PZC Minutes 070181RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
JULY 1, 1981, 7:30 P. M.
The regular meeting of the Design Review Board for the Town of Avon was held
on July 1, 1981, at 7:30 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.
Board members present were Ken Hardwick, Mike Blair, Bill Pierce, Cheryl
Dingwell, Bob Zeeb. Terrill Knight, Dick Evans and Norm Wood were also
present. Tom Landauer was a few minutes late.
Block 2, Benchmark
Sion.
No one was present to represent Roadcal. Jim Bennet was present on behalf
of U S Home Corporation. He stated that there was an agreement signed by
the Corporate officers of U S Home transferring the units back to Roadcal.
Terrill stated that the documents be reviewed by the Town Attorney to see that
they are in total agreement then make sure it gets recorded properly. He
said he didn't know that it needed to go beyond the Design Review Board to
do that. Dick stated that it would have to be adjudicated by the Attorney
and also there is a new Ordinance of 1' transfer tax which would have to be
reviewed by the Town Attorney. All Board Members agreed to the transfer.
The Design Review Board would direct the Attorney to review this situation
and report back with the status at the next meeting. Dick: let the record
show that we'll vote.
Item #2, Avon Road Professional Buildi
sion, vile
Continued to July 15, 1981 meeting.
ria
2,
N3, Timberline Properties, Sign, Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision
Dave Cole represented Timberline Properties. Request that he be able to erect
a sign where Century 21 was originally. Wants permission to put up sign just
to the right of the Byron Brown sign. Wants to duplicate the lettering style
and lettering color of what is presently on the building. Byron Brown's sign
is 1s, square feet over the size allowed and has to come in for a variance. He
is also aware that he may have to desist the sign, (remove it). Terrill stated
that situation could not be answered individually. This is a Multiple -Business
Lot therefore the signs are multiple business lot signs. He feels that the
Condominium Association should develop a sign program. They should allot the
Twelve (12) square feet plus the between 32 and 64 additional to each individual
lot or business. That way each business could come in with a guarantee that
they had a certain amount by the overall business, it could be reviewed then
as a total prograr. That way each individual sign could come it and it would
be a very routine matter. You would know exactly how much sign was allotted,
it could be reviewed for conformance w4th the reit of the building and then
approve that. Technically we could approve what Dave Cole is asking for tonite,
but my fear is that the line may be shorted, because each one of these are over
the 12 square feet limit. My recommendation is that you do not approve anymore
signs until you do the entire thing. The program needs to be finished.
(this item is being postponed temporarily so that they can discuss item li4)
on July 1, 1981, at 7:30 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.
Board members present were Ken Hardwick, Mike Blair, Bill Pierce, Cheryl
Dingwell, Bob Zeeb. Terrill Knight, Dick Evans and Norm Wood were also
present. Tom Landauer was a few minutes late.
Item #1, Roadcal, Allotment of Units, Lots 29-32, Block 2, Benchmark
Subdivision.
No one was present to represent Roadcal. Jim Bennet was present on behalf
of U S Home Corporation. He stated that there was an agreement signed by
the Corporate officers of U S Home transferring the units back to Roadcal.
Terrill stated that the documents be reviewed by the Town Attorney to see that
they are in total agreement then make sure it gets recorded properly. He
said he didn't know that it needed to go beyond the Design Review Board to
do that. Dick stated that it would have to be adjudicated by the Attorney
and also there is a new Ordinance of 1% transfer tax which would have to be
reviewed by the Town Attorney. All Board Members agreed to the transfer.
The Design Review Board would direct the Attorney to review this situation
and report back with the status at the next meeting. Dick: let the record
show that we'll vote.
Item #2, Avon Road Professional Building, Parking Variances, Lot 56, Block 2,
Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 81-6-1.
Continued to July 15, 1981 meeting.
