PZC Packet 110293Planning and Zoning Commission Stall Report
November 2, 1993
Lot 29B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Special Review Use, Home Occupation
PROJECT TYPE: Special Review Use -Public Hearing
ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION
Ms. Debra Brill, the owner and applicant, is requesting approval for a Special Review Use
to operate a home business. The proposed business is insurance sales and will include the
use of a phone, computer and typewriter. There will be no clients coming to the
residence, and there are no employees working for her.
STAFF COMMENTS
Following are the criteria, as listed in Section 17.48.040, to consider for approval of a
special review use:
A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the
zoning code;
COMMENT: The proposed home occupation complies with the definition of home
occupation, which includes: the use is incidental and subordinate to the use of the dwelling
unit as residence; does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential
character of the neighborhood; and, does not require or allow employees to work on the
property.
B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan;
COMMENT: The proposed home occupation conforms with the comprehensive plan.
Specifically, Goal #A], which states "Ensure that all land uses are located in appropriate
locations with appropriate controls." and Goal #B2 which states, "Enhance the Town's
role as a principal, year-round residential and commercial center in the Vail Valley." The
home occupation will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will
promote a year round service commercial activity.
C. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Such compatibility may
be expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features, site design, and the control of
any adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc.
[40
a:•4
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
November 2, 1993
Lot 29B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
OW Special Review Use, Home Occupation
COMMENT: The proposed use will not generate additional vehicular traffic, the facade
of the residence is not changing and no signs are being proposed since clients do not visit
Ms. Brill at her the residence.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this applic.ntion with the
conditions set forth below:
1. The building retain it's residential character by not installing any business signage on
the property or the building.
2. No employees are allowed to work on the property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Commission Review
6. Commission Action
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary Holden
Town Planner
►
I
W
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
November 2, 1993
Lot 29B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Special Review Use, Rome Occupation
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted (4 Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date /� 2/93 Sue Railton, Secretary
The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 93-10
qranting annroval of the Special Review Use for home occupation with the
following conditions:
1. The buildinq retain it's residential character by not installing any
business signage on the building or property
2. t10 employees are allowed to work on the property.
PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Avon Center
Final Design Review - Garage Door Addition
PROJECT TYPE: Mixed Use
ZONING: Town Center COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION:
The applicant, Bob Roman, is requesting the Commission approve the addition of an open
grate garage door, a white pedestrian door, and a pad for an electronic card operator in
the drive, which will open the garage door. The garage entrance is located on the west
portion of the building.
BUILDING CHANGE:
The only elevation change will be on the west, where the garage entrance is located. The
proposed changes have been included in your packet.
STAFF COMMENTS:
This project was granted a 15% reduction in their required parking. In order to receive a
reduction from the required parking, the spaces are not allowed to be reserved, except for
handicapped spaces. The addition of a card operated garage door would create a reserved
parking situation, not meeting one of the criteria for allowing the original parking
reduction.
A second concern with the request addresses the style of garage door proposed. The
Design Guidelines recommend a combination of glass and metal or wood, or solid wood
for doors and entryways, but state for service doors out of view of the public may be
hollow metal or solid wood in hollow metal frames. The garage door proposed is an open
metal grate door.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as proposed because:
1. The garage door would be locked off, and not open for all patrons and guests of the
building.
2. The Design Guidelines recommend that the garage door be of hallow metal or solid
wood in hollow metal frames.
I*
PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Avon Center
Final Design Review - Garage Door Addition
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Holden
Town Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Avon Center
Final Design Review - Garage Door Addition
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (✓j
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) ////
Date /� j Sue Railton, Secretary � XA�
The Commission granted final design approval for the proposed garage
door with the following conditions:
1. Hours for the on -n grate door to be closed be set at 10 °M to 7 AM
2. The surrounding stucco match the putty color on the existing building.
3. 9ny lighting used to illuminate the key entry or card entry be of low
wattage, incandescent.
4. e door be placed on an automatic timer.
