PZC Minutes 020382 (2)RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 3, 1982, 7:30 P.M.
The regular meeting for the Design Review Board of Avon was held on
February 3, 1982, 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.
Let the record show that the Board Members present were Bob Zeeb, Cheryl
Dingwell, Tommy Landauer, Bill Pierce, Mike Blair, Jerry Davis and Jim
Meehan. Staff Members present were Terrill Knight, Norm Wood and Dick Evans.
Item No. 1, Confluence @ Beaver Creek (Avon Station), Zoning Request,
Pudic Hearing, Fi a No. 8 - -
Peter Blunt/General Partner made the presentation. Requesting R.H.D.C.
zoning on approximately 19.14 acres of land, which is presently being
annexed into the town. The property is located north of the Eagle River,
west of Avon Road and south of the Denver & Rio Grand- railroad tracks
in Avon. The site is adjacent to the north side of the Eagle River. It
is bordered on the east by Avon Road and on the west by Upper Eagle Valley
Sewage Disposal plant. The southern portion of the area consists of meadow
and pasture land vegetated with grass and brush. Large trees line the bank
of the Eagle River. The extreme western portion of the site is heavily
forested with Cottonwood, Aspen, Pine and Fir trees. An existing mobile
home park occupies the northeast portion of the site.
Chuck Mayhugh/Architect - proposing a hotel complex with 345 units. There
will be a community building which will be 5uried into a hillside . It will
have underground parking with 150 spaces. The top will be used for tennis
courts. There will be a pedestrian access to the river which will be in
the thirtv foot setback behind the median high water mark of the Eagle River.
They are proposing to link the path from the Eagle River to the Town Center
and also a pedestrian bridge from the river to Beaver Creek.
No building will be over seven stories high. Proposing a 245 unit hotel
complex and 257 condominium units along with restaurants and commercial
space. All the parking will be in parking structures underground.
Building coverage is 24 percent of the gross area of the property. 37 percent
including streets and right of ways. 63 percent open space. Feels the level
of quality of the project will be equal to or above Avon Center.
Terrill - RHDC zoning is one of the two highest densities and use zones.
The relationship of the adjoining property is important. This is one of
the main entrances to the Town. The traff-;c going to be a problem. Building
heights are also important due to the views that may be blocked. Feels that
there are better zones for this property. SPA zone would be better in that
f-irther controls could be implimented and the site planning could be adjusted.
Norm - major problem is the access to the site. Too much impact on Avon Road.
Comments from the audience:
Greg Gage/Peregrine Properties - Feels the density is too much and is concerned
with the height.
Mike Pecos/Upper Eagle Valley - commented about the odor problems and the fact
that people should be informed of this.
Larry Goad asked if the applicant has approval from Upper Eagle Valley for
RHDC zoning and can they serve that many units?
Bill Pierce read from the minutes of Avon Metro District meeting on 4/15/81:
"Upon further discussion. the Board moved, seconded a unanimou,, approved
uwli u! Avu- .�Jil'lcipal BUlldii,3, IN BenchmarK KOad, AV011, uolorao0.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill Pierce.
Let the record show that the Board Members present were Bob Zeeb, Cheryl
Dingwell, Tommy Landauer, Bill Pierce, Mike Blair, Jerry Davis and Ji,
Meehan. Staff Members present were Terrill Knight, Norm Wood and nick Evans.
Item No. 1, Confluence @ Beaver Cr,:ek (Avon Station), Zoning Request,
Public Hearing, File No. 82-2-1.
Peter Blunt/General Partner made the presentation. Requesting R.H.D.C.
zoning on approximately 19.14 acres of land, which is presently being
annexed into the town. The property is located north of the Eagle River,
west of Avon Road and south of the Denver & Rio Grande railroad tracks
in Avon. The site is adjacent to the north side of the Eagle River. It
is bordered on the east by Avon Road and on the west by Upper Eagle Valley
Sewage Disposal plant. The southern portion of the area consists of meadow
and pasture land vegetated with grass and brush. Large trees line the bank
of the Eagle River. The extreme western portion of the site is heavily
forested with Cottonwood, Aspen, Pine and Fir trees. An existing mobile
home park occupies the northeast portion of the site.