Item #3, Timberline Properties, Sign, Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision,
�, a i_c
Dave Cole represented Timberline Properties. Request that he be able to erect
a sign where Century 21 was originally. Wants permission to put up sign just
to the right of the Byron Brown sign. Wants to duplicate the lettering style
and lettering color of what is presently on the building. Byron Brown's sign
is 1Si square feet over the size allowed and has to come in for a variance. He
is also aware that he may have to desist the sign, (remove it). Terrill stated
that situation could not be answered individually. This is a Multiple -Business
Lot therefore the signs are multiple business lot signs. He feels that the
Condominium Association should develop a sign program. They should allot the
Twelve (12) square feet plus the between 32 and 64 additional to each individual
lot or business. That way each business could come in with a guarantee that
they had a certain amount by the overall business, it could be reviewed then
as a total program. That way each individual sign could come it and it would
be a very routine matter. You would know exactly how much sign was allotted,
it could be reviewed for conformance with the rest of the building and then
approve that. Technically we could approve what Dave Cole is asking for tonite,
but my fear is that the line may be shorted, because each one of these are over
the 12 square feet limit. My recommendation is that you do not approve anymore
signs until you do the entire thing. The program needs to be finished.
(this item is being postponed temporarily so that they can discuss item#4)
-1-
No one was there to represent Land Title. Will Comerford,.who is also
an owner in the Buck Creek Project, stepped up to speak more or less on
behalf of Land Title. He stated that the Condominium Association had decided
to get together and decide on a uniform size of sign for the whole building.
Once this was done and had been approved the the Condo Association, then the
entire comprehensive sign program for the building would be presented to the
Design Review Board for approval for the whole building. He stated that the
Association was to take the Beaver Liquors sign which was approved, and use
it more or less as a model for all the other signs. (same lettering, size, etc.)
Wants to know why every individual has to come in for individual approval.
Bill P. referred to the minutes of May 6, 1981, Item #4, Byron D. Brown Real
which stated that the Board granted approval for the app icatio' n m�e with
the modification that not more than 12 square feet per sign per business
be allowed as defined in the Sign Ordinance. (Temporary for six months).
Mike made a motion that the sign be approved and letters be of uniform size
under the same or current six (6) month program for Byron Brown. Prior to
November 6, 1981, Timberline Properties and Land Title Guarantee Company
will have to have their signs revised and amended in accordance with the
overall Sign Program. The motion was seconded by Ken, and passed unanimously.
**,rhe Board decided to combine both items 3 & 4 together.
Item #5
File No
7, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision
Ed Hayes was present to represent Balas. He requested that he be able to
put up a temporary sign whic'. would be located in the back of the project
facing I-70. It would be mounted on posts, will not have lighting, basically
just an informational sign. Cheryl made a statement that if this sign was
to face I-70 then it may look like a Billboard. Terrill stated that the
sign was applied for undP, a residential project sign, which is to be a
permanent sign. Ed stated that it was not a permanent instead should be
a project sign. If it is a sales sign then it can't be over 16 feet in size
and eight feet high. (decided it was a project sign)
Cheryl made a motion that the sign be approved only if it be not more than
16 feet in sizo and that it face Nottingham Road instead of I-70. (Bill made
a point that there is no sign showing what it would look like at 16', so maybe
the application should be denied.)
The application was granted approval if it could be reduced with all the same
information on it. It would have to be resubmitted if some of the information
was taken off,
Item #6, First Bank of Avon, Remodel and Sign, Lot
Jay Peterson was present to represent First Bank of Avon. Roger Beiler,
representative of the bank was also present.
They are going to work within the existing building with three (3) minor
modifications: putting in a door, adding a stairway down and also a sign.
Everything else 'is in conformity as far as parking, materials, etc. At the
present time it will be a two (2) tenant building, Vail Associates and First
Bank of Avon. Could possibly go up to four (4) tenants. Requesting permission
to put up a sign that is 20 square feet in size. (same as in Vail).
