PZC Minutes 080582RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 5, 1982, 7:30 P. M.
The regular meeting of the Design Review Board of Avon was held on August 5,
1982, at 7:30 p.m., in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal
Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order
by Vice -Chairman Mike Blair.
Let the record show that members present were: Bob Zeeb, Cheryl Dingwell,
Mike Blair, Jerry Davis, Jim Meehan, Tommy Landauer. Staff Members present
were: Art Abplanalp, Norm Wood, Terrill Knight b Dick Kvach.
The new Town Planner, Dick Kvach, was introduced to the Board.
Block
Hearin
George Rosenberg made the presentation. He stated that the Metro District
needs another water tank for domestic water supply and fire protection for
both Wildridge and Wildwood. Wildwood is an SPA zone district and the setback
in the area for structures or improvements is 25 feet from the road. There will
be a pumphouse above ground. The district is requesting that there be a change
from the 25 foot setback to a 3 foot setback for this pumphouse. In order to
maintain the pumps they would also like to have a small off-road parking area
for the truck to keep it from sitting out in the road.
Norm stated that this particular site does have good site distance for parking
alongside the shoulder.
George stated that their engineers felt this site would be the best location
for the water tank. This area is already disturbed and they don't want to tear
up another site. This is a public entity and they are trying to hold down the
cost to the taxpayers. There would be an additional cost of $20,580.00 to move
this to another site. (He read a letter from KKBNA stating the reasons for this
additional cost. Copy of letter on fi-e).
Terrill stated that the Town Engineer was concerned with this site and felt that
some consideration should be given to the other sites and find out if they might
work. Also no conceptual design or discussion has taken place as to what affect
that will have from a design point of view and what it will look like. He feels
the design is important in how it may affect the surrounding buildings.
Norm stated that in the additional cost figures they considered the additional
cost of the line and savings in the re -bar in the retaining wall for the building.
Feels what would be a substantial savings is the cost of the excavation.
George stated they were only concerned with the zone change. (He read a letter
dated 7/2/82 to Town Enginer regarding this site. Copy on file).
Terrill stated that his concern is with the 12 to 15 foot vertical wall which
is one foot off the right-of-way line. The design does have an effect on this.
Art stated that this was not a design review procedure and not a zone change, but
was a Special Review Use. The Code provides that the Design Review Board makes
the decision then it does go before the Council, but it only goes to the Council
if the Design Review Board approves it. He stated that if a Special Review Use
is approved then the Town Council shall be notified in writing by the Recording
Secretary of the Board and final approval shall be granted or denied by the Town
Council.
Steve Erickson asked who is the owner of the proposed site for the tank and how
Avon Metro District has acquired ownership to building this tank and is presenting
itanlf ns the nnnlioant in this hearing?
Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. ThP meeting was called to order
by Vice—Chairman Mike Blair.
Let the record show that members present were: Bob Zeeb, Cheryl Dingwell,
Mike Blair, Jerry Davis, Jim Meehan, Tommy Landauer. Staff Members present
were: Art Abplanalp, Norm Wood, Terrill Knight & Dick Kvach.
The new Town Planner, Dick Kvach, was introduced to the Board.
Item No. 1, Avon Metro District, Special Review Use, Tract K. Block 1, Wildwood
Subdivision, File No. 82-7-6. (Public Hearing)
George Rosenberg made the presentation. He stated that the Metro District
needs another water tank for domestic water supply and fire protection for
both Wildridge and Wildwood. Wildwood is an SPA zone district and the setback
in the area for structures or improvements is 25 feet from the road. There will
be a pumphouse above ground. The district is requesting that there be a change
from the 25 foot setback to a 3 foot setback for this pumphouse. In order to
maintain the pumps they would also like to have a small off—road parking area
for the truck to keep it from sitting out in the road.
Norm stated that this particular site does have good site distance for parking
alongside the shoulder.
George stated that their engineers felt this site would be the best location
for the water tank. This area is already disturbed and they don't want to tear
up another site. This is a public entity and they are trying to hold down the
cost to the taxpayers. There would be an additional cost of $20,580.00 to move
this to another site. (He read a letter from KKBNA stating the reasons for this
additional cost. Copy of letter on file).
Terrill stated that the Town Engineer was concerned with this site and felt that
some consideration should be given to the other sites and find out if they might
work. Also no conceptual design or discussion has taken place as to what affect
that will have from a design point of view and what it will look like. He feels
the design is Important in how it may affect the surrounding buildings.
Norm stated that in the additional cost figures they considered the additional
cost of the line and savings in the re—bar in the retaining wall for the building.
