Loading...
PZC Minutes 011284,. `4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 12, 1984, 6:00 PM The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on January 12, 1984, at 6:00 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: Clint Watkins, Bill Pierce, Mike Blair, Pat Cuny, Jerry Davis, Tom Landauer Members Absent: Jim Meehan Staff Present: Jim Lamont, Planning Director, Maggie Lach, Recording Secretary Reading and Approval of Special P & Z Meeting of 11/28/83 and the P & Z Minutes of 12/15/83 Regular Meeting: Pat Cuny moved to approve the minutes of the November 28, 1983 Special Meeting regarding Peregrine Village Condominiums, Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, as they were written. Jerry Davis Seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Clint Watkins moved to approve the minutes of the December 15, 1983 meeting with the changes as noted. Tom Landauer seconded the motion. Motion approved and passed unanimously. Watkins felt that the third page of the minutes should include the lengthy motion made regarding the City Market sign. Pat Cuny mentioned that the deviation from the Code should be included in the minutes regarding the Wildwood Resort Development sign. Bill Pierce included a statement made about the White anne,cation saying that"... it is not in conformance with goals of Master Plan buffers". Record shows that Jim Meehan arrived for the meeting at approximately 6:45 PM. White Annexation, 3.5735 Acres Jim Lamcnt presented a short report on information gathered from Maury Nottingham and Terrill Knight. They're pursuing a resolution of an unclaimed strip of land in the waddle of the river. Jim Rubin, the Eagle County Planner will have some recommendation as far as the County is concerned. County Planner believes that the site should have no commercial use and lower density than is being proposed. Bill Pierce questioned if Vail Associates had been contacted with regard to par- ticipating with the Town in the acquisition of the property. Lamont said he did have his first meeting with Dean Kerkling, Planner for Beaver Creek, and discussed the Highway 6 corridor and the Beaver Creek property which falls within the area Avon is considering for annexation. Kerkling had done land use analysis of White property and feels that a building with parking of no more than 7,000 S.F. might be feasible. January 12, 1984 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes Page 2of6 White Annexation, 3.5735 Acres, Cont. Pierce mentione a etter sent to t e Planning and Zoning Commission by Vail Associates suggesting that no development be on the property. Pierce felt that perhaps with this in mind, Vail Associates might offer to assist the Town in the acquisition of the property. Dick Blodgett mentioned concerns over the cost of acquiring the White property, land use plan involving Dean Kerkling and Jim Rubin, financing on the property, and the Comprehensive Plan. Mike Blair reiterated that the property should be acquired in some way, either through an exchange or gift, or some way that would be acceptable and workable to everyone concerned. Lengthy discussion followed on planning process in relation to the annexation and acquisition of the White property. Coldwell Banker Ille al Si ns, Lots '29-32, Block 2, B.S. Lamont inform t e sta f tat t e sign a een to en own according to Ordi- nance, and application was being made for different type of sign. Helicopter Service Pat Cuny reporte that the petition was flatly denied on the grounds that it was not the proper place for the service and that Eagle -Vail residents had petitioned against the service. A noise level test that the Commission requested, was never done by the Helicopter service. Lamont had included in Planning packets information from Eagle County Board of Commissioners on the land use issues and minutes on affordable housing study done on major employee housing projects. The report showed that there is adequate housing for the labor force and many projects in the area are showing 0% vacancy in the winter. General consensus was that there is not a crisis "feel" about the housing problem this winter or for next. The County and Vail Associates is conducting an extensive employment housing survey of major employers. From the Master Plan standpoint, types of housing demand will have a great deal to do with deliberations over trailer park issue. Planners are somewhat mystified as to the Cliffside project, which is the most affordable purchasable housing that's come on line. The project is not moving, and feel that it may have to do with the amount of inventory that's available in Homestead proje.t and that people are paying the higher price rather than going into a higher density project. The homebuyer is speculating that the Homestead would offer, a higher return in resale. Next step is to gather data on the residents that can afford to buy and why they aren't buying into Cliffside. Master Plan - See attached summation from Jim Lamont By a�ws Tis was included by Lamont which is a redraft of the City of Gunnison Bylaws. Included was redraft of ordinances and procedures for Town Council and Planning and Zoning, which touched upon procedures and standards. 