PZC Minutes 041581 (2)No
MINUTES OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
APRIL 15, 1981, 7:300 P. M.
The regular meeting of the Design Review Board for the Town of Avon was held on
April 15, 1981 at 7:45 P. M. in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon
in the Benchmark Shopping Center, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order
by Chairman Bill Pierce.
All Board Members were present, also present was John Dunn, Town Attorney.
Larry, Cheryl and Mike came in later.
Item #1, ORDINANCE NO. 4, SERIES OF 1981 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
12, SERIES OF 1979, TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF 51HE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WITH RESPECT
TO CHANGES IN PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT; AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION
THEREOF.
John Dunn presented Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1981 ("Ordinance 81-4"). There
was some question regarding the ci-cumstances under which buildings once completed
could be altered. Buck Creek Plaza was mentioned, regarding the changes in the
use of certain parts of that building. Ordinance No. 81-4 will add an "e" to
Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance "...to provide that no building or other
structure or improvement shall be erected or constructed except in compliance
with the plan of development approved by the Design Review Board. Nor shall
any completed building or other structure or improvement be reconstructed or
altered as to use, density, parking lot requirements, height or lot coverage
unless such reconstruction or alterations shall first been approved by the Design
Review Board".
John made the request that the Board by a motion recommend the Ordinance
for adoption by the Council. Bill asked for comments from the Board and the
audience and there weren't any. Bill stated that the Board requested the Town
Council to direct the Town Attorney to address issues of inconsistency between
the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Review Board guidelines. John stated that
there are misunderstandings rather than inconsistencies.
The Ordinance states two things: projects must be constructed according to the
plAns approved by the Design Review Board and any changes to the plans will be
brought before the Board; once a plan is approved by the Design Review Board
it muot be adhered to strictly.
John stated that the rules for changes in the Ordinance are not explicit, and
should be so. The plan for development must be approved by the Board, the plan
for development does not include landscaping in terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
Alice made a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1981 to
the Town Council, Tom seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Item #2a, Heritage Building, Approval Contingencies, Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark
Subdivision, File No. 81-3-16.
Will Adams represented Pacific Heritage. Bill summarized the contingencies:
the number of loading spaces required and one or two other items.
Will presented the exterior lighting which the Board requested to see. Will's
associate Lee Bucheald (?) indicated the places where the lighting will be placed,
entrance lighting, recessed entrance walkway lighting and wall lighting. The
fluorescent pole lighting will be in five places, the wattage is unknown. Prescott
lights will be used, submittals will be given to the Building Department before
construction begins, the height will be about 16 feet. There being no objections,
the lighting plan was granted approval.
1•
April 15, 19:L at 7:45 P. M. in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon
in the Benchmark Shopping Center, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order
by Chairman Bill Pierce.
All Board Members were present, also present was John Dunn, Town Attorney.
Larry, Cheryl and Mike came in later.
Item #1, ORDINANCE NO. 4, SERIES OF 1981 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
12, SERIES OF 1979, TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WITH RESPECT
TO CHANGES IN PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT; AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION
THEREOF.
_ John Dunn presented Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1961 ("Ordinance 81-4"). There
was some question regarding the circumstances under which buildings once completed
could be altered. Buck Creek Plaza was mentioned, regarding the changes in the
use of certain parts of that building. Ordinance No. 81-4 will add an "e" to
Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance '...to provide that no buildin_r or other
structure or improvement shall be e.ected or constructed except in compliance
with the plan of development approzed by the Design Review Board. Nor shall
any completed building or other structure or improvement be reconstructed or
altered as to use, density, parking lot requirements, height or lot coverage
unless such reconstruction or alterations shall first been approved by the Design
Review Board".
John made the request that the Board by a motion recommend the Ordinance
for adoption by the Council. Bill asked for comments from the Board and the
audience and there weren't any. Bill stated that the Board requested the Town
Council to direct the Town Attorney to address issues of inconsistency between
the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Review Board guidelines. John stated that
there are misunderstandings rather than inconsistencies.
