PZC Minutes 11188210
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
•
NOVEMBER 18, 1982, 7:30 P. M.
to The regular meeting of the Design Review Board of Avon was held on November 18,
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 Chairman Bill Pierce.
Members present were: Jim Meehan, Mike Blair, Bill Pierce, Tommy Landauer,
Cheryl Dingwell, Bob 2eeb.
Staff members present: Dick Kvach/Planning Director, Art Abplanalp/Town Attorney,
Norm Wood/Town Engineer & Mel�.:y Cummings/Recording Secretary.
Item No. 1, Reading and Approval of DRB Minutes of 11/4/82.
Art Abplanalp noted that on page 1, last paragraph to be corrected to read
"...if a town restricts a piece of ground inAmanner which prevents its use,
that restriction is likely to be set aside by a court."
Jim Meehan moved to approved the Minutes of the 11/4/82 meeting with the above
correction. Motion was seconded by Mike Blair and was passed unanimously.
Item No. 2a, fail Associates, Temporary Sign, Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision,
File No. 82-11-5A.
Dick Kvach stated the first request was for a temporary identification sign,
8.31 square feet in size, until a permanent sign can be constructed. The permanent
sign to be at the west end of Benchmark Plaza Building, will take about 6 weeks to
complete. Recommending the temporary sign be supported by rough sawn post. The
temporary sign will be used from 11/19/82 to 1/15/83. The permanent sign is to
then be installed by 1/15/83.
Ed Swinford/Managing Broker of Vail Associates, stated they had no problem with
the posts material. January 15, 1982 seems like a good time limit.
Bill Pierce asked if a Comprehensive Sign Program has been thoughtout? Larry Goad
stated that a Sign Program has been thoughtout but is not ready to be submitted.
Cheryl Dingwell moved to approve the temporary Sign application as recommended by
the staff. Motion was seconded by Jim Meehan and was passed unanimously.
Item No. 2b, Vail Associates, Permanent Sign, Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision,
File No. 82-11-5b.
Dick Kvach stated this sign will be located in the same area as the temporary sign.
This sign is a double-faced sign, 36.26 square feet in size, which exceeds the sign
area allowed by 200 percent. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow
the extra square footage. The sign will be constructed of anodized black aluminum
laminated on exterior plywood. The letters will be 1/2 inch solid brass. Framing
will be redwood. Also they are planning to illuminate the sign with flood lights
buried in the landscaping. Staff 1s recommending the sign be cut down in size to
approximately 18" x 60". Also recommending that if any sign is approved for this
business, that it be done with the understanding that if another business wants a
sign for this lot that a Sign Program be submitted and all signs existing prior to
approval of the Sign Program must be revised to conform to the program.
Bill Pierce asked if the DRB could require a Sign Program. Art Abplanalp stated
that the Ordinance says an applicant may be required to submit a sign program. The
DRB can grantvariances if they are minor and if undue hardship will occur. Bill
Pierce stated the Board received a letter from Benchmark Companies stating they are
giving 6 square feet of their sign allowance to Vail Associates. Larry Goad stated
that the Vail Associates sign would be incorporated into the overall sign program
if approved.
by Chairman bili Pierce.
Members present were: Jim Meehan, Mike Blair, Bill Pierce, Tommy Landauer, -
Cheryl Dingwell, Bob Zeeb.
Staff members present: Dick Kvach/Planning Director, Art Abplanalp/Town Attorney,
Norm Wood/Town Engineer & Melody Cummings/Recording Secretary.
Dick Kvach stated the first request was for a temporary identification sign,
8.31 square feet in size, until a permanent sign can be constructed. The permanent
sign to be at the west end of Benchmark Plaza Building, will take about 6 weeks to
complete. Recommending the temporary sign be supported by rough sawn post. The
temporary sign will be used from 11/19/82 to 1/15/83. The permanent sign is to
then be installed by 1/15/83.
Ed Swinford/Managing Broker of Vail Associates, stated they had no problem with
the posts material. January 15, 1982 seems like a good time limit.
Bill Pierce asked if a Comprehensive Sign Program has been thoughtout? Larry Goad
stated that a Sign Program has been thoughtout but is not ready to be submitted.
Cheryl Dingwell moved to approve the temporary Sign application as recommended by
the staff. Motion aas seconded by Jim Meehan and was passed unanimously.
Item No. 2b, Vail Associates, Permanent Sign, Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision,
File No. 82-11-5b.
Dick Kvach stated this sign will be located in the same area as the temporary sign.
This sign is a double-faced sign, 36.26 square feet in size, which exceeds the sign
area allowed by 200 percent. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow
the extra square footage. The sign will be constructed of anodized black aluminum
laminated on exterior plywood. The letters will be 1/2 inch solid brass. Framing
will be redwood. Also they are planning to illuminate the sign with flood lights
b4ried in the landscaping. Staff i,; recommending the sign be cut down in size to
approximately 18" x 60". Also recommending that if any sign is approved for this
business, that it be done with the understanding that if another business wants a
sign for this lot that a Sign Program be submitted and all signs existing prior to
approval of the Sign Program must be revised to conform to the program.
Bill Pierce asked if the DRB could require a Sign Program. Art Abplanalp stated
that the Ordinance says an applicant may be required to submit a sign program. The
DRB can grantvariances if they are minor and if undue hardship will occur. Bill
Pierce stated the Board received a letter from Benchmark Companies stating they are
giving 6 square feet of their sign allowance to Vail Associates. Larry Goad stated
that the Vail Associates sign would be incorporated into the overall sign program
if approved.
Art Abplanalp stated that the DRB could approve the sign contingent upon a
Comprehensive Sign Program being approved and allowing for this sign, at that time
it could be put up. The DRB action is not effective until the Sign Program is in
-1-
Item No. 1, Reading
and Approval
of DRB Minutes of 11/4/82.
