will object to any structure being
placed on the property that is different from the
o!-i gi nai design.
Cuny asked about the vacati ort of the lot line.
wuod stated that the property was re-subdivided through
c. foreclosure deed Of tr ust activr,. wh,ch is ail r
e::eTtption from th:e SUbdivision reouiations.. This Is -,caw
a separ cte erupt-r ty.
Cc~r:a; d_o r er.d ntu the record a letter f r-om 5, i ver
Hayes oL.L of E-t-in er , 'Legal COUnCi 1 for sev'erai iris ur&rCE
underwriters ti-.at underwrite title insurance companies.
The letter states that the declaration of covenants,
and restr i c t i c,ns of Chamber t i n TownhoV=Ec
~-7-rfect. t~-rrc;e!: or encumber t!,e t"e-.,
erop.crty ceverec by the title insurance commitment for
the Fhoenix Discovery Group property, based on the
following: 1. The property as defined in section I of
article 2 of the declaration of covenants, conditions
and restrictions, is only a westerly portion of lots
46/47 of Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Amendment
No. 4. This westerly portion is identified and shown as
Chambertin Townhouses Filing No. 1 on the plat filed
December 19, 1980. 2. Section 2 of article 2 of the
declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions
expressly provided for the addition at the election of
declarant of the balance of Lot 46/47, a repl at of lots
46/47, Block: 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Amendment No.
4. Any such addition was, however, conditioned upon the
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes.
April 5, 1988
Page H or' li
Part of Lot_4_6/47, Flock: 1.,_ Benchmark' at Beaver Cree.,,
Phoenix Discovery G-OLIOD. 14 Unit Condominium Project1
P_r_e_l i_miMary Design Rev_i_ew _(_c_ont . )
f i 1 i ng of a st'(ppl ementary declaration of covenants and
restrictior,~ with respect to the addition of property
which stall extend the =chefr,e of the covenant and
re5trictio!ts of the declaration, of such property. The
r i oht of the decl ar ai tt to mak: a such an addition
e::pressl y exp: red June 1. 1986. The chain of title
prepared by E.ag2e County Title Corp. does not di=sclose
the e;:ecut i can or recordation of any such supplemental
declaration. The certification of dedication and
ownership on the plat of Chambertin TownhOUSes, Filing
No. 1, specifically recites "the owner laid out, platted
and Subdivided only part of lots 46/47, blkc 1, benchmark-
at beaver Creek, Amendment No. 4 as Chambertin
Townhouses, Filing No. 1.
Wood stated that all this is a civil matter and the
Commission should deal only with Town regulations and
Town criteria. Public input should be considered in
making the decision, but the actual review =should be
based cir; desion review criteria.
Cunt' stated thit letters objecting to this project had
been received from Mr. Fleisher, Mr. Orval Paul, Mr.
John Grahatr,. Mr. Jc•el Karten and Mr. Patric:. FitZo_erald.
of l c,ivnE"5 c,,' r'- Townhouses..
Dcina.l d -or. Etched that they had beer, negot i at i nos or; the
pr orter"t for c:bOLlt 12 mo!ith~-; and WFre ?vjare G, t-e
ea°_emE nT. situation. He str_.ted that J1 r~e`'G lde!~~r kit!";
the P-DIL hai, peen cooiea to M.-. GrcF+afr, ar,C thy[ `}fie.- h&, d
never received any responEe from hi-m.
Curly stated ti!at the Sta++ repot t ane diesion£ £r:r,: rr:ar
the bui~din_ is in compliance. The froct1G11al:~ai~ n i=
cofnpl fiance.
Linda Pell stated that she had never seen anv
G r G c !:1C1-.--r--,-f, or h c. r• o- f act w: t M r L1 : r, r t C. c Gr.
1 ECjc.r ]I nU i r,: £ ll,cLtE' Sr;e SZatet that t!-,trE r:c£ t•c
later recording than the one Donsidson had quoted.
Blair stated that he was not inclined to make a decision
at this time after hearing all this discussion. He
stated that he felt an increase in units would not
neces=sarily be incompatible in the neighborhood. He
felt that there should be some way for an agreement or
understanding between the property owners. It may be
unrealistic to see this project completed with just 4
large units.
Reynolds stated that even though the outside of the
proposed building is similar, the use of the building is
a dramatic change from the concept of the whole area.
He feels that the value of Donaldson's project will
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes -
Apri l 1988
Page 9 of 11
Part__of-_Lot_ 46/47 _B1ocl; 1 , Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discover y Group, 14 Unit Condominium Pr-O Uect1_
Prel i mart ary Design Review (cont. )
devalue the adjacent properties.
LandaL:Er stated that he agreed wi tti Mr. Reynolds.
Donaldson stated that he woUl d like the Commi ssi un to
tal-e action on this application at this time. He feels
that the project has been presented well enough that the
Commission can act on c~ preliminary design review basis
at this time.
Discussion followed on the market for units.
Further discussion followed on the design review
guidelines and Town ordinances.
Blair stated that he felt that all design review
guidelines have been satisfied with the exception of
number b.
Donaldson stated that they would try to work with the
neighbors regarding the driveway.
Cuny stated the recommendations from Staff if this
preliminary design review application is approved.
Blair moved to approve the preliminary design review
with the condition that aoree,,ent be made with the
adjacent property owner and that ti-,e Staf = Cord.,t i ons
be satisfied and that the plan be brought back, however
it Tii qht be modified, at the convenience of the
appI : cant.
This moticni received no second. It alas felt that the
Cori, no ssi on Coul d no',- r equi re the sccgc-tstet-i z, or eeetei..t .
Lart(iaUer- ((+oved to coat i roue tail s app I i cEt? oi-, Unt I 1 ti-,e
r: e.: t (itee i rig.
F,r;,noldE seconded.
ircnal r,=on a=i:Cd thhat rc:ther COntl MUE this matter t ie
CotT,mi ssion ei they" approve or d-Eny this project or, a
preliminary basis.
Landauer then changed his motion from continuance to
denial o4 this application, PUC?t i -:t- desi on re`. i ew
gL:l '-IC . t r:E nuan!_;er b the r ea.=c-r, .
Reynolds seconded.
The motion failed with Landauer and Reynolds voting aye
and Cuny and Blair voting nay.
Further discussion followed on the need to develop this
property.
Landauer moved again to deny this application as
submitted stating item number 6 as the reason.
Reynolds seconded.
The motion failed again with Landauer and Reynolds
voting aye and Blair and Cuny voting nay.
Blair restated his previous motion regarding some sort
of agreement or at least some evidence showing that the
applicant has attempted to reach some sort of agreement
with the adjacent owners.
• •
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 5, 1988
Page 10 of 11
Part of-Lot 4614_7,-PIocF; 1,- Benchmark at Beaver Creel:,
Phoenix Discovery Group. 14 Unit Condominium Projects
P_r_el i mi nary_ Deli gr,_ Revi e_ w_,. (c_
>
No second was received.
Cuny stated that since two members were absent from the
commission, possibly there should be a motion to
continue this to the next meeting so that the full
Commission would be in attendance.
Landauer moved to continue this application, until the
next meeting.
Reynolds secrnded.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mart; Donaldson resumed his position as a voting member
of the Commission.
Lot 1, Block 1, Benchmark at beaver Creek, Derby
Station, Desi qn Review
Wright stated that Coastal Mart, Inc., owners of the
Derby Gas Station has submitted a letter requesting that
their application for design review of a storage
bui l di na be wi thdrawr, at this time. Staff regiIESts thEt
the Commission move tc accept the withdrawal for the
record.
Landauer moved to accept the withdrawal.
Donaldson seconded.
The motion pas=sed unani moiIsl v.
Si n CGdE T-c-nd'rrier,t5 . Or i dnance 8C-6
bJacd statee that a draft of Or di na.n,_e 8C-c. has teen
provided, 2mendi r-,q the sign code, as per' ti-.e Rr e : Cl's
directions from, the CoAlmission. He stated that VIC-
attorney, Under paragraph H. "Devei opment Signs", n.urrber-
charged the wording to read "Development signs not
meeting these criteria may be approved by the planning
arid <oninC CCmfT l X51 Gri Cr:l upon a determl nation tv thE'
platining c1!tU 2Gr;1lay ~,_'II1171i5~~U11 L}ld1 c; V.: I:;I, Sr, C.U 1Q
granted pursuant to Section 15.28.090 !B) of this Code.
Cuny stated that she would like to have time to study
this Ordinance ana then consider it at the next meeting.
Commission members agreed.
Reading and Approval of the Minutes of 3/15/88 Regular
Meet; ng - -
Donaldson moved to approve the minutes as submitted.
Landauer seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
Other Business
Landauer asked about the plan for the seeding of the lot
next to Wal-Mart.
o
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 5, 1988
Page 11 of 11
Other business (cont.)
Wood stated that this will be dealt with at the time of
the Certi f i cate of OccLIpancy for the retail shops.
ClearUp, landscaping and completion of the park::ng, etc.
wi 1 1 be addr essed.
