Loading...
PZC Minutes 072684RECOkD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 26, 1984 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on July 26, 1984 at 6:35 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mike Blair. Members Present: Cheryl Dingwell, Mark Donaldson, Larry Kumpost, tlike Blair, Pat Cuny, Jerry Davis Members Absent: Tom Landauer Staff Present: Jim Lamont, Planning Director - Norm Wood, Director of Public WorkF Dan Foqland, Building Administrator - Maggie Lach, Recording Secty. Bill James, Town Manager, addressed the Planning and Zoning Commission and stated that there was a memo sent to Town Council regarding priorities: 1) 5 year budget; 2) annual budget; and 3) 18 month budget. Stated that some items are difficult to complete because priorities are not clear currently. Fractionalization is priority over the Master Plan. He said he would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to identify specific priorities for the Master Plan. Davis questioned the denial from Town Council regarding the Christie Lodge reduction in parking. Lamont stated there are some problems in our procedures which should be considered: 1) applicant wasn't present to answer questions and concerns of Town Council; 2) information forwarded to Town Council may not have been sufficient; 3) possibly we should have included more of the deliberations from Planning and Zoning or had a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission present to present the views of the Commission and the applicant; and 4) sometimes the Town Council is more concerned with details which the Planning and Zoning Commission may have overlooked. Kumpost and Blair agreed that perhaps Town Council didn't understand the presenta- tion. Blair presented a list of work items which the Commission can add to, delete or rearrange to everyone's liking. Lamont stated that items shouldn't be fast -tracked, and the Commission inust be aware of Staff work load and responsibilities to the Town Council as well. James said that if the Commission has any amendments to the fractionalization ordinance, their comments will be given to Council so that they may take their comments into consideration. Blair mentioned concerns of signs around Town not in accordance with the Town Ordinance. Fogland addressed 2 areas regarding signs: 1) for sale signs; and 2) development signs. He hated that he tried to find records in the Planning and Zoning files regarding 19 signs within the Town and found that there were either no records or no record of action taken. Most of the signs found in Town were not in compliance with the Ordinance. Fogland recommended that future actions be dated so it can be tied down. Commission members agreed that Sign Code should be enforced as it presently exists. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes July 26, 1984 Page 2 of 6 Work Session - Fractionalization Lamont and James met wit—fi the mon Metro District and Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District to ask them to consider the feasability of fractionalization of tap fees based on "smaller units have less impact." Lamont stated that the Avon Metro District was attentive and the Upper Eagle Valley l-;ater and Sanitation District was less than enthusiastic. The concern of the Avon Metro District is that fractionalization is creating more kitchens and potentially more bathrooms so that the next step for them is to look at figures of population projections. Fractionalization - Con't. from July 12, 1984 Regular Meeting Blair stated that Commission would first take action on the Staff report submitted by Fogland regarding signs. Davis motioned to instruct Staff to follow the letter of the law regarding the Sign Code and especially in the case of illegal signs in the Town of Avon. Cuny seconded. Passed unanimously. Blair stated that in reviewing the fractionalization ordinance, Commission members would first discuss items pertaining to philosophy and how the ordinance should work. Lamont stated several points for consideration: 1) conversions, pane 3, paragraph 1. Lamont explained that the ordinance language wouldn't permit conversion of a hotel -lodge TDR to a residential TDR or vice versa nor may any other type of TDR be converted to another type of TDR; 2) Section 17.22.050, Fractional Development Rights, page 4. Lamont posed a question asking in specially planned areas (example, Wildwood) are we obligated to impose standard single family duplex zone districts over the lots which have single family and duplex TDR's so there is special deliniation of areas that cannot have fractionalization, or is the proposed language sufficient to cover the Commission's concerns; 3) Page 5, paragraph 4, Section E mentioned; 4) Section 17.22.040, page 4. Lamont asked where the line is drawn on time, on what projects, and does it apply to pre-existing projects; 5) Page 8, Section 