Art Abplanalp noted
that on page
1, last paragraph to be corrected to read
"...if a town restricts a piece of round iri manner which
p g A prevents its use,
.
that restriction is
likely to be
set aside by a court."
Jim Meehan moved to
approved the
Minutes of the 11/4/82 meeting with the above
correction. Motion
was seconded
by Mike Blair and was passed unanimously.
Item No. 2a, Vail Associates, Temporary
Sign, Lot 20 Block 2 Benchmark Subdivision
File No. 82-11-5A.
r
Dick Kvach stated the first request was for a temporary identification sign,
8.31 square feet in size, until a permanent sign can be constructed. The permanent
sign to be at the west end of Benchmark Plaza Building, will take about 6 weeks to
complete. Recommending the temporary sign be supported by rough sawn post. The
temporary sign will be used from 11/19/82 to 1/15/83. The permanent sign is to
then be installed by 1/15/83.
Ed Swinford/Managing Broker of Vail Associates, stated they had no problem with
the posts material. January 15, 1982 seems like a good time limit.
Bill Pierce asked if a Comprehensive Sign Program has been thoughtout? Larry Goad
stated that a Sign Program has been thoughtout but is not ready to be submitted.
Cheryl Dingwell moved to approve the temporary Sign application as recommended by
the staff. Motion aas seconded by Jim Meehan and was passed unanimously.
Item No. 2b, Vail Associates, Permanent Sign, Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision,
File No. 82-11-5b.
Dick Kvach stated this sign will be located in the same area as the temporary sign.
This sign is a double-faced sign, 36.26 square feet in size, which exceeds the sign
area allowed by 200 percent. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow
the extra square footage. The sign will be constructed of anodized black aluminum
laminated on exterior plywood. The letters will be 1/2 inch solid brass. Framing
will be redwood. Also they are planning to illuminate the sign with flood lights
b4ried in the landscaping. Staff i,; recommending the sign be cut down in size to
approximately 18" x 60". Also recommending that if any sign is approved for this
business, that it be done with the understanding that if another business wants a
sign for this lot that a Sign Program be submitted and all signs existing prior to
approval of the Sign Program must be revised to conform to the program.
Bill Pierce asked if the DRB could require a Sign Program. Art Abplanalp stated
that the Ordinance says an applicant may be required to submit a sign program. The
DRB can grantvariances if they are minor and if undue hardship will occur. Bill
Pierce stated the Board received a letter from Benchmark Companies stating they are
giving 6 square feet of their sign allowance to Vail Associates. Larry Goad stated
that the Vail Associates sign would be incorporated into the overall sign program
if approved.
Art Abplanalp stated that the DRB could approve the sign contingent upon a
Comprehensive Sign Program being approved and allowing for this sign, at that time
it could be put up. The DRB action is not effective until the Sign Program is in
-1-
effect. No permit for the sign will be issued until the Sign Program is approved
by the DRB which includes this sign.
Nick Dalba stated the applicant may want to request a variance to be allowed to have
more than 12 square feet when they bring in their Comprehensive Sign Program.
Ed Swinford asked if he could go ahead and prepare the ground for the sign (wiring
and digging holes for posts). The Board agreed it would be okay.
Cheryl Dingwell moved that the Board require an overall Comprehensive Sign Program
for the building. Motion was seconded by Tommy Landauer and was approved
unanimously.
Art Abplanalp stated the Board needed to take action on the Sign application presented
at the meeting. Applicant requested that this matter be tabled until a Sign Program
be submitted and approved.
W
Dick Kvach stated the request is for a temporary site to sell Christmas Trees. The
only lighting will be from a Christmas Tree. The use would be from Thanksgiving to
Christmas or approximately 30 days. The applicant will remove the trees each
night from the site. There will also be a pine jack fence used to lean the trees
against. Recommending approval of this request with the conditions that the site
be kept clear of all debris and that the materials be removed from the site on
12/26/82.
Matt Grubbs/applicant, stated he would be done selling trees on Chritmas night and
that the fence can be packed up and removed the same night. He will have a truck
on the site with a sign saying Christmas trees for sale.
Bob Zeeb moved to approve the application as recommended with a grace period until
January 1, 1983. Motion was seconded by Cheryl Dingwell and was pass unanimously.
Item No. 4, Roadcal Inc Density Lots 29-32. Block 2 Benchmark Subdivision.
Art Abplanaip stated the item before the Board is a proposed ordinance amending
a portion of the zoning code, recognizing the limitations contained on the
Official Plat as part of the zoning code, specifically the number of units on
various lots. This ordinance will break down and assign nine lots on the Official
Plat which are collectively referred to as including 340 hotel/lodge units. When
a portion was sold which is now the Christie Lodge, 306 units were sold to U S Home
Corporation. 26 units were conveyed back to the owners (Roadcal). This left 60
units on the Roadcal property. The present owners feel that 60 units is under
allocated and would lire an increased density. When this was reviewed with
Counsel for Roadcal, it occurred that you can't simply break out the Roadcal lots,
and say that there are X number of units there then you still have a plat which says
includes 3•:^ '.otel/lodge units on the rest, because you haven't amended the plat.
So what is before the DRB and the Town Council is a proposed ordinance that would
amend the plat to actually break down this bracketed portion of the Official Plat which
covers 9 lots and the amendment would effectively say that the 5 lots that are owned
by U S Home Corporation would have 280 accommodation units and the other 4 lots would
have either 448 accommodation units or 60 dwelling units depending on how the
property is developed. The purpose of the ordinance is to amend the Official Plat
which saysthose 9 lots have 340 hotel/lodge units but which fails to identify
specific units with specific lots.
Art Abplanalp briefly reviewed preceeding events. The Official Plat in 1978 approved
John Dunn's opinion that the Roadcal units were not bound by the density limitation
on the Town Plat. Next the Town Council amended the Zoning Regulations to impose
those limitations as a matter of zoning. Roadcal is coming back now and stating
that they felt they had the ability to develop 448 accommodation units on the
property before the ordinance of this past March 23•:d and they would like to be
permitted that type of development within certain constraints which are the subject
of rhn ordinance. There are actually 2 sections to the ordinance - the first is
Cheryl Dingwell moved that the Board require an overall Comprehensive Sign Program
for the building. Motion was seconded by Tommy Landauer and was approved
unanimously.
