PZC Minutes 090281D
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 2, 1981, 7:30 P. M.
The regular meeting of the Design Review Board for the Town of Avon was held
on September 2, 1981, at 7:30 p.m., 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.
Board Members present were Bob Zeeb, Cheryl Dingwell, Tommy Landauer,
Bill Pierce, Mike Blair, Ken Hardwick. Also Dick Evans, Norm Wood and
Terrill Knight were present.
Item kl, Kelton -Garton Associates, Zoning, Meyers Ranch, File No. 81-8-6.
Bill Pierce stated that this parcel of land is located west of town. It was
recently annexed to the town. The applicant is requesting zoning. The
Design Review Board has gone out and viewed the land and has already reviewed
the plans at the previous meeting. They will consider action tonight.
A 140 unit condominium project is being proposed with 333 parking spaces.
210 will be covered and out of sight. The remaining will be outside parking.
The project will also include a number of amenities of which will include
4 tennis courts, 2 swimming pools, indoor racquet ball and squash courts,
outdoor ice skating. The applicant is requesting RHDC zoning, which is the
same zoning as the property to the east.
Terrill stated that there are two issues which should be reviewed.
The appropriate zone district and its uses and the conceptual design.
The Town has no specific master plan so it's difficult to determine where
the urban type uses should begin and end and other permanent type
residential uses should begin. They are proposing commercial and relatively
high density residential zone. Commercial is for the restaurant. He feels
that in general the Town should have very much commercial away from the downtown
area so that it doesn't create anymore traffic problems and will help to disperse
some of the activity. Residential area should be spread out away from town
in more isolated areas. High urban uses should be extended into the outlying
areas. As far as the design it has been used very well. The Town doesn't have
a trail system so this is an opportune time to take advantage of this.
Jim stated that they are going to work with the highway department to have
an acceleration/deceleration lane installed.
Bill stated that he feels that SPA zoning would be more reasonable. The Board
members all agreed that that would be the best zoning.
Jim Wells stated that north of the river there is about 1r acres of land on
which Avon Metro District has a water plant that is almost ready for use.
It will be able to pump approximately 2� million gallons of water a day. This
could add a tremendous amount of capacity if a well w4s drilled and the water
could be treated there at the plant. It would also help to hold down the cost.
Tom made a motion to disapprove the RHDC zoning based on the fact that the high
density should be kept away from the town and the height is much to high. Bob
seconded the motion. The board members all agreed to disapprove the RHDC zoning.
Ken made a motion to approve to the Town Council, an SPA zoning for the project.
Tom seconded the motion. The board members all agreed to approve the SPA zoning.
Ken stated that the applicant could go before the Town Council and appeal the
decision made by the Design Review Board.
Thr Rnard wil rn to thr lnwrl (ninril rhr •nrn^r,,rn ,t;nn Al,•t the narrr.l of
of Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting
was called to order by Chairman Bill Pierce.
Board Members present were Bob Zeeb, Cheryl Dingwell, Tommy Landauer,
Bill Pierce, Mike Blair, Ken Hardwick. Also Dick Evans, Norm Wood and
Terrill Knight were present.
•
Item #1, Kelton -Garton Associates, Zoning, Meyers Ranch, File No. 81-8-6.
Bill Pierce stated that this parcel of land is located west of town. It was
recently annexed to the town. The applicant is requesting zoning. The
• Design Review Board has gone out and viewed the land and has already reviewed
the plans at the previous meeting. They will consider action tonight.
A 140 unit condominium project is being proposed with 333 parking spaces.
210 will be covered and out of sight. The remaining will be outside parking.
The project will also include a number of amenities of which will include
4 tennis courts, 2 swimming pools, indoor racquet ball and squash courts,
outdoor ice skating. The applicant is requesting RHDC zoning, which is the
same zoning as the property to the east.
Terrill stated that there are two issues which should be reviewed.
The appropriate zone district and its uses and the conceptual design.