Feels what would be a substantial savings is the coat of the excavation.
George stated they were only concerned with the zone change. (He read a letter
dated 7/2/82 to Town Enginer regarding this site. Copy on file).
Terrill stated that his concern is with the 12 to 15 foot vertical wall which
is one foot off the right—of—way line. The design does have an effect on this.
Art stated that this was not a design review procedure and not a zone change, but
was a Special Review Use. The Code provides that the Design Review Board makes
the decision then it does go before the Council, but it only goes to the Council
if the Design Review Board approves it. He stated that if a Special Review Use
is approved then the Town Council shall be notified In writing by the Recording
Secretary of the Board and final approval shall be granted or denied by the Town
Council.
Steve Erickson asked who is the owner of the proposed site for the tank and how
Avon Metro District has acquired ownership to building this tank and is presenting
itself as the applicant in this hearing?
George stated that this is going into a utility easement. He stated that if this
didn't have the pumphouse it would be virtually underground.
—1—
Terrill stated this is a key issue in that if it was totally underground,
there wouldn't be a need for a variance. This is outside the right-of-way and
in the setback.
Jerry Davis asked if the other proposed locations are owned by the same party or
is there a problem in moving this to another location.
George stated that one of the alternative locations of the Town would fall into
a utility easement.
Art read from the Wildridge Plat - that easements 10 feet in width are reserved along
each side of every public highway for slope maintenance, drainage and snow storage.
Park land pedestrian access and park tracts may be used for municipal and utility
facilities, when permitted by the owner and the Town of Avon.
Jerry asked how high including the portion of the tank with the building would
it be above ground at grade? Al Testa stated that from road level it would be
22 to 23 feet high.
Jerry asked if the other alternative sites would require extensive excavation
and would the tank have to be above ground. Norm stated the tank could still be
below ground. There wouldn't be a side slope. This is on a 1� to 1 side slope.
Some of the other sites may be 6,8,10 to I slope.
George stated that they would be taking out a greater number of trees in the
alternate sites than at the proposed site. Avon Metro District will be paying
for the tank.
Jerry stated that berauFe this structure is to be so close to the right-of-way,
that some consideration to other sites and some study should be done. Feels
this information «ould be necessary before the Board could make a reasonable decision.
He also suggested that the Board go up and look at the proposed site as well as
the alter!. 1. •c, sites.
Bob motioneu to continue this application in that the applicant and the Board go
up and look at the other alternative sites and the Board could make a decision
at the next regular meeting. Cheryl asked if Bob would include in the motion
that the Board be provided with further information and a feasibility study as
to an additional site and costs. Bob agreed. George clarified that the Board
would consider the matter at the next regular meeting and also do a design review.
The problem is they have a design for the present proposed site. If the Board
comes up with an alternate site then they will have to have another design and
that can't be done in one or two days and the same with the cost analysis.
Bob clarified the motion to continue the review of the Special use of the water
tank site to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board. In
the interim to get together with the applicant and the Board to go through and
actually see the sites proposed for the water tank and hear more information
the field as far as cost analysis, appearances, alternatives. Motion was
seconded by Cheryl. Motion was carried to continue this to the August 19, 1982
meeting.
Staff is to organize the field trip.
Item No. 2, Von Ohlsen Duplex, Changes in Site grading and landscaping, Lot 39,
Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, File No. 82-8-1.
Lou Von Ohlsen made the presentation. He stated that this project was approved
approximately a year ago. Since then a certain amount of excavation has been done
and there is adequate material available for rock retaining walls. Also the
original site plan showed a significant amount of lateral slope in the driveway,
so he would like to add a rock retaining wall along the western property line which
will decrease the slope in the driveway parking areas making it more level. The
only landscaping change will be the addition of the retaining walls which will not
be over 4 feet in height.
Terrill stated the building does conform with the zoning standards.
Art read from the Wildridge Plat - that easements 10 feet in width are reserved along
each stde of every public highway for slope maintenance, drainage and snow storage.
Park land pedestrian access and park tracts may be used for municipal and utility
facilities, when permitted by the owner and the Town of Avon.
Jerry asked how high including the portion of the tank with the building would
_ it be above ground at grade? Al Testa stated that from road level it would be
22 to 23 feet high.
Jerry asked if the other alternative sites would require extensive excavation
and would the tank have to be above ground. Norm stated the tank could still be
below ground. There wouldn't be a side slope. This is on a 111 to 1 side slope.
Some of the other sites may be 6,8,10 to 1 slope.