The Ordinance states two things: projects must be constructed according to the
plans approved by the Design Review Board and any changes to the plans will be
brought b:fore the Board; once a plan is approved by the Design Review Board
it must be adhered to strictly.
John stated that the rules for changes in the Ordinance are not explicit, and
should be so. The plan for development must be approved by the Board, the plan
for d9velopment does not include landscaping in terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
Alice made a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1981 to
the Town Council, Tom secondr- . motion and it was passed unanimously.
Item #2a, Heritage Building Approval Contingencies Lot 3 Block 3 Benchmark
Subdivision, File No. 81-3-16.
Will Adams represented Pacific Heritage. Bill summarized the contingencies:
the number of loading spaces required and one or two other items.
Will presented the exter'or lighting which the Board requested to see. Will's
associate Lee Buchw-ld (?) indicated the places where the lighting will be placed,
entrance lighting, recessed entrance walkway lighting and wall lighting. The
fluorescent pole lighting will be in five places, the wattage is unknown. Prescott
lights will be used, submittals will be given to the Building Department before
construction begins, the height will be about 16 feet. There being no objections,
the lighting pian was granted approval.
-1-
f
,*i.A'S ,rk,+
Letter from the State Department of Highways: they have been requested to build
an entire new lane from where the road starts curving to the intersection. It
is in the process of being formalized, indicating a semi truck using the loading
spaces. The letter will be forw___ ed to the Building Department. Trees were
added for screening. A parking space was removed for easier access to tht icading
spaces. There being no objections, the truck access and landsc•-.ping modification
were granted approval contingent upon the number of spaces being adequate.
Loading spaces: John made the distinction between loading spaces (which are
the spaces in question) and loading docks; loading docks are not the issue.
A loading space is a parking space, 10 X 35 feet, which has a sign which reads
"loading space only", they are L.rger than parking spaces. If there are to be
one zpace per 5,000 square feet of commercial as stated in the Ordinance, this
project will be required to have seven loading spaces. Will would like to assign
the existing loading spaces (shown on their plans) as permanent and to assign
five additional spaces as tempor.iry loading spaces. This can be done without
completely blocking the lane. The Zoning Ordinance requires 10 feet wide and 35
feet long for each loading space.
The square footage of the building and proposed use of the building: the top
three floors are 8,588 square feet each of offices, the first floor is 5,000
square feet of retail or office and 3,600 square feet will be restaurant. There
are two levels of parking underneath. The parking requirements are met, even
though one parki;.g space was removed. Tom stated concern for the undesignated
part of the building, it may affect the number of loading spaces. Will stated
that 5,000 square feet is undesi(Inated. Mike mentioned Ordinance No. 81-4 dis-
cussed earlier in the meeting; alterations to the building may mean alterations
in the parking, etc. There is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that allows for
variances from the Ordinance.
Dick stared that the number of seats in the restaurant will affect the number
of parking spaces required, as well as the square footage. There are five or
six parking spaces which will be affected by the temporary loading spaces proposed,
if those spaces are assigned for long term parking, hindrance will be lessened.
The Board was individually polled for opinions, the general opinion was that
the number of loading spaces is adequate. Bill asked for comments from the
audience and there weren't any. The Board stated that the loading spaces are ade-
quate as described for this particular project, a letter from the Fire Department
approving the emergency access with the proposed loading space solution should
be sent to the Building Department.
Item #2, Heritage Building, Sign, Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision File
No. 81-3-6.
Teri Dresner presented the sign. The sign will be wood carved, similar to the
sign they built for the Charter at Beaver Creek, hand cut wood. The location
will be at the corner of Highway 6 and West Beaver Creek Boulevard on Lot 3.
Teri stated that the sign conforms to the Sign Ordinance, this is a temporary
sign and will be removed when the building is completed and the signage goes up
on the building. Bill requested that it be removed when the Certificate of occu-
pancy is issued.
This temporary sign is for sales purposes, the State Highway Department requires
that any sign be 50 feet from an intersection, the sign will not be lighted.