The Town has no specific master plan so it's difficult to determine where
the urban type uses should begin and end and other permanent type
residential uses should begin. They are proposing commercial and relatively
high density residential zone. Commercial is for the restaurant. He feels
that in general the Town should have very much commercial away from the downtown
area so that it doesn't create anymore traffic problems and will help to disperse
some of the activity. Residential area should be spread out away from town
in more isolated areas. High urban uses should be extended into the outlying
areas. As far as the design it has been used very well. The Town doesn't have
a trail system so this is an opportune time to take advantage of this.
Jim stated that they are going to work with the highway department to have
an acceleration/deceleration lane installed.
Bill stated that he feels that SPA zoning would be more reasonable. The Board
members all agreed that that would be the best zoning.
Jim Wells stated that north of the river there is about 1; acres of land on
which Avon Metro District has a water plant that is almost ready for use.
It will be able to pump approximately 21-z million gallons of water a day. This
could add a tremendous amount of capacity if a well was drilled and thF water
could be treated there at t-, plane. It would also help to hole down the cost.
Tom made a motion to disapprove the RHDC zoning based on the fact that the high
density should be kept away from the town and the height is much to high. Bob
seconded the motion. The board members all agreed to disapprove the RHDC zoning.
Ken made a motion to approve to the Town Council, an SPA zoning for the project.
Tom seconded the motion. The board members all agreed to approve the SPA zoning.
Ken stated that the applicant could go before the Town Council and appeal the
decision made by the Design Review Board.
The Board will pass on to the Town Council the recommendation that the parcel of
land known as "Meyers Ranch" be zoned SPA.
-1-
Item #2, Swift Gulch, File No. 81-7-3.
George Rosenberg was present to discuss this item.
(Let the record show that Mike Blair stepped down from the Board due to an
interest in this item.)
Parcel of land is twenty acres in area which is adjacent to *he east boundary
of town, north of I-70. It is required to be zoned by the town within ninety
days. Owners of the parcel have requested a designation of SPA. They are
asking for zoning only. Not asking for any uses or density.
Terrill stated that he felt SPA zoning is the most appropriate zoning for this
land due to it being a difficult piece of property to deal with.
Ken made a motion to accept the SPA zoning with the conditions set forth by the
Town Attorney and to recommend to the Town Council as such. Seconded by Bob.
It was passed unamiously by the Board to recommend the SPA zoning to the Council.
3, Metcalf S.A., Lots 38, 40 & 41, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision
George Rosenberg made the presentation. This item was brought before the Board
on August 19, 1981 and after some discussion the Board requested that it be
tabled until the meeting of September 2, 1981.
The lots are presently zoned Industrial Commercial and the applicant is requesting
a rezoning of RHLD.
(Let the record show that Mike Blair is still down from the Board due to an
interest in this item.)
Terrill stated that the lot was reviewed by the Board Members the week before
this meeting and that it is a request to go to basically a residential zone
from a Commercial zone. The property is extremely steep and it also has a
very narrow drainage basin. For this reason it would be appropriate to consider
an SPA zone, given the change in the overal plan for the Town of Avon with an
extension into the Wildwood/Wildridge area. The residential zone is probably
more appropriate than the original industrial/commercial zone. The traffic
patterns are different and the site can be utilized in a more sensible manner.
Feels that residences are appropriate in this area but due to the special
consideration on the site it would be best for the SPA because it gives the
Board more control over the design of the project.
George stated that if this land is zoned RHLD then it could only be residential
property, but if zoned SPA then someone could come in and decide to mix
commercial or industrial with residential. He feels that the Town doesn't
want this. Also he stated that the applicant is requesting zoning only, not
asking for approval of the project.
Bill stated that he agreed with Terrill in that the SPA zoning does give the
Design Review Board and the Town in general more control than any other zone
district and it is a difficult piece of property to develop due to the
steepness of slop and there is another control on the overall density and that
is in the density transfer of units in that the property is already inside the
original Benchmark Subdivision.
Ken stated that this would be cutting the industrial sites and businesses out
of the Master Plan if we changed this part of the zoning. George stated that
presently there are 37 lots for industrial use and this would reduce it to 34.
