Loading...
PZC Minutes 022384RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 1984, 6:50 PM The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on February 23, 1984, at 6:50 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meetino was called to order by Vice Chairman Mike Blair. Members Present: Mike Blair, Clint Watkins, Jim Meehan, Tom Landauer Members Absent: Jerry Davis, Pat Cuny, Bill Pierce Staff Present: Jim Lamont, Planning Director, Maggie Lach, Recording Secretary Sign Code L out plans to schedule another Master Plan tour of Avon. The next tour will deal with signs and standards. Town of Vail standards are used in the work copy; parentheses are left blank so that the Commission members can put in numbers that they think would work for Avon. Goal is to have straightforward Sign Code so it will be easier for the public to understand and the Staff to administrate. Sections addressed and discussed at meeting were: Intent and Purpose, Application and Approvals Required, Application Procedures, Applicants Right of Appeal, Appeals to Town Council, Sign Permit Fees, Resubmittal Fees, Non -Conforming Signs, and Administrative Procedures. Reading and Approval of P & Z Minutes of 2/9/84 Regular _Meeting WatTi ns moved to approve the minutes of the February 9, 1984 meeting as present?d. Landauer seconded. Blair suggested that the topic on the presentation on "Elimination of Certain Land Uses" should include a conclusion stating that "The Commission took no formal action." Watkins amended motion. Landauer amended second. Motion passed unanimously. - Lots 29-32. Block 2. B. Lamont gave a verbal report stating that Dennis Cole, attorney representing Coldwell Banker, would be unable to be present at the meeting, but did ask Lamont to inform the Commission that they were willing to remove the words "Commercial Real Estate Services" from the sign, and queried whether the sign would then meet the stipulations of the Sign Code and the Commission. Blair asked what effect that change would have. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 2/23/84 Page 2 of 5 Roadca1 Si n Review - Lots 29-32, Block 2, B.S., Con't. amont state that it wouldremo_e the wor s Commercial Real Estate Servi-es" from what he considered as a real estate sign. C,;mmission had originally determined the proposal as a development sign and gave Staff final approval over the sign. Lamont had rejected the sign based on the above line. Coldwell Banker informed Lamont that they would remove it. It would now be a question of whether it met the Commission's view of what was originally determined. Cole also reaffirmed that they would take the sign down 60 days from the time the new Sign Code was passed. Blair questioned what their stated purpose of the sign was. Lamont answered to sell real estate. Lamont pointed out that this sign would be considered as a non -conforming sign under the proposed code. Meehan felt it was a subterfuge to call the proposal a "Development'Sign". Blair stated that it clearly was not a "Development Sign". Lamont said that if the sign said bank site, hotel site, or something similar, and then had a real estate company listed, it would be more conforming and consistent with the sign variance granted for the Wildwood sign. Lamont felt that this was a bad practice to allow real estate signs. He believes it would leave a bad impression in a potential investor's mind if they were to come into the community and see "For Sale" signs posted everywhere; it gives the image of speculation rather than a permanent community. Meehan stated that if applicant wants a sign, let it be a project sign based on an approved Master Plan. Meehan made motion to disapprove sign, but withdrew that motion due to the lack of a second to the motion. Watkins motioned to approve the sign, but there was no second to the motion. Meehan stated that he felt that it's a mistake to allow a sign that specifically states 6 acres without a declaration of uses, which would make it a development sign; Sign Code is addressed to development signs. Lamont clarified the definition of a development sign. Blair felt it important to find out from the Commission if they felt that this was a development sign allowed under the Sign Code. Lamont read ordinance pertaining to development signs. Blair reiterated that in his view, the sign was not a development sign. Lament stated that he told applicant to bring sign in as development sign. Blair asked Lamont if he felt that it could be a development sign if the line "Commercial Real Estate Services" was deleted. Lamont stated that content of sign didn't meet code; code doesn't say anything about size of the acreage. Meehan motioned to disapprove the sign on the basis that it does not conform to the Sign Code; signs may only name the project name, address of owner, contractor, architect, or real estate broker. Landauer seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. r Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 2/23/84 Page 3 of 5 Vail Associates, Inc. ParkinLot - Lots 57-60, Block 2, B.S. etter giving authorization rom own to 5 il Associates questioned by Blair regarding the dates of use for parking, stating use for February 17-20, 1984. Blair asked if this lot was used already and if the dates were in fact incorrect for this meeting. Bob McIlveen, representing Vail Associates, stated that Vail Associates was in need of emergency parking usage for President's Holiday and asked for permission from the Town. Vail Associates did not use the lot that weekend, but did apply to Planning and Zoning for permanent usage until the end of the ski season, clarifying the dates mentioned in the letter from the Town. McIlveen presented a site plan showing access and parking plan. Stated that there is paved access into the lot and that they would not put up any signage or, street or parking on street. Blair clarified that Vail Associates was asking for temporary parking for over- flow skiers for approximately 175 to 185 cars. McIlveen stated that Vail Associates