Y 4� is
" • •
`1
ON
s.
y
Y
•
i
•
'a- .
i
• T -
4w
•o
0
..
r
,
Y
, '
LLJ
:1
UJ r
'
a
Act W
t
,
�A
I
IN AAA
ulnllnllili��
._
CL 9
e11t11111111F�'E{
1
_ ,
J ..
fill till 111k, !
Yillllll111la' ,
1111 1111 1111 4 :'
1IIIIIIIIIIIY;'�'
'`` `
Illllllllllq�
�
1111111111�1i:F
1111111111 Pik."
- '
111111111111wi 1
- j
��`
hI1111t111H�i1
-'
1III till 111WAI
�11111111tltlaja4Y,,
IIII fill 1111ri1
c 4.
1111 till till V -r
S
t
LLJ
:1
UJ r
a
Act W
�A
I
IN AAA
CL 9
V Uj .
i
Ir _
J ..
a
1•
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot 4, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Golden Eagle Service Center
Final Design Review, Modification
INTRODUCTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission granted final Design Review approval, with
conditions, to the Golden Eagle Service Center on July 6, 1993. The applicant, then came
back on October 5, 1993 for submittal of conditions, which were approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
This application concerns a revision on the south elevation, which effects the west and
east elevations. Enclosed in your packet are the proposed and original elevations.
STAFF COMMENT
Staff has no concerns with this modification. The elimination of the eyebrow and the
addition of the dormer roof breaks up the building mass.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this modification.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Holden
Town Planner
J
kAt
••
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MW November 2, 1993
Lot 4, Block t, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Golden Eagle Service Center
Final Design Review , Modification
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date �� 2 3 Sue Railton, Secretary
The Commission granted final design approval for the proposed
modifications as submitted.
� � I ��
F N
x �
W
L
L
V
C
F
,.:, � ,
�,.-
OOVL10100 ' NOAV
N33N0 2OAV39 1V A&MON39 ' 3NO N0039 ' b# 101
�JliNI0 30 1 A2JIS 3�OVI NIMOO
I
O
z
9916-LZ6# XVd :99L9LLO-LZO (COO
S aMflH l�I(
0
Q
W
a
Q
\ W
b
--
Q w
o
�
a1`
0
U g d
li
O
O
W
7
V
LL
9916-LZ6# XVd :99L9LLO-LZO (COO
S aMflH l�I(
0
Q
W
a
Q
\ W
b
is
a
No
10
w
Z Y
-U
UQO
Ohm
m W
C7 Z
U w U
�ml¢
i�r
wz
CL o'f
o
�h-m
J
\ W
x
m N
3U
Z
UZ
W
aCL
g0
0
�a
y
[*0
B
Lab
OOV8O300 'NOAV.
A33UO d3AV39 1V MVNHON39 '3NO N0039 'ilk 103
]1N10 10 1 A�I]S 3-19V3 NIM00
z_
w'
O
O
K
w
-i
U
N
C7
m
M
9915 -LU# XVJ !99L6-ZU (COC)
HH -9 U-1 NO
2
_d
m.
z
11—t
\OJ(
8�3
?v
OIC
11�
�0
A
0
Z m
a. v
co -DL
Luj
L
to
p w
V S
r cn
V) V)
R
3
r
�N
O W
w.i-_I
m
o
1 l
--
wm m
0s
z_
-�—.-
.�
w — U
co
11—t
11�
1
0
Til
m'
O W
w.i-_I
m
1 l
--
U' W
-�—.-
w — U
1
amLL a
-1-1-1 ' 11
1 Y 7-
0
,•
0
r
lb
z
w
1-
F-
m¢
�U
J N
W U 4'
Z
Q p
aW
w0
oN
w
4
o -
4
_0
I—
;l-
Q
1 � 1
s
y
U
z
ZQ
..
O
mm m
v
uj
W
m
0
O W
V) H
N N
r
D N
n1�
Z o
Z) Z
J-
-i
_0
I—
;l-
Q
w
w
11
w
10
W
U '
USO
O N m
m W
U Z
W W U
Q m U
} Q
� W
F- O S
J�0
a. Ln m
-3 Z
L O
\ o ?