A notion was made and seconded to adjourn at 10: ~.~5 F'M.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlette Pascuzzi
Recording Secretary
Commission approval `Date
M. Eq1 ai r
F. Cuny•
7. LandaUer
M. Donaldson
C. .
r. .
F.
F:evno e=
• •
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1988
Page 3 of 15
Part of Lot 46/47 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek:
Phoenix: Discovery Group, 14 Unit Condominium Pro iect
Preliminary De=ion Review
Donaldson asked that the record show that he was
stepping down due to a conflict of interest.
Gersbach also stepped down stating that he had presented
a letter of conflict of interest to the Recordino
Secretary. -
Wood stated that since this was a continuance of the
last meeting and since Fran:; Doll was not present at
that meeting, it should be cleared up whether he has
made himself familiar with the previous discussion by
listening to the tape.
Doll stated that he had listened to the tape and was
aware of the previous discussions.
Wood =stated that the Phoenix Discovery Group, owners of
the easterly portion of Lots 46/47, formerly known as
building one of the Chambertin Project, has applied for
preliminary design review. The design review is based
upon a fractionalized project containing 14 one bedroom
condominium units. This would be a fractionalization of
the four- development rights which are currently assigned
to that site. During the previous discussion there was a
great deal of di scussi on regardi rig the sui ta} i 1.1 ty of
the proposed project and that use of fractionalization.
The building is a three story structure to be located on
-he e:;isting foundation, with stucco exterior. clad
windows, and -lat roof de=sign. Parking is provided by a
'_crnt i r,a,* i on; c•f surface par'n- Ing and ether- park i no s-Dace
i r:cork;.;- ated into the building. Staff review i nd cates
that th proposal does coniorT, with the zoning _~rdinance
through the USE 01- the fractionalization process and is
within, the building heights, setbacks, parking
requirements, open space, etc. Wood stated that due to
the discussion that has tonne up on fractionalization of
d e 1 -1
: r e 't r? ght=_ he we-uT o rFad the Yurpocs.c of the
-f rac tional i_z at ion ordiniRnce as it- r:as adopted. Woc.d
then read from Chapter 17.22-Fractionalization of
Development Rights, Sections A, B, C, and D. Wood then
read from the Design Review Guidelines under Section 6
of the P&Z Rules and Regulations, Design Review
considerations the items to be considered in reviewing a
design of a proposed project. Sections 6.11 through
6.17 were quoted. Section 7.30 of the Planning and
Zoning Procedure was also quoted. Wood stated that all
the above were items that the Commission need to keep in
mind in reviewing this project.
Cuny stated that in the packets were additional
correspondence received since the previous meeting. One
from Jerry Burris, opposing this project and one from
O •
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1988
Page 4 of 15
Fart of Lot 46/47 Rlock 1 Benchmark at Feaver Creep:
Fhoeni x Discovery Group. 14 Unit Condominium F•ro iec}
Preliminary Design Review (cont.)
Mrs Lisa Johr:son Hammond a resident of Sherwood Meadows,
stati nc. c•:)r,ccrn about the blind curve and the traf f i c
coking out of the proposed project. Also included was a
letter from ~~r Dona.dscn that was sent to the
Chamber-t i n ^omec•wners Ass,ic i at i cn .
Cuny as,-ed if the e.ppl i c ant had my additional
information to present.
Thcm,E:s Weber, on behalf of one of the partners ir,
Phoenix Discovery Group, Stated that after the last
meet ino_ they held a brief meeting with John Graham and
Linda Fell at which they cor-4irmed that the documents
which Ms. Pell had mentioned were in fact the same as
the recorded dOCUrr,ent which the Phoeni>: Discovery Group,
had re:erred to. Mr Weber stated that Mr. Graham had
stated at this meeting that he would oppose any
development on the property which did net conform with
the previcus development and would. pursue the
development, quote "all the way" and that the Chambertin
Homeowners votee unanir-,oust,/ to support t ,at position.
Mr. Weber compared the proposed units kith the one
bedroom units at Sherwood Meadows, stating that their
proposed units were larger than the ones at Sherwood
Meador-:=. Mr. Weber then presented the Commissio,-, with
antther letter frOM Silver and Have Weber then
d_ scus=_s••_ th:e matter Cf deva3 t: a t `
1 Gi• G. ad.~acent
proeer-ties coT:Gar-ing the variOUS ?*:Ulti -faR:l1v units that
c' e Ui_t G vole a...il j U -,ltS I n U - , rcii Gad
;^•vvn. H= then stated that the lic
sec entIy
est==biis:-,ed b, Mr. Wati::irIS Fitrchise eSt_ibl ekes
at 41 per square foot. The value established ty
Mr. Fleisher's purchase set these values at $55.67 per
square foot. He =stated that the late=-t appraisal, that
he r d.:0= at,C:,ut se` the sal r es _ t $ ' Z'i c
. - ~ e Guar-e
~C!3t. i^e tt. tI-at 1t iS .^ct ti',.= Ce..iup(*:snt t
t h. a
-4-111 devalue this property. Recarding the Char,bertin
efforts to complete their project, the punch list for
completion has been known since 1984 and it still is not
complete. Weber stated that the Chambertin owners had
the opportunity to purchase this property if they so
desired and could have seen that it was completed the
way they desire. However, they made no effort to do so.
Weber read excerpts from a local newspaper stating that
Watkins also .planned similar uses for his units. He
stated that he felt it was ludicrous to as=sert that they
would be devaluing the Chambertin property by improving
their property. Mr. Weber stated that if they did not
have pre-sales, they would not continue with the
project.
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1988
Page 5 of 15
Part of Lot 46/47, Bl oc t: I Benchmar at Beaver- Creel;
Phaen+i x Di scctt. ery Group . 14 Unit Colidomini um Pro _tct
Preliminary Design Review (cont.)
r1r . Wc1se- State-; that Mr. Donaldson woui c now review
some cT the issues from the Commission.
Mr. DortaidsDn stated that -r,e of the regrets that he had
from the last r.,eetirto was that they did not get into Jirr,
Lamont's planning review report.
Donaldson proceeded to comp6re their fourteen one
bedroom, units with the units of Sner"ood Meadows and
with Chamterti which he stated has 16 bedroo4T,s in each
building. Donaldson stated he could not understand why
Watt:in was objecting to their one bedroom units when he
has already stated publicly that he would like to do the
same thing.
Cur,y a=_t;ed i f there was anyone else that would I i r-e to
add information.
Clint Watkins stated that he would like to address the
cemments made by Mr. Weber and Mr. Donaldson, concerning
the article in the newspaper. He stated that he had
told the newspaper that the units were designed where
the bottom: part could be loct:ed :,=f, but that he has
neVer indicated that he desired to separate the units.
He stated that if ever he did consider this action, he
'.vOL(itj Get aoDroval front the HoMeowinc-r L5 c
_sCClatlJr:
be-'ore trying to push it through the n•:~
and ZOn,i t-,q
+JfT:lTii sE l Ort _
John: G -a{,a-:T: ei ter atec t`:e objections tha the
!'~:.'.t7iec•=:n erc As c. G'`.. ctt on
1-;a= regarding th.s ^:--.j£'Ct i'+r.
;Jrci;l~t Et~.~t'_ r ~~-r-d1nC Mr t~Je='Qr c CC':?::?:C'r:~5
ac`.•C:L't the
`;r•_~s nc) L bei'-•~ co(Ttp1eted tha* `hE iLEn:=
to be
C1:7::3? Eted ar _ a part C,f the r.EECC: t1 :r!l: legal
P roc eedl n: g= against the ins-ur-an Ce cc T,pctn,:'. He stated
that the Assc,ci ati on has undertat:en on its own behalf ,
without any funding from the insurance company,
C!-:d 11 01-11 rEL' is rE•;T.ertt E.s rect.' , red b`
r-v_,n. Two of he`:T -
.~._-r LL•r.CCJr.~ t!-:e
re'aseens they are objecting to this project, dea' i,.ith
property values and also acce=ss to the units. Mr.
Graham stated that their sole purpose is to protect the
quality and integrity of the property as it was
originally designed and developed. Mr. Graham stated
that at the conclusion of the last meeting they offered
to sit down with the applicant regarding the proposal.
To date that has not happened. He quoted from a letter
received from Mr. Donaldson stating that they plan to
continue through the review process in an expeditious
manner. Mr Graham stated that he felt that this was not
a very willing attitude in trying to reach a reasonable
compromise. He stated that the Homeowners are firmly
resolved to see this thing through to a conclusion. He
4 r
Plannino and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 14, 19GE
Page b of 15
Part of Lot 46/47 Block. 1 Bench:T,ark at Beaver Creel'
Phoenix Discover Group, 14 Unit Cot-sdorr, . ni un, Project
Frei i mi nary Design F'evi ew (cont..)
stater, that it is their request that the project be
der:: ed as it i bei ne proposed to the Commi ssi or:.
Fober t Heua.meyer, aooear i ng as the corporate secretary
of Synd catE Glass. the owner Lf Unit 1-, Ch-a:r,bertir;.