Let the record ahow that all Board Members are now present. There being no
objections, approval was granted for the sign with the conditions that it be
removed when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued; if they prefer to keep the
sign up after that time they are to come back before the Board with that request.
Item #3, High Country Plaza Zone Change, Lot 3, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision,
File No. 81-3-17.
Allen Butler represented High Country Plaza. The total building area is 22,757+
square feet. The required off-street loading spaces are four, they propose three.
The required parking is 55.24, they have parking for 54 cars. They are requesting
a sneciol hearing rcgardinq open space reluirements, the loading space require-
M"t- -.na 11), ,rf_-.tr ^r .j �C iu i.Ya^^_nt^ _ m*, �. ,�_ elI
"acing s,Daces: Jon" maae the d1zt1nctic,n :, twee!' loadiny spaces (whiul, ai,
the spaces in question) and loading docks; loading docks are not the issue.
A loading space is a parking space, 10 X 35 feet, which has a sign which reads
"loading space only", they are larger than parking spaces. If there are to be
one space per 5,000 square feet of commercial as stated in the Ordinance, this
project will be required to have seven loading spaces. Will would like to assign
the existing loading spaces (shown on their plans) as permanent and to assign
five additional spaces as temporary loading spaces. This can be done without
completely blocking the idne. The Zoning Ordinance requires 10 feet wide and 35
feet long for each loading space.
The square footage of the building and proposed use of the building: the top
three floors are 8,588 square feet each of offices, the first floor is 5,000
square feet of retail or office and 3,600 square feet will be restaurant. There
are two levels of parking underneath. The parking requirements are met, even
though one parking space was removed. Tom stated concern for the undesignated
part of the building, it may affect the number of loading spaces. Will stated
that 5,000 square feet is undesignated. Mike mentioned Ordinance No. 81-4 dis-
cussed earlier in the meeting; alterations to the building may mean alterations
in the parking, etc. There is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that allows for
variances from the Ordinance.
Dick stated that the number of seats in the restaurant will affect the number
of parking spaces required, as well as the square footage. There are five or
six parking spaces which will be affected by the temporary loading spaces proposed,
if those spaces are assigned for long term parking, hindrance will be lessened.
The Board was individually polled for opinions, the general opinion was that
the number of loading spaces is adequate. Bill asked for comments from the
audience and there weren't any. The Board stated that the loading spaces are ade-
quate as described for this particular project, a letter from the Fire Department
approving the emergency access with the proposed loading space solution should
be sent to the Building Department.
Item #2, Heritage Building, Sign, Lot 3 Block 3 Benchmark Subdivision File
No. 81-3-6.
Teri Dresner presented the sign. The sign will be wood carved, similar to the
sign they built for the Charter at Beaver Creek, hand cut wood. The location
will be at the corner of Highway 6 and West Beaver Creek Boulevard on Lot 3.
Teri stated that the sign conforms to the Sign Ordinance, this is a temporary
sign and will he removed when the building is completed and the signage goes up
on the building. Bill requested that it be removed when the Certificate of occu-
pancy is issued.
This temporary sign is for sales purposes, the State Highway Department requires
that any sign be 50 feet from an intersection, the sign will not be lighted.
Let the record show that all Bocrd Members are now present. There being no
objections, approval was granted for the sign with the conditions that it be
removed when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued; if they prefer to keep the
sign up after that time they are to come back before the Board with that request.
Item #3, High Country Plaza Zone Change Lot 3 Block 1 Benchmark Subdivision,
File No. 81-3-17.
Allen Butler represented High Country Plaza. The total building area is 22,757+
square feet. The required off-street loading spaces are four, they propose three.
The required parking is 55.24, they have parking for 54 cars. They are requesting
a special hearing regarding open space requirements, the loading spare require-
ments and the off-street parking requirements. The open space requested is 22.7%
lwa
rather than 258, off-street loading spaces requested are three rather than the
required four.