Art Abplanalp stated the Board needed to take action on the Sign application presented
at the meeting. Applicant requested that this matter be tabled until a Sign Program
be submitted and approved.
Item No. 3, Ski Town Christmas Tree Company, Christmas Tree Site, Lot 56,
Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-11-3.
Dick Kvach stated the request is for a temporary site to sell Christmas Trees. The
only lighting rill be from a Christmas Tree. The use would be from Thanksgiving to
Christmas or approximately 30 days. The applicant will remove the trees each
night from the site. There will also be a pine jack fence used to lean the trees
against. Recommendin& approval of this request with the conditions that the site
be kept clear of all debris and that the materials be removed from the site on
12/26/82.
Matt Grubbs/applicant, stated he would be done selling trees on Chritmas night and
that the fence can be packed up and removed the same night. He will have a truck
on the site with a sign saying Christmas trees for sale.
Bob Zeeb moved to approve the application as recommended with a grace period until
January 1, 1983. Motion was seconded by Cheryl Dingwell and was pass unanimously.
Item No. 4, Roadcal, Inc., Density, Lots 29-32. Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision.
Art Abplanalp stated the item before the Board is a proposed ordinance amending
a portion of the zoning code, recognizing the limitations contained on the
Official Plat as part of the zoning code, specifically th number of units on
various lots. This ordinance will break down and assign nine lots on the Official
Plat which are collectively referred to as including 340 hotel/lodge units. When
a portion was sold which is now the Christie Lodge, 306 units were sold to U S Home
Corporation. 26 units were conveyed back to the owners (Roadcal). This left 60
units on the Roadcal property. The present owners feel that 60 units is under
allocated and would like an increased density. When this was reviewed with
Counsel for Roadcal, it occurred that you can't simply break out the Roadcal lots,
and say that there are X number of units there then you still have a plat which says
includes 340 hotel/lodge units on the rest, because you haven't amended the plat.
So what is before the DRB and the Town Council is a proposed ordinance that would
amend the plat to actually break down this bracketed portion of the Official Plat which
covers 9 lots and the amendment would effectively say that the 5 lots that are owned
by U S Home Corporation would have 280 accommodation units and the other 4 lots would
have either 448 accommodation units or 60 dwelling units depending on how the
property is developed. The purpose of the ordinance is to amend the Official Plat
which saysthose 9 lots have 340 hotel/lodge units but which fails to identify
specific units with specific lots.
Art Abplanalp briefly reviewed preceeding events. The Official Plat in 1978 approved
John Dunn's opinion that the Roadcal units were not bound by the denaity '_imitation
on the Town Plat. Next the Town Council amended the Zoning Regulations to impose
those limitations as a matter of zoning. Roadcal is coming back now and stating
that they felt they had the ability to develop 448 accommodation units on the
property before the ordinance of this past March 23rd and they would like to be
permitted that type of development within certain constraints which are the subject
of the ordinance. There are actually 2 sections to the ordinance - the first is
an amendment to the Code and the second portion refers to conditions upon which
development of the 448 accommodation units would be permitted.
-2-
P
Dick Kvach stated the basic questions before the Board would be should the zoning
ordinance be amended. They are offering certain amenities in trade-off for the
increased density. The Board should address this as a zoning question not the
proposed amenities.
Art Abplanalp stated that the Town Council has requested that he and John Dunn
examine the questions of validity of any -estrictions that might be affecting this
property as they would relate to the town and the legality to impose density
limitations on a property as a whole. Those are two things being investigated
and will be reported back to the town before they take final action. At this
point the DRB's position would be to make a recommendation as to whether this type
of development in this density is desireable. Regardless of any covenants of any
limitations other than zoning desireability.
Bill Pierce as'.:ed if this was a Public Hearing and had proper notice peen given?
Art Abplanalp and Dick Kvach both stated it had had been.
Steve Isom/i-plan, inc., introduced the following people: Tom Harbrecht from
Sunroad Enterprises; Larry Keitar/Denver Attorney; Dennis Cole/local Attorney;
Jim Hyer of Pannell, Kerr & Forster who are consultants on the project who deal
specifically with hotel development. Requesting approval of an ordinance to amend.
Section 17.20.170 of the Avon Municipal Code dealing with specific density on
property. The ordinance deals with the densities on specific lots - lots 29-32,
block 2, Benchmark Subdivisior. The request has been through a lengthy process
with the Town Council trying to iron out all the difficulties on whether or not
this is a vital proposition. The proposed ordinance is based on discussions with
the Town Council which has requested a few additional amendments to the ordinance
before coming to the DRB. A lot of the discussions on this project dealt with
midigating the impacts to the town from this project. Most of the project is
involved in a hotel complex with a maximum of 448 rooms. The proposal includes
a rather extensive inside recreation facility and also a convention facility
of 6,000 square feet designed to handle a minimun of 600 people. There is also
smaller meeting rooms, executive meeting rooms and all of the normal bar and
restaurant facilities. The one aspect not dealt with was the impact on the public
transportation system for Avon. Because there will be 00-800 people a day using
the facility Roadcal is proposing providing to the Town of Avon 2 30 -foot buses
with the Avon Logo installed and ski racks or the equivilent amount of cash for
maintenance of the system. Eagle County and Vail Associates were notified by
registered letter that there would be a Public Hearing on this so they might
comment on the proposed change.
Steve Isom reviewed the tax and employment consequence to the town for the various
proposals.
Art Abplanalp stated that at the last Town Council meeting they requested the
DRB make a recommendation as to whether the proposed amendment should be adopted.
Bill Pierce briefly read over a letter dated 11/18/82 from U S Home Corporation
(copy on file) which reviewed past nistory and ended by stating they were not
objecting or supporting the request, only asking questions.