Ji -,t about all of the industri,l lots are already committed.
The applicant is proposing a total of 35 residential units (lot 38-12 units;
lot 40-8 units and lot 41-15 units).
Cheryl made a motion to deny the RHLD zoning request due to the fact that the
lot is sloped as it is and that the Board could have more control if a plan were
presented. It was seconded by Tom. The Board voted unamiously to deny the request
4 days. Owners of the parcel have requested a designation of SPA. They are
asking for zoning only. Not asking for any uses or density.
Terrill stated that he felt SPA zoning is the most appropriate zoning for this
land due to it being a difficult piece of property to deal with.
Ken made a motion to accept the SPA zoning with the conditions set forth by the
Town Attorney and to recommend to the Town Council as such. Seconded by Bob.
It was passed unamiously by the Board to recommend the SPA zoning to the Council.
Item #3,
No.
8eMtcalf S.A., Lots 38, 40 & 41, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision,
i e -8- .
George Rosenberg made the presentation. This item was brought before the Board
on August 19, 1981 and after some discussion the Board requested that it be
tabled until the meeting of September 2, 1981.
The lots are presently zoned Industrial Commercial and the applicant is requesting
Imb a rezoning of WILD.
(Let the record show that Mike Blair is still down from the Board due to an
interest in this item.)
Terrill stated that the lot was reviewed by the Board Members the week before
this meeting and that it is a request to go to basically a residential zone
from a Commercial zone. The property is extremely steep and it also has a
very narrow drainage basin. For this reason it would be appropriate to consider
an SPA zone, given the change in the overal plan for the Town of Avon with an
extension into the Wildwood/Wildridge area. The residential zone is probably
more appropriate than the original industrial/commercial zone. The traffic
patterns are different and the site can be utilized in a more sensible manner.
Feels that residences are appropriate in this area but due to the special
consideration on the site it would be best for the SPA because it gives the
Board more control over the design of the project.
George stated that if this land is zoned CHLD then it could only be residential
property, but if zoned SPA then someone could come in and decide to mix
commercial or industrial with residential. He feels that the Town doesn't
want this. Also he stated that the applicant is requesting zoning only, not
asking for approval of the project.
Gill stated that he aareed with Terrill in that the SPA zoning does give the
Design Review Board and the Town in general more control than any other zone
district and it is a difficult piece of property to develop due to the
steepness of slop and there is another control on the overall density and that
is in the density transfer of units in that the property is already inside the
original Benchmark Subdivision.
Ken stated that this would be cutting the industrial sites and businesses out
of the Master Plan if we changed this part of the zoning. George stated that
presently there are 37 lots for industrial use and this would reduce it to 34.
Just about all of the industrial lots are already committed.
The applicant is proposing a total of 35 residential units (lot 38-12 uni`s;
lot 40-8 units and lot 41-15 units).
Cheryl made a motion to deny the RHLD zoning request due to the fact that the
lot is sloped as it is and that the Board could have more control if a plan were
presented. It was seconded by Tom. The Board voted unamiously to deny the request
for Rd LD zoning.
-2-
Cheryl made a motion to recommend that the property be zoned SPA. It was
seconded by Bob. Passed unamiously.
ller Duplex, Resubmission of Landscape Plans. Lot
r
Skip Holland made his presentation.
(Let the record show that Mike Blair return to the Board).
The driveway was re -angled so that one of the garage doors can't be seen
from the road. Some of the Pine tress were planted in a row. Some were
planted at the front entrance to protect from the wind. Also a few clusters
were added.
Bob made a motion to approve the landscaping plan as submitted. It was seconded
by Cheryl. All members agreed to grant approval for the plan.
Item il5, First Bank Building, Resubmission of Landscape Plans, Lot 21, Block 2
Rob Cleary and Robert Campen made the presentation.
Bill summarized this item briefly by saying that the Board had some questions
regarding the site coverage by impervious material, the parking on unpaved
areas and some commentary was made regarding the landscaping between the
property line and Avon Road.