Mr. Hegan,e ,er asl: ed the Comrr,i ssi on to consider a coup l e
r ac t_ or S reC=ar i 7,C t ~,e desi r, rev i eW c
9 " auidei ir:e~.
Consi dEei- , if the Corr:s:i ssi on is sc, i ncl i ned to approve
the prefect, whether- Mr. Donaldson Would be required to
rr+odi - y the project to allow free ingress and egress
from. Either direction in the event of a snow problem, C:r
roc;: prob1eaf or the need to yet a fire truck or
ars:btli ar,Ce up there. There must be -F ree acCess for
trCvei and to to-urinate it may violate the coning code=
or ordinances. He stated that the Commission shot:ld
consider- the compatibility of design to minimize site
impacts to adfacent properties and compatibility of
proposed impro-ve,Ttt•nts with site topography. Would Mr.
Dvr.r.1 d -or-. b e a:i l l i n Q o and is it with
it, the pos er of the
Cu r,n,i st i ors to mandate that he r:od the =oun:dati on i r,
t:-ie same fashion as the Ch a,m,bC-t-1_in four,dat:ons rsere
,T:od1 ird. What impact will there be on t`:e hillside if
tI:as Pro1ECt is bLf_lt on that foundatior. and what ifr,~:,z,ct
wi 1l thst-e be on the Chambertin foundation=. He stated
` _ L
serious CC,rrsider-t-i-r of
`S' ! teirs. and theV•
c 5 t~ t be _
r c, one of the L ,?:irti Ssi ur S a1 =C. :e tai_ed
L t. :'i stlc:. .:n~ Ct :dos &no•ther one- of -I e:
he, do not feel it wi 1 l be a.e_t`,et: 1
e..i r. (r. Nacer:i,an asi-ed 1 . N.r D -:u~oF: ' '
C+r,ci• WJ s1C
pcv.:de them rjit a financial ouarEntee thlat-- the wort.
woui d not ca,nace the re,T:edi al work that Chambertin has
done. Would he be willing to post a bond and is it
wi thin the power c.f the Coma:: ssi on to require one.
st c.t e:7 1-hat ,he-~ hd`:-e only r ecentl y, he.a..r oT thl
project and is authorized to state that David and Lisa
Haimmond . Jan and Jim Hackett. Bi l i and Ki r.: Andree and
Donna Hesl:ins as well as himself are opposed to the
project at the present time.
Cuny asked him to state his reasons why.
Mr. Peterman stated that they believe that the density
of the project is such that it is out of character with
the neighborhood and are concerned with the valuation
and the potential soils impact at the west end of their
project.
Mr. Donaldson responded to the comments from Mr. Graham
regarding the fire lane sign stating that it has no
bearing on ownership, development rights or use of
property. He stated that the letter sent to the
• •
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1988
Page 7 of 15
Fart of Lot 46!47 Flack 1 Benchmark: at beaver Creek.
Phoenl>: Discovery Group, 14 Unit Condominium Project
Frel i mz r:ary Design Review (cont.)
Homee►-lner s ASSOc i at i Jr, came after- Mr. Graham informed
him that they would oppose them on anvthir--.g otter than
arGttler 4 unit project. That is why the letter states
that they pi at, to proceed with the pro sect as submitted.
He stated that he was confused with a' i tke ob JE-cti ons,
as he thi nt-- that an --one that hrs invested ,7onev in that
neighbc'f hood would wel code development of that Site. Ke
stated that he was also confused about Mr. Hagerrrsever
requeSting free access. He said he could not understand
why the gentleman wc,uld thins: that they would give free
access acro=ss their property. Also, regarding the
caissons, C5 o= the 29 have already been installed by
the same contractor under the supervision of the sane
structUral engineer, and they intend to follow through
with the rea-aining four or five that are required.
These requirements will be taken care of at the time of
application for a building permit. Mr. Donaldson stated
that as far as post i mo a bored to protect somethi ne that
they have been thr-c:uet:, he stated that the project would
be undertaken wi th the proper liability, worr,ran
coT,per._.ation, etc. nE- stated that in ter-,?,s cif the
comp&rie- their property to the other three +ilinc_=
C+T :i":ri*~bert i rf . the-! are apprGDx i aiatei y Gr:r= third ? - -~Er
ir, i~F:d 'r: teo-ms of
the GV L°r d. l it-eCc.Ct
~or:a,c,sun =fated tha'L Y:♦ c, r, 3 1 crge: Y f?saJe w. P 04 Jso _.1!-;`
h. 0.T,eai... resort hc•::'_s sor weer=:err c' t C>-S -
t!=mot ~e - ice.-eC
Lei ievL_ t :at Cha.7,bertin on1• has
T l i ' O"-frie?, CICCL:p Br-:ts C11e_ Cr.e 'Or r- T f
r er:t 3l prC.cer t i es. Al s' afe'- rfa 1 -
"7 a the r: o:-it to rent
out ths, r properties without coming bef cr-e this boarc or
without talking to their neighbors. He stated that they
were only asking that the Commission re,. i ew the
project
tr:at Ncirm Woud stated at the heel-lninc_. _
J i m Leasont stated that there will be some modi f i cat i on,
or elaborations to his comments, since he wi li be taking
into consideration the comments made at the last meeting
and at this one so far. Regarding Section 6.11; there
is general agreement that the zoning requirements and
other applicable rules and regulations have been
attained. Regarding 6.12; provided that there is
sufficient investigation on the soils condition, the
site is suitable for a wide varity of residential
structures. The type and.quality of material of which
the proposed structure is to be constructed is
consistant with =standards for multi-unit residential
structures. Regarding 6.13; The design does not appear
to adversely effect the distribution of light and air of
o
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 11~, 1988
Page 8 of 151
Part of Lot 46/47 E{lc,c1" 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoeni x Discovery Group, 14 Unit Condomi ni un Project
Preliminary Design Review (cont.)
adjacent properties. This is one of the key cr i ter i a in
oval flat i rto i Mpa.Cts cin adjacent properties.
The acres c= fire safety eauiprrlent to adjacent
properties may be adversely effected by the Si to desi on.
Mr. Lamont stated that he = el t that this is a key issue.
Site drainage and lards%ape plans are of insufficient
detail to dLt&rmirte their corrtpatibilit., with e;:istina or
proposed site plans of adjacent properties. He
considers this as a matter of further design study that
can be resolved. Regarding 6.14; Insufficient
information exists to determine the impact upon soils
movement and lancscaping or retaining wall art north side
of exterior- parkir,Q lot. Make sure that the retainina
Wall is of a sufficient stature that it would not allow
for any soils movement. That may reduce the concern for
l i mi ti nq eME-r genC'; access for all the properties.
Regarding 6. 115; The visual appearance of the propo=sed
imc•rcverei--nf dues not in ;itit p,rincipzl views nor block
the s G ar e':P0E!Lur e= ad!agent and neighborina
properties. He feels this is a key element When, you
ioc'1. at how the buildino is sited. Insu+L- Cient
:r:ferlm,a'-iC-n e-- i5-s to determine if lan'sca-ina W.- it have
an. 2000pltEllDIa VI SL:al aPpEarar.Ce frpf7: t!ie public rJc<.v5.
C -.e L- tr,e cc:nce. n= fr ow, the a.esthetiC stardDoInt for
e er:t i r' e nci gI",bori-;C. 'd i s that ma-r-e'•: u= ti to e:s i st i nti
tC, the eGSt ha--ie pct!:.=n '""mat pains LID
i „Si.4 t-c ':c,It a /~uai i tb -
1 f1 .:~C J- L'~l C' i LnC
1"t o t ~.ll Uc+1 - --mo - i
e ~U - rt t eG ti:a - that Ol!ctj i
landscapii-g. to carried entirely alorla N,Jttirlgha!-t Read.
The e>:terior and enclosed parking areas are not located
in principal views from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways. On further study of the
p' an to irnpro~e the l and=_caping of the rear par;ring area
so that it is more mitigated for public ways. Regarding
6.16; The apprarent mass of the three story flat roof
structure is consistent with two and three story
structures on adjacent properties. Building offsets on
the south elevation are significant enough to be similar
in appearance of structures on adjacent properties. It
carries through a similar theme throughout the
neighborhood. Exterior materials, architectural
detailing and color can be modified to emphasis wood
siding which is the prevalent siding material in the
vicinity. Through minor modifications of the building
mass, the exterior could have a little bit more wood
that would bring it more in compatibility with the
neighbors which are stucco and wood. Again, provisions
Plannirsg and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1988
Page 9 of 15
Part of Lot 46%47 PI ocl > ertchmarl; at Beaver Creel::.
