Loading...
PZC Minutes 071284RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 12, 1984 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on July 12, 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 Vice Chairman Mike Blair. Members Present: Mike Blair, Cheryl Dingwell, Mark Donaldson, Pat Cuny, Larry Kumpost, Jerry Davis Members Absent: Tom Landauer Staff Present: Jim Lamont, Planning Director - Norm Wood, Director of Public Works Dan Fogland, Building Administrator - Maggie Lach, Recording Secty. Wlork Session Blair introduced Cheryl Blair suggested election Davis motioned that Mike Dingwell seconded. Blair abstained. Motion carried. Dingwell as new Planning and Zoning member. of officers. Blair be elected as Chairperson. Blair suggested election of Vice Chairperson. Cuny motioned to elect Jerry Cavis as Vice Chairperson. Donaldson seconded. Davis abstained. Motion carried. Blair suggested that nominations for Secretary be opened. Donaldson motiond to nominate Larry Kumpost. Davis seconded. Davis motioned to cease nominations. Cuny seconded. Kumpost abstained. Motion carried. Fractionalization Blair stated that Ordinance 84-10 be read and discussed with Planning and Zoninq Members. Record sows that Tom Landauer arrived for the meeting at approximate y Lamont stated that the fractionalization formula concludes that fewer people live in a smaller unit than in a larger unit. Population equivalencies show a 3 bedroom unit can house as many as 6 people. An inventory of current housing indicates that large units are the norm and the Town needs to encourage a variety of housing types. In order to maintain a population balance, a gross S.F. limitation is necessary. Lamont stated some important points for consideration: 1) applicability of fractionalization to existing projects; 2) a hotel -lodge TDR can't be fractionalized; 3) may need add;tional section that would allow the Town Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to allocate new TDR's to properties within the Town. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes July 12, 1984 Pace 2of8 Reading and Approval of P & Z Minutes of 6/28/84 Re , jg Meeting Davis motione�to approve the minutes o t e June 8, 1��84 meeting as presented. Landauer seconded. Passed unanimously. Tract B, Block 1, B.S. - Heritage Cablevision - Microwave Site - Con't. from 6/28/84 Regular Meeting Wood stated that applicants request for withdrawal of the application should officially be put in the minutes for accurate tracking of documents. Dingwell mctioned to accept the applicants withdrawal of application for a microwave site on Tract B, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision. Cuny seconded. Passed unanimously. Lots 25, 26, 27, 28, & 35, Blk. 2, B.S. - S.R.U. - Christie Lodge - Reduction in Parking - Con't. from 6/14/84 Regular Meeting _ Cuny stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Wood stated that he had reviewed the site plan for Christie Lodge and found they have a total of 401 spaces available. Based on current uses, parking requirements under the Ordinance is 423 spaces, leaving the Christie Lodge project 22 spaces short. Under a Special Review Use procedure, up to a 15% reduction in parking requirements can be allowed for a large lot, or up to 63 spaces. With the maximum reduction for large lots, 360 spaces would be required giving them a surplus of 41 spaces. This would make spaces available to lease out as requested for Buck Creek Plaza. The Buck Creek Plaza request is to allow off-site parking. Wood stated that Buck Creek Plaza is proposing to develop 1,405 S.F. of office space in the basement with a parking requirement of 5 spaces. These spaces are not available on-site. A letter from the Christie Lodge Owners Association states that they will agree to lease up to 7 spaces at the southeast corner of the existing parking structure. The requirements for off-site parking are that office and residential space be within 300 feet or industrial uses be within 500 feet of the space. Wood suggested that this be acted on as 2 separate matters. Dingwell questioned lease regarding when the 7 year term ended and asked if the price on the leased space was raised, where does that leave the lessee. Rick Cuny, applicant for C.J. Inc. in the Buck Creek Plaza, stated that the agreement letter states that the lease rate has a ceiling and a floor and the price will be based on consumer price index. Dingwell questioned what would happen at the end of 7 years. Dennis Cole, representative for Christie Lodge Owners Association, stated that problem would be addressed when the lease was renewed. Blair stated 2 points for consideration: 1) need to be sure that parking is maintained and