Rob stated that in regards to the impervious material, they have extended
the hard surface asphalt and tried o accommodate the si.. (6) parking spaces.
As far as the landscaping in and around the building, they have come in with
shrubs for the limited amount of room behind the building, with some large
trees around the building. The dumpster is three sided and its visual access—
is blocked from Avon Road.
The Board suggested that 3/4 inch gravel be put down on the southside of the
building between the railroad and the building. Robert stated that they had
intended to do so, and would be using approximately 3 inches of gravel.
The Board granted approval for the landscaping plan with the conditioi, .hat the
gravel be placed between the building and the railroad.
do Woodsmiths. Inc.. Si
John May made the presentation.
ock 2
At the previous meeting the Board granted approval for the main sign. Now he
is asking for approval to put up four (4) individual commercial signs.
Bill stated that the Board was concerned with the coordination of all the signs
on the building so it doesn't end up with different size letters up and down.
Also they are concerned that there is only so much square footage per business
(12 square foot). John stated that all of the Commercial spaces have not been
sold yet. He asked if a business has an extra long name will they have to come
in before the Board in order to abbreviate? Terrill stated that under the
maximum sign allowance it is determined by regulation. He feels that the Christie
Lodge is under the maximum allowance so if one or mere signs had to be larger
then it calls for, then they could receive an allocation from the origin;,l
overall allocation of the Multiple Business Lot size of 32 square feet for the
first 32 lineal feet, so there is an additional allowance. Unless the Board
specifically approves this, they will have to come in but not for a variance.
All of the letters will be a maximum of 10 inches in size. They will be black
aluminum and will be 1!2 in thick. They will be mounted on the facia.
The Board granted approval for the following signs: VAIL COMMUNICATIONS,
SY.I ? SHnRr REPITY cFiAnFc nr, Wynn; g Tur Lnpa pi7p niru
(Let the record show that Mike Blair return to the Board).
The driveway was re -angled so that one of the garage doors can't be seen
from the road. Some of the Pine tress were planted in a row. Some were
planted at the front entrance to protect from the wind. Also a few clusters
were added.
Bob made a motion to approve the landscaping plan as submitted. It was seconded
by Cheryl. All members agreed to grant approval for the plan.
Item #5, First Bank Building, Resubmission of Landscape Plans, Lot 21, Bloc
Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 81-7-2.
Rob Cleary and Robert Campen made the presentation.
Bill summarized this item briefly by saying that the Board had some questions
regarding the site coverage by impervious material, the parking on unpaved
areas and some commentary was made regarding the landscaping between the
property line and Avon Road.
Rob stated that in regards to the impervious material, they have extended
the hard surface asphalt and tried to accommodate the six (6) parking spaces.
As far as the landscaping in and around the building, they have come in with
shrubs for the limited amount of rooin behind the building, with some large
trees around the building. The dumpster is three sided and its visual access—
is blocked from Avon Road.
The Board suggested that 3/4 inch gravel be put down on the southside of the
bu4lding between the railroad and the building. Robert stated that they had
intended to do so, and would be using approximately 3 inches of gravel.
The Board granted approval for the landscaping plan with the condition that the
gravel be placed between the building and the railroad.
Item #6, Colorado Woodsmiths, Inc., Signs for Christie Lome, Lot 25, Block 2
Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 81-8-5.
John May inade the presentation.
At the previous meeting the Board granted approval for the main sign. Now he
is asking for approval to put up four (4) individual commercial signs.
Bill stated that the Board was concerned with the coordination of all tie signs
on the building so it doesn't end up with different size letters up and down.
Also they are concerned that there is only so much square footage per business
(12 square foot). John stated that all of the Commercial spaces have not been
sold yet. He asked if a business has an extra long name will they have to come
in before the Board in order to abbreviate? Terrill stated that under the
maximum sign allowance it is determined by regulation. He feels that the Christie
Lodge is under the maximum allowance so if one or more signs had to be larger
then it calls for, then they could receive an allocation from the original
overall allocation of the Multiple Business Lot size of 32 square feet for the
first 32 lineal feet, so there is an additional allowance. Unless the Board
specifically approves this, they will have to come in but not for a variance.
