Loading...
PZC Minutes 102584RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 25, 1984 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on October 25, 1984 at 6:40 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mike Blair. Members Present: Mike Blair, Mark Donaldson, Larry Kumpost. Tom Landauer 7:05 PM. Members Absent: Jerry Davis Pat Cuny, Cheryl Dingwell, arrived at approximately Staff Present: Dan Fogland, Building and Zoning Administrator - Maggie Lach Recording Secretary Work Session Fogland resented sample drafts of the Sign Code Districts. Discussion included Residential Project signs, Individual Business Site signs, and Multiple Business �ite signs. Intention of discussion was to establish number of signs, heights and sizes for each group and district. Regular Meeting Agenda Items - 7:30 PM The minutes were deferred to the next regular meeting to be held on November 15, 1984. - First Bank of Avon Fogland explained L.,at applicant was requesting placement of a development sign on Lot 30, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The sign is 5' 4" x 3' and 8' in height. The lettering and border of the sign will be green with natural 4 x 4 support posts. The sign complies with the current Town of Avon Sign Code. Doug Ealeston, representative for applicant, First Bank of Avon, stated that development of the bank is tentatively scheduled for May 1, 1985 and that the development sign probably would not be in place any longer than that time. Dingwell motioned to approve the development sign for First Bank of Avon, Lot 30, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek as submitted, and that placement of the sign is not to exceed 2 years. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes October 25, 1984 Page 2 of 5 Lots 57-60, Block 2, BM @ BC - Temporary Parking - Vail Associates, Inc. Fogland stated that applicant was requesting temporary parking usage on Lots 57-60, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek for the 1984-'85 ski season (November '84 - April 15, 1985). Fogland reviewed application with Norm Wood, Director of Public Works and Wood had stated that he had no problems with the way the lot was used in February, 1984. Previous staff report with action taken at the February 23, 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was included for Commission review. Steve Pappa of Beaver Creek Transit, representing applicant, Vail Associates, Inc stated that use was primarily the same as last year, although heavier use was anticipated for the 1984-'85 ski season. He explained that they would use the lot for Vail Associates employees and any construction people working in Beaver Creek. This would free up the west day skier lot at Beaver Creek, making more space available for skiing guests. Cuny asked if there would be a parking attendant at the lot and if signage would be in place. Pappa stated there would be an attendant and a sign stating "construction and employee parking only for Vail Associates" or something similar to that. He further stated that the lot would be gravelled to prevent mud tracking onto the streets and that they would also be installing a temporary light pale fixture for early morning and evening hours. Pappa stated that Vail Associates does have verbal approval from the owners of the lot. He also said that access to the lot would be from Avon Road. Cuny asked how many cars would be in the lot. Pappa stated approximately 200 - 225 cars. Dingwell motioned to approve the temporary parking for Vail Associates on Lots 57-60, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek with the conditions that 1) approval is to terminate at the end of the 1984-'85 ski season; 2) applicant shall limit mud tracking onto streets; 3) applicant to restore site to eliminate dust; and 4) contingent upon written approval of property owner for intended use, and that written approval be submitted to the Town. Donaldson seconded. Passed unanimously. Lots 67 & 68, Block 2, BM @ BC - Cano Extension Qesion Review - Cit Market Foglan stated that app scant was proposing to exten its current canopy on the front of the building 72' to the northeast and would cover the existing double doors on the northeast end of the building. The proposed construction is iden- tical in construction, materials and colors as the existing canopy. Questions were raised as to the purpose of the canopy extension. Fogland stated that applicant was not present, but it was assumed that canopy would be used for protection of various items that would be placed outside of the store during winter months, i.e., Christmas trees, firewood, etc. Kumpost and Donaldson felt that the canopy extension would not be detrimental to the looks of the building. Cuny mentioned concerns of the City Market sign being moved during construction and stated that the border of the City Market sign had not been painted to match the building. Landauer motioned to approve the City Market canopy extension on Lots 67 & 68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek as submitted. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes October 25, 1984 Page 3 of 5 Lots 73/74, Block 2, BM @ BC - S.R.U. - Time Share - Savoy Square Fogland stated that applicant was requesting approval for time share on the proposed Savoy Square project on Lots 73/74, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. These lots are currently zoned RHDC which allows time sharing as a Special Review Use, and that there are currently 71 development rights existing on those lota. Fogland said that the application was basically a zoning use approval request. Dennis Cole, attorney representing applicant, Investors B.C. Development Assoc., and Bill Williams, also representing applicant, were present for discussion. Cole stated that applicant wanted to construct a time share project on Lots 73/74, but that there had been no determination made yet on the number of units in the project. He further stated that through involvement with other time share projects, the most marketable unit is a 1 bedroom unit of approximately 600 S.F. He stated that based upon current Fractionalization Ordinance, they could build 142 1 bedroom units with an average S.F. of 900 S.F. Cole explained that accommodation suite idea was under consideration by the Town, so that approximately 200 units of acconinodation suites of about 600 S.F. each or a combination thereof could be built. He stated that it is applicants intention to operate the project