O �
Q:
W En
m W
W n J
FU O Z
to LLI
O Z
n j = F
:3z m^
ow 0
LLJ
J W
Q J
CL
1
En W J
Z
Q Q.a
0 1
w \\
a:
Q X
m W
H
1:
N N
3 U
Z
0-
z
H W
Qa
�O
O
Q
u
C-
LL LL
I
r -
a
U.
ooVHOIOD 'NonV
LV AWNHON30 ' 3NO NOOlO 't# 101
A?JIIS TiOdII NICY100
9916-LZ6# XVJ !990 -LN (0£) IZ919 •00 111
S 1-IMH NO S dKOHz
JJJJJ 'JJJJJ) J W � z
JJJ- o JJ 08 O
Y 4 U m _
JJJ_ = z <
J J J �� Q U
J JJJJJJJJJJ J
J J J JJJ J J J—
J
JJJJJJJJJJJ Y -a W
J a �
Jm
J WQ . W
xa
+' m o
o
LL-
L)
1—
JcrW
J � c
J f � •,
JJ J )JJJ JJJN.v.�N},�
JJJJJJJJJJJ En
z J v. JJJJJJIIJ. •- 7
J
J
JJ i J J
JJJ aZ ,.
JJJ 4 JJJ
q JJJ J
WC
— J JJJ JJJJJ �=•Itv;,'.'`';i;i.`
J J JJJJJ J _ aV''i '•yc�,"-"^.
CNT'
111 y`.mwZ
„1
"U W U
PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot 1-2, Block 1, The Lodge at Avon Subdivision
Avon Town Square
Final Design Review - Placement of Two Rail Open Fence
PROJECT TYPE: Placement of Split Rail Fence on Vacant Lot
ZONING: Town Center COMPLIES WITH ZONING? N/A
INTRODUCTION/REQUEST:
Mr. Jack Berga, on behalf of the owner, Mr. AI Williams, has submitted an application for
the placement of a temporary two rail open fence along the northern property lines of Lots
1 and 2, Block 1, The Lodge at Avon Subdivision. The fence will serve as a barrier to
keep people from parking on the lot throughout the winter, thereby eliminating snow
compaction. The owner is intending to start a project on this site in April of 1994.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Our main concern with the request is location of the fence, which is in a 10' roadway,
utility, walkway and drainage easement. The Town Engineer has stated the fence must be
placed on the back edge o: the easement or out of the easement.
The type of fence prcoosed follows the Design Guidelines with it being a two rail open
fence.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
-Ahaltl
Mary Holden
Town Planner
r
PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT
- November 2, 1993
Lot 1-2, Block 1, The Lodge at Avon Subdivision
_ Avon Town Square
Final Design Review - Placement of Split Rail Fence
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date _// 2 IfJ Sue Railton, Secretary
The Commission qranted approval f the temporary two rail fence, with
the condition that the final approval of the placement of the fence be
made bit the Town Engineer.
IANd.a9 a0 �a C
V NNdgq Y
u>INO �qC �
s04�. CY A
1�dO 0Ygi1
emao � o
C4dOY dV ROAD
0
YA�A>tOi f.
�ONYa YNA E
AVON VOA��q UO d 1'
15 E 901
.SGC@"N N 10 2
aa7>°c'o oC
V9��•CYU C✓
I
144.49
II
x I
N '
LU
W
w z W
W
2 y
mx Q� m
111Lli
to
W
Lli
2 O
fn m
K J ^� !� I
IW
ot y
�W
c\ h n
7 lb
+' \ I M
2 IW
�$riy T a
\ " w
4 Iv
v
\\ I v
\ o
a _ G>iL 0
a \
0d
. ,
b I
I
I
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Anderson Duplex
Final Design Review Modifications
PROJECT TYPE: Duplex
ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION:
This residerre received final Design Review approval, with conditions on April 16, 1991
and final approval of those conditions on January 19, 1993. Ms. Paige Anderson, the
owner, has submitted an application requesting various additional changes that include:
• West Elevation
• Adding windows above the entry door on the north unit;
• Shifting the stucco further north to encompass the entry door on the north;
• Adding a window on the third level on the north unit;
• Lowering the entry roof on the south unit and changing window style;
• Adding stucco around the two windows on the south unit and around the
garage doors for both units; and
• Enlar,,ing the existing deck.