Nick Dalba/Avon Center asked if the Board is essentially giving Roadcal more
units, i.e. an up -zoning. Avon Center is totally against granting the zoning
change.
Art Abplanalp stated that right now what the town permits on those 9 lots is 340
units. It doesn't say they have 60 units on one area. It says there are 340 units
on 9 lots. Christie Lodge has 280 of those units. One would assume that on the
5 lots that Christie Lodge has or the 4 lots that Roadcal has there are 60 other
units. It is not broken down. Now we are in the situation of having 2 ownerships
among 9 lots. I disagree with Nick Dalba that Roadcal. sold most of what they had
because,uhatthey sold is what they thought they had. When they transferred the
lots to U S Home Corporation this 340 unit limitation was not effective. This is
clear from John Dunn's letter dated 2/17/82. At that time whatever the density that
was permitted was on the basis of zoning and at that point 448 accommodation units
were allowed based on the number of accommodation units allowed per acre under the
zoning density limitation. Roadcal discovered this after: they went through the
deeds. Someone discovered that i 340 wasn't applicable. Tt wasn't effective
._-I- ...._ ..... ..,1...., ,..e ..f :'I,.r other '�tn that hrd I—on
and will be reported back to the town before they take final action. At this
point the DRB's position would be to make a recommendation as to whether this type
of development in this density is desireable. Regardless of any covenants of any
limitations other than zoning desireability.
Bill Pierce asked if this was a Public Hearing and had proper notice been given?
Art Abplanalp and Dick Kvach both stated it had had been.
Steve Isom/i-plan, inc., introduced the following people: Tom Harbrecht from
Sunroad Enterprises; Larry Keiter/Denver Attorney; Dennis Cole/local Attorney;
Jim Hyer of Pannell, Kerr & Forster who are consultants on the project who deal
specifically with hotel development. Requesting approval of an ordinance to amend
Section 17.20.170 of the Avon Municipal Code dealing with specific density on
property. The ordinance deals with the densities on specific lots - lots 29-32,
block 2, Benchmark Subdivision. The request has been through a lengthy process
with the Town Council trying to iron out all the difficulties on whether or not
this is a vital proposition. The proposed ordinance is based on discussions with
the Town Council which has requested a few additional amendments to the ordinance
before coming to the DRB. A lot of the discussions on this project dealt with
midigating the impacts to the town from this project. Most of the project is
involved in a hotel complex with a maximum of 448 rooms. The proposal includes
a rather extensive inside recreation facility and also a convention facility
of 6,000 square feet designed to handle a minimun of 600 people. There is also
smaller meeting rooms, executive meeting rooms and all of the normal bar and
restaurant facilities. The one aspect not dealt with was the impact on the public
transportation system for Avon. Because there will be 700-800 people a day using
the facility Roadcal is proposing providing to the Town of Avon 2 30 -foot buses
with the Avon Logo installed and ski racks or the equivilent amount of cash for
maintenance of the system. Eagle County and Vail Associates were notified by
registered letter that there would be a Public Hearing on this so they might
comment on the proposed change.
Steve Isom reviewed the tax and employment consequence to the town for the various
proposals.
Art Abplanalp stated that at the last Town Council meeting they requested the
DRB make a recommendation as to whether the proposed amendment should be adopted.
Bill Pierce briefly read over a letter dated 11/18/82 from U S Home Corporation
(copy on file) which reviewed past history and ended by stating they were not
objecting or supporting the request, only asking questions.
Nick Dalba/Avon Center asked if the Board is essentially giving Roadcal more
units, i.e, an up -zoning. Avon Center is totally against granting the zoning
change.
Art Abplanalp stated that right now what the town permits on those 9 lots is 340
units. It doesn't say they have 60 units on one area. It says there are 340 units
on 9 lots. Christie Lodge has 280 of those units. One would assume that on the
5 lots that Christie Lodge has or the 4 lots that Roadcal has there are 60 other
units. It is not broken down. Now we are in the situation of having 2 ownerships
among 9 lots. I disagree with Nick Dalba that Roadcal sold most of what they had
because -what they sold is what they thought they had. When they transferred the
lots to U S Home Corporation this 340 unit limitation was not effective. This is
clear from John Dunn's letter dated 2/17/82. At that time whatever the density that
was permitted was on the basis of zoning and at that point 448 accommodation units
were allowed based on the number of accommodation units allowed per acre under the
zoning density limitation. Roadcal discovered this after they went through the
deeds. Someone discovered that the 340 wasn't applicable. It wasn't effective
against this lot nor was it effective against any of the other lots that had been
excluded from the Official Town Plat in the certification. The 340 limitation
W
-3-
was nit applicable to Roadcals or U S Homes lots until March 23, 1982 when the
town adopted the restrictions on the plat and imposed those as part of the
zoning. At that time there were 340 units on 9 lots. The town's position is
that there are 60 units on Roadcals lot because of the language which recognizes
previous transfers.
Bill Pierce stated that when Christie Lodge came to the DRS they were asked if
they had the units. The DRB told them they had to have the units.
Art Abplanalp stated that the Town Council adopted the town plat as part of the
zoning but recognized transfers which had occurred in the past. The assignment
of units to lots did not happen at the Town Council level except to the extent
it is of the Official Plat.
George Rosenberg stated this is an increase in density as far as the Master Plan
is concerned. Mr. Rosenberg reviewed past events leading to todays events.
Art Abplanalp stated the 1978 plat specifically excluded quite a number of lots
from the application of past covenants. The covenants has no effect on lots
excluded. In August 1978, when the town was incorporated, until that time these
may well have been enforceable as far as theplat was concerned. County zoning
is valid for 90 days after the incorporation of a town if the town takes no action
then the town's zoning is effective. Whatever the County had in the way of zoning
is void. At the expiration of the 90 days unless the town adopted these
limitations by ordinance then they were not enforceable as zoning and that was
the position the town was in from 1978 to March 23, 1982. Both the intent to
impose limitation by covenant and County zoning were ineffective for 5 years.