Sign material: will be back lit, plastic lens, painted metal cover. It will
be located above the door. the door will be recessed about 4 feet. Front of
the sign will be flush with the building. There will not be a restaurant area
in the building now, so there will be sufficient parking. The existing deck
area will be extended over and will he made of wood, so water doesn't stand.
Terrill stated that thin was a multiple h_tsipn<„ lct, �n thr sign allctmPnt
entire comprehensive sign program for the building would be presented to the
Design Review Board for approval for the whole building. He stated that the
Association was to take the Beaver Liquors sign which was approved, and use
it more or less as a model for all the other signs. (same lettering, size, etc.)
Wants to know why every individual has to come in for inaividual approval.
Bill P. referred to the minutes of Ma 6, 1981, Item ;94, Byron D. Brown Real
Estate, Sign, Lot 72, Block 2, Benc marc Su ivision, ile No. 80-11-6,
which stated that the Board granted approval for the application made with
the modification that not more than 12 square feet per sign per business
be allowed as defined in the Sign Ordinance. (Temporary for six months).
Mike made a motion that the sign be approved and letters be of uniform size
under the same or current six (6) month program for Byron Brown. Prior to
November 6, 1981, Timberline Properties and Land Title Guarantee Company
will have to have their signs revised and amended in accordance with the
overall Sign Program. The motion was seconded by Ken, and passed unanimously.
"The Board decided to combine both items 3 & 4 together.
Item #5, Balas West Townhomes, Sign, Lot 7, Block 1, Benchmark Subdi
Ed Hayes was present to represent Balas. He requested that he be able to
put up a temporary sign which would be located in the back of the project
facing I-70. It would be mounted on posts, will not have lighting, basically
just an informational sign. Cheryl made a statement that if this sign was
to face I-70 then it may look like a Billboard. Terrill stated that the
sign was applied for under a residential project sign, which is to be a
permanent sign. Ed stated that it was not a permanent instead should be
a project sign. If it is a sales sign then it can't be over 16 feet in size
and eight feet high. (decided it was a project sign)
Cheryl made a motion that the sign be approved only if it be not more than
16 feet in size and that it face Nottingham Road instead of I-70. (Bill made
a point that there is no sign showing what it would look like at 16', so maybe
the application should be denied.)
The application was granted approval if it could be reduced with all the same
information on it. It would have to be resubmitted if some of the information
was taken off.
Item #6, First Bank of Avon, Remodel and Si
Subdivision. File No. 81-6-10.
Lot 21. Block 2. Benchmark
Jay Peterson was present to represent First Bank of Avon. Roger Beiler,
representative of the bank was also present.
They are going to work within the existing building with three (3) minor
modifications: putting in a door, adding a stairway down and also a sign.
Everything else is in conformity as far as parking, materials, etc. At the
present time it will be a two (2) tenant building, Vail Associates and First
Bank of Avon. Could possibly go up to four (4) tenants. Requesting permission
to put up a sign that is 20 square feet in size. (same as in Vail).
Sign material: will be back lit, plastic lens, painted metal cover. It will
be located above the door. the door will be recessed about 4 feet. Front of
the sign will be flush with the building. There will not be a restaurant area
in the building now, so there will be sufficient parking. The existing deck
area will be extended over and will be made of wood, so water doesn't stand.
Terrill stated that this was a multiple business lot, so the sign allotment
should be taken into consideration.
Final approval was granted unanimously by the board for the remodeling and
the sign.
-2-
Item #7, Christ:: Lu�ge, Signs, Ln* 25, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision,
File No. 81-6-8.