may never use the lot for parking, and have not needed it to date, but the possibility exists since skier days have risen 20% more than anticipated. Blair questioned what will happen when Beaver Creek is in full swing. The situation will have to be addressed in the Master Plan. McIlveen stated that there is a long-range proposal for a parking structure in the east parking lot of Beaver Creek. Norm Wood, Director of Public Works, stated that present ordinance doesn't address this type of situation, but had outlined specific items that should be considered so that there are some guidelines available. Staff report items 1-7 were addressed and discussed. Blair felt that the lot should be restored in some way after use. McIlveen stated that Vail Associates planned on putting a roadbase down because of mud. Watkins moved to approve the temporary parking for Vail Associates, Inc. on Lots 57-60, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision with conditions that approval terminate at the end of the 1983/84 ski season; that the applicant make efforts to limit the tracking of mud onto the streets and highways; that the applicant restore the site at the end of the use period, especially to eliminate dust, and that the Town receive a copy of approval from the owner for this use. Landauer seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. McIlveen asked for clarification of restoration of site regarding gravel or reseeding. Lamont stated that the peripheral areas should be restored where no roadbase had been put down. Blair added as a footnote to the motion, the Commission primarily wants to prevent dust from occurrina and that could be done by either leaving the roadbase that's applied or reseed, but also when use is completed for the season, to reseed the peripheral areas that miqht have been distrubed that don't have roadbase on them. It's understood that there may be a need for this temporary lot next ski season, and therefore, it makes sense to leave the roadbase there. fi-*A i Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 2/23/84 Page 4 )f 5 Conceptual Review of Warehouse on Lot 39, Block 1, B.S. Larry Kumpost of Jack Miller and Associates represented Doyle and Associates, applicant for warehouse. Kumpost presented a conceptual site plan and elevations for the warehouse. Blair questioned if this was a full application. Lamont clarified that the code provides for a conceptual review of the project. The review doesn't obligate the Planning Commission to be held to their opinion of the project in the future; a landowner may present ideas and get a general response from the Commission. Kumpost informed Commission that the lot is on the east side of the Troxel ware- house and lot is entirely within the Colordao Ute power easement. The intent is for a self -storage facility. It is garage type storage on lower level and smaller storage facilities on upper level. Will have stair access. Project is made up of a series of buildings that each have a 10 foot space in between and all inter- connect on the upper level. There will be 6 full modules and 1 smaller module with a loading dock. The grade on the road will accommodate ingress/egress. Blair mentioned that information had been obtained from Colorado Ute to provide setback standards for which the lot could be used or could not be used. He believed it would not allow their easement to be used for any residential or retail type commercial services as long as there were overhead power lines there. Kumpost stated that he believed that there was a chance that the power line would be abandoned. Norm Wood, Director of Public Works, commented on points that would apply to any development plan for that site. Lamont had discussed with Kumpost, strictly from Master Planning design stand- point, that there was a good attempt to vary the height of the building so that it followed the terrain. The building is a long straight line in the same plane; suggested looking at different ways to break up the in and out of the building. Lamont also stated that the street leading to the I.C. Zone is important to the Master Plan. Landscaping could be improved and there needs to be a long term look at what kind of uses this building could accommodate. Kumpost said that there was no intent for restrooms or water within the building. Concerns were also mentioned over the long narrow site with existing and potential drainage and erosion difficulties. Watkins stated that he could appreciate that site is difficult to work with, and that the amount of development planned on it might be excessive. Scaling down the size of building might help as far as leaving open spaces for landscaping rather than just seeing a wall. Need to be careful of appearance so it doesn't detract from Wildridge. Agreed on need for landscaping. Meehan felt that structure was too long to be contiguous; could possibly be broken- into 3 structures since site seems to have length to do that. Felt that it was too long to be one structure. Kumpost reiterated that there would actually be 7 separate structures with a stairway connecting thLse structures in between. Meehan felt it wouldn't look that way. Commission members agreEd that seeing the site would definitely help. There was no action tak.,n by the Commission. Only conceptual comments were made. s • Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 2/23/64 Page 5 of 5 • Informational Items Discussed An agenda for the County Planning Commission was included along with comments on White annexation and Folson annexation. Lamont stated that he had done research on Density Transfers with regard to the Master Plan and noted that there is a shift from zoning control uses because it restrains trade. o There being no further business to discuss, Landauer motioned to adjourn meeting. Meehan seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 PM. Respectfully S mitted, 1/7 i IrM. Lash Record Recording Secretary / /J COMMISSION APPROVAL: Wm. Piers, DATE: Pat Cuny Jerry Davi T. Landauer J. Meehan C. Watkins