• George stated that they would be taking out a greater number of trees in the
alternate sites than at the proposed site. Avon Metro District will be paying
for the tank.
Jerry stat,d that because this structure is to be so close to he right-of-way,
that some c<msideration to other sites and some study should be done. Feels
this information would be necessary before the Board could make a reasonable decision.
He also suggested that the Board go up and look at the proposed site as well as
the alternative sites.
Bob motioned to continue this application in that the applicant and the Board go
up and look at the other alternative sites and the Board could make a decision
at the next regular meeting. Cheryl asked if Bob would include in the motion
that the Board be provided with further information and a feasibility study as
to an additional site and costs. Bob agreed. George clarified that the Board
would consider the matter at the next regular meeting and also do a design review.
The problem is they have a design for the present proposed site. If the Board
comes up with an alternate site then they will have to have another design and
that can't be done in one or two days and the same with the cost analysis.
Bob clarified the motion to continue the review of
tank site to the next regular scheduled meeting of
the interim to get together with the applicant and
actually see the sites proposed for the water tank
the field as far as cost analysis, appearances,
seconded by Cheryl. Motion was carried to continu
meeting.
Staff is to organize the field trip.
the Special use of the water
the Design Review Board. In
the Board to go through and
and hear more information
alternatives. Motion was
e this to the August 19, 1982
No. 2. Von Ohlsen Duplex. Changes in Site grading and landscaping, Lot 39
Lou Von Ohlsen made the presentation. He stated that this project was approved
approximately a year ago. Since then a certain amount of excavation has been done
and there is adequate material available for rock retaining walls. Also the
original site plan showed a significant amount of lateral slope in the driveway,
so he would like to add a rock retaining wall along the western property line which
will decrease the slope in the driveway parking areas making it more level. The
only landscaping change will be the addition of the retaining walls which will not
be over 4 feet in height.
Terrill stated the building does conform with the zoning standards.
Jim motioned to approve the changes as submitted. Seconded by Tommy and was
passed unanimously.
-2-
—r
rate
vision. File No. 82-7-3. (con
Lanny Proffer made the presentation. He represented the Benchmark Homeowners
Association. He stated that this matter was continued to this meeting for the
purposed of submitting the roofing materials to be used on the roofs. Ile then
show a film presentation of the material which is to be used. The material is
"The Klip-Rib System by ASC Pacific, Inc.
Terrill stated this meeting was continued due to the applicant not having the
proper roof material and building materials at the last meeting.
Lanny stated they were requesting approval to replace the three (3) roofs that are
presently cedar shake with this material and then replace the roof on Building D
with the same material at a later date.
Terrill stated that the metal roof on Building D was put up on a temporary basis.
He is concerned with the colors maybe being different.
Lanny stated the Homeowners Association is to meet on August 21, 1982 and they
can make a proposal for a rime schedule in which the roof on Bldg. D will be
replaced with this new material, and then come back to the Design Review Board.
Tommy stated that he is against tl:e metal roofs for the project because it is
to massive an area.
Terrill stated this matter should be resolved before too long so it doesn't drag
on into the winter season.
Jerry motioned that the Board approve the material for the 3 buildings and that we
disapprove the material for the 4th building until the applicant can give a time
table that is acceptable.
Art stated that if the Design Review Board denies something then they must specify
the reasons for denial. He suggested having 2 motions. One on the 3 buildings
approving the material and on the 4th building a motion for denial with reasons.
Jerry stated that he withdrew his motion.
Cheryl motioned to approve the 3 roofs that are currently cedar shake shingle to
the submitted roofing material. The material is ASC Pacific, Inc. Klip-Rib,
Weather Copper color. This material is for Buildings A, B 5 C. (No one seconded
the motion after 3 requests - motion died).
Tommy made a motion to disapprove the application as presented and the roof which
has the illegal metal on it now should be replaced with the shake shingles as it was
supposed to have been and there should be a time frame set to have this completed
before the winter. Motion was seconded by Bob.
Art stated that reasons for denial would need to be stated.
Tommy stated the reason for disapproving this is this is not the proper area to
use metal, it is too massive and is very objectionable in that area.
Art stated the Board will have to follow the guidelines in the Rules 6 Regulations.
Tommy stated his reasons were: 1. The suitability of the improvement, including
materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located,
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements. 3. The visual appearance
of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property.
4. The object that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to others in
the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired.
Motion was seconed by Bob.
Lanny requested that he be given an opportunity to make a full presentation on this
matter due to not all melcbers having been at both meetings.
The motion was voted on and defeated by a vote of 3 to 2.