David Nixon and Jim Bennett were present from U S Home Corporation to
represent the Christie Lodge. Requesting approval to place three (3) temporary
signs (3x3 in size) on the top level of the Lodge; 1 east, 1 center
and 1 on the west wing. They would probably be left on the site through the
end of the year at the longest. For the purpose of letting people know where
to go to get information on the Christie. Jim stated that so many people
don't know exactly where they should go and then they just walk on the job
site. By putting these signs up it would help out tremendously on the safety
standpoint, by keeping people off the jobsite. (There are signs out there now
that state HARD HAT AREA - KEEP OUT.) David stated that they just don't have
the manpower to enforce this. Ken suggested that they fence in the area.
Jim stated that if someone knew where to go then they would stay off the job
site. Tom L. made a motion that the three (3) signs be allowed to be put
in the windows for six months, seconded by Bob Zeeb, signs were given approval
by the board for a period of six (6) months.
Display Sign - requesting approval to place three (3) of these along the
job site. 2' x 2' in size to be put out only during business hours, to direct
people to the Model Office. Would like to have two (2) one-sided signs pointing
towards these east end of building, and one (1) two-sided pointing directly at
the model. All three signs will be portable. Will be put out during business
hours (9a.m. to 6p.m.) daily. Terrill stater that the sign appears to be a
general business type sign other than directional or informational.
The Board decided against having three (3) directional signs. David Nixon
suggested instead of a total of three, use one (1) two-sided sign. It would
be placed at the east end of the building near Building #8, pointing directly
to the model unit. Parking is available and there is also overhead lighting.
Tom L. made a motion to approve one (1) two-sided sign with the Christie Lodge
logo, no phone number, to be placed at the east end of the building. Mike
seconded the motion. Ken amended the motion stating it would be for six (6)
months only and will only be d;splayed from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily until
January 1, 1982. The board then voted and final approval was given for the
one (1) two-sided sign. (No picture).
Item #8, Resort Dwellings, Final Approval, Lots 78 & 79, Block 1, Wildri
Cindy Eskwith was present to represent Resort Dwellings. She requested final
approval for 12 units, total. She brought in her light fixtures samples,
siding & color samples. Question of trash removal was brought up and she
stated that the trash would be stored in the garages of the owners. Norm
made note that he had gone out to the site and found a transformer in the
middle of the driveway, adjacent to the lot line which is to be vacated.
The parking overlaps so the lot line has to be vacated. Terrill stated that
the lots don't stand on their own as they are presented. Also the final
resubdivision would take care of the lot line and all other matters of joint
ownership. There will be some type of lighting for the entrance way. (let
the record show that a sign was not reviewed - application must be made).
Dick asked if new plan would be submitted to the board showing the proper
culverts, drainage, entrance egress and so forth.
Bill stated that Cindy would have to get approval from Norm Wood, Town Engineer,
to make both sets of plans conform, and also return to the board a statement
as to the disposition of the property line.
The board dec°ded to give her continuing approval based on what was presented.
Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision,
Skip Holland was present to discuss the presentation. He stated they were more
or less there for a Preliminary Review only. The Board stated they would need
a contour map ghat more accurate to show whore they would have to berm up and
10
dUll't Knuw exactly wner,e Lllcy *�nUU,u YJ ani.: 0,01 Gncy JUii. v,u.n vh ,.c Jw
site. By putting these signs up it would help out tremendously on the safety
standpoint, by keeping people off the jobsite. (There are signs out there now
that state HARD HAT AREA - KEEP OUT.) David stated that they just don't have
the manpower to enforce this. Ken suggested that they fence in the area.
Jim stated that if someone knew where to go then they would stay off the job
site. Tom L. made a motion that the three (3) signs be allowed to be put
in the windows for six months, seconded by Bob Zeeb, signs were given approval
by the board for a period of six (6) months.
Display Sign - requesting approval to place three (3) of these along the
job site. 2' x 2' in size to be put out only during business hours, to direct
people to the Model Office. Would like to have two (2) one-sided signs pointing
towards these east end of building, and one (1) two-sided pointing directly at
the model. All three signs will be portable. Will be put out during business
hours (9a.m. to 6p.m.) daily. Terrill stated that the sign appears to be a
general business type sign other than directional or informational.
