PZC Minutes 012782ECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 27, 1982, 7:30 P.M.
;•
The regular meeting of the Design Review Board which was scheduled for
January 20, 1982, was continued until January 27, 1982 at 7:30 p.m., due
r to there not being enough members present for a Quor,.im. The meeting was
held in the Town Council Chambers of the To,, -in of Avoi Municipal Buildino,
400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeti,.; -as called to order by
Chairman Bill Pierce.
Let the record show that the Board Members present were Bob Zeeb, Jerry
Davis, B.11 Pierce and Jim Meehan. Staff Members present were Terrill
Knight, Dick Evans and Norm Wood. Tommy Landauer showed up a little late.
The Town Council did appoint Mr. Jim Meehan as the newest member to the
Design Review Board, at their last meeting on January 26, 1982. A
memorandum was sent to the Board stating that they should consider an
alternate member. This matter will be discussed later during the meeting.
Item No. 1, John Wheeler Residence, Variance in Setbacks, Lot 12, Block 4,
Wildridge Subdivision, File No. 82-1=4. (PublicHearing)
John Wheeler made the presentation. Requesting a variance in setbacks.
His lot has a thirty ^oot high bank. The lot has excellent southeast
exposure. Backs up to a northwest hillside. The obvious approach to this
lot would be a dug in Earth Shelter. The design they have come up with
would require a front setback variance. The Wildridge guidelines provides
for consideration of a variance for lots like this. Asking for a five foot
encroachment for living space into the twenty-five foot setback.
Terrill stated that Wildridge is zoned SPA and therefore the particular zone
requirements are based on time in this case guidelines were filed rather
than detailed design of every lot. The guideline calls for twenty-five feet.
It is consistant with the covenants. It is not an absolute zone requirement
which requires a variance in a traditional sense. It is permissible to
allow adjustments and changes in the typical lot standards in that subdivision.
It appears to he a reasonable solution.
John - This design requires a five foot encroachment into the twenty-five
foot setback for living space and a fifteen foot encroachment which is
consistant with garages. There will be no garages. Will be a sheltered
carport.
Bill asked if the applicant has to prove there is hardship?
Terrill stated that in the SPA zoning there is no absolute standards. It
is based on the plan which has guidelines as opposed to zoning requirements,
such as a twenty-five setback is a mandatory absolute. Need to show extreme
hardship and no negative impacts to obtain a variance. In a case of a SPA
zone, it depends on the plan which was originally submitted. In this case
it is a lot layout with guidelines which included a twenty-five foot across -
the --board setback. Feels this is a less stringent standard in this case.
Applicant needs to show this is the best design on that lot rather than hardship.
Bill asked John if the Board was to approve the specific design or just the
general reduction of setback on this site?
John - The design represents the Conceptual plan. The lot was originally
a duplex lot but was down zoned to a single family.
Terrill - the Board has an option of granting the variance either across -the
board or based on a plan. Would be preferable to base the change, if any,
to there not being enough members present for a Quorum. The meeting was
held in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Building,
400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chairman Bill Pierce.
Let the record show that the Board Members present were Bob Zeeb, Jerry
Davis, Bill Pierce and Jim Meehan. Staff Members present were Terrill
Knight, Dick Evans and Norm Wood. Tommy Landauer showed up a little late.
The Town Council :lid appoint Mr. Jim Meehan as the newest member to the
u, Design Review °.lard, at their last meeting on January 26, 1982. A
memorandum was sent to the Board stating that they should consider an
alternate member. This matter will be discussed later during the meeting.
w
Item No. 1, John Wheeler Residence, Variance in Setbacks, Lot 12, Block 4,
Wildridge Subdivision, File No. 82-1-4. (Public Hearing
John Wheeler made the presentation. Requesting a variance in setbacks.
His lot has a thirty foot high bank. The lot has excellent southeast
exposure. Backs up to a northwest hillside. The obvious approech to this
lot would be a dug in Earth Shelter. The design they have come up with
would require a front setback variance. The Wildridge guidelines provides
for consideration of a variance for lots like this. Asking for a five foot
encroachment for living space into the twenty-five foot setback.
Terrill stated that Wildridge is zoned SPA and therefore the particular zone
requirements are based on time in this rase guidelines were filed rather
than detailed design of every lot. The guideline calls for twenty-five feet.