Dick Kvach stated that in those 5 years until March 23, 1982, the land was only
under the requirements of RHDC zoning. As of March 23, 1982 the town down-zoned
it to the requir-ments on the Town Plat. Roadcal is now asking for the lots to
be re-upgraded to what they originally had prior to March 23, 1982.
Dennis Cole stated that at the time units were transferred to the Christie Lodge
the lots were zoned RHDC. The ordinance adopted by the town which limited
density was not adopted until after that transfer took place. The intention of
Roadcal now is to ask for authority for a certain level of density for the
purpose of constructing this hotel facility. This facility would generate
around $1.5 to $2 million for the town. The Board needs to look at and consider
what is the best and most appropriate development for the lot rather than how units
are being traded around.
George Rosenberg stated that the town is also going to have to consider the expenses
to the town. Such as increased demands on city services, Police, Fire, water,
sewer, etc.
Larry Goad stated that the original plan was considered to be 340 units between
both sides of the project, called for a hotel on one side and a hotel on the other
side with commercial. Also there a are 2 lots one on each side of the road that
were designated and all other lots were restricted to meet that designation of
a full service gas station.
Jim Meehan felt that from a Master Plan viewpoint 60 units may not be enough.
Also feels that 448 units is not appropriate.
Mike Blair feels the town should follow the process the town adopted and not
approve the request for that many units and increase the density.
Bill Pierce stated that in his opinion the total committment to maintaining
the density within the city limits of the original Benchmark Subdivision is grossly
violated in the intent by the incorporation of all these other areas outside of
town that are now part of Avon. Doesn't consider that compliance with the
original intent of the density restriction a very important issue when we consider
the tremendous increase in density that we put into this valley through
incorporation of unincorporated land and assignment of density units.
Tommy Landauer, Cheryl Dingwell and Bob Zeeb all agreed that the density is way
too much.
Art Abplanalp stated that the Town Council adopted the town plat as part of the
zoning but recognized transfers which had occurred in the past. The assignment
of units to lots did not happen at the Town Council level except to the extent
it is of the Official Plat.
George Rosenberg stated this is an increase in density as far as the Master Plan
is concerned. Mr. Rosenberg reviewed past events leading to todays events.
Art Abplanalp stated the 1978 plat specifically excluded quite a number of lots
from the application of past covenants. The covenants has no effect on lots
excluded. In August 1978, when the town was incorporated, until that time these
0 may well have been enforceable as far as theplat was concerned. County zoning
is valid for 90 days after the incorporation of a town if the town takes no action
then the town's zoning is effective. Whatever the County had in the way of zoning
is void. At the expiration of the 90 days unless the town adopted these
limitations by ordinance then they were not enforceable as zoning and that was
the position the town was in from 1978 to March 23, 1982. Both the intent to
impose limitation by covenant and County zoning were ineffective for 5 years.
Dick Kvach stated that in those 5 years until March 23, 1982, the land was only
under the requirements of RHDC zoning. As of March 23, 1982 the town down -zoned
it to the requirements on the Town Plat. Roadcal is now asking for the lots to
be re -upgraded to what they originally had prior to March 23, 1982.
Dennis Cole stated that at the time units were transferred to the Christie Lodge
the lots were zoned RHDC. The ordinance adopted by the town which limited
density was not adopted until after that transfer took place. The intention of
Roadcal now is to ask for authority for a certain level of density for the
purpose of constructing this hotel facility. This facility would generate
around $1.5 to $2 million for the town. The Board needs to look at and consider
what is the best and most appropriate development for the lot rather than how units
are being traded around.
George Rosenberg stated that the town is also going to have to consider the expenses
to the town. Such as increased demands on city services, Police, Fire, water,
sewer, etc.
Larry Goad stated that the original plan was considered to be 340 units between
both sides of the project, called for a hotel on one side and a hotel on the other
side with commercial. Also there were 2 lots one on each side of the road that
were designated and all other lots were restricted to meet that designation of
a full service gas station.
Jim Meehan felt that from a Master Plan viewpoint 60 units may not be enough.
Also feels that 448 units is not appropriate.
Mike Blair feels the town should follow the process the town adopted and not
approve the request for that many units and increase the density.
Bill Pierce stated that in his opinion the total committment to maintaining
the density within the city limits of the original Benchmark Subdivision is grossly
violated in the intent by the incorporation of all these other areas outside of
town that are now part of Avon. Doesn't consider that compliance with the
original intent of the density restriction a very important issue when we consider
the tremendous increase in density that we put into this valley through
incorporation of unincorporated land and assignment of density units.
Tommy Landauer, Cheryl Dingwell and Bob Zeeb all agreed that the density is way
too much.
Art Abplanalp stated that the Board needs to make a recommendation to the
Town Council.
-4-
a
Jim Meehan moved that the Board recommend that the Town Council disapprove the
submittal and as discussions we will include our minutes of the meeting. Motion
was seconded by Cheryl Dingwell. With no further discussion it was a unanimous
approval..
Item No. 5 Savoy Square, Site Plan Approval, Lots 74/74, Block 2, Benchmark
Subdivision, File No. 82-11-4.
Dick Kvach stated that the request is for conceptual approval on the total site
plan. The proposed development consists of 71 condo dwelling units, a 104 seat
restaurant and facilities for 100 convention seats. The proposed development
appears to be compatible with existing or proposed adjacent developments. The
plat, through the transfer of development rights, did allow for 71 units on this
site, however, when the density is calculated according to the zoning ordinance
it only allows 69 units. There is a clause in the zoning ordinance which says
whenever there is a conflict between 2 regulations the more restrictive shall
apply. (Attorneys to check this). There are also some parking spaces which are
below the minimum 9' x 18' size that will require a variance. There are no real
problems with this project and staff does recommend the concept plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
(1) The allowed density should be resolved prior to the submittal of the site
plan. The area of the lot allows only 69 units based on the zoning density
specifications of 25 units per acre. The proposed development is for 71 units
which were obtained by a Special Review Use transfer of dwelling units.