as a hotel. He further explained that units that are built and ready for occupancy, but are not sold could be rented, as in a hotel, and units that are sold would be rented when not used by owner. Cole said that this project would have substantially more amenities than a normal hotel and if all necessary approvals were obtained, construction would commence in the spring of 1985. Sales would hopefully commence in December of 1985. Applicant intends to have U.S. Home Corporation market the time share units and are trying to set up a time schedule with construction so that units will be ready for sales and occupancy at the same time U.S. Homes has finished sales in the Christie Lodge. Cole is aware that before project receives final approval from the Town, that they must meet design approval for the construction and prior to that the Subdivision approval process must be met, along with plat require- ments. The Public Hearing was then opened to the public. Kumpost asked what types of amenities would be available. Cole stated that there would be a swimming pool, saunas, Jacuzzis, and that applicant would like to provide normal amenities of a health club. Bill Williams, representative of applicant, stated they wanted a package of amenities available that stay with the hotel entity. The idea is to rent space to a health club with the amenities already in place so that if the health club leaves, the amenities will stay. Kumpost asked if the project would have a management company that would be permanent and if the sales would be fee simple. Cole explained that when a week s sold, the deed is fee simple and is delivered to the purchaser. Coloradn law says that interval ownership projects have to have a period of time when its actually operated as a time share project. But at some point in time, that time share project has to end, and at that point the owners become tenants-in-common. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes October 25, 1984 Page 4 of 5 Lots 73/74, Block 2, BM @ BC - S.R.U. - Time Share - Savo S uare, Con't. t� UT time t e owners can continue the time s are project or t ey can partition the property. Cole used the Christie Lodge as an example and explained that the Condominium Declarations provide for ownership under a time share plan. The owners, through the owners association can vote to continue the time share program for an additional 10 years. If they vote not to, then they own as tenants-in-common, and there is a partitioning. There is an estimation of the approximate useful life of the building and assume as that time arrives that the property is going to have a greater value for another purpose and by a majority vote, the owners as tenants-in-common can sell the entire property dividing the proceeds among themselves. Owners have fee simple interest and own an undivided interest in the land, and owner agrees pursuant to the condominium declarations, that the time share program for the interval use will continue for the life of the building. The developer will initially hire the property management company, but thereafter the condominium association hires the management company. Dingwell asked why time sh%re salespeople are now required to have a real estate license. Cole stated that when Christie Lodge was approved by the Real Estate Commission, they gave Christie Lodge an exemption from the requirement that the salespeople be licensed, based on the fact that if you're selling your own product, your employees can sell it for you if they are salaried employees. Since that time, Colorado legislation passed a time sharing act: it requires certain disclosures regarding information, in writing, about the project. It also requires :hat every time share purchaser has a 5 day right of recision. Colorado legislation now requires that all time share projects, even if developer is owner, can no longer rely on the exemption, but have to use licensed real estate people within the State. Cuny mentioned concerns of time share salesmanship and tactics used. Cole stated that this was a legitimate complaint, and that he or the broker should be informed of undesireable marketing techniques. There being no one in the audience wishing to be heard, the Public Hearing was closed. Landauer motioned to approve, with conditions, the Special Review Use for Savoy Square, Lots 73/74, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The Commission found the application to comply with Section 17.20.020 of the Avon Municipal Code, items 1 - 3. Approval was conditional upon: subject to applicant obtaining all other necessary Town of Avon approvals and approval to expire 2 years after Avon Town Council approval, unless a building permit is obtained within this 2 year period. Dingwell seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes October 25, 1984 Page 5 of 5 Other Business 09 aF�l n mined the accommodation requested a joint afternoon meeting for November 13, 1984. suite idea and stated that Town Council with the Planning and Zoning Commission Fogland informed the Commission that the Northwest Colora•lo Council of Governments was meeting on November 2-3, 1984 at Copper Mountain and -those interested should let him know so he could make arrangements for registration. The field trip that was to be taken by the Commission to other areas similar to Avon was deferred to the spring of 1985. Dingwell mentioned concerns of Benchmark Shopping Center parking lot. Fogland stated that he spoke with Jim Cunningham, and as an informational item, they had plans for a sign program, but that the parking lot would probably remain the same until the spring. They are attempting to subdivide the property and that would require a revision of the current parking. The Development Committee is looking at the possibility of an access road there and eliminating the tripod intersection area, which would occur in the spring also. Satellite dishes were discussed with minor wording changes to Fogland's memo. Cuny mentioned concerns of Ice Cream 'N Cookies having a white sign instead of conforming with all the other signs currently at Christie Lodge. She also mentioned that Western Sun Sports was the only sign conforming with the sign program there. There being no further business to discuss, Dingwell motioned to adjourn. Cuny seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM. respectfully Su it Mar a t M. Lach Recording Secretary Commission Approval M. Blair P. Cuny J. Davis T. Landa L. Kumpo M. Donal C. Dingwell Date