It is consistant with the covenants. it is not an absolute zone requirement
which requires a variance in a traditional sense. It is permissible to
allow adjustments and changes in the typical lot standards in that subdivision.
It appears to be a reasonable solution.
John - This design requires a five foot encroachment into the twenty-five
foot setback for living space and a fifteen foot encroachment which is
consistant with garages. There will be no garages. Will be a sheltered
carport.
Cill asked if the applicant has to prove there is hardship?
Terrill stated that in the SPA zoning there is no absolute standards. It
is based on the plan which has guidelines as opposed to zoning requirements,
such as a twenty-five .,etback is a mandatory absolute. Need to show extreme
hardship and no negative impacts to obtain a variance. In a case of a SPA
zone, it depends on the plan which was originally submitted. In this case
it is a lot layout with guidelines which included a twenty-five foot across-
the-board setback. Feels this is a less stringent standard in this case.
Applicant needs to show this is the best design on that lot rather than hardship.
Bill asked John if the Board was to approve the specific design or just the
general reduction of setback on this site?
John - The design represents the Conceptual plan. The lot was originally
a duplex lot but was down zoned to a single family.
Terrill - the Board has an option of granting the variance either across -the
board or based on a plan. Would be preferable to base the change, if any,
on a particular solution and that would show that this solution is deemed
to be feasible on a Conceptual basis.
-1-
r: -
Bill stated that his concern is that the Board approving a blanket approval
for a five foot setback for living space and fifteen feet for carports and
then someone coming in and putting up a conventional house.
Jerry asked if the setback would change the design of the building. John
said the main consideration would be the elevation of the driveway and
the amount of retaining that has to be done.
Bill commented that in order for the Board to approve the variance request
or review, they would need to retain some information regarding what will
be done.
Terrill suggested that the Board require or request schematic type drawings
to be kept on file to be sure the final plan can be checked against what
is approved. This change in setback is permissible in this zone district.
Jim suggested having an oval shaped driveway so the grade would be in
driveway as opposed to straight to the street.
Norm commented that along the hillside there is an 80 percent slope and
the snow drifts are heavy. The parking area may fill up with snow.
There is blind access when backing out onto the main street. Suggested
a new access like using a one-way street where you pull up, back in on an
angle and then pull back out.
Jchn stated that some changes have been made since this was first submitted.
There is now a wall on the northern side of the driveway to allow for twice
as much snow storage. There is 300 feet of lot frontage on to the north.
Norm commented that the street is not heavy traffic. Feels that when
backing out it will be problem. Regarding the use of the lot frontage
it won't really solve the problem of snow storage beacause that area
fills in naturally. There is already a problem with trying to keep the
road widened out now.
Bill suggested that the applicant come back with drawings and also find
some way to have a drive through type driveway.
John proposed to have two driveways which would allow to back into
one and drive out the other.
Terrill read a letter from Mr. James R. Stocker of Ventures Unlimited, who
is the owner of an adjacent lot. Mr. Stocker stated that he is opposed to
any variance. He did not however, state reasons as to why he was opposed.
No one was present at the meeting to discuss this.
(let the record show that Tommy Landauer showed up late).
Bob made a motion, that the Board accept the Conceptual plan as recommended
as far as he will comply with bringing in new plans to review as far as
the driveway as such and parking to what was discussed as far as the two
entrances and to approve the setback variance as requested, based on that.
Motion was seconded by Jerry. Passed unanimously. (model of the house
will be kept in the Building Department.)
Item No. 2. Lakevi
vision, rile
(No one was present to make the presentation).
rfs for Greenhouses), Lot 3
Lyle Carmony - President of Lakeview Condominium Association was present
to protest against the remodel.
Terrill stated that it is not a requirement that someone be present to
present this. The application has been submitted and the Board could review
this on it's merit. If the Board desires to table this, it can be done.
The 5oard Members were not really sure of what thr =ilnlicent wanted to dn
ur ,tv -_ . �.cy „j„iu neea 4;n __-L
r gara,cy .r
be done.
Terrill suggested that the Board require or request schematic type drawings
to be kept on file to be sure the final plan can be checked against what
is approved. This change in setback is permissible in this zone district.