Nirk P111`2 St"tn.l rt,,t t1r R^a*d sbocl_' E'rp.ths. -,1f Jnr FT -e .14-"r_t'
Terrill stated this meeting was continued due to the applicant iot having the
proper roof material and building materials at the last meeting.
Lasay stated they were requesting approval to replace the three (3) roofs that are
presently cedar shake with this material and then replace the roof on Building D
with the same material at a later date.
Terrill stated that the metal roof on Building D was put up on a temporary basis.
H- is concerned with the colors maybe being different.
Lanny stated the Homeowners Association is to meet on August 21, 1982 and they
_an make a proposal for a time schedule in which the roof on Bldg. D will be
replaced with this new material, and t.:en come back to the Design Review Board.
Tommy stated that he is against the metal roofs for the project because it is
to massive an area.
Terrill stated this matter should ba resolved before too long so it doesn't drag
on into the winter season.
Jerry motioned that toe Board srprove the material for the 3 buildings and that we
disapprove the material for the 4th building until the applicant can give a time
table that is acceptable.
Art stated that if the Design Review Board denies something then they must specify
the reasons for denial. He suggested having 2 motions. One on the 3 buildings
approving the material and on the 4th building a motion for denial with reasons.
Jerry stated that he withdrew his motion.
Cheryl motioned to approve the 3 roofs that are currently cedar shake shingle to
the submitted roofing material. The material is ASC Pacific, Inc. Klip-Rib,
Weather Copper color. This material is for Buildings A, B b C. (No one seconded
the motion after 3 requests - motion died).
Tommy made a motion to disapprove the application as presented and the roof which
has the illegal metal on it now should be replaced with the shake shingles as it was
supposed to have been and there should be a time frame set to have this completed
before the winter. Motion was seconded by Bob.
Art stated that reasons for denial would need to be stated.
Tommy stated the reason for disapproving this is this is not the proper area to
use metal, it is too massive and is very objectionable in that area.
Art stated the Board w!.11 have to follow the guidelines in the Rules b Regulations.
Tommy stated his reasons w -re: 1. The suitability of the improvement, including
materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located,
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements. 3. The visual appearance
of any p-oposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property.
4. The object that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to others in
the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired.
Motion was seconed by Bob.
Lanny requested that he be given an opportunity to make a full presentation on this
matter due to not all members having been at both meetings.
The motion was voted on and defeated by a vote of 3 to 2.
Nick Dalba stated that the Board should give the applicant some direction. The
Board should say the metal submitted will be pLt on all four roofs.
Jerry made a motion to accept metal roofs on all four buildings including the
material which has been submitted to us this evening with the name that was on the
material, and that those roofs be installed before winter. Cheryl seconded the
motion.
-3-
Jerry clarified his motion to say that it is 4 roofs with new roofs with material
submitted tonight which is ASC Pacific, Inc., Weather copper color, on all four
buildings A, B, C b D, at Benchmark Condos, in Avon, Colorado.
Art stated there is no authority in the DRB regulations to impose conditions as
far as time. DRB approval is good for 2 years.
Dick Blodgett stated that the roof on Build'ng D is in violation now.
John Blish suggested that the applicant agree to re -roof Building D first.
Jerry Davis amended his motion to include that the roof on Building D be constructed
first and the others in sequence. It must be four or none. Chert': accepted and
seconded the amendment.
Jim Meehan asked if the Board was to disapprove the application then could the
applicant make another application? Art stated that if the Board didn't take
any action tonite then that is considered a conditional approval.
The motion was voted on and was defeated with a vote of 2 yes and 3 no.
Jerry motioned to approve the application for metal roofs for four buildings,
A,B,C b D, at Benchmark Condominiums, with the prescribed material presented
to us this evening with the condition that they approach us with a time frame
as to when the buildings will be done and that they complete Building D first.
This should be done at the September 2, 1982 meeting of the Design Review Board.
Cheryl seconded the motion. The motion was voted on and was carried with a vete
of 3 to 2.
Applicant is to come to the September 2, 1982 meeting to discuss the time schedule
for the re -roofing of the buildings.
Item No. 4, Buck Creek Plaza Condominium Association, Approval to pave green area,
Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-8-2.
This item was continued to August 19, 1982 due to the applicant being sick.
Item No. 5, Avon Road Office Building, Change in Parking, Lot 56, Block 2,
Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-8-3.
Rudy Fisher of Morter-Fisher-Arnold Architects made the presentation. The original
Avon Road Office Building was 4 levels of offices and 2 levels of parking, and was
conditionally approved on February 4, 1981. Later the building as re -designed with
the top floor removed and 1/2 of the upper level of parking was converted to
commercial space. On June 17, 1981 they received a variance for 2 loading spaces.