The hardware store will be on the ground floor, about 11,900 square feet, the
deliveries will occur each Monday morning, one truck. ]Rio Grande Motor Freight
addressed a letter to the Town Council stating that the tractor -end trailer is
34 feet long for local deliveries.
Allen mentioned other buildings in the Avon/Vail area and the number of loading
spaces which they have, also mentioned were buildings in the Denver area and
their loading spaces.
Bill stated that each item would be discussed separately. He asked the secretary
if any letters have been received by the Town regarding this public hearing,
there have not; he asked if any one was present in the audience to make a state-
ment regarding this issue, there was no one. Open space: because of the loading
space, the open space has been cut back. Bill stated that variances are requested
and/or granted when a particular hardship exists.
The reduction of open space is minimal, but there is not particularly a hardship
case presented. John stated that the Zoning Code does not allow for variances
from the Code, it is absolute, the Board does riot have the authority to grant
or recommend reduction in open usable area,. The Board was cautioned to be con-
sistent in their approvals or recommendations, temporary loading spaces which
do not obstruct many parking spaces may be a solution. Similarities to the
Pacific Heritage loading problem were discussed.
For a 55 foot long truck to turn completely in the paved area, they would have to
take out some of the building. Norm Lamb mentioned that other projects have
used parking spaces as temporary loading spaces, the loading spaces seem adequate
for this building. Allen stated that there were no recommendations to the Council
from the Board regarding their project when they went before the Council during
the last meeting. The word "variance" does not appear in the Zoning Ordinance.
Bill stated that they must comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance,
the Board has approved the use of driving lanes as loading space. The Board can
not grant a variance on parking and can not grant a variance on site coverage or
on loading space requirements.
Allen asked if the Board has granted variances in the past, Marilyn Minor, audi-
ence, stated that City Market has two loading spaces when the legal requirement
is for eight spaces, the Zoning Ordinance was in effect when that project was
approved. Jack Minor, audience: the Town Council was looking for a recommenda-
tion from the Bodrd. The Board could request that the Council review the requir(
merits for parking as required in the Zoning Ordinance, in reference to loading
docks, the Board has made that request.
Jim Wells, audience: the Board can recommend to the Town Council that the Ordi-
nance be amended, someone on the Board needs to be responsible for communicating
with the Council. They do have a place which can be used as temporary loading
spaces, Allen will put it on paper and bring it in. Allen will defer his final
presentation of the project until the new plan is presented.
Dick stated that final approval can not be given unless the ramp grade is 148
or close to it, the exit drive is only 18 feet wide, the radius may not work,
entrance culverts are needed, the finished grading study is needed, and other
items are required, the tandem parking should be restricted. Tom commented on
the preparation of this project, more work needs to be done before it is presented.
Bill: the 148 grade for the drive is far too steep, the site appears to be
overdeveloped.
Other business with the Town Attorney: Cheryl: does the Board send a recom-
mendation to the Town Council that the Board recommends three things - 1) the
loading space requirement be reduced or revised, 2) a variance may be requested
for a loading space and 3) that a variance can be requested for open space?
Bill: ask the Town Council to address themselves to the question of loading
spaces and the number required in the Zoning Ordinance and set up a provision for
variance to any suction of the Zoning Cole.
iruror ui,. i. i. r.,t n^ ]Tl Irl- ar^_3 ,,^.7 rfle numS�_r-ot--l.
spaces which they have, also mentioned were buildings in the Denver area and
their loading spaces.
Bill stated that each item would be discussed separately. He asked the secretary
if any letters have been received by the Town regarding this public hearing,
there have not; he asked if any one was present in the audience to make a state-
ment regarding this issue, there was no one. Open space: because of the loading
space, the open space has been cut back. Bill stated that variances are requested
and/or granted when a particular hardship exists.
The reduction of open space is minimal, but there is not particularly a hardship
case presented. John stated that the Zoning Code does not allow for variances
from the Code, it is absolute, the Board does riot have the authority to grant
or recommend reduction in open usable area. The Board was cautioned to be con-
sistent in their approvals or recommendations, temporary loading spaces which
do not obstruct many parking space6 may be a solution. Similarities to the
Pacific Heritage loading problem were discussed.