Jim suggested having an oval shaped driveway so the grade would be in
driveway as opposed to straight to the street.
Norm commented that along the hillside there is an 80 percent slope and
the snow drifts are heavy. The parking area may fill up with snow.
There is blind access when backing out onto the main street. Suggested
a new access like using a one-way street where you pull up, back in on an
angle and then pull back out.
John stated that some changes have been made since this was first submitted.
There is now a wall on the northern side of the driveway to allow for twice
as much snow storage. There is 300 feet of lot frontage on to the north.
Norm commented that the street is not heavy traffic. Feels that when
backing out it will be problem. Regarding the use of the lot frontage
it won't really solve the problem of snow storage beacause that area
fills in naturally. There is already a problem with trying to keep the
road widened out now.
Bill suggested that the applicant come back with drawings and also find
some w,ry to have a drive through type driveway.
John proposed to have two driveways which would allow to back into
one and drive out the other.
Terrill read a letter from Mr. James R. Stocker of Ventures Unlimited, who
is the owner of an adjacent lot. Mr. Stocker stated that he is opposed to
any variance. He did not however, state reasons as to why he was opposed.
No one was present at the meeting to discuss this.
(let the record show that Tommy Landauer showed up late).
Bob made a motion that the Board accept the Conceptual plan as recommended
as far as he will comply with bringing in new plans to review as far as
the driveway as such and parking to what was discussed as far as the two
entrances and to approve the setback variance as requested, based or that.
Motion was seconded by Jerry. Passed unanimously. (model of the house
will be kept in the Building Department.)
Item No. 2 Lakeview Condominiums, Remodel roofs for Green'ouses), Lot 3,
To
Dcic Bend magi r�k ubd�vision, Fi a No. 82-1-5.
(No one was present to make the presentation).
Lyle Carmony - President of Lakeview Condominium Association was present
to protest against the remodel.
Terrill stated that it is not a requirement that someone be present to
present this. The application has been submitted and the Board could review
this on it's merit. If the Board desires to table this, it can be done.
The Board Members were not really sure of what the applicant wanted to do.
Terrill said that the application says they wanted to place covers over
the existing greenhouse. Appeared to be a continuation of the shingled roof.
-2-
Lyle Carmony stated that structurally it is a greenhouse made of single pane
glass. The caulking has not sealed and it leaks. There is no ventilation
with exception of the opening in the roof. In the summer it gets too hot,
and too cold in the winter. Feels that it would be unsanitary.
Bob asked if this plan has come to the Condominium Association for approval.
Lyle stated that it has not.
Bill stated that the Condo Assoc. is actually the only one who is to make
this application.
Bob - the board can't take any action until the Association approves it.
Jerry said they should disapprove the application and make comments as to why
it is disapproved, and what is expected in the future.
Bob added that they also need the approval of the Condo Assoc. before coming
to the DRB.
Tommy suggested that the Board grant a continuance to keep the Homeowners
from having to pay the fee again.
Jerry suggested the Board table the issue until they receive an affidavit
from the Homeowners saying the approved of this plan.
Terrill stated that some decision had to be made within twenty days of the
meeting date. If any additional information is needed then the Board could
table the natter for an additional forty-five days. if the Board fails to
act in that time period then it is deemed Conditional Approval. Suggested
the Board reject the application and waive the fee so it doesn't have to
be paid again.
Jerry made a motion to reject the application with reasons being that in
consideration of the applicant coming back, the Board will waive the fees;
it has not gone trough the proper channels and procedures (Homeowners Assoc.)
The proper entity to present this to the Board would be the Condo Assoc.
Motion was seconued by Tommy. Bill stated that the applicant does not have
the authority t.; make the application. No further discussion. All members
voted in favor of not accepting the application due to the applicant not
having the authority to make the application.
Item No. 3, Colorado Woodsmiths, Inc., Signs for Commercial Areas of Christie
Pete Morgan represented Christie Lodge/U S Home. Requesting approval for
signs for the Commercial Areas of Christie Lodge. Each sign will have a
maximum sign area of 12 square feet, with the letter being a maximum of
10 inches high. Pete stated he was making two proposals to the Board.