The developers are not planning to build this year. The plans being submitted
tonight are basically the same. They have only made two changes which are all the
parking is full-size (no compact spaces) and also reduced the amount of leasible
space by 2,000 square feet. They are asking for final Design Review Board approval
as submitted.
Terrill stated that there is still some parking problems. The space at the main
entrance has no site distance. Also at the end of the upper floor, the end spaces
are difficult to get in and out of. Spaces are 9 x 20 but the column spaces are not
accounted for. Main concern is at the entrance ramp, a car would have to pull the
full length out of the space before being able to see an oncoming car. Also the
plans submitted are insufficient in terms of workability of parking spaces. Would
like to put this off to the next meeting so the staff can review the plan with the
architect.
Art stated that the applicant should also come in for design approval.
Jerry suggested the applicant bring the colored rendering to the next meeting.
Applicant requested that this matter be continued to the August 19, 1982 meeting.
Stnff iz tc rcr.'..r fr_m the t•_....... :.:! it Lha
John Blish suggested that the applicant agree to re -roof Building D first.
Jerry Davis amended his motion to include that the roof on Building D be constructed
first and the others in sequence. It must be four or none. Cheryl accepted and
seconded the amendment.
Jim Meehan asked if the Board was to disapprove the application then could the
applicant make another application? Art stated that if the Board didn't take
any action tonite then that is considered a conditional approval.
The motion was voted on and was defeated with a vote of 2 yes and 3 no.
Jerry motioned to approve the application for metal roofs for four buildings,
A,B,C S D, at Benchmark Condominiums, with the prescribed material presented
to us this evening with the condition that they approach us with a time frame
as to when the buildings will be done and that they complete Building D first.
This should be done at the September 2, 1982 meeting of the Design Review Board.
Cheryl seconded the motion. The motion was voted on and was carried with a vote
of 3 to 2.
Applicant is to come to the September 2, 1982 meeting to discuss the time schedule
for the re -roofing of the buildings.
Item No. 4, Buck Creek Plaza Condominium Association, Approval to pave green area,
Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-8-2.
This item was continued to August 19, 1982 due to the applicant being sick.
Item No. 5, Avon Road Office Building, Change in Parking, Lot 56 Block 2
Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-8-3.
Rudy Fisher of Morter-Fisher-Arnold Architects made the presentation. The original
Avon Road Office Building was 4 levels of offices and 2 levels of parking, and was
conditionally approved on February 4, 1981. Later the building as re -designed with
the top floor removed and 1/2 of the upper level of parking was converted to
commercial space. On June 17, 1981 they received a variance for 2 loading spaces.
The developers are not planning to build this year. The plans being submitted
tonight are basically the same. They have only made two changes which are all the
parking is full-size (no compact spaces) and also reduced the amount of leasible
space by 2,000 square feet. They are asking for final Design Review Board approval
as submitted.
Terrill stated that there is still some parking problems. The space at the main
entrance has no site distance. Also at the end of the upper floor, the end spaces
are difficult to get in and out of. Spaces are 9 x 20 but the column spaces are not
accounted for. Main concern is at the entrance ramp, a car would have to pull the
full length out of the space before being able to see an oncoming car. Also the
plans submitted are insufficient in terms of workability of parking spaces. Would
like to put this off to the next meeting so the staff can review the plan with the
architect.
Art stated that the applicant should also come in for design approval.
Jerry suggested the applicant bring the colored rendering to the next meeting.
Applicant requested that this matter be continued to the August 19, 1982 meeting.
Staff is to review the application from the beginning and have a report at the
next meeting.
QM
Other Business:
Dick Kvach, Town Planner, presented some proposed amendments to the zoning
ordinance regarding lock -off unit and parking requirements. After lengthy
discussion, the Board and the Staff decided they would hold worksessions on
this.
Terrill Knight stated that this was to be his last meeting. He said he enjoyed
working with the Design Review Board.
Jerry Davis motioned that the Design Review Board commend Mr. Terrill Knight
for all of his help and support and this be in an official document to be
presented to him. Motion was seconded by Cheryl and passed unanimously.
The Recording Secretary is to write the appropriate letter.
Bob Zeeb motioned to approve the minutes of the July 1, 1982 meeting. Motion
was seconded by Jim Meehan and was passed unanimously.
Cheryl Dingwell motioned to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Bob Zeeb
and was passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Melody Cummi,;
Recording Secretary
Design Review Board