PZC Minutes 121682RECORD 0Y PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF THE -DESIGN REVIEW BOARS MEETING
_ _._ -
DECEMBER'16, 1982, 7:30 P. M.
The regular meeting of the Design Review Board of Avon was held on December 16,
1982, at 7:30 p.m., 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 were: Mike Blair, Jim Meehan, Bob Zeeb & Tommy Landauer.
Staff present were: Dick Kvach/ Planning Director, Art Abplanalp/Town Attorney,
Norm Wood/Town Engineer, Joyce Evans/Recording Secretary.
Item No. 1, Reading and Approval of DRB Minutes of 12/2/82.
(this item was postponed to last item on agenda)
Item No. 2, Avon Center Phase I, Protective Canopy East Elevation, Lot A, Block 2
Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-12-3.
Dick Kvach stated the request is to be allowed to put an additional canopy over
the areas of the Avon Post Office and Avon Liquors. It will be constructed of
the same materials that exist on the building (stucco posts and the same metal
roof). The purpose of this canopy is for protection from falling snow and ice.
Nick Dalba/Avon Center, stated they are going to use snow jacks to stop the
falling ice and snow. If the snow jacks aren't effective then they want to start
construction on the canopy.
Dick Kvach stated the canopy of the liquor store would extend out approximately
eight feet from the existing wall and the canopy on the post office will extend
out approximately eleven feet. Staff does recommend approval.
Tommy Landauer moved to approve the application as submitted. Motion was seconded
by Jim Meehan and was passed unanimously.
Item No. 3, Avon Center Phase I, Deck Enclosure West Side, Lot A, Block 2, Benchmark
Subdivision, File No. 82-12-4.
Dick Kvach stated this request is to be allowed to cover a portion of a deck on
the southwest side of the building. It will be over an existing structure. There
is a deck on top of it. They wish to enclose a portion of it to be used as a
restaurant. The overall size will be approximately 44' x 90'. It will be partly
glass, metal roof and stucco. It will be adding approximately 3,950 square feet
to the overall commercial area and will require about 40 additional parking spaces
beyond what is presently provided. If this is approved a parking plan should be
submitted showing how these additional parking spaces will be taken care of.
Staff feels this is a reasonable request and recommends approval subject to parking
being resolved.
Doug Mayes/applicant, stated they want to provide a valet service for the customers.
Mike Blair read a letter from Mr. John Bahnak, Jr. (owner of a unit in Avon Center),
who objected to this request. (copy of letter on file)
Bob Zeeb asked how the sale of the unit was represented to these people?
Don Buick stated these people bought this unit prior to the building being designed.
The Homeowners Assocition met and discussed this and they have no problem. If it
does become a nuisance then the Avon Police Department will handle it.
Doug Mayes stated the entrance will be through the building. At a later date there
will be an outside ramp from the mall area.
Don Buick stated that the Condo Decs have 3 types of common elements such as garage,
residential decks and commercial limited common element of which this deck is.
-1-
Doug Mayes stated that when Phase 2 is completed the deck area will be
approximately 10,000 square feet in size. Only asking to enclose about 4,000
square feet. The noise will be enclosed in the winter. It can be designed
so the glass doors can be opened onto the deck in the summer.
Art Abplanalp stated that about 4 months ago Avon Center was dealing with the
parking problem and the concern was raised that if the latter sites were sold
off to a third party without any type of obligation of record, laying this
parking problem onto those lots, that those people may be able to be in a position
where they can argue they have no obligation. At that point in time an agreement
was prepared which was passed onto Nick Dalba and he requested that it be tabled
until the next time this parking question came up. We're in a situation where the
DRB is being asked for permission to expand Phase I and Phase 2 relying on what
is going to be provided in Phase 3 & 4. If the right to develop Phase 3 & 4 is
sold off to someonelse, we will be in litigation for years trying to figure out
what parking is to be provided, how it's to be provided and trying to close down
commercial enterprises that don't have any parking.
Nick Dalba stated that when the first 2 buildings are completed they will have
adequate parking. Temporary parking will be provided while Phase 3 & 4 are
under construction.