The first is to get approval for three (3) signs "CHRISTIE LODGE SALES,
SKI SHOP & TIMBERLINE PROPERTIES". The second proposal is to allow the
Building Administrator to approve the remainder of the signs providing each
one complies with what is being presented. 10 inch letters, anondized
aluminium and each sign fitting within the 172 inch maximum length.
Terrill stated this is a Design Review matter and the Code does permit 12
square feet of sign area per business. It is the option of the Board to
allow the Building Administrator to approve the signs rather than each one
being brought before the Board.
Style of the letter will be helvetica medium 10 inch.
Jim made a motion that the Board do approve this matter and that if anyone does
come back and re -submit a new sign code that that be a new matter. Bob made
an amendment to the motion that if it is accepted as a new matter then it
would have to be unanimous of all the shop owners. Jim accepted Bob's
amendment. Seconded by Tommy.
Terrill stated tht.t the Board could not re -condition a second matter by saying
it has to he unanimous, rt woulr' haxle to be reviewed on it's own merit.
this applicuL or.
Bob - the board can't take any action until the Association approves it.
Jerry said they should disapprove the application and make comments as to why
it is disapproved, and what is expected in the future.
Bob added that they also need the approval of the Condo Assoc. before coming
to the DRB.
Tommy suggested that the Board grant a continuance to keep the Homeowners
from having to pay the fee again.
Jerry suggested the Board table the issue until they receive an affidavit
from the Homeowners saying the approved of this plan.
Terrill stated that some decision had to be made within twenty days of the
meeting date. If any additional information is needed then the Board could
table the matter for an additiunal forty-five days. If the Board fails to
act in that time period then it is deemed Conditional Approval. Suggested
the Board reject the application and waive the fee so it doesn't have to
be paid again.
Jerry made a motion to reject the application with reasons being that in
consideration of the applicant coming back, the Board will waive the fees;
it has not gone through the proper channels and procedures (Homeowners Assoc.)
The proper entity to present this to the Board would be the Condo Assoc.
Motion was seconded by Tommy. Bill stated that the applicant does not have
the authority to make the application. No further discussion. All members
voted in favor of not accepting the application due to the applicant not
having the authority to make the application.
Item No. 3, Colorado Woodsmiths, Inc., Signs for Commercial Ar
Lodge, Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-1-6
Pete Morgan represented Christie Lodge/U S Home. Requesting approval for
signs for the Commercial Areas of Christie Lodge. Each sign will have a
maximum sign area of 12 square feet, with the letter being a maximum of
10 inches high. Pete stated he was making two proposals to the Board.
The first is to get approval for three (3) signs "CHRISTIE LODGE SALES,
SKI SHOP & TIMBERLINE PROPERTIES". The second proposal is to allow the
Building Administrator to approve the remainder of the signs providing each
one complies with what is being presented. 10 inch letters, anondized
aluminium and each sign fitting within the 172 inch maximum length.
Terrill stated this is a Design Review matter and the Code does permit 12
square feet of sign area per business. It is the option of the Board to
allow the Building Administrator to approve the signs rather than each one
being brought before the Board.
Style of the letter will be helvetica medium 10 inch.
Jim made a motion that the Board do approve this matter and that if anyone does
come back and re -submit a new sign code that that be a new matter. Bob made
an amendment to the motion that if it is accepted as a new matter then it
would have to be unanimous of all the shop owners. Jim accepted Bob's
amendment. Seconded by Tommy.
Terrill stated that the Board could not re -condition a second matter by saying
it has to be unanimous. It would have to be reviewed on it's own merit.
Motion did not pass.
-3-
Bill commented that the Board does not have an option to approve a sign that
is different from this program unless the program is modified to allow that.
The program is being set now. If a new program is set up then the Board could.
Bob made a motion to approve the program as presented. Motion was seconded
by Jim. No further discussion. Program was approved.
Item No. 4, Las Mananitas Restaurant/ChrFistie Lod e, Exterior Addition
Lot 25, Block 2, Benc mark Subdivision, i a No. 82-1-7.
Les Morgan of U S Home Corporation made the presentation. He stated that
with the exhaust system for the restaurant, they need to build an exterior
chase to handle the duct.
(AT THIS POINT, THE TAPE DECIDED TO NOT WORK, THEREFORE, I COULD NOT
FINISH THESE MINUTES.)
This item was tabled until further notice. The Board needed to see
more detailed plans.