adequate and will net overburden either project because of design or location; 2) personal observation is that people park at the Deli and walk to Christie, indicating a need to control parking. Planning and Zoning July 12, 1984 Page 3 of 8 Meeting Minutes Lots 25, 26, 27, 28, & 35, Blk. 2, B.S. - S.R.U. - Christie Lodge - Reduction in Parkino - Con't. from 6/14/84 Reaular Meetina. Cont_ uoie suggestea tnat Lnri parking lot. Lamont mentioned that he the applicant. stie woul encourage owners and employees to use the rear had discussed possible expansion of the parking lot with Kumpost motioned to approve the Christie Lodge Special Review Use for a 15% reduction in parking requirements on Lots 25, 26, 27, 28,'& 35, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision based on the findings that: 1) the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code; 2) the proposed use is consis- tent with the objectives and purposes of the Zoning Code and applicable Zoning district; and Finding 3) the proposed use is designed to be compatible with surrounding land use and uses in the area, does not apply. Landauer seconded. Dingwell commented that Finding 2 justifies the reduction in parking because of the multi -use of the Christie Lodge. Cuny abstained. Motion passed. Blair stated that the secoid item for consideration and action was the request for approval of off-site parking spaces for Buck Creek Plaza as allowed in the Town Ordinance. Dingwell motioned to approve the application of C.J. Inc., Buck Creek Plaza, for off-site parking with the condition that directional signage be put up to indicate the location of the additional parking. Cuny, applicant and representative for C.J. Inc. stated they would specifically put in the office space lease that lessee will be required to park in off-site spaces which will be assigned. Kumpost seconded. Dingwell amended motion to include that if possession of parking spaces is by lease, the term of the parking space lease will be perpetual in nature running for the duration of the use requiring the parking. Cole, representative for the Christie Lodge Owners Association stated that the lease between Christie Lodge Owners Association and C.J. Inc. would be for the same period of time as the office space lease. Kumpost amended second. Wood stated that a further requirement is that leases for off-site parking spaces be recorded at the office of the County Clerk and Recorder. Dingwell amended motion to include that. Kumpost amended second. Cuny abstained. Motion passed. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes July 12, 1984 Page 4of8 Lots 57-60, Blk. 2, B.S. - S.R.U. - Lodge at Avon - Lock -Off Units in TC District Con't. from 6/28/84 Reoular Meeting Cunt' reicined Commission discussion. Wood stated that the Special Review Use request is to allow lock -offs as part of the Lodge at Avon project. He stated that lock -offs are permitted in the TC Zone District as a Special Review Use. Wood mentioned some items of note: 1) the proposed project consists of 31 efficiency and 1 bedroom units ranging in size from 1,000-1,500 S.F. with each unit having 1 or 2 lock -off accommodation units. These numbers are based upon the conceptual plan which was presented to the Planning and Zoning Comm-lission at an earlier meeting; 2) the proposed project is located on Lots 57-60 and extends across lot lines. Assigned units for each lot are: Lot 57- 0 units, Lot 58 - 20 units, Lot 59 - 0 units, and Lot 60 - 50 units. Wood stated that lots should be resubdivided, vacating lot lines or that units should be assigned to the lots where the project is proposed. He further stated that approval is only to allow lock -offs and is not based on an approved plan. It will still be necessary to complete the full review process for the project. Bill Pierce, applicant and representing the Lodge at Avon, distributed brochures showing floor plans and stated that they showed: 1) no cooking facilities in the lock -offs; 2) more than enough parking for the project, and 3) the proposed project is well under the allowed density for lots. Pierce stated they plan to build 31 condominium units and there is a potential for over 400 parking spaces which is considerably more than required for 31 condominium units with 1 or 2 lock -offs per unit as proposed. Kumpost motioned to approve the Special Review Use allowing lock -offs for Lodge at Avon on Lots 57-60, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision based on the findings that the Special Review Use conforms with items 1-3, with the condition that approval is limited to 31 units with not more than 1 or 2 lock -off accommodation units per each unit and not more than 3 bedrooms per unit. Cuny