The Board decided against having three (3) directional signs. David Nixon
suggested instead of a total of three, use one (1) two-sided sign. It would
be placed at the east end of the building rear Building #8, pointing directly
to the model unit. Parking is available and there is also overhead lighting.
Tom L. made a motion to approve one (1) two-sided sign with the Christie Lodge
logo, no hone number, to be placed at the east end of the building. Mike
seconded the motion. Ken amended the motion stating it would be for six (6)
months only and will only be displayed from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily until
January 1, 1982. The board then voted and final approval was given for the
one (1) two-sided sign. (No picture).
Item #8, Resort Dwellings, Final Approval, Lots 78 & 79, Block 1, Wi1dri
Cindv Eskwith was present to represent Resort Dwellings. She requested final
approval for 12 units, total. She brought in her light fixtures samples,
siding & color samples. Question of trash removal was brought up and she
stated that the trash would be stored in the garages of the owners. Norm
made note that he had gone out to the site and found a transformer in the
middle of the driveway, adjacent to the lot line which is to be vacated.
The parking overlaps so the lot line has to be vacated. Terrill stated that
the lots don't stand on their own as they are presented. Also the final
resubdivision would take care of the lot line and all other matters of joint
ownership. There will be some type of lighting for the entrance way. (let
the record show that a sign was not reviewed - application must be made).
Dick asked if new plan would be submitted to the board showing the proper
culverts, drainage, entrance egress and so forth.
Bill stated that Cindy would have to geL approval from Norm Wood, Town Engineer,
to make both sets of plans conform, and also return to the board a statement
as to ti)e disposition of the property line.
The board decided to give her continuing approval based on what was presented.
Item #9, Holland/Mackeller Duplex, Lot 33, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivis
Skip Holland was present to discuss the presentation. He stated they were more
or less there for a Preliminary Review only. The Board stated they would need
a contour map that more accurate to show where they would have to berm up and
what the elevations would be next to the house, of the ground. Skip stated that
the foundation elevation is to be above, higher than the ground it sits on now.
-3-
The building elevation is to come up and it will have to be filled in from
the road so as to get a slant down to a spot in the driveway anu then back
up to foundation, so the whole thing doesn't drain into the foundation.
Driveways and parking areas will be crowned so water will run off to the
sides and around the side of the building. Northside of building is 12 foot
lower and it will have to be bermed up.
The members stated they would like to stay away from the "Mirror Image"
duplex. It is up to each individual applicant to make their own changes ---
not up to the Board. They suggested that Skip make some changes to the
appearance. Al Mackeller stated that the roofline from the back does follow
the slope of the hill. Ken suggested that they do some additional drawings
to show exactly what this duplex is to look like from all sides.
Landscaping is a little weak on the southside of the building.
Terrill suggested that this be considered a Conceptual Review so more time
cavi be allowed for the changes. Both Skip and Al agreed. Norm is to get
a copy of the site plan to review the grading situtation. No objections with materials.
Terrill brought up the work session.of June 26, 1981, of which he agreed to
submitted some revised parking standards. Everyone looked over and discussed the
recommendations, mixed-use, compact car, reductions, etc.
Also, the new zoning ordinance was brought up. John Dunn proposed a zoning
change which may become a part of the new Design Review Board's Regulations
which eliminate parking standards and the zoning ordinance will pick up and
take care of that way.
It was decided that a Spec.Meeting would be held on July 8, 1981, at 6:30 P.M.
to discuss the new zoning ordinance.
The minutes were read; motion made to approve minutes as submitted by Ken,
seconded by Cheryl, was passed unanimously. (minutes of 6/17/81 & 6/24/81)
There being no further business to be brought before the Board, Cheryl made
the motion to adjourn the meeting, Tom seconded it and it was passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted by:
{%lea -W
Melody CummiHgs
Recording Secretary
Design Review Board