17.28.090, Zoning of Annexed Territories. Lamont stated that there is no procedure for granting TDR's once a property is annexed. He stated that zoning by County level should be guaranteed once they come into Town. Second point raised: on property that is brought in that doesn't have a Master Plan, should it be given ;in SPA zone. If a property doesn't have a Master Plan, they would stay at the pre-existing County zoning until they bring in development plans that demon- strates what they want to do with the property. The Town will determine if a plan is coi;:patible with existing Master Plan or if we need to modify our existing Master Plan if we like their development plan. If development plan is acceptable, we zone it to our closest zone district and then grant TDR's on that proposal. Blair posed a question: shall we allow transfer of residential units to hotel -lodge units and shall we allow lodge units to be transferred back to residential units. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes July 26, 1984 Page 3 of 6 Lot 70, Blk. 2., B.S. - Empire Sav in_gs DesI9n Review - Fence Fogland state tat app scant we to install a wooden fence along the western property line to prevent snow accumulation in the drive up teller units. Proposed fence will be 4 x 4 cedar posts with 1 x 4 cedar slats. The height of the fence is 5'4" above grade and is located 41z" inside the property line. He stated that the fence would begin 8' south of the northwest corner and continue south for a distance of 136'. 2 considerations mentioned by Fogland are that fence is highly visible and suggested 1 x 4 cedar slats on both sides of the fence. Fogland stated that applicant had submitted drawings and photo of proposed fence. Carol Dahlinger, applicant and manager for Empire Savings stated her concern is of drifting snow from the adjacent vacant lot which damages drive up teller units each year. She assured the Commission that Empire would maintain the fence. Donaldson felt that the location of the proposed ence would worsen the situation of drifting snow. Kumpost stated that the snow would move in from the northwest and would create air turbulence around the fence and cause drifting in the middle of the drive. Cuny stated concerns as an adjacent property owner of vacant lot: 1) fence would not be aesthetically attractive because it is only going along part of the lot; and 2) felt that board fences were unattractive and other alternatives should be pur- sued. Dingwell asked if there would be landscaping along the fence. Dahlinger stated that there is landscaping on their side of proposed fence. Blair asked how far the fence was within the property line. Staff stated 4'-z". Davis saw no problem approving the fence, but respected comments from Donaldson and Kumpost as architects who felt fence wouldn't work. Donaldson felt fence wasn't compatible with building materials in place. Rick Cuny, adjacent property owner of vacant lot made public comment stating that wooden fence would detract from an attractive building and that materials should be the same type. Blair commented that in view of the discussion, perhaps applicant would consider continuing item to another meeting. Kumpost and Donaldson suggested that a combination brick pier/wood fence would maintain consistency of building design. Dingwell suggested that height of fence could then b. reduced in view of suggested design of fence. Dahlinger requested a continuance to another meeting so that other alternatives could be reviewed. Blair stated that this item be continued to a future meeting. Tract G, Blk. 2, B.S. - S.R.U. - Junior Village Day Care Center - Playground in Town Mall Fogland stated that applicant was proposing to use a portio— nof the own en er Mall for a playground area. He mentioned 6 items for consideration: 1) what are the long range plans and objectives and uses for Town Center Mall; 2) approval be based on yearly basis; 3) since this is publicly owned property, consider liability, license agreement, removal of equipment and contracts; 4) will the public be able to use the area; 5) a bond or guarantee for replacement or damage to Mall area should be secured; and 6) determine exact location and type of equipment to be used. