Loading...
PZC Minutes 020984RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 1984, 6:40 PM The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on February 9, 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 Bill Pierce. Members Present: Pat Cuny, Mike Blair, Clint Watkins, Bill Pierce, Tom Landauer Members Absent: Jerry Davis, Jim Meehan Staff Present: Jim Lamont, Planning Director, Maggie Lach, Recording Secretary Informational Items Included in P & Z Packets A letter was included from Folson Exploration Company sent by C. Crain Folson regarding annexation of 21.5 acres east of Beaver Creek and south of Highway 6 14 -,in the N.W. S;, S.E. ', Section 12, and is contiguous with the White property south of Highway 6. Terrill Knight and Dean Kerkling of Vail Associates met wtih Jim Lamont and went over the letter of concern from Vail Associates as it regards the White annexation. Record shows that Jerry Davis arrived for the meeting at approximately 6:45 PM Both Knight and Kerkling agree that commercial use for that site would be best use for property. Knight qualified his site plan suggesting that there would be structured parking on grade; housing below and offices above. Knight is pursuino detailed Master Plan for site so he can justify his approach. Lamont, in conversations with Vail Associates, asked their feeling on annexing Highway 6 to Avon Road intersection and north to Town boundaries which would cause an enclave to N.E. corner of Highway 6 (Avon Road intersection); also discussed recesigning of intersection for better flow of traffic and have right hand turn lane to avoid traffic lights. West end of Vail Associates a u i4oite parcels have access problems at the main intersection. White's have not resolved contiguity problem, but is being pursued. Pierce questioned if he misunderstood Frampton letter regarding use of property. Lamont tc.ld him that Kerkling had not been aware of the Frampton letter, Lamont has not yet responded to letter; he feels it is Frampton's responsibility to make specific recommendation on the uses of property surrounding the main entrance to Beaver Creek. Roadcal Sign - Lots 29-32, Block 2, E.S. Mr. John Lowery oC�o �weTT—Ban er su muted a new sign which was rejected by Lamont. Contains "Commercial Real Estate Services"; Lamont felt that this was too close to what he would not recommend in new Sign Code; can still be construed as real estate sign. Pierce and Cuny agreed on decision made by Lamont on sign. Planninq and Zoning Meeting Minutes 2/9/84 Page 2 of 5 Affordable Housing Questionnaire Lamont presentee: information from an Affordable Housing Survey which concluded that there is not a sufficient supply of affordable housing in Eagle County. Majority of our residents can't afford to buy building sites. Housing rer3ins out of range for the majority of Eagle County residents. Housing Committee is generating base data that will give an idea of housing demand for local residents. Questicnnaire is targeted at rental housing projects, such as the trailer parks and large employers. Presentation on Elimination of Certain Private Land Uses - Dave Cole Lamont gave background stating that Benchmark, before Avon became a Town, had deed restrictions that restricted uses on private property. These are still in force. Deed restrictions and the Zoning Ordinance are competing for control over the development of the community. Dave Cole felt that restrictions should be removed and let the free-market prevail. He believes that the Planning and Zoning Commission should determine Zoning and land uses. Jim Wells stated that the deed restrictions need to be removed as part of the Master Planning effort. Wells wanted to make the Planning and Zoning Commission aware of the situation and only asks for support of this idea. A resolution will be proposed to the Town Council asking for support. Lamont stated that this issue must be dealt with now before one or two people can stop what a majority may want. Commission took no formal action. Reading and Approval of P & Z Minutes of 1/26/84 Regular Meeting Watkins moved to accept the minutes of 1/26/84 meeting as presented. Cuny seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. rine Setback Variance - Lot 63. Block 2. B.S. Lamont highlighted staff report to Planning and Zoning Commission stating that applicant had requested zero setback on eastern property line so that they may extend their underground parking structure to the lot line, allowing for the interconnection of a parking structure on the adjacent lot. Rick Larson, representative for applicant, Peregrine Village, stated that letters from utility companies were submitted and that applicant will go before Town Council to obtain an ordinance vacating the easement. Utility companies have no use for the easement which is also a utility and drainage easement. There is no reason for drainage easement at this point because the mall handled all of its own drainage. The buil.iing would be setback as originally planned and the foundation and underground parking structure would be extended out to the property line. Pierce clarified by saying that the building still maintains setback; only the parking structure, which is mostly below grade, is the only thing protecting into the setback. 10 1lb ■' -N Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 2/9/84 Page 3 of 5 Peregrine Setback Variance - Lot 63, Block 2, B.S., Con't. Larson stated that they have designed cantilever footing similar to the one on the north side of the building and are not restricting adjacent property owner fro - doing the same if he chooses to do so. Davis mentioned that applicant should notify Heritage Cablevision since it is no longer owned by Rocky Mountain Cablevision. Larson answered that they had contacted Heritage and said that this letter would stand. Norm Wood, Director of Public Works, suggested that Heritage initial the letter as a representative for Rocky Mountain Cablevision. Davis also said that he would like to see some kind of guarantee that in the future, if the landowner next door wants to tie in with Peregrine parking structure, that they're not restricted from doing so or vice ve^sa. Ken Hayes, President of P.P.L. Development Company, spoke with Bill Post, attorney for owner of adjacent lot, and is being sent a letter which would run with the land granting access from Lot 61 through Lot 63. Lamont stated that he would like some official documentation that that ability is there and it would go in the official record. He also stated that staff had dis- cussed berming whatever exposed wall is on the east side, and in order to do that, it would take the permission of adjacent landowners to allow berming to occur until such time as the parking structure is constructed on the adjacent property. Lengthy discussion followed on berming and exposure of walls on