Phoef-,ix, Discovery Group 14 Uri t Condofti ni un; Pro iect
;=r el imTr,arv Design Re•:iev: (cont. )
shQUI d be Ttc.de for adegUat= fire safety access to
adjacent properties. Landscaping lfttprovements c.hould bE-
q=;al i tati F1 and quantitatively i ncr easc-0 2nd
rftai rltai nee. to the t.tE~ndards cccis: stmt wi th e:; i S`i no
1mproveii-eats in the vi ciititV. N, L. infortTEti or,: or
Standards are avai labie that 1-)dicatE- that el tier t{ e
prOPC-Eed use nor the aesthetics c.f the improvement arc
so similar yr di Ssl mi l ar to ether=_ in the vicinity that
values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. The
bUrdE'n of proof In determining Values and aesthetics
lies with the app i i cartt . The overriding concern from, a
pubI i c body is a consistency ce,Ttpati bi l i ty and desires
of the neiohborhooe. Those are the two criteria that
are si Gni f i cant considerations that this Cornmi ss.i on
5:71OUl d tal::e under advisement. There is no body of
information within the Town of Avon, nor has there been
pre=sented any information by the applicant which gives
indic-:tion of the types cf unit - e>:istirtc in the
neighborhood. The whole neighborhood is sort of
mix-(Tended together, sv that what we have here is the
first instance of a mono-culture tape building coiling
i r t" the nei chbor-hood. The -Ordinances. of the Town of
rvcn. not the goal and the policies and the programs
L~,t t? =U1 & the ;r~Ctic•r, l Zat-:tDn or-dlnence WEr-E
♦ t Cyr, 1 f' t f:~ Cr r t v 4 ~c.!-<t -
i :iC za ttT F:.:-t3° L?oi 1 Cv.
wc.J ' ~•e h t s c:t -E7r vat . cn that _ t i,c,i ,t Ge r: ~hC t e=`
in'terz-t of t'I& neJ(J- L.orh,0c.d tL• Cvr:t1r:'u that :T:1,,
t c ITts i ach.i e`: ed. has Lc, be the to rder't c.f t f-. e
a P P I i carat. There i = c. e_r : r•~. cat i c I that at 1 Eat on
ad tacer:t props- rties. there is -a desire for- Cyr, MUIFtc
tha- mixed-use residential development. There is only
one other site besides this in the is=mediate
-
. =.L: Cray ot't • c. cwhich ti-i& re: hborhoc•d is - - ,
~y G E•.~'l :-t p E' d is f c i r 1 ~J V: E: 1
establ ished. ?hC desires of the rtei gt,borhood in
compatibility is a very important isSLie.
Fractionalization and mixed-u=se will become more and
more an issue for Avon, so this particular project has
brought forth the first real sense of community and
sense of neighborhood. In terms of value, Mr Lamont
stated that he has yet to see, in this valley, where any
particular development may down-value any values in the
neighborhood. This is an economic issue and no one in
the room is qualified to make this judgement, however
the Commission is qualified to make the judgement in
terms of the aesthetics and impacts on the neighborhood.
It is his professional recommendation that the
Commission tal=e a long hard look at the unit mix and
o •
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
Arri] 19, 1988
Page 1 fl of 15
Fart c•f i_ot 46 /47 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek .
Fhoeni x Discovery Group, 14 Unit Condomi ri ual Project
Prelilrlinary Desion Rev_ew (cont.)
tl1a.t you consider as one of the conditions of approval
the t ecorlsideration of the unit mlix that is beino
proposed. -
Mr. Donaldson stated that the fractionalization of
Fa!cov Fui nt caused quite a controversy, where the
e :t e InEi Q!-bor hood ca.m:e to cippose 1 t . It was approved
and the yZ-.i L:es were nLt shown to be detrimental to the
neighbors. Mr. Donaldson stated he has a problem with
the review comments and that was that they had made
every effort to meet art a pre-planning basis with the
entire staff and at that time you did not address many
c4 the iSSUes you brought up tonight. You were asked
about three days ago i f vo~-i had an, modifications to
your staff report as previously written and you said no.
Mr. Donaldson stated that they did not have any problem
with providing emergency access. We have maintained
this all alano. They have work=ed out the grading plan
sc that the driveway slopes away from: the building and
i n •doi %c, o it becor:ie=_ about a five foot cut between the
two properties. They want to get their project app. owed
as subrlitted so they can yo to the .,.-rket and test their
deli c:n i r: the friar'::e~L pi ac t•. The d•--a nage issue i . a
sen s:t]'`:e concern to the:ll. Two wee;:s at_o they han`
d=-. . . C eC Ce --G P1r _ ahcin u- 1 -le }icl?rCowr.
'-Iev dlr~ .:ot wc.'-t the:. to
COIt . F!U C: a:=ceSC- the i•
C'r-r!-t' _n t::E .5t•I f~•t-t -i:c:t the-
E, C-f do ecEeale,it e:;1 no access riahts exists
t? 2Ei EC t °ff: tL -°_tt-ain -F •-c? i c
d o i i; c, -'or
i ability eason=_. Llhat he was oet t i ng to was the
drainage issue. They have a need to install a proper
drainage =_wale down the west side o4 the property. This
was indicated in the letter to Mr. Graham;. Since that
:•1 _ _
d~Gtrj r.L;tt';'. : the r1Gx4~r-F-JL'.-
..aa ~ r ~:PVC Lar:: ef-: ~ :1 ~'G•ri
tt,eii: E•A. ,es to cG::struct a drainage facility on Mr.
Donaldson's property for their proliect. r. Donaldson
is concerned about the drainage issue. He stated that
they were prepared to wort, with the neighbors to agree
on proper drainage for both properties, but do not
intend to be precluded to have good drainage on our own.
As far as the retaining wall requirements, we have
worked out all the regrading and the contours and
reviewed the soils reports and basically the tallest
wall they will construct is sir, feet high which is about
half the height of the other walls that have been
constructed on the site to support their buildings.
Donaldson stated that preliminary review does not
require landscape review and yet over half of Mr.
Lamont's review included comments regarding the
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1986
Page 11 of 15
Part of Lot 46/47 Bloc t; 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discovery Group 14 Unit Condominium_ Project
Preliminary Design Revi eM. (cont.)
landscaping. They plan to do intensive landscape
treatment, more than exists on the neighboring
properties. Donaldson asked Lamont to elaborate on his
comment that their landscape appears to be less than
adequate for the neighborhood.
Lamont compared their landscape with the landscaping to
the east. Theirs is more arid than manicured as the
easterly landscape is.
Donaldson reminded Lamont of the limitations the soil
engineer placed on the property. The property cannot be
sodded or irrigated. They intend to do the best
possible with the dry land approach. As to the comment
about the wood treatment on this project, Per. Donaldson
stated that, after 12 years of designing buildings in
this area, he is a little tired of wood, and the upkeep
of wood is more, and Chambertin is an e;:ample. He
stated that they would consider some wood treatment if
necessary for this Commission. As far as the burden of
proof being on the applicant, Mr. Donaldson stated he
had a prob1eT, with that, but would do the best he could
off the cuff. He stated that they had surveyed the
units avai 1 r.bi e in the Avon mari::e_ ar-ea. He stated that
when, you consider pro ~Ects 1 i i;e Sunridge, where units
are sei1ina -or 40 to 45 thousand dollars that once sold
-vr -C~ t 100 thousa}-.d do,ir:-s and the Chambe-tin
c.r , ject i t~.el f that once sold for as high as 45C)
thOUSar.d G=wllars, thr-se --ialuc-5 car-not be protected. He
=_c• duE t bet i eve tie those vai ues e;; i st today. He
can't sce where the, are e-fecting their va nos
Regarding the mixture that Per. Lamont referred to, they
feel that they are providing a mi. ture in the fact that
they rare a mono-culture building. In closing Mr.
L"D .dS n _t;-ted that the-v would -eciate the
Ccerf.aai s_ _n 1 1 owi no them to rr;Gr i;et tni E pr O 1~ c_ beca:lse
they believe that they are right on target. They have
considered lesser larger units which would be directed
at locals, but the prices are not where the market is.
The number of two, three and four bedroom units
available in Avon is staggering.
Cuny asked if there was anyone else that would like to
comment on what Mr. Lamont has said.
Mr. Graham commented on the french drain system and the
retaining walls.
Weber stated that they do not intend to use the french
drain system that is there.
Cuny asked the Commission members for comments.
Blair stated that the foundations , retaining wails and
the drainage is a technical area that is beyond this
0 •
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 191 1988
Page 12 of 15
Part of Lctt 46/47. Bloct,, 1 Benchrr,ark at Beaver Creek
Phoeni r. Di =.coverv Group 14 IJni t Condominium Project
Prel i mi nar,; Desi gr Review (cont. )
Corr,mi ssi or, and their technical ability and has to be
addressed when the building permit is taken out.
Doll statea that he had listened to the tapes of the
r vevi ous meet i nc and reviewed the minutes also and now
he has listened to another hour of discus=_ion tonight.
and mostly what he has heard is a.n argument between two
parties, the applicant and his neighbors and he fir•.ds it
very diT+icult at this time to sort out from all this
argument what the Commission need=s to know to approve or
disapprove the design review. He stated that he did not
hzo.ve an/ Particular fault to find with the building, the
way it 'ool or the way it will sit on the property. He
stated that he was very SUpprised to see any buildings
built on any of that property. The thing in the Cesign
review that concerns him more than anything else is the
argument about the access through the buildings. He
stated that it is imperative that an access be
a'varilable_ He is disappointed that the applicant and
the nei gh~c:rrs t,ave nc,t set} led this matter before
putting all this srtoke up in front oT this Commission.