1•• January 12, 1984 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 i• a Sunroad Enterprises, Lots 29-32, Block 2, B.S., Develo ment Si n s Dennis Cole, representing app scant, Sunroa Enterprises, state that the application was for an approval of a development sign. Cole recommended that client sell lots to developer, and then the developer could deal with the Town in terms of how those lots should be developed; tie that development to concepts and goals through Comprehensive Plan. Cole had consulted Ordinances regarding development signs. The property consists of four lots and applicant is seeking developer that would come in and buy all four lots and work with Town. Applicant requested variance to put three signs on four lots. Pierce questioned if the sign incorporated the information that's appropriate for a development sign. Lamont answered that the sign may contain only the project name, and the names and addresses of owners, architects, contractors and real estate brokers. Lamont's initial discussion with applicant suggested that a more appropriate approach might be to show actual lots in graphic form and state what the zoning is. This is similar to what was discussed with Wildwood sign; running into what is a development sign and how to present what's going to be developed. Hybrid case where applicant wants to sell the property based on what kinds of things could happen on the property. The Code is clear stating one sign per lot or groups of contiguous lots under one ownership; not to exceed 16 S.F. of display area and 8 ft. in height. Cole had problem placing graphics on sign, questioned value of it. Also concerned about saying what the zoning uses are. Lots are technically zoned RHDC, but there are limitations on density and that might be misleading to put that on the sign. Cole stated that Code doesn't allow for sale signs, but would allow the type of sign if the words "for sale" aren't on it. Cole reiterated that a development sign is almost any sign that describes what is being s.,ld and just doesn't have "for sale" on it. Jim Meehan stated that a development sign is project specific. Jerry Davis voiced concerns of what will be allowed in the Town and what will be allowed in the future. Precedent had been set with Benchmark. if staff agreed upon what sign says, sees no reason why it can't be allowed on a very contingent basis of time. Cole agreed to take out "In Denver" from sign and agreed that sign is for limited period of time and limited to correspond with approval of new Sign Code. Meehan had mixed feeling about sign and Pierce felt that sign was too blatant. Lengthy discussion followed on for sale signs, lack of definitive Sign Code, and pressure put upon staff in Planning meetings regarding signs. Cole again stated that the sign they're proposing is allowed under the Ordinance and that it is a development sign with the purpose of selling the lots. Tom Landauer felt that a compromise was needed on development signs and for sale signs. Felt that sign should read Sunroad Group, Coldwell Banker and phone number. One sign only, 4 x 4 ft., and that the developer and Coldwell Banker names be the sane size. January 12, 1984 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 ses. Lots 29-32. Block 2. B.S. Con't. glint watkins moved to approve the sign that was presented for Lots 29-32, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision with the conditions that words "In Denver" be deleted from the sign, that an addition be put on the top of the sign identifying the Sunroad Group in letters as large as the letters identifying Coldwell Banker; that the approval be for the shorter period of time of either six months or 60 days after the Town adopts a new Sign Code, whichever time is shorter. Landauer-econded the motion. Watkins amended motion to include subject to Planning and Zoning review or if it is sooner terminated by applicable Ordinance or Code. Landauer seconded amended motion. Meehan and Pierce opposed motion. Motion carried. Wildridge Zoning Amendment and Rezoning, Lots 5 52A 52B Block 1, B.S. Lamont stated that the applicant had asked that the matters be continued until the next meeting. A letter to that effect was forwarded, but not yet received. Cuny motioned to continue the Wildridge Zoning and Rezoning amendment to the next meeting, upon the applicant's request. Landauer seconded. Carried unanimously. Perregrine Construction Trailer, Lot 63, Block 2, B.S. lilt arc -C rs mea Mountain Ke Topers, represente the applicant, Pereqrine Properties. Stated that they were applying for an application for temporary office trailers on the Peregrine site, Lot 63, in the Town center. The trailer is 12 ft. wide, 40 ft. long, will have wood walkway and deck out in front with handrail. There may be 10-15 cars parked in front of trailer at any time, and the trailer belongs to Haselden-Langley, contractor for the project. Pierce questioned whether the trailer would be moved prior to a certificate of occupancy. Larson answered that it would when adequate space became available within the structure. Lamont mentioned his meeting with Norm Wood, Public Works Director, stating that the staging of the project is very complicated and that adjacent properties would be used for the staging of the development. Conclusion