building. Davis questioned whether wall would affect the design of the building next door. Lamont stated that it would be a c,)mmon wall and they would use the same parking configuration; sees no long term proulem. Bill Post, attorney representing H.A.L. Construction and owner of Lot 61, mentioned his meeting with Hayes and felt that any problems could be worked out. Also felt that the berming that would abut the property line might be a possibility, but couldn't say what they'd be doing with property. Mall is already bermed on property and felt that this would place restrictions on what the Planning and Zoning Commission would want to see on their future building. Was not aware of the berming issue. Post said that H.A.L. has no problem with vacation of ease- ment or variance on setback, but did bring up several points: 1. Want to physically and legally come into property line in the same way; want to set future rights; 2. Must be physically able to build next to this property; 3. Needs to be header and support beams put into wall so that when they build, they won't have to restructure wall; 4. Need ducument to know that they have the same rights; who will pay for knocking out the wall, so that both parties know ahead of time so that both Parking structures are accessible to each other; 5. The right to assure H.A.L. that they can have a variance also for setback and have easement abandoned. 44 Planning and Zoning Meeting Mirutes 2/9/84 Page 4 of 5 Peregrine Setback Variance - Lot 63, block 2, B.S., Con't. Pierce told Post that the only way to acquire an easement vacation would be to make proper application. Lengthy discussion followed on berming between property, drainage, and possible landscaping between properties. Pierce suggested reducing the height of the wall so that there would be access between both properties. Cuny mentioned the headers and supports in the parking structure wall. Larson indicated that structural engineers had been instructed to design the reinforcement in the wall so that concrete can be removed at a later date. Pierce read the criteria concerning the variance application, 17.36.040, A - D, and 17.36.050, A - C. All points were discussed. Davis made a motion, after debate and consideration with respect to the criteria for approval of a variance for this application on Lot 63, that approval be given with the fact that the findings show this to be an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance; that the conditions are applicabl;; to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, namely the Master Plan and the downtown core area; that certain legal documents will give ingress/ egress to Lot 63 and 61; that the east lot line garage protrudement be acceptable to staff, and that the required lot line vacations have properly been presented. Blair seconded the motion. Lamont clarified that rather than lot line vacations, it should be utility ease- ment vacation. Davis amended motion. Blair amended second. Watkins stated the Commission wanted to see that on eastern line, the treatment of the wall so it's bermed or something that's acceptable to staff. Pierce included that the height of the wall be reduced. Motion carried and passed unanimously. Avon Metropolitan District - Wild,. Dater Tank - Tract K, Block 1, Wildwood Sub- division Norm Wood, Director of Pu is WorKs, gave ac groun y stating that t e request came in last year to put in a water tank along Wildwood Road. It's a 50,000 gallon tank that will also include a pump station some time in the future. Last year the proposal was tabled to allow a field review and after the field review, the proposal was not brought before the Commission again. This tank serves the same area, but has been moved and is now in a fill section that is well screened and is located outside the road right-of-way. A.J. lesta, representative for Avon Metropolitan District, presented a site plan showing the proposed tank and pump house location. Testa mentioned that he was directed by Avon Metropclitan Distcict to find a new site that would reduce traffic hazards after the field review of the previously proposed site. The new site is below the road and the tank will be virtually invisible in the new location. Thare is an 8 foot retaining wall that covers most of the tank and part of the roof. SPA Zoning in Wildwood allows the use of Tract K for public utilities, subject to meeting two criteria: 1. Owner has to grant permission; 2. Town of Avon must allow the use. _044 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 2/9/84 Page 5 of 5 Avon Metropolitan District - Wildwood Water Tank - Tract K, Block 1, Wildwood Sub- division _ Watkins if the MetropolitanAvonDistrict owns the site. Testa answered that Avon Metropulitan District will eventually own the tank and the site. The tank will be built by the developer and then ownership will be transferred to the Avon Metropolitan District. Watkins questioned if there was an agreement between Avon Metropolitan District and the developer as to how Avon Metropolitan District is going to pay developer or if they're going to buy it from the developer. Testa believed there is a recovery agreement between the Avon Metropolitan District and the developers. Pierce stated that he would like to see what the finished product will look like. Lamont clarified that the application is to allow the use to take place on the site, subject to the Special Review Use criteria, and they will have to come back for design review prior to construction. Pierce read the criteria for the application, 17.20.020, 1 - 3, and 17.20.040, A - E. All points were discussed. Concerns were men;:ioned regarding accessibility to the site. Testa said that the tank would be located 10 feet from property line and that the right-of-way is 50 feet wide. The tank would be checked once a week. Pierce questioned if there would be adequate parking. Wood stated that there would be adequate access and parking at the site as pro- posed. Landauer motioned to approve the Special Review Use for the site location for the Avon Metropolitan District water tank on Tract K, Block 1, Wildwood Subdivision. Cuny seconded. Blair abstained due to being Board Member of Avon Metropolitan District. Motion carried. Sign Code Pierce suggested an outline with a statement of philosophy and how Sign Code will work. Lamont stated that at the next meeting, the types of signs, size, location, and responsibilities would be addressed. Lengthy discussion followed on Sign Code and standards and procedures. With there being no further business to discuss, Landauer motioned to adjourn the meeting. Blair seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM. Respectfully Subm' ed, Margarei" M. Lach Recording Secretary COMMISSION APPROVAL:_ �T— DATE: Atj?`�.&z� Wm. Pierce Mike Blair �ILA4M Pat Cuny_ Jerry Davis T. Landauer J. Meehan C. Watkin l