Ch!1ck Mayhugh/Architect - proposing a hotel complex with 345 units. There
will be a community building which will be buried into a hillside . It will
have underground parking with 150 spaces. The top will be used for tennis
courts. There will be a pedestrian access to the river which will be in
the thirty foot setback behind the median high water mark of the Eagle River.
They are proposing to link the path from the Eagle River to the Town Center
and also a pedestrian bridge from the river to Beaver Creek.
No building will be over seven stories high. Proposing a 245 unit hotel
complex and 257 condominium units along with restaurants and commercial
space. All the parking will be in parking structures underground.
Building coverage is 24 percent of the gross area of the property. 37 percent
including streets and right of ways. 63 percent open space. Feels the level
of quality of the project will be equal to or above Avon Center.
Terrill - RHDC zoning is one of the two highest densities and use zones.
The relationship of the adjoining property is important. This is one of
the main Entrances to the Town. The traffic ging to be a problem. Building
heights are also important due to the views that may be blocked. Feels that
there are better zones for this property. SPA zone would be better in that
further controls could be implimented and the site planning could be adjusted.
Norm - major problem is the access to the site. Too much impact on Avon Road.
Comments from the audience:
Greg Gage/Peregrine Properties - Feels the density is too much and is concerned
with the height.
Mike Pecos/Upper Eagle Valley - commented about the odor problems and the fact
that people should be informed of this.
Larry Goad ask,:d if the applicant has approval from Upper Eagle Valley for
RHDC zoning and can they serve that: many units"?
Bill Pierce read from the minutes of Avon Metro District meeting on 4/15/81:
"Upon further discussion, the Board moved, seconded a unanimous approved
committment to serve the Roybal Mobile Home Park property on the standard
out -of -district rates and based on the standard out -of :istrict contract as
long as the district's water engineer confirms that ser,,ing 325-350 units
and a certain amount of commercial space should creat no significant problem"
-1-
Steve Erickson/General Partner - Have not received any approvals for any taps
as yet. First would like to be in the District.
Larry Goad commented that he felt SPA zoning would be better.
Colleen McNally - asked if this property is annexed into the town, then
what would nappen to people who live at that property?
Terrill - zoning acid annFxation do not affect the current use.
Bill Pierce commented on behalf of the onwer of Lot 60, Bk. 2, B.S.
Conceptually, the owner doesn't have a problem w`th a fairly high density
solution on that side of the railroad tracks. May have a concern with the
height of the buildings. Also a pedestrian tie connecting the two properties
would be an excellent opportunity for continuation of the Town Center.
Board Member comments:
Jerry - feels that the Town people, Developers & Beaver Creek need to
study the road crossing. Need a master plan before developing any new areas.
Mike - SPA zoning would be better. Could be utilized better by the applicant
owner and the Town. Access is extremely critical. Any site plan or
development approval would have to include some ultimate solution to the access.
Tommy - Views are important. If the property is annexed, there should be
a height restriction put on it to keep from blocking views.
Che yl - concerned with the access and the views.
Bill - Concerned with continuing density outside the Town Center area. To
prevE t traffic flow, need a pedestrian crosswalk.
Terrill read the letter from the Denver & Rio Grande Western R.R. Company
dated 1/25/82 into the record.
Jim - Conceptual plan looks gout but it is misleading as it doesn't show
the gross volume of the project. Doesn't feel the Board can evaluate the
plan shown because they don't know the extent of the views to be blocked.
Can't project without elevations.
Bill commented thatthere are approximately 608 units in the Town Center area
now. Confluence is proposing over half of what there is now.
Jerry - would recommend SPA zoning with limitations. Suggested a traffic
study should be done. Maybe a continuation of the road into the Sunridge
area as another access, and a pedestrian crossing over railroad tracks into
the Town r iter.
Chuck Mayhugh - would envision acceleration/decelaration lanes on Avon Road
to help the traffic flow. Feels that the majority of thepeople at the hotel
would use the bus shuttle system rather than their own cars. Public access
will be made to the river. Proposing an elevated crosswalk over the
railroad. Also proposing a pond that would collect runoff and filter it
before going on into the river. In summary, they are trying to see if this
19 acre piece of property could be developed into RHDC zone with a 25 unit
per acre maximum for Condominium units and 75 units per acre for hotel
accommodation units. Feels that this plan could be developed on this
property under RHDC zoning with any types of limitations or restrictions
the Board may want to put on, in regards to reviews and arproval. Can be
done to a point where it would not only compliment but improve the character
and overall appearance of Avon property.