All of the letters will be a maximum of 10 inches in size. Fhey will be black
aluminum, and will be 1/2 in thick. They will be mounted on the facia.
The Board granted approval for the following signs: VAIL COMMUNICATIONS,
SKI & SHORE REALTY, SHADES OF AVON & THE LONG BRANCH.
-3-
19
M
Subdivision, Fiie No. 81-8-1.
P
Bill opened the discussion by reading a letter from the Wildridge Committee
regarding the Stevens project. He is requesting a variance of a 10 foot
w lot line setback. The committee reviewed the project and approved it based
on the following reasons: The subject lot has a building area site which has
a slope in excess of 30 percent; the guidelines allows for a 10 foot garage
and house setback on 30 percent sloped lots; the 30 feet of paving and
` shoulders of the road that the lot fronts in in the uphill side of the 50 foot
road right of way; it should not be any snow storage or maintenance problems;
the adjacent lots and road visibility should not be affected; scarring or
excessive fill on the downhill side of the lot will be less by keeping the
building further uphill and near the road. This will also reduce the disturbance
of the natural vegetation. The committee reviewed the setback request only
and not the actual design of the building. (letter sent by Larry Goad).
Gary Stevens made his presentation for the variance. He is proposing to build
a duplex on a large lot in excess of 4 acres. The variance request is to
reduce the setback from 25 foot to 10 foot.
Terrill stated that in the variance procedures, the applicant has to prove
findings of hardship and whether or not it would impose greater hardships
if not granted.
Mike stated that it is difficult to consider the variance request without
considering the design of the building. It would help to prevent excessive
cutting, fill, grading and excessively high retaining walls, whether in the
front or back of building. On this particular lot the view is important
because that is what people want and appreciate the most in the area. He feels
that it looks like a large house rather than a duplex. It is also oriented with
the wind (the narrow area into the wind rather than broadface) which is a great
advantage as an essential design requirement.
Larry Goad stated that in the design guidelines for Wildridge it allows for
and recommends on steeper sloped lots like this one, that setbacks can be
allowed to have 10 foot setbacks. He also stated that there is nothing that
says "Mirror Image" is not allowed.
Bill suggested that maybe the Board Members go up and look at the lot to get
a better idea and understanding of the layout of the house. (It was decided
not to do this).
Gary stated that he was asking for the variance approval first and then he
also wanted to get final approval for the project (in the same night).
Mike made a motion to approve the variance re nested due to findings that it
would impose a greaterhardship on the app scant to not allow it because it
would require excessive grading upon the lot, greater lot disturbance, and
his request was in compliance with the Wildridge Covenants design guidelines.
The motion was seconded by Bob. Board granted approval for the variance.
Request for final approval:
Gary stated that his materials will be #717 Olympic Stain (natural redwood
color) for the siding. The roof will be cedar shake. The foundation will be
stucco painted brown or something close to that color so that it doesn't show
up so much. He will also have to berm up to the house. All overhangs are 18".
He did not have his working drawings with him.
Bill stated that the presentation was incomplete due to not having samples of
materials and colors or proper elevations. Terrill stated that it is the
Board's discretion to accept or refuse due to lack of information.
Ken made a motion to table this issue until the next meeting on 9/16•'81,
seconded by Tom. Was agreed by all members except Cheryl.
shoulders of the road that the lot fronts in in the uphill side of the 50 foot
road right of way; it should riot be any snow storage or maintenance problems;
the adjacent lots and road visibility should not be affected; scarring or
excessive fill on the downhill side of the lot will be less by keeping the
building further uphill and near the road. This will also reduce the disturbance
of the natural vegetation. The committee reviewed the setback request only
and not the actual design of the building. (letter sent by Larry Goad).
Gar 'iex on
made his
Gary presentation for the variance. He is proposing to build
a duplex on a large lot in excess of 4 acres. The variance request is to
reduce the setback from 25 foot to 10 foot.