He also agrees with Blair regarding the foundation=_,
w- lis etc.
Blair stated that t-r,_:,:be tt;e tV10 GLtestic;rt= of density and
des i on should be separated. He asked the Staff if
11'• the
CLtr r =-.'t ZOrtir:q allowed nor }he T} 3Ctl'~r:G I~zt ~lJn. 1aL:C~
-Lat_et that one of tht-- pl:rposfzs o- the Tr"~ .1 cr r'.
. • c~lzal=iG
cr-di -:~:nc~ wa.s Lo per-:r,i t de,: e'1 opmerit rights to b
T•-C t1-:nc.iliEd-i ir:to a c -
GtTt~i 1 r: c.i`.Gn G-~ S::tom j 1 cr -:n a t
`.rL• 3 _ t~~ :eU c the aggregate gr ( =S =.]L;ar e `-'00t,Ce 0T i
y L r:. LS f r act i anal i zec. is 00-verned Linder a (T,a:; i. rill
limitation. Development rights may be Tractionalized
only on lots zoned either- through conventional zoning or
C~ -=fit sIF' !7t C,r triPlp}( Or 1=.rOef_ mlilti -fami'V use.
i iclr c=.i eC iT the f'c,CZlGrial ~a4~2Grt has to be appro"•:ed
by the Town Council. Wood stated that the
fractionalization i approved through the design review
process, then if it becomes a condominium project, in
order to sell those units, it is also approved by the
Town Council through the subdivision process. Blair
stated that he did not believe the design and uses as
proposed are incompatible with the neighborhood. He
feels that if the drainage and the foundation and access
for safety and traffic considerations can be resolved
and if the design is found not to be inconsistent with
the area and not inconsistent with the Town ordinances
and goals, the only incompatibility is with the
preference of the adjacent owners.
Curry stated that Larrront . s comments about the
• •
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1988
Page 13 of 15
Part of Lot 46/42 Block I Benchmark at Beaver Creet;
Phoenix Discovery Group 14 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review (cont.)
morso-culture building helped c l ear up some of her
understanding of Section 6.16 regarding it beinG similar
or dissimilar.
Lar:dauer stated that he felt that Doll stated scwve good
points and he goes along, one hundred percent. He also
thinks they need to take into consideration the views of
the neighboring property owners and these comments and
letters are extreme ly negative. He feels that the
density is too much for one project. The emergency
access is very critical and this must be worked out if
this project is to be approved.
Reynolds stated that at first he thouqht this project
would wort::, but there is so much strong feeling against
it that he feels. that he should loot; out for the
c omrnu n i t,./.
Cuny stated that some action should be taken on this
matter tonight.
Bill Fleisher stated that he objects to having 14 more
nei chbors and he feels that this is too many. He has no
probl en: if they giant to build another 4 unit building.
Blair moved to approve the application with the
conditions that the Staff has suggested, which includes
emergency access through the properties and that the
fractionali-ed Unit den=_ity be limited to not more than
nine t_IrtitE unless _greed LtPOM by the c.d-acent -_~roperty
oviners and the fractionalization is apprc:-:•ed by the Towns
COLIr-tL 1 Z when. it coo:es be-Fore the Count 1 l.
Wood stateu i r-. order to conform vii th th e Bondi t i on
be-_ no attached, the-y- need to have desicn CU1 GEL i nes
section number. attached tc. them1 5`2Ct-r as desi.in
guideline for emergency access as included in the staf*
report can be based on section 6.13 and section 6.14 of
the de=_i on, gui del ines. The secor:d condition that the
eta ~ hail was th.&t t "-:e previo,_isIv acre•=c:
upon roadway easement a1ontc Nottingham Roaa be
incorporated in the final plat, based on section 6.11.
With the condition of the limitation o= not more than
nine units, that could possibly be based upon section
6. 13, and section 6.16. Blair stated that he would be
glad to include these specific references in his motion.
Cuny asked for a second to the motion. Hearing none the
motion failed.
Blair asked the Staff what the consequences would be if
the Commission failed to take action.
Wood stated that the project would be approved as
submitted, by default.
Reynolds asked the applicant what he thinks of the
motion.
o •
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1988
Page 14 of 1
Part of Lot 46/47 Block i Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Di scoverv Group, 14 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review (cont.)
Mr. Donaldson stated that he didn't thank it had
anythinq to do with the application and that he thought
it would be an illegal motion. They are not asking to
amend their application.
Landauer moved to. deny the application a submitted,
citing Section 6.1" the compatibility of the design to
minia:ize site impacts to adjacent properties, and
Section, 6.16; the objective that no improvement be so
si mi 1 ar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that
values, monetary or ae=sthetic will be impaired.
Doll seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
Wood =stated that the decision of the Commission shall
become final if no written appeal is made to the Town
Council by any aggrieved person within twenty days'
following the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Commi ssi on.
Ordinance 88-6. Sign Code Amendments
Donaldson and Gersbach resumed their status as voting
members of the Coma:: ss i on. r
Donal dson asked if the temporary si on provision was
sat i =_f actorv.
Cun',' =stated she thought it was =_-incr r:Ur::ber four had
been added.
7i scLiss.i on followed o:-: the cescr :pti on of a =sign..
Wood st.1ted that eicr yt?ino in the ordinance was as
Ciscusset in previous, meetings with the eXCEC tlor: oT_
additions to the development sign (no. 5) and the same
addition to Section Pour of the temporary signs section.
Discussion followed on these additions.
Discussion on temporary s ions followed r-eearci no the
tiR:` r;er3o~.
Doll moved to chance Section Two to state: thirty days
instead of one hundred twenty day=s.
Gersbach seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
Reading and Approval of P & Z Minutesof 4/5/88 Regular
Meeting -
Reynolds moved to approve the minutes of the 4/5/88
regular meeting as submitted.
Landauer seconded.
The motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes •
April 19, 19SE3
Page 15 of 15
Other Business
Charlie Gersbach stated that he wanted to say goodbye as -
this is his last meeting as a memter of the Commission.
He also made the recomiTiendation that. every thirty or
forty days the staff change the placement of the name
plates so that measbers sit next to different members.
It would create more comradery among the group.
Ger-sbach moved to adjourn.
Donaldson seconded.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 PM.
Respect;ully submitted,
Charlette Pascuzzi
Recording Secretary
Comm 2 '
P. Cu
T. Landauer
F. Dc
N. DID
J. ~e
D. Hi I
C. McRorv
L~-
MEMO •
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members
FROM: Ray Wright, Engineering Technician
DATE: April 19, 1988
RE: Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discovery Group
14 Unit Condominium Complex
Design Review
This item was continued at the meeting of April 5, 1988. Staff has not
received any additional information from the Applicant. The Applicant
is requesting Preliminary Design Review approval from the Commission.
The Staff report from the April 5, 1988 meeting is attached for your review.
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( )
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Peni e`d Withdrawn ( )
Date 4 LO .P Michael Blair, Secretary /~3
The Commission denied this application as submitted, citing non-comformance with
the following Design Review Guidelines: Section 6.13 - The compatibility of the
design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties; and Section 6.16 - The
objective that no improvement be so-similar or dissimilar to others in the
vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired
Town of Avon P. O. Box 975, Avw, CO 81620 (303) 9494280
April 8, 1988
Phoenix Discovery Group
P. 0. Box 5300
Avon, Colorado 81610
RE: Part of Lot 4b/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discovery Group, 14 Unit Condominium Project,
Preliminary Design Review.
Gentlemen:
Thank you for your presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on
April 5, 1988.
The following action was taken regarding the above described request.
The Planning and Zoning Commission continued this application until the
April 19, 1988 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Charlette Pascuzzi
Recording Secretary
Copy/File
O •
Staff Report to Planning and Zoning Commission - 4/5/88
Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discovery Group
14 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Page 2 of 4.
A summary of the proposed units including unit size (in square feet), fraction
of development right used for each unit, and total development rights used is
listed below.
UNIT ='s AREAS FRACTIONS TOTAL RDR's
1A, 2A, 3A, 598 sf I/3 RDR 2 RDR
1E, 2E, 3E, each each
1B, 2B, 3B, 449 sf 1/4 RDR 1 1/2 RDR
1D, 2D, 3D each each
2C, 3C 447 sf 1/4 RDR 112 RDR
each each
14 units 7,176 sf 4 RDR 4 RDR
Town records indicate that there are 4 residential development rights assigned
to this parcel.
The submittal apoears to conform with the requirements outlined in the Planning
and Zoning Commission Design Procedures, Rules and Regulations for Preliminary
Design Review.
Staff recommends that the Commission review this application for conformance
with the following Design Review Guidelines:
1. The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and
regulations of the Town of Avon.
2. The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials
of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located.
3. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent
properties.
4. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography.
5. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent
and neighboring properties and public ways.
6. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others
in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired.