of Lamont and Wood was that they'd request from Planning and Zoning, because of the nature of the Or- dinance, permission for staff to deal with the staging of the construction site. Larson stated that the expected construction time was approximately 16 months. Piercz suggested that approval run for 1%, years, allowing for clean-up and removal of construction materials. Landauer moved to approve the application for a request for construction trailer on Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark. Subdivision, for the length of 18 months. Davis seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. Larson also mentioned having three other trailers on-site with the possibility of 8-10 storage trailers. Lamont stated that it is the Building Official's duty to monitor that, and once the trailers are moved, that Peregrine revegetate that space. Cuny motioned to allow Peregrine Village to work with the staff on any future on-site temporary storage or construction paraphenalia. Landauer seconded. Carried unanimously. January 12, Planning and Page 5 of 6 1984 Zoning Meeting Minutes Peregrine Develo ment Si n, Lot 63, Block 2, B.S. Lamont state tat t is is for approval of a pre -approved sign that was approved in 1981. Because of a two year lapse, the applicant requested a reaffirmation. Davis motioned to approve the sign as presented and that it also follow all the normal procedures of being removed at the proper time. Cuny seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. Lamont also mentioned that the applicant would be applying for a variance regarding the extension of the parking structure to the eastern property line, so that at some future point in the Master Planning process, both parking structures would be connected on adjacent pieces of property. This would permit circulation underground between buildings and would require a set -back change. Pierce Cuny, Davis and Watkins agreed that it would help relieve traffic congestion and that they would keep this in mind with the Master Plan effort. Dechard Land Development - Saddleridge - Lot 16, Block 1, W.R., Privacv Wall Lamont stated that the guiiding was already completed and there were changes made in the party walls and hot tub enclosure area. Those changes were made during the construction process and Lamont had admonished the applicant for not following the proper sequence for approval. Jim Dechard, applicant, showed blue line prints to staff and explained the changes and also presented snap -shots of the completed 5-plex. Dechard explained that Norm Wood, Public Works Director, was concerned with the design of the gabion wall, but due to the snow, it couldn't be checked. Dechard said he had put up a line of credit for the amount to do the gabion wall if it was needed. Lamont stated that Wood had asked that the condo plat be amended to show the deck improvements and also that snow storage and mandatory removal of snow be written into the condo decs. and put on plat. Davis said that the changes were reasonable, but again admonished applicant for making changes at will without following proper procedure. Cuny motioned to accept Dechard Land Development's request for an amendment for previous architectural and landscape plan with the conditions that they remove the deck and room off of the approved plat and that they put snow storage and mandatory removal of snow in their condo decs. and on plat; that staff check to see that the landscape plan will be right amount of vegetation. Davis seconded the motion. Landauer suggested that motion include retaining and gabion wall. Cuny amended motion to say that gabion wall must be documented on the plan; if staff finds it necessary in the spring, that it be built and including the timber wall. Davis seconded the amended motiun. Passed unanimously. January 12, Planning and Page 6 of 6 1984 Zoning Meeting Minutes Iron Horse Pizza, Tract Q, Block 2, B.S., Benchmark Shopping Center - Business Sian Russ Jones, applicant, stated that sign would be white with black lines and that the word pizza would be made out of plexiglass with black letters. Will look very similar to Benchmark. Cleaners sign. Watkins moved to approve the Iron Horse Pizza sign as submitted. Meehan seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. Bus Advertising Sign - Vail Associates, Inc. The sign is professionally done. Landauer motioned to approve the bus sign. Davis seconded. Passed unanimously. New Business Lengthy discussion between staff regarding illegal Coldwell Banker sign, homes painted without Planning approval, old development signs still standing, what kinds of signs tri approve or disapprove of, especially for sale signs. Discussion also followed regarding next regular Planning and Zoning meeting, which will be hold January 26, 1984 and that the time would be at 6:30 PM. Agenda would also show the work session time and the public hearing time for the regular meeting. With there being no the meeting. Landauer seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at further business to discuss, Davis motioned to adiourn 53 PM. Respectfully Sub itted, �° Wm. Pier ��� �j � —,/�� Mike Bl a Pat Cuny Margaret Lach Jerry Da Recording Secretary T. Landa COMMISSION APPROVAL: DATE: Meehan Watkins'