Terrill stated that in the variance procedures, the applicant has to prove
findings of hardship end whether or not it would impose grater hardships
if not granted.
Mike stated that it is difficult to consider the variance request without
considering the design of the building. It irould help to prevent excessive
cutting, fill, grading and excessively high retaining walls, whether in the
front or back of building. On this particular lot the view is important
because that is what people want and appreciate the most in the area. lie feels
that it looks like a large house rather than a duplex. It is also oriented with
the wind (the narrow area into the wind rather than broadface) which is a great
advantage as an essential design requirement.
Larry Goad stated that in the design guidelines for Wildridge it allows for
and recommends on steeper sloped lots like this one, that setbacks can be
allowed to have 10 foot setbacks. He also stated that there is nothing that
says "Mirror Image" is not allowed.
Bill suggested that maybe the Board Members go up and look at the lot to get
a better idea and understanding of the layout of the house. (It was decided
not to do this).
Gary stated that he was asking for the variance approval first and then he
also wanted to get final approval for the project (in the same night).
Mike made a motion to a rove the variance r�e9uested due to findings that it
would impose a greater ar s ip on t eh applic�rit co not allow it because it
would require excessive grading upon the lot, greater lot disturbance, and
his request was in compliance with the Wildridge Covenants design guidelines.
The motion was seconded by Bob. Board granted approval for the variance.
Request for final approval:
Gary stated that his materials will be #717 Olympic Stain (natural redwood
color) for the siding. The roof will be cedar shake. The foundation will be
stucco painted brown or something close to that col-^ so that it doesn't show
up so much. He will also have to berm up to the house. All overhangs are 18".
He did not have his working drawings with him.
Bill stated that the presentation was incomplete due to not having samplas of
materials and colors or proper elevations. Terrill stated that it is the
Board's discretion to accept or refuse due to lack of information.
Ken made a motion to table this issue until the next meeting on 9/16/81,
seconded by Tom. Was agreed by all members except Cheryl.
-4-
e-4
iew Condominiums, Six-Plex
e
1, Wildri
Mark Rizan of Allen Butler & Associates made the presentation.
He stated that this project had been submitted to the board previously but
needed to have some changes made. There were some questions about the fact
that all six (6) of the units looked the same and also the driveway had some
problems.
They decided to add greenhouses on some of the units and on the others there
are now open -rail balconies. The stucco has been changed from white to beige.
The redwood siding will remain the same.
Bill stated that on the north side the units still have the same look, but on
the south side there seems to have been some ettempt at changing the appearance.
Overall, though the basic building still has the same look.
The driveway slope is eight (8) percent. They also have an alternate driveway
plan in case the first one is not acceptable (it's also eight (8) percent slope).
There will be site lighting at the driveway (1 at the top and 1 at the bottom).
They will be redwood fixtures.
Mike commented on the driveway situation that maybe the Board could grant final
approval for the site plan not including the driveway and before the driveway
is completed, the applicant must come back with a detailed plat showing the
driveway, grading, landscaping and the retaining wall design.
Mike made a motion to approve the site plan excluding the driveway, which shall be
approved at a later time before it is completed and approval of the site plan where
the building is located with the driveway/parking area and drainage changes that
the Town Engineer recommended. Ken seconded the motion. Approval was granted
with the above conditions.
Mark commented that he was asking for final approval for the project not just
for the site plan. Mike amended the motion to approve the plans as submitted
in addition to the site plan. Ken seconded the motion. Approval was granted.
sroads Real
LrA
Susan Bichler made the presentation.
Lot 30 & 31, B1
She requested approval to put a real estate development sign of 15 square feet
in size. It will stand 8 feet high. It will be on wood posts. Will also be
a one-sided sign painted on the back side to protect from the weather. It would
be the same sign as what Dave Cole/Avon Office Building has.
The Board granted approval to put up the sign.
I
oc
Terrill stated that
item due to the fact
presentation.