Paragraph 17.12.050B of the Zoning Code states that "whenver the requirements of
the zoning code are at variance with the requirements of any other lawfully
adopted rules... or other legislative action by the Town Council the more
restrictive... shall govern." A legal interpretation of this situation needs to
be obtained prior to the submittal of the site plan.
(2) That if the developer wishes to have any parking stalls which measure less
than the required 9' x 18' a variance shall be obtained prior to submittal of
the site plan.
(3) That the 14 bay parking area south of units 110 & 112 be deleted and these
spaces be included in the proposed parking structure along the north side of the
site. The remaining 2-12 bay parking areas should be shifted to the north so that
a minimum of 12 feet is available between the parking spaces and the property line
for snow storage.
(4) That all driveways be a minimum of 24 feet wide.
(5) A drainage pipe currently bisects this site. Plans shall be submitted with
the site plan to show what will be done with this pipe.
(6) That this site plan comply with the zoning requirements in effect at the
time the site plan is submitted.
Mike Blair stated the Board would need to find out exactly how many units the
Board would be considering.
Lynn Fritzlen/Architect, stated that they are willing to apply for whatever
variances are needed. It is their belief that 71 units is what has been established.
This will be a 4 story building, about 45 feet high. Roofing material will be
wood shake shingle. There will be a convention area and restaurant which will
hold about 100 people each. No retail space at all.
Mike was concerned with the percentage of lot coverage. It seems like there is
a lot. Dick Kvach stated they are allowed 75 percent and are presently at 60
percent building and parking coverage.
Cheryl asked about loading spaces. The space is shown at the entrance to the
restaurant. A truck would have to back in. Mike disagreed with approving this.
The Board felt this is a little dangerous and doesn't want to tie up traffic
on the public road.
Jim Wells asked if the convention center is compatible with residential, and also
if there will be any lock -offs?
Lynn Fritzlen stated the convention facilities are for people who live there.
There will be no more than 1 lock -off per unit.
Dick Kvach stated that the request is for conceptual approval on the total site
plan. The proposed development consists of 71 condo dwelling units, a 104 seat
restaurant and facilities for 100 convention seats. The proposed development
appears to be compatible with existing or proposed adjacent developments. The
plat, through the transfer of development rights, did allow for 71 units on this
site, however, when the density is calculated according to the zoning ordinance
it only allows 69 units. There is a clause in the zoning ordinance which says
whenever there is a conflict between 2 regulations the more restrictive shall
apply. (Attorneys to check this). There are also some parking spaces which are
below the minimum 9' x 18' size that will require a variance. There are no real
problems with this project and staff does recommend the concept plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
(1) The allowed density should be resolved prior to the submittal of the site
plan. The area of the lot allows only 69 units based on the zoning density
specifications of 25 units per acre. The proposed development is for 71 units
which were obtained by a Special Review Use transfer of dwelling units.
Paragraph 17.12.050B of the Zoning Code states that "whenver the requirements of
the zoning code are at variance with the requirements or any other lawfully
adopted rules... or other legislative action by the Town Council the more
restrictive... shall govern." A legal interpretation of this situation needs to
be obtained prior to the submittal of the site plan.
(2) That if the developer wishes to have any parking stalls which measure less
than the required 9' x 18' a variance shall be obtained prior to submittal of
the site plan.
(3) That the 14 bay parking area south of units 110 5 112 be deleted and these
spaces be included in the proposed parking structure along the north side of the
site. The remaining 2-12 bay parking areas should be shifted to the north so that
a minimum of 12 feet is available between the parking spaces and the property line
for snow storage.
(4) That all driveways be a minimum of 24 feet wide.
(5) A drainage pipe currently bisects this site. Plans shall be submitted with
the site plan to show what will be done with this pipe.
(6) That this site plan comply with the zoning requirements in effect at the
time the site plan is submitted.
Mike Blair stated the Board would need to find out exactly how many units the
Board would be considering.
Lynn Fritzlen/Architect, stated that they are willing to apply for whatever
variances are needed. It is their belief that 71 units is what has been established.
This will be a 4 story building, about 45 feet high. Roofing material will be
wood shake shingle. There will be a convention area and restaurant which will
hold about 100 people each. No retail space at all.
Mike was concerned with the percentage of lot coverage. It seems like there is
a lot. Dick Kvach stated they are allowed 75 percent and are presently at 60
percent building and parking coverage.
Cheryl asked about loading spaces. The space is shown at the entrance to the
restaurant. A truck would have to back in. Mike disagreed with approving this.
The Board felt this is a little dangerous and doesn't want to tie up traffic
on the public road.
Jim Wells asked if the convention center is compatible with residential, and also
if there will be any lock -offs?
Lynn Fritzlen stated the convention facilities are for people who live there.
There will be no more `han 1 lock -off per unit.
Clint Watkins asked about the 2 driveways entering the project being too close.
Norm stated he would recommend them be farther apart, possibly if re -located to
the other end of the parking lot.
-5-
The colors will be white and rose stucco. Balcony trim will be wood, horizontal
trimmed cedar.
Cheryl Dingwell moved to approve the Conceptual Plan as recommended by staff
with modified conditions that the closeness of the 2 driveways be more apart,
loading spaces be checked for better location, and number of units to be allow
Motion was seconded by Bob Zeeb and was passed unanimously.
(Let the record show that Bill Pierce did step down due to conflict of interest
and the chair was turned over to Mike Blair for this item).
fir'
(Bill Pierce stepped back to the chair and conducted the remainder of the meeting).