0 0
Staff Report to Planning and Zoning Commission - 4/5/88
Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discovery Group
14 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Page 3 of 4
7. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted
Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the Commission finds that this application conforms with the above Design
Review Guidelines, or can be modified to be brought into conformance, Staff
recommends that Preliminary Design Review approval be granted, subject to:
1. Final design include an emergency access between this project and the
adjoining project to the west that is acceptable to the Department of
Public Safety.
2. That the previously agreed upon "Roadway Easement" along Nottingham Road
be incorporated in the Final Plat for the project.
3. Final design must conform with the requirements of the Zoning Code, Planning
and Zoning Commission Design Procedures, Rules and Regulations, and other
modifications requested by the Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Project;
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Commission Review of Submitted Materials;
4. Act on Application.
Respectfully submitted,
Ray Wright
Engineering Technician
0 0
Staff Report to Planning and Zoning Commission - 4/5/88
Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discovery Group
14 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Page 4 of 4
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( )
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued Denied
( )
Date--Y Ar,~' % 4v Michael Blair, Secretary ~~I G~( ) Withdrawn
l
11 -
This item was continued until the April 19 1988 Pl
annin and Zonin
Commission Meetinq.
To: Town of Avon
From: JF Lamont
RE:Project Review:
Phoenix Discovery Group
Condominium Residences
A part of Lot 46/47, Block 1 BMS
Date: April 1, 1988
0
The following Design Guidelines have been reviewed and
are offered for consideration by the reviewing authorities
and the applicant.
Section
6.00 Design Guidelines:
6.10 Design Review Considerations:
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed project:
6.11 The conformance with the Zoning Code and other
applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
Comment: See Staff Report
6.12 The suitability of the improvement, including type and
quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the
site upon which it is to be located.
Comment: Provided that sufficient investigation has :-een
conducted of soils conditions the site is suitable for a wide-
variety of residential structures. The type and quality of
materials of which the proposed structure is to be
constructed is consistent with standards for rnulti-unit
residential structures.
6.13 The compatibility of the design to minimize site
impacts to adjacent properties.
Comment: The design does not appear to adversely effect
the distribution of light and air of adjacent properties.
The access of Fire Safety equipment to adjacent
properties may be adversely effected by the site design.
Site drainage and landscape plans are of insufficient
detail to determine there compatibility with existing or
proposed site plan of adjacent properties.
0
page two
0
6.14 The compatibility of proposed improvements with site
topography.
Comment: Insufficient information exists to determine
the impact upon soils movement and landscaping of retaining
wall on north side of exterior parking lot.
6.15 The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as
viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public
ways.
Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed
improvement does not inhibit principal views nor block the
solar exposure of adjacent and neighboring properties.
Insufficient information exists to determine if
landscaping will have an acceptable visual appearance from
the public ways.
Exterior and unenclosed parking areas are not located in
principal views from adjacent and neighboring properties and
public ways.
6.16 The objective that no improvement be so similar or
dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or
aesthetic will be impaired. `
Comment: The apparent mass of the three story flat roof
structure is consistent with two and three story structures
on adjacent properties.
Buildina offsets on the south elevation are significant
enough to be similar in appearance of structure on adjacent
properties.
Exterior materials, architectural detailing and color
can be modified to emphasis wood siding which is the
prevalent siding material in the vicinity.
Provision should be made for adequate fire safety access
to adjacent properties.
Landscape improvements should be qualitatively and
quantitatively increased and maintained to the standards
consistent with existing improvements in the vicinity.
No information or standards are available that indicates
that either the proposed use nor the aesthetics of the
improvement are so similar or dissimilar to others in the
vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be
impaired.
• 0
page three
6.17 The general conformance of the proposed improvements
with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of
Avon.
Comment: The proposed project is in substantial
compliance with the adopted development goals, policies, and
programs of the Town of Avon.
TA033188
March 28, 1988
Mr. Norman Wood, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Town of Avon
Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
Dear Norm:
Please find attached four copies of our application
for Preliminary Design Review by the Avon Planning
and Zoning Commission at the upcoming meeting of
April 5, 1988
As you may recall, we have previously submitted for
Conceptual Review and would now like to continue the
review process as we are anticipating successful
marketing and actual construction to take place this
year.
Our exterior materials are primarily two tones of
stucco, clad windows, painted metal railings along
with a flat roof design. We will bring a color
sketch of the exterior to the meeting along with
some proposed material samples for review.
Please let me know if you will need
information prior to the meeting in
have a complete Preliminary Review.
Architect
any additional
order for us to
Thank you.
If ted,
~ ~+itltn0 C2p21~dfp(~
r - Town of Avon r1j
MAR, 2 8 -
f/pdgapp.2
• •
JACK SILYLR
WILLIAM B. HAYMM
DRROORY A. SfIITH
SHVJ_MN H. Sar m
PBOoY E. STtvrxe
WARREN A. ROHINRON
SURAN V. MARTIN
PETER & doj_r)w'EIN
M ARJOR IIi J. Err
PATRICK J. TowN
JAMER J. DurncY
HERRHEL J. SHAPIRO
PENNY L. CHRIWPY
DAVID P. SANDERR
ERTHER A. CRAWFORD
KEVIN M. DurneY
SILVER AND HAYES
A PROtrERSIONAL OORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MIN'I'" FLOOR
BANK WEWrXRN BUILDING
930 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
DENVER, COLORADO 80908
April 1, 1988
Mr. Victor Mark Donaldson
Phoenix Discovery Group
Box 5300
Avon, Colorado 81620
Re: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation/Phoenix
Discovery Group;
Order No. 300589-C4
Dear Mr. Donaldson:
OF COI TNaRL
ANDREW L. QVIAT
ROBLRT T. HADYS
TE -CAHONE:
(.90Ci> 321-5700
T ou-cIomcw,
GIR)) MI -6796
At the request of Eagle County Title Corporation and its
underwriter, Title USA Insurance Corporation, this Firm has
reviewed the following matters:
1. Title insurance commitment of Title USA Insurance
Corporation having an effective date of March 4,
1988, at 7:00 a.m., and issued by Eagle County
Title Corporation under its order number 300589-C4.
2. The chain of title to the real property covered
by such title insurance commitment and that was
prepared by Eagle County Title Corporation.
3. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restric-
tions of Chamberlin Townhouses Filing No. 1 recorded
December 19, 1980, in Book 315 at Page 042 of the
records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder
of Eagle County.
As a result of this review, we have concluded that Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Chamberlin Town-
houses Filing No. 1 do not affect, burden or encumber the
§ECI IVEN APR 1 1 1988
O
SILVER AND HAYES
A PROMRSIONAL CORPORATION
Victor Mark Donaldson
April 1, 1988
Page 2
E
real property covered by the title insurance commitment refer-
enced above. This conclusion is based upon the following:
1. "The Property" as defined in Section 1 of Article
II of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions, is only a Westerly portion of
Lots 46 and 47 of Block 1 in Benchmark at Beaver
Creek, Amendment No. 4. This Westerly portion is
identified and shown as "Chamberlin Townhouses
Filing No. 1" on the Plat filed December 19, 1980,
in Book 314 at Page 993 under Reception No. 211368
of the records in the office of the Clerk and
Recorder for Eagle County, Colorado.
2. Section 2 of Article II of the Declaration of Cove-
nants, Conditions and Restrictions expressly
provided for the addition, at the election of the
Declarant or the Declarant's successor in interest,
of "the balance of Lot 46/47 a replat of Lots 46
and 47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Amend-
ment No. 4". Any such addition was, however, condi-
tioned upon the filing of "a supplementary declara-
tion of covenants and restrictions with respect
to the addition of property which shall extend
the scheme of the covenants and restrictions of
this Declaration to such property". The right of
the Declarant to make such an addition express3y
expired on June 1, 1986. The chain of title prepared
by Eagle County Title Corporation does not disclose
the execution or recordation of any such supple-
mentary declaration.
3. The "Certification of Dedication and Ownership"
on the Plat of Chamberlin Townhouses Filing No.
1 filed December 19, 1980, in Book 314 at Page
993 under Reception No. 211368, specifically recites
that the owner laid-out, platted and subdivided
only "part of" Lots 46 and 47 in Block 1 of
Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Amendment No. 4 as
Chamberlin Townhouses Filing No. 1.
0
SILVER AND F AYES
A PROFSBBIONAL OORPORATION
Mr. Victor Mark Donaldson
April 1, 1988
Page 3
Should you need additional
I suggest that you seek the
Corporation and its owner,
reached at 476-6423 in Vail,
0
documentation or
assistance of Eagle
Norman E. Larkins.
Colorado.
Very truly yours,
SILVER
A Profe
i
JS / lck c--~
CC: Mr. Norman E. Larkins, President
Eagle County Title Corporation
CC: John C. Mulvihill, Rocky Mountain
and Counsel, Title USA Insurance
information,
County Title
Norm can be
orporation
Regional Manager
Corporation
April 7, 1988
Mr. John W. Graham, President
Chambertin Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 667
Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681
Dear John:
RECEIVED APR 1 1 1988
We appreciate you and Linda taking time after the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission meeting last Tuesday night
to discuss your concerns abet our development proposal.
Since then we have thoroughly revietred our own documents
and your concerns with regard to our development approach.