Dick Kvach stated that in the staff report he recommended that a parking plan be
submitted to and approved by the DRB and Town Council showing how all the off-
street parking requirements for Phase 1 will be complied with prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this area. Also recommended that any
necessary agreements be added.
Bob Zeeb moved to approve the plan as presented with staff's recommendations. Motion
was seconded by Jim Meehan and was passed unanimously.
Item No. 4, Benchmark Plaza Office Building Sign Program, Lot 20, Block 2,
Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-12-5.
Dick Kvach stated that this request consists generally of three (3) types of signs:
1, a Directional sign located at the southwest entry with names of BENCHMARK,
WILDRIDGE, WILDWOOD & VAIL ASSOCIATES;
2. Individual Business Signs on ground floor only which will consist of redwood
siding which will be hung above the entrances to the store, and
3. combination of Building Identification Sign & Individual Business sign facing
the intersection.
Does meet all the requirements for the square footage. Also requesting the option
that in the future they be allowed to place a sign at the northeast corner of the
site. The requirements of the sign code have been met. There is a clause in
their standards regarding the:use of temporary signs for not more than 60 days
which should be amended to require DRB approval before it is used. Also Art
Abplanalp added that rather than referring to Ordinance Number or Chapter of the
Avon Municipal Code that it be in compliance with the Avon Muncipal Code.
Larry Goad/applicant stated that the thought behind the temporary sign matter
is to give the person enough time to get the permanent sign completed.
Art Abplanalp suggested that temporary signs not in compliance with the other
provisions of the code shall come before the DRB.
Jim Meehan moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Program with the clarification
that the Zoning Administrator be responsible for the approval of the temporary
signs and that the sign installation, maintenance and removal criteria be generally
as previously recommended by Dick Kvach. Motion was seconded by Tommy Landauer
and was passed unanimously.
Item No. 5. Snow Ordinance No. 82-21
Dick Kvach stated that at the 12/2/82 meeting the DRB decided to hold off on this
-- with the question of why are treatment facilities for runoff necessary for
smaller type projects (single-family /duplex). The Town Engineer indicated that at
the present time there are no requirements for 4 units or less. Paragraphs B & C
have been amended to add the last line in paragraph B which states "that when such
treatment facilities are required as part of the drainage plan." In paragraph C
add "if the treatment facility is required as part of the drainage treatment plan..."
-2-
Norm Wood/Town Engineer, stated that the DRB Regulations requires a grading and
drainage plan for the review process. We are in the process of trying to develop
some regulations and don't want to tie this to any one project. Also regarding
the 12 foot wide area, there should be some kind of restriction on this.
Bob Zeeb moved to approve Ordinance #82-21 as presented by staff and recommended
the Town Council approve this. No further discussion - passed unanimously.
Item No. 6, Lock -offs
This item has been before the DRB and Town Council several times. The Town
Council referred this back to the DRB for additional review and consideration.
The changes are:
The expansion of the definition of a lock -off. This portion's main change
is in the first sentence defining that the lock -off cannot have access off
of a central corridor but may have access off an interior corridor.
Previously we required one (1) guest space for a single family unit; one (1)
guest space per dwelling unit for a duplex. There was discussion at the Council
level that this may not be appropriate - that generally a single family doesn't
need additional parking. The parking has been revised to the following:
III. Guest Parking Spaces
(a) Multi -family, townhouses and accommodation units
(1) 3-4 units 2 spaces
(2) 5-8 units 3 spaces
(3) 9-12 units 4 spaces
(4) over 12 units 5 spaces plus 1 space for each 3 units
over 12 up to a maximum of 10 additional spaces
17.20.090 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND USES
C. Lock -off units shall be considered accessory uses to the main living unit and
shall be permitted only in RHLD, RMD, RHDC, TC, & SC districts. For purposes
of calculating allowable density in any district in which locked -off accommodation
units are allowed as accessory uses each bedroom exceeding 3 bedrooms in a living
unit shall be counted as an additional 1/3 of a density unit. No more than 2
such accommodation units shall be permitted to be locked -off from a main living
unit.