For a 55 foot long truck to turn completely in the paved area, they would have to
take out some of the building. Norm Lamb mentioned that other projects have
used parking spaces as temporary loading spaces, the loading spaces seem adequate
for this building. Allen stated that there were no recommendations to the Council
from the Board regarding their project when they went before the Council during
the last meeting. The word "variance" does not appear in the Zoning Ordinance.
Bill stated that they must comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance,
the Board has approved the use of driving lanes as loading space. The Board can
not grant a variance on parking and can not grant a variance on site coverage or
on loading space requirements.
Allen asked if the Board has granted variances in the past, Marilyn Minor, audi-
ence, stated that City Market has two loading spaces when the legal requirement
is for eight spaces, the Zoning Ordinance was in effect when that project was
approved. Jack Minor, audience: the Town Council was looking for a recommenda-
tion from the Board. The Board could request that the Council review the require-
ments for parking as required in the Zoning Ordinance, in reference to loading
docks, the Board has made that request.
Jim Wells, audience: the Board can recommend to the Town Council that the Ordi-
riance be amended, someone on the Board needs to be responsible for communicating
with the Council. They do have a place which can be used as temporary loading
spaces, Allen will put it on paper. and bring it in. Allen will defer his final
presentation of the project until the new plan is presented.
Dick stated that final approval can not be given unless the ramp grade is 14%
or close to it, the exit drive is only 18 feet wide, the radius may not work,
entrance culverts are needed, the finished grading study is needed, and other
items are required, the tandem parking should be restricted. Tom commented on
the preparation of this project, more work needs to be done before it is presented.
Bill: the 14% grade for the drive is far too steep, the site appears to be
overdeveloped.
Other business with the Town Attorney: Cheryl: does the Board send a recom-
mendation to the Town Council that the Board recommends three things - 1) the
loading space requirement be reduced or revised, 2) a variance may be requested
for a loading space and 3) that a variance can be requested for open space?
Bill: ask the Town Council to address themselves to the question of loading
spaces and the number required in the Zoning Ordinance and set up a provision for
variance to any section of the Zoning Code.
-3-
to
The process of public notice was discussed. John stated that he needs the authori-
zation from the Mayor to amend the Ordinance. Wells: the Council needs to be
informed of the reasons or problems with the recommendations or approvals that
the Board has given for the projects which are referred to the Council. Mark
Peson, audience: why is there a format and a fee for a special review if the
Board does not have the authority to grant a change? Bill: the special review
uses are stated in the Ordinance and can be recommended. Cheryl has been in
contact with other municipalities regarding loading requirements.
Item #8, Skiview Condominiums, Rudd
Lot 18, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivi
, Revised Plans, Four Units
File No. 81-3-2.
Wayne Rudd represented Skiview Condominiums. This project was presented at an
earlier meeting, Wayne is back with the recommendations made by the Board at that
meeting. There are now two four foot offsets to the building, all four elevations
are presented, the size of the trees and the entrance light have been added.
The trees are four inch caliper, six feet high, more aspen trees have been added
to the front of the building. The entrance light will be six feet high, regular
residential light, all the corners on the building will be done in a dark trim,
the siding is redwood channel lap, cedar shingles. There is not a design of the
retaining wall shown, it is a railroad tie wall, there will not be a sign for the
project. Trash storage - it is now back on the end of the off-street parking
area. Black top will be used for the paved areas.
Materials changed - the Board requested some use of stucco rather than all siding,
and other material changes to accent the building. "Chip and seal" will not be
used, Wayne stated that asphalt will be used. Bill again stated his objections
to the use of this design in Wildridge. The rest of the Board: it would help
to break it up with some different materials, may be stuc.o on the stacks and
perhaps stucco below the first level decks, the stepping helps, the decks are
held up by posts or they may be shortened and cantilevered, paint the chimney
stacks a darker color, things could be done to enhance the building without
spending a lot of money.