We are now writing to you pursuant to the request by the
Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday night.
To begin with, we firm- ma;rtaJ" our belief that your
association has no access easement across our property or
has any direct control over our architectural design.
This is based upon the very thoroughly researched legal
opinion which we have enclosed for your review. Please
review this letter vis-a-vis your recorded documents.
This situation does not exist because of our development
proposal or purchase of this property, but instead due to
inaction by other previous parties.
As an aside, when Linda stated in the public meeting that
we had NOT included all of the recorded documents in our
research, she was wrong. After the meeting she gave us her
copy of what she was referring to and it was EXACTLY the
document which we had referenced!
John, we believe that our development proposal is in confor-
mance with the Avon Zoning Ordinance, Design Review Guide-
lines, Development Goals, Policies and Programs as well as
the Fractionalization Ordinance. Further, we are absolutely
convinced that our development scheme will NOT diminish your
already reduced property values, but will instead enhance the
development on this hillside while filling a market need in a
very architecturally pleasing manner.
At this p
oint, we see no reason
to delay
our development
schedule
or modify our design.
Therefore
, our plan is to
continue
through the review process in an
expeditious manner.
As we worked out the details of our own drainage plan and
parking and site layout this week we discovered that there
are some remaining areas of concern between our two properties.
•
page two
Mr. John W. Gramm
April 7, 1988
1) Based on a good drainage design for our development, it
will be very difficult to physically construct an emergency
access way between our properties. Please let us know is you
have any budget constraints with regard to this issue.
2) A drainage swale will need to be constructed between our
two buildings to handle surface runoff fro- both parking/drive
areas. This is a Town of Avon requirement and we feel that the
cost should be shared equally,
John, please contact us to set up a mee*.ing to discuss these
and any other issues that you may have concerning our mutual
developments on this hillside.
Respectfully Submitted,
Victor Mark Donaldson, Architect
for
Phoenix Discovery Group
cc: Mr. Norman Wood, P.E., Director of Community Development
Ms. Patricia Cuny, Chairwoman Avon Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Mr. Eddie D. Murphy, Consolidated Asset Management Company
Emily J. Bennett
Ms. Linda Pell
Mr. Clinton Watkins
Marino Construction
enclosure: letter
f/graham.l
o o
Southern
VAE SIDENT
JOHN GRAHAM Technologies, s~ inc.
Southern Technologies, Inc. ■ Post Office Box 667 ■ SimpeonvMe, South Carolina 29681 • Telephone 803-288-8178
March 24, 1988
Mr. Norm Wood
Director of Engineering
and Community Development
Town of Avon
Post Office Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Mr. Wood:
This letter is to confirm the meeting held with you in
your office on Wednesday, March 16, 1988, in which Ms.
Linda Pell and I, represented the Chambertin Homeowners
Association, regarding the Associations position on the
development of the foundation for building number one on
the original Chambertin Townhome Project.
As we discussed, the original concept for the project called
for sixteen family units constructed in four separate
buildings on the entire project consisting of two lots
located on Knottingham Road. To date, three of the buildings
have been constructed representing a total of twelve units
of the original sixteen planned. It is our understanding
that a preliminary design has been presented regarding
the construction of fourteen single bedroom units on the
foundation originally designed to accomodate four family
units. The current individual homeowners as well as the
Homeowners Association strongly object to the construction
of any structure that does not substantially represent
the three existing buildings consisting of four family
units per building.
The original articles of incorporation, by-laws and
declarations of the Association define in detail the
Association's architectual control over any and all
construction regarding the project. The Association has
voted unanimously to pursue all options regarding a
consistent completion of the project as it was originally
Of A14011
MAR 2 8 1988
• •
Mr. Norm Wood
March 24, 1988
Page Two
conceived.
As you are aware, over the past four and one-half years
a tremendous amount of effort and money has been expended
in resolving the construction problems encountered with
the project. Your and the town's assistance in helping
us to substantially complete the necessary repairs has
been greatly appreciated. We will continue to work
diligently to being these necessary repairs to a conclusion.
Thank you again for allowing Linda and myself to visit
with you on such a short notice.
Cordially yours,
Chambertin Homeowners Assoc.
Jo n W. Graham
President
cc: Board of Directors Chambertin Homeowners Association
Members Chambertin Homeowners Association
Ms. Patricia Cuny, Planning & Zoning Comm.
Avon, Colorado
Harch 29, 1988
Mr. Norm Wood
Director of Engineering
and Community Development
Town of Avon
Post Office Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Mr. Wood:
•
This letter is in regard to the Chambertin Townhome Development of Nottingham
Road, of which we recently became members of that project's Homeowners Assoc-
iation by purchasing Unit 15. We feel the Chambertin units are aesthetically
amongst the best in the valley and as such were dismayed and quite upset to
find there were plans for the foundation of Building 1 that would effectively
and most dramatically lessen the aesthetics by constructing fourteen one-
bedroom units instead of the four-family units as are contained on Lots 2,
3 and 4. At our recent meeting I voiced my objection to this plan and present
to you, by virtue of this letter, our strenuous objection to the proposed plans
on Building 1's lot.
Prior to purchase, we understood that Lot 1 was part and parcel of the Chambertin
project and construction on this foundation would be along the same lines as
the existing homes. We re-read those documents and still feel Lot 1 is indeed
part of the entire Chambertin project. We look forward to spending many years
in our unit and would hate to see new construction which is not compatible
with it's neighbors.
Thank yo
l
Patrick J. Fitzgerald
P. S. I would like to extend my thanks to the town of Avon and you personally
for your cooperation in bringing these projects on-line.
cc:`<S- Patricia Cuny, Planning & Zoning Commission, Avon, Colorado
Mr. John W. Graham, President, Chambertin Homeowners Association
0 •
JEWELERS
Executive Offices: 240 Union St., a P.O. Box B-M a New Bedtord. Ma. 02741 • 617/99&. M4
March 29, 1988
Mr. Norm Wood
Director of Engineering and Community Development
Town of Avon
P. 0. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Mr. Wood:
It has been brought to my attention that a person(s)
represented by Mr. Mark Donaldson has purchased the foundation
for building number one at Chambertin Townhomes and that Mr.
Donaldson is planning on presenting to the Town of Avon a plan
that would allow his client to build fourteen single bedroom
units on a foundation that was originally esigned for four
family units.
As an individual homeowner and a member of the Chamber-
tin Homeowners Association I strongly object to any construction
that is not consistent with the three existing buildings each of
which has four family units per building.
The Association's original articles of incorporation,
by-laws, and declarations define its architectural control over
any and all construction regarding the project. I fully support
the Association's decision to pursue all options regarding a
consistent completion of the Chambertin Townhome Project as it
was originally conceived.
I sincerely hope that you will turn down any request
for the construction of a building at Chambertin that would be
substantially different from the three existing buildings.
Thank you very much for your consideration
Sincerely yours,
Joel Karten
President
JK : rbh 0i "yon
ISO
APB "
0
ORVAL A. PAUL
4205 VIRGINIA VIBTA
LONG BEACH. CALM 90807
818/424.8854
April 1, 1988
Mr. Norm Wood
Director of Engineering and
Community Development
Town of Avon
Post Office Box 975
Avon, Co 81620
Dear Mr. Wood,
•
I have been advised by some of the owners of the Chambertin
Homeowners Association that you are considering a request to
build 14 one bedroom units on the remaining slab of the
Chambertin Townhome project. When I purchased my unit several
years a-go, it was my understanding and I believe the bylaws
will confirm that the Association has architectual control
regarding any building that would not conform to the original
concept of 4 units per slab.
As you are well aware, we have had many problems with this
project over the past years which has substantially depreciated
the value of the units and I strongly feel that if you were to
allow the 14 one bedroom project, it would only serve to lower
the value of the existing townhomes further.
Those of us in the Chambertin Homeowners Association will make
every effort to see that this project is completed in its
original concept and will appreciate your cooperation in helping
us in this endeavor.
Sincerel
Orva A. Paul
Chambertin Homeowner
RECEIVE, APR 41988
oal*"'L rAnri: 4, 1968
Vir. \oz^n Flood
Director of E~rclneerinc
and Cor-munity Jeve,ourent
'own of Av o-,
0. Sox 975
Avon, CO 81620
Yom. wood,
^:s ;ester :s to co-'---= . ons;-'_or o-^ '^e ce-:P- e
of -ne `o-,:-scat;o^ -o~ 3ui;_rc tio. o' Z^e or c_^a:
7owr_ncr..e nro - ec : .
is -t un6erstan6--na t: at a n-e:i-i.arv des'= .as oee^_
n-esented recardina t_re corstnac or of Lmarteen s:-,C-'e cecroo^
an 's on -e `ounda';o- for Cnanbert_^ 3u::ai7c No. or :ra;_v
desicrea to acconrodate F0;.,'= ?A?!=--v as a ^o-eow=sr
C', berg- an6 a :orc-tine -es;de-t of A-, on, Co-orado,
strona:v object to t'--e the construct;= of a^_.; str•,:c--ure
does no- s-Libstantia::y renrese-t -^e -^ree e.-_:sz_- rq iTui:d:ncs
w^:c^ cons:st of ----its r)er b:_;d:r__c w:- lots
o±
scaare footace and exce;:e_^_t worms-as^:o.