2 Signsor fahar Condominium
sion, i e No. Kand- - .
Bill Pierce turned the Chair over to Bob Zeeb, due to having an interest
in this project.
ect
Eric Monson made the presentation. Requesting approval to put up two signs;
one at the entrance of the project and one on the sales office trailer.
The sign on the trailer is identified as an "Individual Business Lot Sign",
which cannot be over 32 square feet. (sign #1)
The entrance sign is identified as a "Development/Real Estate Sign", which
cannot be over 16 square feet in size. (sign #2) This sign must not be
higher than 8 feet. The posts will be 4 x 4 rather than the 3 x 12 which
was proposed.
Jerry made a motion to accept the signs. Motion was seconded by Tommy,
passed unanimously.
Bob turned the Chair back over to Bill.
Other Business:
Bill read a letter from City Market regarding an appeal to the Town Council
for their signs. The Board would like to be consulted regarding any appeal
made to the Council. If City Market is submitting something other than
what the Board disapproved, it should be reviewed by the DRB first.
Terrill stated he would send a letter to the Council in regards to th's matter.
Bill read a memorandum from the Town Council requesting that the DRB consider
an alternate member who will attend all meetings.
The Design Review Board recommends to the Town Council that an alternate
is appointed and be at each meeting and be paid for each meeting and that the
Town Council investigate and modify the Town Charter toallow that particular
event to occur and that all people who have file applications to be a member
of the Design Review Board be contacted in writing and asked if they are still
interested. In addition the alternate would fill in to the next vacant seat.
At that time a new alternate is to be selected.
Secretary is to send a letter to the Town Council regarding this matter.
•
L-3
Les Morgan of U S:Home Corporation made the presentation. He stated that
with the exhaust system for the restaurant, they need to build an exterior
chase to handle the duct.
(AT THIS POINT, THE TAPE DECIDED TO NOT WORK, THEREFORE, I COULD NOT
FINISH THESE MINUTES.)
This item was tabled until further notice. The Board needed to see
more detailed plans.
Item No. 5, Palmateer Real Estate, 2 Si ns for Kandahar Condominium Project,
Lot 60, Block , Benchmark u ivision, 116
No. -1-8.
Bill Pierce turned the Chair over to Bob Zeeb, due to having an interest
in this project.
Eric Monson made the presentation. Requesting approval to put up two signs;
one at the entrance of the project and one on the sales office trailer.
The sign on the trailer is identified as an "Individual Business Lot Sign",
which cannot be over 32 square feet. (sign #1)
The entrance sign is identified as a "DPvelopment/Real Estate Sign", which
cannot be over 16 square feet in size. (sign #2) This sign must not be
higher than 8 feet. The posts will be 4 x 4 rather than the 3 x 12 which
was proposed.
Jerry made a motion to accept the signs. Motion was seconded by Tommy,
pas:;ed unanimously.
Bob turned the Chair back over to Bill.
Other Business:
Bill read a letter from City Market regarding an appeal to the Town Council
for their signs. The Board would like to be consulted regarding any appeal
made to the Council. If City Market is submitting something other than
what the Board disapproved, it should be reviewed by the URB first.
Terrill stated he would send a letter to the Council in regards to this matter.
Bill read a memorandum from the Town Council requesting that the DRB consider
an alternate member who will attend all meetinys.
The Design Review Board recommends to the Town Council that an alternate
is appointed and be at each meeting and be paid for each meeting and that the
Town Council investigate and modify the Town Charter 'oallow that particular
event to occur and that all people who have file applications to be a member
of the Design Review Board be contacted in writing and asked if they are still
interested. In addition the alternate would fill in to the next vacant seat.
At that time a new alternate is to be selected.
Secretary is to send a letter to the Town Council regarding this matter.
-4-
40
r+kwwa
Change the Minutes of January 6, 1982, Page 2, to read "should use the
outside perimeter of the group of the letters."
Tommy made a motion to approve the Minutes of January 6, 1982, as amended.
Motion was seconded by Bob, passed unanimously.
Tommy made a motion to approve the minutes of January 20, 1982, seconded
by Bob, passed unanimously.
Bob motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Tommy, passed unanimously.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
7wYx��
Melody Cummings
Recording Secretary
gn Review Board