Steve commented that the DRB will be the party who will have the final
decision of what is built on the property. Feels that the RHDC zoning gives
the applicant the flexibility to work with the Board and preserve the
view corridors.
Maurey Nottingham commented that the traffic is a real problem as it stands
now.
Conceptually, the owner doesn't have a problem with a fairly high density
solution on that side of the railroad tracks. May have a concern with the
height of the buildings. Also a pedestrian tie connecting the two properties
would be an excellent opportunity for continuation of the Town Center.
Board Member comments:
Jerry - feels that the Town people, Developers & Beaver Creek need to
study the road crossing. Need a master plan before developing any new areas.
Mike - SPA zoning would he better. Could be utilized better by the applicant
owner and the Town. Access is extremely critical. Any site plan or
development approval would have to include some ultimate solution to the access.
Tommy - Views are important. If the property is annexed, there should be
a height restriction put on it to keep from blocking views.
Cheryl - concerned with the access and the views.
Bill - Concerned with continuing density outsid? the Town Center area. To
prevent traffic flow, need a pedestrian crosswalk.
Terrill read the letter from the Denver & Rio Grande Western R.R. Company
dated 1/25/82 into the record.
Jim - Conceptual plan looks good but it is misleading as it doesn't show
the gross volume of the project. Doesn't feel the Board can evaluate the
plan shown because they don't know the extent of the views to be blocked.
Can't project without elevations.
Bill commented thattlere are approximately 608 units in the Town Center area
now. Confluence is proposing over half of what there is now.
Jerry - would recommend SPA zoning with limitations. Suggested a traffic
study should be done. Maybe a continuation of the road into the Sunridge
area as another access, and a pedestrian crossing over railroad tracks into
the Town Center.
Chuck Mayhugh - wculd envision acceleration/decelaration lanes on Avon Road
to help the traffic flow. Feels that the majority of the people at the hotel
would use the bus shuttle system rather than their own cars. Public access
will be made to the river. Proposing an elevated crosswalk over the
railroad. Also proposing a pond that would collecr runoff and filter it
before going on into the river. In summary, they are trying to see if this
19 acre piece of property could be developed into RHDC zone with a 25 unit
per acre maximum for Condominium units and 75 units oer acre for hotel
accommodation units. Feels that this plan could be developed on this
property under RHDC zoning with any types of limitations or restrictions
the Board may want to put on, in regards to reviews and approval. Can be
done to a point where it would not only compliment but improve the character
and overall appearance of Avon property.
Steve commented that the DRB will be the party who will have the final
decision of what is built on the property. Feels that the RHDC zoning gives
the applicant the flexibility to work with the Board and preserve the
view corridors.
Maurey Nottingham commented that the traffic is a real problem as it stands
now.
Steve - In an attempt to try and help the Town solve these problems the
annexation was extended so that it goes down to the right of way of highway 6
which would give the Town a better handle and more control on what happens
to that intersection.
-2-
W
No further discussion.
Tommy made a motion that the Design Review Board recommend to the Town Council
that RHDC zoning not be approved. Motion was seconded by Bob. Tommy added
that the Board would recommend approval for SPA zoning.
Terrill stated there should be some reasons given as to why this decision was
• made.
Tommy stated that he wants the Design Review Board to have control over
future development. SPA allows this as RHDC does not.
Jerry felt that the Board should be more specific on this decision.
Peter Blunt asked if he could suggest that before the Board votes, that if
what the Board might be interested in is having the control under SPA
designation - if that could be worked out with what Confluence feels would
be appropriate with RHDC zoning, that the Board table this motion until the
next meeting and vote on it then.
Jim Meehan stated th-ut the Board does not have the information necessary to
evaluate the impac+ of density, traffic, site lines. The only option would
be to reject or table this due to lack of information.
Terrill stated that the Board could not approve SPA zoning because new
notices would need to be sent out. The applicant would need to re -apply.