Center, Conceptual Review, Lots 26, 27 & 28,
n, File No. 81-9-3.
he would have to disqualify himself from any review on this
that he works for one of the applicants making the
Bill Zmistowski made the presentation. This project will contain 100,000
square feet of commercial and warehouse and office space. It will be four (4)
stories with one (1) underground level of parking. The builaing height will
be approximately sixty (60') feet. There will be 55,450 square feet of
commercial space, 44,550 square feet of warehouse space and 31,950 square feet
of underground parking. They are proposing between 200 to 205 parking spaces
and 13 loading spaces. ';rash storage will be in back of building. It will
be approximately 60 feet in length and will be hidden by some type of wing wall.
The Board agroed that the layout and appearance is nice and also likes the idea
They decided to add greenhouses on some of the units and on the other- there
are now open -rail balconies. The stucco has been changed from white to beige.
The redwood siding will remain the same.
Bill stated that on the north side the units still have the same look, but on
the south side there seems to have been some attempt at changing the appearance.
Overall, though the basic building still has the same look.
The driveway slope is eight (8) percent. They also have an alternate driveway
plan in case the first one is not acceptable (it's also eight (8) percent slope).
There will be site lighting at the driveway (1 at the top and 1 at the bottom).
They will be redwood fixtures.
Mike commented on the driveway situation that maybe the Board could grant final
approval for the site plan not including the driveway and before the driveway
is completed, the applicant must come back with a detailed plat showing the
driveway, grading, landscaping and the retaining wall design.
Mike made a motion to approve the site dlan excluding the driveway, which shall be
approved at a later time before it is completed and approval of the site plan where
the building is located with the driveway/parking area and drainage changes that
the Town Engineer recommended. Ken seconded the motion. Approval was granted
with the above conditions.
Mark commented that he was asking for final approval for the project not just
for the site plan. Mike amended the motion to approve the plans as submitted
in addition to the site plan. Ken seconded the motion. Approval was granted.
Realty Ltd., Sign, Lot 30 & 31, Block 1
n,
Susan Bichler made the presentation.
She requested approval to put a real estate development sign of 15 square feet
in size. It will stand 8 feet high. It will be on wood posts. Will also be
a one-sided sign painted on the back side to protect from the weather. It would
be the same sign as what Dave Cole/Avon Office Building has.
The Board granted approval to put up the sign.
,onceptual
ie No. 81-9-3.
Terrill stated that he would have to disqualify himself from any review on this
item due to the fact that he works for one of the applicants making the
presentation.
Bill Zmistowski made the presentation. This project will contain 100,000
square feet of c6mmercial and warehouse and office space. It will be four (4)
stories with one (I) unc,rground level of puking. The building height will
be approximately sixty (60') feet. There will be 55,450 square feet of
commercial space, 44,550 square feet of warehouse space and 31,950 square feet
of underground parking. They are proposing between 200 to 205 parking spaces
ar.d 13 loading spaces. Trash storage will be in back of building. It will
be approximately 50 feet in length and will be hidden by some type of wing call.
The Board agreed that the layout and appearance is nice and also likes the idea
of it facing the interstate. The only problem is with the name of the project.
Les Shapiro stated that the bank would accept or allow the financing for the
project easier with VAIL than with Avon or Beaver Creek.
-5-
There will be three (3) stairways for the building. One on each end and
one in the middle. Also there will be elevator service from the parking
level to the top level.
Dick stated that the building needs a minimum of 25 percent open space for
the IC zoning.
They are proposing the lot coverage by impervious material to be 75-80%.
Bill stated that due to not having sufficient information the Board would not
be able to make any formal decision.
They were ;ranted Conceptual approval •.nd would have to come in at a later
date for their final.
Item #11, Reynolds Duplex, Lot 41, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, File No. 81-9-2.
Bob Norman made the presentation. He is requesting final approval for the
project. The duplex will be a total of 3200 square feet. The siding will be
1 x 8 pine with Olympic stain 9901 and the rough side will be exposed. Would
like to have a metal roof instead of cedar shake. Bill suggested not using a
metal roof on the building because Wildridge prefers cedar shake.