-:'^e twe:-ve C:a::oerti^ ^_ts t:a- are ccr..o:e'ec are -,en.-
oF,:`s'andi--_c in s`ze. w;t'_^. attention ci,-e^_ -o de,a;i and des;c^_ed
to `ate rate of -^_e -a--cer farni : ies and/or . . _ -`a:.; _y- corpora--e
retreats for sk.i vacations. To t9-cc a :o' z:a' renrese^_-s 25% of
',!^e o:,-era:: Dro-ec- and _fo-ar-zee- : i vinc -s wow:d be
cetr,.-ien-a not o^_v to '^.e ^a:Jert~_ '=_'s t_az are e•';S~_'?C
bu-, t^_e ^_efC_^_Dorinc proper-t-es as we-':.
s'ro*-C:y urge yon rot to a_oo_ rose any toss--- ct;o^_ o_ -^e
afore-:e^tio:sd sot extent for a bru_:di-c_ co.s_st_-r of `o-=
'aI',:-nI S~ =_anat~e and GeS~C^ OL `e V~,~SZ;rte
cra dins . -'-^e goose any ;se s= :d be __-_e sa=e as ad =o_.^_^c
orooer-:es in z^,e neic'?oor-i=. r
SiTcere-
/`T T
a aesoat cornmunf~y
1000 lionsridge loop • vail, colorado 9 81657 9 telephone (303) 476-1500
o -o
Mr. Norman Wood
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
April 6, 1988
Dear Norman,
It has been brought to my attention that a preliminary
hearing was held last night reguarding the construction
of single bedroom units on the now vacant foundation at
the Chambertin Townhomes on Nottingham Road. Please let
this letter serve as my extreme opposition to such
construction!
I am a home owner at 1B, 0371 Nottingham Road, (Sherwood
Meadows), and in this complex alone there are three,
empty, single bedroom units already "on the market" with
no buyers. Obviously a need for additional similar
units is unfounded, not to mention the detrimental effect
these units would have on my current property values.
After having personally visited the actual site of
proposed construction, I found it's access to and from
Nottingham Road to be quite dangerous. The driveway
entrance is situated not only on a hill, but also on a
"blind" section of the curve directly behind my home.
The amount of proposed increased traffic into that
project will surely bring mayhem that could easily be
avoided with conscientious forethought that you as a
leader in this field of expertise can certainly be held
responsible. This is why I implore you to be my
spoksman in opposition of this plan at Chambertin
Townhomes.
Thank you for your support in stoping this proposal;
please feel free to contact me at your convience if
you have any further questions reguarding this matter.
Sincerely,
M s. sa Johnson Hammond
Jim: 949-1377 Wk: 476-1170
von
Of
AP R - 7 1988
SYNDICATE GLASS INC.
STORE FIXTURES FOR MODERN MERCHANDISING
5610 CRAWFORDSVILLE RD., SUITE 14M • P. O. BOX 2417%
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 4=4 • PHONE 31712417311
April 12, 1988
Mr. Norm Wood
Director of Engineering
and Community Development
Town of Avon
P. 0. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
RE: Chambertin Townhomes Association
Building 1 Foundation, Nottingham Rd,, Avon, CO.
Dear Mr. Wood:
In late March, 1988,
Foundation #1 of the
purchased and that t
the structure. This
new owner planned to
on a foundation that
a total of 4 units.
I first received word that Building
above mentioned Townhomes had been
he new owner was intending to complete
was good news. Then, I learned that the
construct a 14-unit dormitory type dwelling
was originally planned and built to hold
As a homeowner of Chambertin #13 since 1980, with 7 years know-
ledge of the Foundation #1 property, I strongly object to
the plans submitted at the Design and Review Hearing held on
April 5, 1988. A 14-unit dormatory type structure would be
detrimental to the value of all homes in the Nottingham Road
area, specifically Chambertin Townhouses. Beyond this, I feel
that the Town of Avon will suffer in future years, due to this
type housing construction. The intended use of the current
fractionalization law is not befitting to this situation.
Please consider the above comments. Let's see the Town of
Avon prosper for future generations, not be a stepping stone
to "get rich quick" construction that offers immediate financial
gain for a few.
RECEIVED APR 1
cc: Mr. John Graham
Ms. Linda Pell
ely,
rr Burris
President
OFFICES i SHOWROOMS INDIANAPOLIS, IN MIDDLEBURY. IN PASO ROBLES, CA STURGIS, MI
E
Sherwood Meadows Association. Inc.
Box 93
Avon, Colorado 81620
May 4, 1988
Avon City Council
Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
Re: Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discovery Group
14 Unit Condominium Complex
Dear Members:
It is our understanding that the above referenced developer has
appealed the decision of the Plannino and Zoning Commission dated
April 199 1988 wherein the Commission denied approval for the
project as presented for Preliminary Design Review.
As a resident/owner in Sherwood Meadows and as Vice President of
the Sherwood Meadows Condominium Association , I am authorized
to state that the Association's Board of Directors, representing
all owners in the Association, voted on April 23, 1988 to oppose
the Phoenix project as presently designed.
We are concerned with the proposed density of the project. The
proposed density of 14 one bedroom units on a site originally
designed for four single family units deviates substantially from
the present mix of one, two and three bedroom units on Nottingham
Road.
We are further concerned with the lack of any notice from the
developer concerning the proposed project as we feel we will be
directly impacted by the proposed development.
We are further concerned with the potential increase
traffic, noise, lack of geological stability and in
Pile loss of
value to existing and adjacent properties. We urge
nt he bcounc i 1 to
carefully study the issues.
We urge the council to deny the project as presently designed and
presented.
Sincerely,
Sherwood eadows Association, Inc.
bye
Greg A. eterman F?ce~~~A~ Town of Avon
Vice-President MAY 51988
• 0
VICTOR MARK DONALDSON • ARCHITECT
Dox 5300. Avon, Colorodo 81620 • 3031940-5200
February 2, 1988
Town Council
Town of Avon, Colorado
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
Secretary of State
State of Colorado
1575 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
You are hereby notified that the undersigned as (a f inaasial
interest in the 'Chambertin foundation
lot 46;47, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivisin, AvAvfon,
essional
Colorado) and that the undersigned isPDeluca's project in
services in connection with the Ruby J
the Avon Center building, both of which may cause a conflict
ss a discretionary function
of interest as to his exercise
Commission
as a Planning and Zoning
The above matters will be coming before vario,as town of Avon
commissions and councils in the next fewSweeki. Please do
not hesitate to contact me regarding busness.
Respectfully Submitted,
Victor Mark Donaldson, Architect
planning and Zoning Commission member
Town of Avon
Sherwood Meadows Association. Inc.
Box 93
Avon, Colorado 81620
May 4. 1988
Avon City Council
Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
Re: Part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Phoenix Discovery Group
14 Unit Condominium Complex
Dear Members:
It is our understandina that the above referenced developer has
appealed the decision of the Planning and Zonino Commission dated
April 19, 1988 wherein the Commission denied approval for the
project as presented for Preliminary Design Review.
As a resident/owner in Sherwood Meadows and as Vice President of
the Sherwood Meadows Condominium Association , I am authorized
to state that the Association's Board of Directors, representing
all owners in the Association, voted on April 23, 1988 to oppose
the Phoenix project as presently designed.
We are concerned with the proposed density of the project. The
proposed density of 14 one bedroom units on a site originally
designed for four single family units deviates substantially from
the present mix of one, two and three bedroom units on Nottingham
Road.
We are further concerned with the lack of any notice from the
developer concerning the proposed project as we feel we will be
directly impacted by the proposed development.
We are further concerned with the potential increase in
traffic, noise, lack of geological stability and possible loss of
value to existing and adjacent properties. We urge the council to
carefully study the issues.
We urge the council to deny the project as presently designed and
presented.
Sincerely,
Sherwood eadows Association, Inc.
by
Greg A. sterman dote"v-~1 Town of Avon
Vice-President MAY 5 1988
P 0. Box 959
Beaver Geer WorWo 81620
303-9496400
303,'949-1515
303,'949-6018
April 19, 1988
Town Council
Town of Avon,
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado
Colorado
81620
Secretary of State
State of Colorado
1575 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
You are hereby notified that the undersigned has a financial interest in
the Chambertin foundation project (known as lot 46/47, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek Subdivision, Avon, Colorado). The undersigned is a Colorado Real Estate
Broker listing properties at Chambertin owned by the F.D.I.C. This may cause
a conflict of interest as to his exercise of a discretionary function as a
Planning and Zoning Commission member.
The above matters will be coming before various town of Avon commissions and
councils in the next few weeks.
nespectfuliv submitted
VAIL/ SS0 f/1-'IES 1 'EAL STATE, INC.
Chd'r`1 M ~i t'WV-_,
Branch Broker
Planning and Zoning Commission member
Town of Avon
CG:cibm
Va a<soraies .ec - va :
.ea+e :ee .