Poll of the Board: the majority of the Board approves, this project was granted
approval.
Item 04, Avon Center at Beaver Creek, Sign, Lots 47-54, Block 2, Benchmark Sub-
division, File No. 81-3-7.
Norm Lamb represented Avon Center at Beaver Creek. This sign was presented at
the last meeting, Norm presented pictures of the sign. As the building grows,
the sign becomes less of an impact. The sign is framed canvas with air slits,
tied down, it is moved as the building goes up.
Bill stated that the sign can be kept up for six months, if they want it up
longer, they are to come back before the Board on October 15, 1931; if it is
in need of repair, the sign is to come down immediately. Based on the above
comments, the Board granted approval for this sign.
Item 05. Moun
No. 81-3-5.
Modification, Lot 76. Block
Rick Bolduc represented this project. They would like to extend the roof line
all the way across, as opposed to just one-half way for each unit to remove
)ost which would go through the middle of the master bedroom and dining room.
The vaulted ceiling will go all the way up, fixed windows will be added to the
windows already there.
The roof was approved with cedar shakes, they are going to meet with the Wild -
ridge Covenants Committee to request a metal roof. The building does not create
a high visual impact; there being no objections, the Board granted final approval
for the modification.
Item #8, Skiview
Lot 18. Block 1.
on, Inc
No. 81 -
Revised Plans. Four
Wayne Rudd represented Skiview Condominiums. This project was presented at an
earlier meeting, Wayne is back with the recommendations made by the Board at that
meeting. There are now two four foot offsets to the building, all four elevations
are presented, the size of the trees and the entrance light have been added.
The trees are four inch caliper, six feet high, more aspen trees have been added
to the front of the building. The entrance light will be six feet high, regular
residential light, all the corners on the building will be done in a dark trim,
the siding is redwood channel lap, cedar shingles. There is not a design of the
retaining wall shown, it is a railroad tie wall, there will not be a sign for the
project. Trash storage - it is now back on the end of the off-street parking
area. Black top will be used for the paved areas.
Materials changed - the Board requested some use of stucco rather than all siding,
and other material changes to accent the building. "Chip and seal" will not be
used, Wayne stated that asphalt will be used. Bill again stated his objections
to the use of this design in Wildridge. The rest of the Board: it would help
to break it up with some different materials, may be stucco on the stacks and
perhaps stucco below the first level decks, the stepping helps, the decks are
held up by posts or they may be shortened and cantilevered, paint the chimney
stacks a darker color, things could be done to enhance the building without
spending a lot of money.
Poll of the Board: the majority of the Board approves, this project was granted
approval.
Item #4, Avon Center at Beaver Creek, Sign, Lots 47-54 Block 2 Benchmark
File No. 81-3-7
Norm Lamb re*resented Avon Center at Beaver Creek. This sign was presented at
the last meeting, N;rm presented pictures of the sign. As the building grows,
the sign becomes less of an impact. The sign is framed canvas with air slits,
tied down, it is moved as the building goes up.
Bill stated that the sign can be kept up for six months, if they want it up
longer, they are to come back before the Board on October 15, 1981; if it is
in need of repair, the sign is to come down immediately. Based on the above
comments, the Board granted approval for this sign.
Item #5, Mountain Shadows, Roof Modification, Lot 76, Block 1, Wi
I�OCFCMM
Rick Bolduc represented this project. They would like to extend the roof line
all the way across, as opposed to just one-half way for each unit to remove a
post which would go through the middle of the master bedroom and dining room.
The vaulted ceiling will go all the way up, fixed windows will be added to the
windows already there.
The roof was approved with cedar shakes, they are going to meet with the Wild -
ridge Covenants Committee to request a metal roof. The building does not create
a high visual impact; there being no objections, the Board granted final approval
for the modification.
-4-
LI
Item #6, Peregrine Properties, Trailer Site Location, Lots 62-64, Block 2, Bench-
mark Subdivision, File No. 81-3-14.