Bob stated that the floorplans are basically the same side by side with an
offset. They have broken up the design by using a conventional style roof
on the west unit and a shed roof on the east unit. The chimney stack is
lower on the west unit.
Ken suggested that they install some type of entrance way lighting at the
driveway .
Board granted approval for the project with the conditions that the roof be
cedar shake and that there also be 16 Aspens (6' to 8'), 2 Spruce (4' or more),
a minimum of 8 Mountain Mohogany and keep the same number of Juniper as on the
plan.
Inc., Conceptual Review, Lot 60, Block 2, Benchmark
e
Bill Pierce stopped down from the Board to make this presentation.
The Chair was turned over to Mike Blair.
Bill stated that this would be a brief presentation due to the fact it was
so late at night.
At the last meeting the applicant requested a setback variance for the decks
and it was approved. Applicant is presently designing a 50 unit condominium
building. There will be 160 parking spaces underground on two levels. This
is more than is required. Entire lower level of building is to be retail
area with exception of the back which is to be the swimming pool and recreation.
They will birm up in the front area of the building. There will be a number
of "Classical style" pole lamps through out the project. Materials for the
outside of the building will be artificial slate. It is fireproof and light-
weight. It is white and the windows will be dark brown Pella Clad. The railings
will have a touch of green. As the building goes up in height, the number of
units will decrease.
Bill stated that this a only a Conceptual Review. Just wanted to keep the
Board updated as to what is going on with the project.
be ahle to make any formal decision.
They were granted Conceptual approval and would have to come in at a later
10 date for their final.
Item #11, Reynolds Duplex, Lot 41, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, File No. 81-9-2.
Bob Norman made the presentation. He is requesting final approval for the
project. The duplex will be a total of 3200 square feet. The siding will be
1 x 8 pine with Olympic stain #901 and the rough side will be exposed. Would
• like to have a metal roof instead of cedar shake. Bill suggested not using a
metal rool on the building because Wildridge prefers cedar shake.
Bob stated that the fioorplans are basically the same side by side with an
• offset. They have broken up the design by using a conventional style roof
on the west unit and a shed roof on the east unit. The chimney stack is
lower on the west unit.
Ken suggested that they install some type of entrance way lighting at the
driveway .
Board granted approval for the project with the conditions that the roof be
cedar shake and that there also be 16 Aspens (6' to 8'), 2 Spruce (4' or more),
a minimum of 8 Mountain Mohegany and keep the same number of Juniper as on the
plan.
Inc., Conceptual Review, Lot 60, Block 2, Benchmark
-n 0 5
Bill Pierce stepped down from the Board to make this presentation.
The Chair was turned over to Mike Blair.
Bill stated that this would be a brief presentation due to the fact it was
so late at night.
At the last meeting the applicant requested a setback variance for the decks
and it was approved. Applicant is presently designing a 50 unit condominium
building. There will be 160 parking spaces underground on two levels. This
is more than is required. Entire lower level of building is to be retail
area with exception of the back which is to be the swimming pool and recreation.
They will birm up in the front area of the building. There will be a number
of "Classical style" pole lamps through out the project. Materials for the
outside of the building will be artificial slate. It is fireproof and light-
weight. It is white and the windows will be dark brown Pella Clad. The railings
will have a touch of green. As the building goes up in height, the number of
units will decrease.
Bill stated that this a only a Conceptual Review. Just wanted to keep the
Board updated as to what is going on with the project.
-6-
I0
,as
r--.
C
Ken made a motion to suspend the reading of the minutes until the next
meeting due to it being so late. Cheryl seconded the motion. All members
agreed.
Mike made mention that the Town Council wanted to meet jointly with the
Design Review Board to discuss the proposed changes for the Zoning Ordinance
•
and that everyone would be notified as to when this would take place.
Ken made a motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Bob.
Passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted by
Melody Cummivtigs
Recordinn Secretary
Design Review Board