The Board Members voted to recommend to tt� Town Council that RHDC zoning
not be approved, but SPA be approved. Reasons being that more control
would be given to the future development by the DRB and Town.
Motion was passed unanimously.
if Center, Vari
k Subdivision.
- Public Hearing - Lot 34,
Al Lamboley made the presentation. At the DRB meeting on 12/2/81 they
received approval for the building addition. They were told they needed
a variance because there is an er:roachment into the easement. They have
letters from all the utility companies stating that they have permission
to encroach on the easement. The encroachment is only 1 foot into the
easement.
Jerry commented that if the entire easement was not encroached upon, why
was it vacated? Terrill suggested vacating one foot the entire length
of the lot.
Jim made a motion to approve the encroachment into the easement and variance
of the setback of one root as submitted. Seconded by Cheryl. Passed unanimously.
Item No. 3. Bruen Four-Plex, Re -submittal for Final Approval, Lot 1
Rick Bolduc made the presentation. Requesting final approval for 4-plex.
This item was tabled from the meeting on 1/6/82. The reasons being the
flat roof, site drainage and the "mirror image".
Norm stated there ar, till problems with the site plan. Contour lines run
through the building. Drainage comes down the road ditch and turn and run
into the building. Garages on the north end appear to be awkward to get into.
The siding will be tongue & groove 1 x 6. Cedar shake roof. Overhangs have
been extended. Units are 1550 square feet each not including garages.
Eill commented that the building doesn't appear to fit on the site. It doesn't
step down and follow the contour of the land.
Larry Goad stated that the building does need to be compatible with the site
Jerry felt that the Board should be more specific on this decision.
Peter Blunt asked if he could suggest that before the Board votes, that if
what the Board might be interested in is having the control under SPA
designation - if that could be worked out with what Confluence feels would
be appropriate with RHDC zoning, that the Board table this motion until the
next meeting and vote on it then.
Jim Meehan stated that the Board does not have the information necessary to
evaluate the impact of density, traffic, site lines. The only option would
be to reject or table this due to lack of information.
Terrill, stated that the Board could not approve SPA zoning because new
notices would need to be sent out. The applicant would need to re -apply.
The Board Members voted to recommend to the Town Council that RHDC zoning
not be approved, but SPA be approved. Reasons being that more control
would be given to the fL`ure development by the DRB and Town.
Motion was passed unanimously.
Item No. 2, Metcalf Center
Block 1, Bencnmark Subdivi
t - Public Hearing - Lot 34,
Al Lamboley made the presentation. At the DRB meeting on 12/2/81 they
received approval for the building addition. They were told they needed
a variance because there is an encroachment into the easement. They have
letters from all the utility companies stating that they have permission
to encroach on the easement. The encroachment is only 1 foot into the
easement.
Jerry commented that if the entire easement was not encroached upon, why
was it vacated? Terrill suggested vacating one foot the entire length
of the lot.
Jim made a motion to approve the encroachment into the easement and variance
of the setback of one foot as sublitted. Seconded by Cheryl. Passed unanimously.
Item No. 3, Bruen
Block , ri 9
ubmi
al
LL
Rick Bolduc made the presertation. Requesting final approval for 4-plex.
This item was tabled from tie meeting on 1/6/82. The reasons being the
flat roof, site drainage and the "mirror image".
Norm stated there are still problems with the site plan. Contour lines run
through the building. Drainage comes down the road ditch and turn and run
into the building. Garages on the north end appear to be awkward to get into.
The siding will be tongue & groove 1 x 6. Cedar shake rout. Overhangs have
been extended. Units are 1550 square feet each not including garages.
Bill commented that the building doesn't appear to fit on the site. It doesn't
step down and follow the contour of the land.
Larry Goad stated that the building does need to be compatible with the site.
Mike commented that gravel driveways are not appropriate due to not being
stable material.
Tommy ccmmented that the contour lines and drainage needs some work. The
entire building needs to be re -worked to fit the lot. Doesn't want to see
any form of "mirror image" especially at the entrance to Wildridge. Wants to
-3-
.0N
•
os
be fair to the applicant. Suggested maybe waiving the fee if he comet back
with more information.
Bill suggested recommended to the Town Council that the fee be waived.