• East Elevation
• Removing stucco; and
• Adding two windows.
• North Elevation
• Adding a deck;
• Adding door in place of a window;
• Adding a vertical window;
• Enlarging window;
• Adding a door on the lower level, underneath the deck; and
• Adding a 6 x 6 retaining wall.
• South Elevation
• Adding three windows.
• Building Material
• Roof - GAF Designer Class "A" Asphalt Shingles, Charcoal in color.
• Building Colors
• Body - SW2241, High Tide, (muted light green)
• Trim - SW2385, Olympic Range, (dark green)
• Stucco - Off-white
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
w�
November 2 1993
Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Anderson Duplex
Final Design Review Modifications
STAFF COMMENTS
This lot was subdivided, with the northern lot requiring an access, parking, and utility
easement across the southern lot, owned by the Andersens. The proposed deck slightly
encroaches on the easement.
The applicant is requesting approval of a charcoal colored dimensional roof material. The
original Design Review approval specified a "Woodruff masonite roof material; however,
that material could not be obtained with a fire rating.
The changes reflected on the elevations fit with the overall design of the building. The
colors proposed are appropriate for the Wildridge area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission approve this request with the attached conditions:
1. The deck be removed from the easement, or that portion of the easement is properly
vacated.
2. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height must be designed by a licensed engineer and
approved by the Town Engineer.
3. Utility meters must be located on the building.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Holden
Town Planner
•
Ra
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Anderson Duplex
Final Design Review Modifications
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date // Z Sue Railton, Secretary_ /44-�
The Commission granted approval for the design modifications, including
the windows, placement of the stucco, the roof, and the deck, with the
following conditions:
1. e encroachment into the easement resolved.
2. The full color samples be brought back for review.
3. Any retaining rills over 4 feet in height must be designed by a
licensed engineer and approved by the Town Engineer.
4. Utility meters must be located on the building.
1•
0
0
Fa �tv
'
w i
0044
P �
�0 o
J 9
t 100
/
/
/
/M'DUTN 15W r3i To"' = 19'12'34w
/pNPGE °`
7 5 Dap / '. ' R = 145.00' /
4f i is oa N� T = 24.54'
c 48.61'
S1 1'50'50"E
vD4nj C 48.39'
&gw Ea. 1 1 OT \
s<y 1 NS R 22. sq.ft.
= 28'29'29" —
225.00'
57.12'
= 111.89'
= N06'53'57"W
= 110.74'
A . 1lv 2'b4'
k .
T.. 41.52'
'L'. NOB'2
Co. N2'W
L . 82.3•v' 2.35' I _ .
L N 90'
C.B. 75 'O9'W
34
G . 34 73'
A =
38'48'45" '
R as
100.00'
T =
35.23'
L =
67.74'
C8=
N12 -03'35"W
C =
66.45'
741
. �� i+T'S3• ,• Q@0.
/ � UnLITN
/ /apt pia t5 N
/-A. 2195!4'
N . 24 39''
A . OB40'22' / T a N 39'
'R . 225.00' L . 48.23'
.T . 16.40' / CO. SOB'27'49'W
:L . 32.75' C w A7.96'
--'CB. NO3IW37'E (/
:C . 32.72 /
3/ /
in V
1 �
l
A s
35'21'10"
R =
145.00'
T =
46.21'
L =
89.47'
CB=
S03'46'32"E
C =
88.06'
NOTES
1) SURVEY DATE: Morch 1993.
2) BASIS OF BEARINGS: A beorM9 of S. 19'00'41'W. W.", the •ebur and
aluminum cap mwnments. L.S. 16835, bund. makMg the South Angle
Point and Sw1h"est Cones of Lot 2. Black 5. Replat Numbs, 2. Wildlidge
SubdlNaim, as shown on the Final Plot thereof Wild M Hook 330 al Page
78 of the Eagle County Reco,ds.