Larry Goad asked why SPA couldn't be included in the allowed zone districts?
Dick Kvach stated it was more effective to allow it only in the core areas. The
parking applies to all zone districts.
Jim Meehan asked if this should be done by density allocation as opposed to zoning
designation. In other words if it's more than a certain number of units per acre,
suggested instead of being by zoning district that it be designated as a function
of density.
Jim Wells stated that if lock -offs are going to be allowed in some zone districts
why can't they be in other zone districts?
Jim Meehan asked that by allowing 2 additional accommodation units exceeding the
3 bedrooms, are we limiting everything to 5 bedrooms?
Dick Kvach stated that if you go over 3 bedrooms you are penalized for the
additional density. The Board may want to add a clause stating that single family
or duplexes would be excluded from these requirements.
Nick Dalba stated the he was not in favor of that. There are instances where a
5 bedroom isn't locked -off.
Dick Kvach stated there may be some way to write in that if it is clear that these
are not for lock -off units, they are not penalized for density.
Art Abplanalp stated they are only lock -offs if they meet the definition. A 5 bedroom
unit does not have lock -offs unless it is structured as this is written.
Mike asked what is the status of this proposal?
B-Z
Dick Kvach stated this was presented to the Council and they requested that we
come back to the D12B for additional review. Their primary concern was the
definition of a lock -off; the required guest parking and also the density
provisions for the last paragraph.
The Board felt they would like to consider this further and particularly with
all members present. Mike Blair asked that the staff do two things:
1. List all the comments/questions/suggestions, and
2. Mail them to all Board members to review for the next meeting
Item No. 7, Comprehensive Sign Plan Fee
Dick Kvach stated there is presently no fee schedule in the DRB Rules & Regulations
for a Comprehensive Sign Program. There are several options such as a flat fee
for an overall program; or a fee based on the number of types of signs; or
set a flat fee and then as they come in and request review of individual signs
to be put up on the building or site set a review fee to be charged for the
Planning Director's time spent reviewing.
Presently basing the fee on the number of types of signs ($40.00 plus $2.00 per
square foot) .
Larry Kumpost suggested setting a flat rate for reviewing the Comprehensive
Sign Program. A nominal fee ($25.00) should be charged for each type of sign
to be reviewed.
Art Abplanalp suggested $200.00 plus $25.00 per conforming sign.
Mike Blair stated the consensus of the Board is to give this matter more thought
and asked the staff to take into consideration all the comments that have been
offered, suggestions made and put them together in the form of a report and from
that make a recommendation of what a fair review fee would be. This will be
continued at the next regular meeting with a staff report and more specific
recommendations.
Art Abplanalp mentioned that this would need to go before the Town Council as a.
proposed change to the DRB Rules & Regulations. The following was drafted for
recommendation to Council:
The DRB has under consideration a modification to the DRB Rules & Regulations
which shall say there shall be added to Section 3.10 to the Rules & Regulations
of the Design Review Board the following language:
- Comprehensive Sign Program $200:00
- Signs conforming with the Comprehensive Sign Program $25.00
Tommy Landauer moved to recommend the proposed change to the Town Council for
adoption. Motion was seconded by Bob Zeeb and was passed unanimously.
Bob Zeeb moved to approve the Minutes of the 12/2/82 meeting as presented.
Motion was seconded by Tommy Landauer, passed unanimously.
Dick Kvach stated the Town Council has directed the DRB to hold their meetings
on the Thursdays following the second and fourth Tuesday Council meetings. The
Resolution directing said change was presented.
Tommy Landauer moved to approve the resolution as recommended by staff. Seconded
by Bob Zeeb and was passed unanimously. Next regular meeting date: 1/13/83
There being no further business to discuss, Bob Zeeb moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion was seconded by Tommy Landauer and was passed unanimously.
-4-
Respectfully submitted by:
Melody Cummil
Secretary
Design Review Board
-5-