Dick Kvach briefly reviewed what was discussed at the last meeting. The property
under consideration originally was zoned OLD, RSF, SPG 6 RHDC. The SPA zoning
included in a plat that was challenged in court ruled that you cannot zone on a
platting process and threw out the zoning. Essentially the town said that the
original intent was that the area should be shown as SPA. The proposed zoning that
has been requested was for SPA on the entire area, based on the proposed land use
the staff recommended that Tract B be deleted from the request as it is presently
zoned as Open Space, the proposed use is for Open Space. There was also some
discussion on the zoning for Lot 5. The staff did not realize that the court
threw out the densities listed on the plat therefore the request for Lot 5 to be
shown as SPA and that it be restricted to 50 hotel units and that Lots 52A 6 B
be restricted to a private recreation facility is acceptable. Art Abplanalp
recommended that 52A be restricted to Open Space area or dedicated to the Town
or somehow restricted to development. Another point of discussion was Lot 5
where a 50 unit hotel would be and the effect this property would have on the
adjoining property as far as view of the mountains. There are no firm plans for
any development of any of it. This is strictly an SPA zoning request. Again
the recommendation is for SPA zoning to be on Lots 5, 52A b 52B. At the last
meeting on November 4, 1982, the Board directed the developer to get with the
staff and try to resolve some problems. Staff has not talked with the developer
since last meeting.
George Rosenberg - representing land owners, stated they are prepared to come
back to the town tonight with something that may satisfy the town. The owners
have no problem with Tract B as OLD as staff recommends. The owners also agree t,
lock by Deed Restriction or Covenant 52A to 52B. 52A cannot be sold or developed
separately from 52B. To restrict it to Open Space type uses would be fine but
with a specific understanding that that would be for landscape, signage or
entryway purposes. If there is a sign put there it will be like the sign in
Wildridge.
Staff recommends that approval for the zoning request be with the following
conditions:
(1) a site development plan shall be submitted and approved by the DRB and
Town Council prior to any grading being done or any construction permits
being issued.
(2) The developer of any parcel requesting access off Buck Creek Road or
Nottingham Dirve shall be responsible for the construction and coats of
installation of left turn lanes and/or deceleration lanes as required
by the Town Engineer. Such facilities shall be constructed to standard
town specifications.
(3) No structure shall exceed a height of 60 feet.
(4) Minimum building setbacks shall be as follows:
a. front 25 feet
b. side 7.5 feet
c. rear 10 feet
(5) Off-street parking requirements shall be determined by the DRB at the time
final plans are submitted.
George Rosenberg stated the setbacks would be depended upon what the plan submitted
and approved is. No problem with other conditions.
and the chair was turned over to Mike Blair for this item).
Subdivis
1. (Cont'
(Bill Pierce steppe. • to the chair and conducted the remainder of the meeting).
Dick Kvach briefly i :wed what was discussed at the last meeting. The property
under consideration ginally was zoned OLD, RSF, SPG & RHDC. The SPA zoning
included in a plat t. . was challenged in court ruled that you cannot zone on a
platting process and :',rew out the zoning. Essentially the town said that the
original intent was that the area should be shown as SPA. The proposed zoning that
has been requested was for SPA on the entire area, based on the proposed land use
the staff recommended that Tract B be deleted from the request as it is presently
zoned as Open Space, the proposed use is for Open Space. There was also some
discussion on the zoning for Lot 5. The staff did not realize that the court
threw out the densities listed on the plat therefore the request for Lot 5 to be
shown as SPA and that it be restricted to 50 hotel units and that Lots 52A & B
be restricted to a private recreation facility is acceptable. Art Abplanalp
recommended that 52A be restricted to Open Space area or dedicated to the Town
or somehow restricted to development. Another point of discussion was Lot 5
where a 50 unit hotel would be and the effect this property would I -ave on the
adjoining property as far as view of the mountains. There are no firm plans for
any development of any of it. This ia. strictly an SPA zoning request. Again
the recommendation is for SPA zoning to be on Lots 5, 52A & 52B. At the last
meeting on November 4, 1982, the Board directed the developer to get with the
staff and try to resolve some problems. Staff has not talked with the developer
since last meeting.
George Rosenberg - representing land owners, stated they are prepared to come
back to the town tonight with something that may satisfy the town. The owners
have no problem with Tract B as OLD as staff recommends. The owners also agree to
lock by Deed Restriction or Covenant 52A to 52B. 52A cannot be sold or developed
separately from 52B. To restrict it to Open Space type uses would be fine but
with a specific understanding that that would be for landscape, signage or
entryway purposes. If there is a sign put there it will be like the sign in
Wildridge.
Staff recommends that approval for the zoning request be with the following
conditions:
(1) a site development plan shall be submitted and approved by the DRB and
Town Council prior to any grading being done or any construction permits
Leing issued.
(2) The developer of any parcel requesting access off Buck Creek Road or
Nottingham Dirve shall be responsible for the construction and costs of
installation of left turn lanes and/or deceleration lanes as required
by the Town Engineer. Sucn facilities shall be constructed to standard
town specifications.
(3) No structure shall exceed a height of 60 feet.
(4) Minimum building setbacks shall be as follows:
a. front 25 feet
b, side 7.5 feet
c. rear 10 feet
(5) Of' --street parking requirements shall be determined by the DRB at the time
final plans are submitted.
George Rosenberg stated the setbacks would be depended upon what the plan submicted
and approved is. No problem with other conditions.
Bob Zeeb moved to approve the zoning request as recommended by staff. Motion was
seconded by Tommy Landauer. Unanimous approval with 1 abstaining vote by
Mike Blair.
Item No. 7, Radio Tower & Repeater Building, Tract J, Block 4, Wildridge.
Dick Kvach stated that the Public Works and Police Departments are requesting they
be allowed to install a radio tower and repeater building on Tract J, Wildri.dge,
which is located where the water storage tank currently exists. The equipment
will be housed in a metal building and the antenna will be a maximum of 80 feet tall.
Staff has 3 recommendations as follows:
(1) That all FAA & FCC requirements be complied with as far as review and
lighting of the antenna is concerned.