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes July 26, 1984 Page 4 of Tract G, Blk. 2, B.S. - S.R.U. - Junior Village Day Care Center - Playground in Town Miall, Con't. Hen Hoc stetter, applicant and owner of Junior Village stated that all 6 points were discussed at the Avon Mall Committee meeting on July 12, 1984, and she felt that all points were agreed to. She stated that she would take care of insurance, escrow money to bring area back to original state and that the use was only until the end of the summer season. Cuny asked how long the playground would be in place. Hochstetter stated that it will be used for the remainder of the summer and that it would be used while Avon Center is being black topped. Cuny said that equipment would then be moved and put on new playground to be built next year. Hochstetter answered yes and that equipment is made to order and built in pieces for easy removal. Wood stated that Mall Committee had given approval, but that this must still be presented to Town Council for approval. Greg Gage, representative for Peregrine Village who owns 33% of the mall, made public comment stating that he felt the use was appropriate and safe and that it would not detract from the mall area. Blair asked if anyone could use the area when school was not in session. Hochstetter answered yes and the equipment is sturdy and comparable to that in the Avon Park. Donaldson motioned to approve the Special Review Use for a playground area for Junior Village on Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision as submitted with the conditions that compliance with suggestions of Town Attorney regarding such areas as liability, license agreements, removal of equipment, and contracts be adhered to; that some provisions be made fora bond or guarantee for replacement end/or damage to the mall area; that approval expire November 1, 1984 and that equipment be moved November 1, 1984. Davis seconded. Donaldson stated that finding 2 of the Special Review Use was consistent with the objectives and purposes of the Zoning Code. Kumpost amended motion to include that approval complys with items 1-3 of the Special Review Use on the basis that placement of the playground is temporary. Dingwell seconded. Passed unanimously. Lots 29 & 30, Blk. 2, B.S. - Conceptual Review - First Bank of Avon - Traffic Flew Con't. from 7/12/84 Regular Meeting Blair stated that applicant had submitted letter requesting a continuation on their conceptual review to the next regular meeting of August 16, 1984. Other Business Wood stated that a contractor had contacted him regarding backfill storage on Lots 32 and 33, Block 2, Benchmark Subidivion. blood stated that the contractor would be replacing retaining walls at Chambertin and needed an area to store the dirt temporarily. Wood stated that he was looking for direction from the Planning and Zoning members. The Commission agreed that the contractor should apply for design review of the retaining walls and submit a plan for the dirt storage. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes July 26, 1984 Page 5 of 6 Other Business, Con't. Kumpost stated that he had addressed the Swift Gulch project at the Town Council meeting. He had suggested that subdivision and road designs be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Town Council stated that they would address those issues at their next work session. Cuny mentioned concerns of the Benchmark Trailer Park fence which is need of paint and repair. Fractionalization Con't. Conversions: Kumpost felt lock -offs should be deleted from the ordinance and motioned to strike the sentence on page 3, line 9 starting "Residential TDR shall not... type of TDR unit." Kumpost explained that intention of motion was 1) they can convert between the 2; and 2) those units that were originally sold as accommodation units be clarified, in that they now have a 34 density right. Cuny seconded. Passed unanimously. Commission members discussed granting and receiving zones at length. Kumpost motioned that Planning and Zoning recommend to Town Council that in order to maintain the integrity of S.F. and duplex neighborhoods until such time Master Planning may determine otherwise, that the wording be developed to indicate that any lot that currently has 1 or 2 density units assigned to it, may not be fractionalized and may not receive additional TDR's, but could transfer density out. Cuny seconded. Motion died due to lack of ayes. Greg Gage, speaking from audience suggested that Planning Town council to draw the line at certificates of occupanty. his point is that units aren't established until a project condominium map is approved and a certificate of occupancy time the Town can establish how many units you've used and transfer the units out. Lamont stated that philosophically, every project in fractionalize or transfer excess rights out, however, a whole set of unresolvable problems. and Zoning recommend to He explained that is surveyed and a is received; at that then the developgr can existence should be able to administratively it created Blair and Lamont suggested a work session to be scheduled for August 9, 1984 regarding the fractionalization ordinance. There being no further business to discuss, Davis motioned to adjourn the meeting. Cuny seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM. i pectfully Submitd; MZrgaetr M. Lach Recording Secretary Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes July 26, 1984 Page 6 of 6 Commission Approval: Date: M. Blair P. Cuny _ J. Davis T. Landau L. Kumpos M. Donald C. Di ngwe