No one was present to represent Peregrine Properties.
Item #7, Avon 66 Partnership, Office Building, Preliminary, Lot 66, Block 2,
Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 81-4-2.
Kathy Warren, David Peel, architects and Jim Potter, owner represented Avon 66,
This is a three -tory office building, 7,270 net square feet, 8,800 gross square
feet. The building is bermed up on the northwest side and the northeast side.
On the parking side is a planter two feet high, on two sides will appear as a
2t, story building.
Materials - all stucco, colors as shown, metal standing seam roof with a bank
of skylights, cantilevered greenhouse on the south side on the second floor, the
first floor has 2,200 square feet, entrance and handicapped access on the ground
floor. There is a stair tower to the second floor, everything which projects
from the building is cantilevered four feet, with a deck on the north side, a
wood framed building, no sign at this time.
Bill requested landscaping around the parking area edge, the front of the building
faces southeast, 22 parking spaces are required, they have 25, there are no
loading spaces shown. Loading spaces - could provide temporary spaces at the
entrance, there was considerable discussion regarding the location of the tem-
porary spaces. Mike stated that a penuanent loading space is used exclusively
for loading, temporary can be used for parking.
Jim Potter stated that this is a preliminary presentation, they would like the
Board's reactions to the general idea of the building. The Board would like to
have something added, perhaps trees, to the street side to make it more inter-
esting, or trim added. That side is 36 feet wide, the windows are recessed,
bro;,zc•-tinted glass. The site coverage is 73.88, landscaping is to continue
into the easement.
Larry Goad, audience asked about handicapped facilities, Kathy stated that in
commercial buildings access to toilet facilities on the level closest to grade
must be provided, public buildings have different requirements. The Board is
favorable to the design of the building, some landscaping added; the sign will
be submitted later, David submitted the light fixtures.
Item #g, Agett Builders, Inc., Duplex, Lot 12, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
File No. 81-4-3.
Mark Donaldson represented Agett Buildeis. Each unit is about 1,800 square feet,
one single car garage per unit, one other space each. The exterior material is
cedar, Olympic stain #717, synthetic stucco is sto, #8616. All exterior lighting
is soffit lighting, the driveway has a 58 slope, no driveway entrance lighting.
The building is down below the side of the hill, sod roofs, seven feet difference
between each unit roof level.
The roofs are earth sheltered, about 18 inches, seeded with native grasses.
Bill stated his approval for this design. Mark asked acout the feasibility of
using wind power, could it be housed properly; it may be considered.
Landscaping - Windsor blue grass, mixture of buffalo and high altitude grasses,
jute mesh will be used.
Driveway lighting was discussed, whether it is necessary. Six Board Members
voted for the project as presented, one voted to reconupend a driveway entrance
light - the Board granted final approval for the project. Dick stated that on
a steep slope a ten fact setback is allowed.
Kathy Warren, David Peel, architects and Jim Potter, owner represented Aeon 66,
This is a three :story office building, 7,270 net square feet, 8,800 gross square
feet. The building is bermed up on the northwest side and the northeast side.
On the parking side is a planter two feet high, on two sides will appear as a
2� story building.
Materials - all stucco, colors as shown, metal standing seam roof with a bank
of skylights, cantilevered greenhouse on the south side on the second floor, the
first floor has 2,200 square feet, entrance and handicapped access on the ground
floor. There is a stair tower to the second floor, everything which projects
from the building is cantilevered four feet, with a deck on the north side, a
wood framed building, no sign at this time.
Bill requested landscaping around the parking area edge, the front of the building
faces southeast, 22 parking spaces are required, they have 25, there are no
loading spaces shown. Loading spaces - could provide temporary spaces at the
entrance, there was considerable discussion regarding the location of the tem-
porary spaces. [dike stated that a permanent loading space is used exclusively
fur loading, temporary can be used for parking.