seconded. Passed unanimously. Lots 26-28, Blk. 1, B.S. - Vail Building Arts - Project I.D. Sign - Design Review Fogland stated that the applicant is requesting approval for a sign approximately 7' in length by 2'x3" in height with a total mounted height of 8'. The sign appears to comply with Section 15.20.048, items 1-3. A site plan has been submitted and the colors proposed are purple and green for letters on a beige background. Les Shapiro, applicant and partner of Vail Building Arts stated that they are entering into a marketing program to pre -lease space at the Mountain Center. Blair stated that drawing of the sign presented says space for lease. Davis asked if it was a development sign if no development was approved and you advertise something that's not approved. Shapiro stated they were being conservative in their actions; trying the concept of pre -leasing prior to approval of building design. Lamont stated that in drafting of the Sign Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hadn't reached a concensus of what a development sign is and this may fall under a variance request because the development has not been approved. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes July 12, 1984 Page 5 of 8 Lots 26-28, Blk. 1, B.S. - Vail Building Arts - Project I.D. Sign - Design Review Con't. Davis stated he had a problem approving a sign when in fact a development may not occur. Lamont stated that he didn't find this type of sign objectionable and it does help in marketing the property. He felt it would be more proper if it were a variance request rather than trying to construe the existing Ordinance to mean something it doesn't. Blair asked what spec'.fically it would be a variance from. Lamont answered from the Sign Code, specifically Zone Districts and the IC Zone. He stated he wouldn't find this objecticnable and would recommend a sign similar to this as long as it states tle potential use of the property and not get into forms of advertising, which are more specific such as 75,000 S.F. Blair stated the Ordinance doesn't say a development sign can't be located before development is approved. Kumpost stated that this sign seemed to be generating business, whereas a for sale sign might imply a depressed area and suggested that wording could be chanoed somewhat and still be able to get the message across. Lamont stated that he would hesitate on including 75,000 S.F. on the sign because there is no definitive way to say what that is at this time. If it said proposed space, it would be more acceptable. Landauer agreed with Kumpost regarding the wording that might say Mountain Center, proposed wholesale, retail, commercial space with the realtor phone number. Dingwell agreed. Blair felt uses, realtor name and number could stay on siqn. Kumpost motioned to approve the site development sign on Lots 26-28, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision with sign stating Future Site of the Mountain Center, wholesale, r --ail and commercial space, and that it include realtor name and phone number and with the condition the sign is subject to review in 1 year and approval is not to exceed 2 years. Laniauer seconded. Cuny asked what the sign would be made of. Shapiro stated it would be an unlighted, one-sided sign painted on plywood. Kumpost amended motion to include that approval was given as a variance to the Sign Code. Landauer amended second. Cuny opposed. Motion carried. Blair questioned applicant as to colors and materials to be used. Shapiro stated background would be beige with green letters outlined in purple. Materials would be plywood on 2 4x4 posts and the color on the sign would be sealed. Dingwell motioned to approve the colors and materials as designated. Landauer seconded. Cuny opposed. Motion carried. Planning and July 12, 1984 Page 6 of 8 Zoning Meeting Minutes Parcel 2, Swift Gulch - Excavation and Revegetation - Design Review - Con't. from Blair reminded commission that a dela trip or the area was taKen on July 9, 1964 and all members of Commission were present except Jerry Davis and that Wood and Lamont were present. Lamont explained that applicant wishes to remove 35,000 cubic yards of earth, that vegetation would be removed and all disturbed areas would be revegetated. He had researched the rules and regulations for the zone district and any kind of site work affiliated with a building has to go through the approval process under the Design Review Guidelines. Lamont stated 4 items of consideration: 1) suitability of the improvement; 2) nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements; 3) quality of materials to be utilized; and 4) visual appearance of any proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent or neighboring properties. Al Testa, representative for the applicant, Section 36, Inc. acknowledged concerns for types of revegetation of excavation area, presented new grading and contour maps and explained the proposal. He stated revegetation would include oats, wild flowers, and native grasses. He would like to seed in September or October. Cuny motioned to approve the excavation and revegetation of Parcel 2, Swift Gulch Addition as shown on the revised contour maps. Dingwell seconded. Davis questioned the procedure of the item. Lamont stated that Design Review Board Rules and Regulations says you can't grade or change anything without coming to Planning and "Zoning; part of the previous presentation led one to believe the proposal was for site preparation for a shopping center. They have a right, as owner of the property, to move dirt if they meet the Planning and Zoning regulations. He stated this was a new situation and a compromise was worked out during the field trip to make minor modifications taking most of the dirt out of the backside to reduce scarring of the public view corridors. Blair asked if proper procedure was followed. Lamont answered yes. Motion passed unanimousl;. Lots 29 & 30, Blk. 2, B.S. - First Bank of Avon - Cance tual Review - Traffic Flow air state that letter from app scant requesting a continuation had DeFn received. Cuny motioned 'Go accept applicants request for a continuation to the next regular meeting on July 26, 1984. Dingwell seconded. Passed unanimously. Lot 63. Blk. 2. B.S. - PPL Lamont stated that applicant was maKing headway and snouta De coming in w next month to report on the situation. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes July 12, 1984 Page 7 of 8 Lot 56, Blk. 2, W.R. - Coyote Ridge Condominiums - Design Review - Duplex Structure Con't. from 6/28/84 Regular Meeting Donaldson stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Fogland stated that this application was presented at the June 28, 1984 regular meeting. A motion at that meeting approved one duplex with a stipulation that minor revisions be made to the other duplex to diminish the similarities of the 2 residences. Fogland stated that applicant submitted a revised plan and a letter with several points, one of which regards Zoning and Planning and Zoning Pules and Regulations. Roy Amadee, applicant and managing partner for Coyote Construction stated that an approval would be consistent with existing projects in Wildridge. They have made basic cosmetic changes to building. Original intention was to have a condominium project with the 2 structures having an identity with each other and it was not their desire to change them from a structural standpoint. Applicant presented photos of projects in Wildridge. Amadee stated they had changed the color of the siding and stucco on the structure and also the landscaping. Commission members read letter submitted with application and reviewed plans and color renderings. Blair pointed out that in Procedures, Rules and Regulations, Section 5.00, A-E, Design Guidelines, states that the Board shall consider the following in design, "The objective is that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired." Blair stated that it was an item to be considered and that his observation was that an effort was made to comply with the Commission's request. Amadee felt that any further attempt to change the building would destroy its integrity. Davis motioned to accept application for Lot 56, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision with proposed changes and that it conforms with previous approval as far.as land- scaping plans and drainage. Kumpost seconded. Donaldson abstained. Motion passed. Other Business Planning and Zoning review of road designs was mentioned. Kumpost was asked to write letter to Town Council regarding the Swift Gulch excavation project and to express concerns regarding overall regulations. Cuny expressed concerns regarding development signs on parcels that have no development. Fogland stated that he had started an inventory of signs and will report at the next meeting. Davis expressed concerns regarding the Sign Cade. Blair felt procedures should have priority and suggested copies of Planning and Zoning Rules and Regulations be provided to all Commission members. There being no further business to discuss, Davis motioned to adjourn the meeting. Landauer seconded. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 PM. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes July 12, 1984 Page 8 of 8 espectfully Sub:,d,5? Margar6 Lac h Recording Secretary Commission Approval: k/ ! Date: V /lo d M. Blair P. Cuny J. Davis T. Landa L. Kumpo M. Doral C. Dingwell a