3) COMPLETION DATE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: These we no Public
improsements proposed.
4) Dred lines, eossments of reeved and legal description viers delermMed Iran,
the FMal Subdidsion Plat of WAdrldge. Replot Numbn 2. and ALTA Title
Commilment, doer No. 93008860. issued by Sleworl idle GuwontY
Company and doted 01 Mwch 1993. _
5) STREET ADDRESSES: ROAD
LOT 1: 1004 WST OT 2: 1002 WEST WILOWCOU ROAD
LAND USE SUMMARY
LOT
ARfA
USAGE TOTAL OYIELLINO UNITS
1071
21474
11. DUKE% 2
LOT 2
19,405 fig.
11. DUPLEX 2
TOTAL
41.680..
R. 4
PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ridgeline Condominium
Site Plan Modification
PROJECT TYPE: Multifamily
ZONING: PUD, Multifamily COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION:
Ridpline Condominiums received final Design Review approval on September 7, 1990.
On the site plan approved for Final Design Review, there was extensive site disturbance
shown on the east side of the lot, behind the buildings. But, on the plans submitted for the
issuance of a building permit, a rock retaining wall, approximately 75 feet in length, was
shown. This was approved for construction in lieu of extensive site grading. However,
ti rock retaining wall, during construction, was extended to approximately 270 feet in
length, thereby eliminating most of the site disturbance on the east side of the lot.
STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS:
Staff has been on site to look at the retaining wall, which is approximately 2-3 feet in
height. The construction of the rock retaining wall has prevented much of the site
disturbance that was originally shown on the east side.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
�IGLr- 64a��c�
Mary Holden
Town Planner
[•
r•
I I"
PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot 4, Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision
Ridgeline Condominium
Site Plan Modification
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted (� Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date IJ 2 3 Sue Railton, Secretary �
The Commission granted approval for the rock wall modifications as submitted.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot 71, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
North Court
Condition ofApproval - Video Drop Box
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Building
ZONING: TC - Town Center
COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION:
At the September 21, 1993 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission
approved the Sign Program for North Court and asked the owner of Box Office Video,
Jim Benson, to return with pictures of the proposed drop box for review. It was further
stated by Mr. Amsbaugh that he would like to review the vehicular circulation in the
parking lot in relation to the drop box location. At the October 19, 1993, meeting the
applicant returned with a picture of the box.
At that meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the application and directed
Staff to work with the Town Engineer on addressing circulation in the parking lot. Staff
and the applicant have met with the Town Engineer on site to discuss circulation.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The primary concern is the impact of the video drop box on circulation in the parking lot.
Three sites were looked at during the site visit with the applicant. Of the three sites, the
Town Engineer determined that the best location was at the outside edge of the sidewalk,
to the west of the entry door. This location provided pedestiran circulation on the
sidewalk and would allow video drop off through the passanger window without
disturbing traffic flow.
Enclosed is a memorandum from the Town Engineer addressing the circulation in the
parking lot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to approve the video drop box, staff
suggests the following conditions:
1. That the video drop box be painted to match the building and/or trim color.
2. The drop box shall not display additional advertising and be marked for "video cassette
return only".
10
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot 71, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
r North Court
Condition of Approval - Video Drop Box
3. That the box be located at the outside edge of the sidewalk, as suggested by the Town
Engineer.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Holden
Town Planner
10
e
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 2, 1993
Lot 71, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
North Court
Condition of Approval - Video Drop Box
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted (` Approved with recommended conditions
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date__jt 2 Sue Railton, Secretary_ ,Z�
The Com fission granted approval of the video drop box with the following
conditions:
1. The dron box shall not display additional advertising, and shall
2. The box be located at the outside edge ot the sidewalk, as 'suggested
3. Approval be for a period of cne year, at which time location
box will be reviewed for any problems.