(2) That the proposed building be a color that is compatible with its surrounding.
(3) That the specifications of the proposed building be adequate to handle an
8011 snow load and 3041 wind load.
Larry Goad stated that the owner of Tract J was never notified or contacted. He
also asked if there was a formal application on file? Dick Kvach stated there was
a letter on file.
Bob Zeeb asked why it couldn't be pct in with Beaver Creek Mountain? Larry Goad
stated if this was a private use it would not be allowable on a public tract.
He is very much opposed to an 80 foot tower.
Norm Wood stated that they have been working with a radio engineer in Denver on
this project. The town will be getting about $20,000 worth of equipment for
$7,000. The repeater will be the only piece of equipment the town will be buying.
The building and the tower and antenna will be furnished. The tower is 3 -sided
12 inches a side. The use will be all public although it will be through a
private company. This will be a repeater system for the Police and Public Works
Departments only. Part of the conditions for obtaining the building, tower F.nd
antenna is to allow the repeaters to be put in for the other governmental st.rvices.
Other possible locations were checked out but this was the best one.
George Rosenberg stated that there was no formal application. The owner has not
been approached. Feels the land owners around this tract need to be notified
for their imput. Should be a public hearing on this. The Town Council needs to
approve this.
Bob Willcox/Avon Police Chief stated this request is to upgrade the town's
communications with radios. This site was chosen because the United States Secret
Service has expressed an interest in working with Avon Police Department in
providing protection for Ex -President Ford. If this site is approved then the
town could camoflauge the building by planting trees and such around it.
Bob Zeeb stated that before the Board could take any action on this, the applicant
needs to get the ownersapproval.
Norm asked if the approval could be subject to the owners approving. Need to get
this approved by the Town Council.
Jim Wells asked where this would be located on the tract? The tank there is not
designed to have traffic parking on it. The tnak would have to be fenced and
protected, even though it is covered by soil.
Norm stated the building would be on the same level as the tank but not on top
of it, probably to the east side of the tank. There shouldn't be all types of
traffic up there. The people who service the facility should be the only ones
up there.
Bill Pierce stated that having better communications for the town is very
valuable. The property owners do need to be notified though. It is required
by the ordinance.
Mike Blair stated this should have a proper application and review by the Board.
Tommy Landauer agreed with Mike Blair, that it should go through proper procedure.
Dick Kvach stated that all the materials for application except the owners
signature were turned in.
Cheryl Dingwell agreed with the other members.
Dick Kvach stated it is the jurisdiction of the Board to determine only whetbo,
Jim Wells stated that there has not been a site plan submitted.
-7-
�_ ... u.. .. i. r.. .. .... .amu -1. .,._ - ...,— —., l- .._ ,. iia auiiv uu.++..+g.
(3) That the specifications of the proposed building be adequate to handle an
8011 snow load and 3011 wind load.
Larry Goad stated that the owner of Tract J was never notified or contacted. He
also asked if there was a formal application on file? Dick Kvach stated there was
a letter on file.
40
Bob Zeeb asked why it couldn't be put in with Beaver Creek Mountain? Larry Goad
stated if this was a private use it would not be allowable on a public tract.
He is very much opposed to an 80 foot tower.
e
Norm Wood stated that they have been working with a radio engineer in Denver on
this project. The town will be getting about $20,000 worth of equipment for
$7,000. The repeater will be the only piece of equipment the town will be buying.
The building and the tower and antenna will be furnished. The tower is 3 -sided
®
12 inches a side. The use will be all public. although it will be through a
private company. This will be a repeater system for the Police and Public Works
Departments only. Part of the conditions for obtaining the building, tower and
antenna is to allow the repeaters to be put in for the other governmental services.
i'
Other possible locations were checked out but this was the best one.
George Rosenberg stated that there was no formal application. The owner has not
been approached. Feels the land owners around this tract need to be notified
for their imput. Should be a public hearing on this. The Town Council needs to
approve this.
Bob Willcox/Avon Police Chief stated this request is to upgrade the town's
communications with radios. This site was chosen because the United States Secret
Service has expressed an interest in working with Avon Police Department in
providing protection for Ex -President Ford. If this site is approved then the
town could camofl.auge the building by planting trees and such around it.
Bob Zeeb stated that before the Board could take any action on this, the applicant
needs to get the ownersapproval.
Norm asked if the approval could be subject to the owners approving. Need to get
this approved by the Town Council.
Jim Wells asked where this would be located on the tract? The tank there is not
designed to have traffic parking on it. The tank would have to be fenced and
protected, even though it is covered by soil.
Norm stated the building would be on the samo level as the tank but not on top
of it, probably to the east side of the tank. There shouldn't be all types of
traffic up there. The people who service the facility should be the only ones
up there.
Bill Pierce stated that having better communications for the town is very
valuable. The property owners do need to be notified though. It is required
by the ordinance.
Mike Blair Stated this should have a proper application and review by the Board.
Tommy Landauer agreed with Mike Blair, that it should go through proper procedure.
Dick Kvach stated that all the materials for application except the owners
signature were turned in.
Cheryl Dingwell agreed with the other members.
Dick Kvach stated it is the jurisdiction of the Board to determine only whether
the request complies with the requirements of the DRB guidelines.
Jim Wells stated that there has not been a site plan submitted.
-7-
a
Bill Pierce stated there should be some professional studies done to prove this
is the best location. Also that the equipment is the proper choice.
Norm stated that as far as the location, they did evaluate them by virtue of
field tests as well as recommendations of the engineer we were working with.
This was the area they recommended based on topography and actual field tests.
The height of the antenna may be able to be lower.
Due to the application and procedures not being followed through properly,
the applicant witharew the request.
With no further business to discuss, Cheryl Dingwell moved to adjourn the
meeting. M,cion was seconded by Tommy Landauer and was passed unanimously.
Meeting was adjourned at 12:00 am.
Respectfully submitted
Melody C i gs
Recording cretary
Design Review Board
r