Jim Potter stated that this is a preliminary presentation, they would like the
Board's reactions to the general idea of the building. The Board would like to
have something added, perhaps trees, to the street side to make it more inter-
esting, or trim added. That side is 36 feet wide, the windows are recessed,
bronze -tinted glass. The site coverage is 73.82, landscaping is to continue
into the easement.
Larry Goad, audience asked about handicapped facilities, Kathy stated that in
commercial buildings access to toilet facilities on the level closest to grade
must be provided, public buildings have different requirements. The Board is
favorable to the design of the building, some landscaping added; the sign will
be submitted later, David submitted the light fixtures.
Item 49, Age Lt Builders, Inc., Duplex, Lot 12, Block 1, Wildridye Subdivision,
File No. 81-4-3.
Mark Donaldson represented Agett Buildeas. Each unit is about 1,800 square feet,
one single car garage per unit, one other space each. The exterior material is
cedar, Olympic stain #717, synthetic stucco is sto, #8616. All exterior lighting
is soffit lighting, the driveway has a 56 slope, no dri•>eway entrance lighting.
The building is down below the side of the hill, sod roofs, seven feet difference
between each unit roof level.
The roofs are earth sheltered, about 18 inches, seeded with native grasses.
Bill stated his approval for this design. Mark asked about the feasibility of
using wind power, could it be housed properly; it may be considered.
Landscaping - Windsor blue grass, mixture of buffalo and high altitude grasses,
jute mesh will be used.
Driveway lighting was discussed, .r,nther it is necessary. Six Board Members
voted for the project as presented, one voted to reconmend a driveway entrance
light - the Board granted final approval for the project. Dick stated that on
a aseep slope a ten ;oct setback is allowed.
MIM
Other business:
Ability of the Board to communicate with the Town Council was discussed. The
information should be specific; perhaps in the form of a resolution or a letter;
perhaps hire professional help for the Board; amending the Design Review Board
guidelines and Ordinance, procedures for variances from the Zoning Ordinance, a
work session to draft some changes, then a public hearing regarding the changes;
letter to the Mayor for the Town Attorney to draft an amendment for a variance
procedure for the Zoning Ordinance.
Wells: there may be reasons that there is no provision for variances, perhaps
the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Review Board guidelines should be revised
so that Board related items are placed in the guidelines rather than the Zoning
Ordinance. The function of the Board was discussed, that it may be more appro-
priately a Zoning and/or Planning Board than a Design Review Board, the need
for a planning director was discussed.
Loading spaces were discussed, temporary spaces may be the answer to providing
enough spaces for a building.
The Board decided to have a work session before forwarding any recommendations
to the Town Attorney, then go from there, they will review the Zoning Ordinance
and the Rules and Regulations. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, 6:30
P. M., April 22, 1981, in the Benchmark Companies conference room. Ken will
make copies of the present amendments for the Board Members.
Wells: brought back the question of how the Board communicates with the Council,
and it was discussed. It was suggested that the office staff - professional
planner and secretary - be added to, for the Board and for planning and zoniny
for the Town. Bill suggested that he meet with the Mayor an,, follow it up with
a letter.
Mike made the motion that the Chairperson of the Design Review Board go directly
to the Town Council and request 1) that the Town provide a full-time secretary
for the Design Review Board and planning and zoning matters immediately to main-
tain the records, to provide public information and maintain communication with
the public and the Council and everybody involved; and 2) that the Town be providsd
with a planning and design administrator either full-time or adequate time to
assist the Design Review Board and other 'town staff on a regular basis. Cheryl
seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The minutes were read - the fence around the temporary trailers for Pacific
Heritage, Lot o, Block 3, Benchmark subdivision- has it been installed? It
will be checked. On the last page, "12:30 P. M." should be corrected to "12:30
A. M." Larry made the motion to approve the minutes, Alice seconded the motion,
and it was passed c;,animously.
Cheryl made the motion to adjourn the meeting, Tom seconded it, it was passed
unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 A. M.
Respectfully submitted by
rre 3ort1 d
R cording Se rotary
sign Review Board
�i "Im C' T! //