Jerry suggested that when the applicant does come back he should have
paved driveways rather than gravel.
Tommy made a motion to deny the request and recommend to the Town Council
that the fee be waived. Reasons b9ing the building does not fit on the
lot, drainage needs to be worked out, and the driveways should be paved.
Tommy amended his motion to deny the specific plan. Motion was seconded
by Bob. Jim abstained from voting. Motion was carried to deny this
specific plan.
Bill commented that if for some reason this was not denied and that it
has been tabled, this is to be re -scheduled to the next meeting at which
time if it is not satisfactory it will be denied once and for all.
em No. 4, Cottonwood (formerly known as Meyers Ranch) Final Appri
ase I, Preliminary Approval for Phases II & III, File No. 82-2-3
Jim Porter made the presentation. Stated this is basically the same as
presented on Sept. 2, 1981 meeting. There will be 140 units. 5,000 square
feet of commercial space, 4,000 square foot restaurant. There will be 1
racquetball court, 1 squash court, 1 deluxe swimming pool, hot tub/spa area
and an ice skating pond in the winter. There are 3 phases of the project.
Phase I - 61 units, all recreational amenities will be in this phase.
Phase II - 28 units and PhaseIIl - 51 units. Parking for phase I will be
201 spaces. Phase II is 86 spaces and Phase III is 46 spaces. Total of 333 spaces.
Drainage ditch - convert a part to a creek as visual amenity. One part to be
shallow pond for ice skating. Will maintain trees along the river. The
property is zone.i RHDC with limitations. Phase III will be the only area
with anything over 60 feet high. Materials will be stucco (cool gray with
white) & stone. White clad windows. Roof will be a monterey tile "blue flash".
The plan shows there is a deceleration lane heading west & they may need
an acceleration lane heaing east. Snow guards will probably be used on the
roofs. Landscaping - Will not be a lot of ornamental and decorative planting.
Will be maintaining the trees and the creek. Will supplement with some new
Spruce, Cottonwood & Seedless Ash.
Bill suggested that some trees be planted along the service drive area.
Terrill stated that this is not ready for final approval. Snow removal,
public pathways, traffic at the intersection/entrance, extremely steep banks
along the river are the items to be looked at in more depth. This is an
inadequate application and feels this should be tabled so that the information
can be reviewed in detail.
Norm commented that the property has not been through the subdivision review
process, where the soils reports, geology reports, drainage reports, etc.,
need to be submitted for review. Would recommend they follow through with
the subdivision proceedings. There is some grading into the area which is
to be undisturbed, restricted easement area. One of the requirements of the
subdivision regulations is that the irrigation ditch requires an easement
of average width of the ditch plus 20 feet. Could possibly be places where
this could affect the building locations. Need more details on drainage study.
Snow storage doesn't appear to be adequate. Some of the parking spaces on
the plan are smaller than what is required. Loading spaces are not shown.
Jim Morter - stated they need 11 small car spaces in Phase I and 10 in Phase 2.
All of the spaces will be underground. Would like to apply for a variance for
this if possible. Would like to ask for a credit of half of the required
parking for restaurant/commercial area which would be 26 spaces. They have
provided 53 spaces for restaurant/commercial.
Bill stated that the parking standards which were set up are a minimum.
Jim Morter - would like to have lock -off bedrooms in some units. How do they
amen — ':—_ o d en y th
Tommy amended his motion to deny the
by Bob. Jim abstained from voting.
specific plan.
specific plan. Motion was seconded
Motion was carried to deny this
Bill commented that if for some reason this was not denied and that it
has been tabled, this is to be re -scheduled to the next meeting at which
time if it is not satisfactory it will be denied once and for all.
Item No. 4, Cottonwood (formerly known as Meyers Ranch) Final Approval for
Phase I, Preliminary ,approval for Phases II & III File No. 82-2-3.
r
jim Morter made the presentation. Stated this is basically the same as
oresanted on Sept. 2, 1981 meeting. There will be 140 units. 5,000 square
feet of commercial space, 4,000 square foot restaurant. There will be 1
racquetball court, 1 squash court, 1 deluxe swimming pool, hot tub/spa area
and an ice skating pond in the winter. There are 3 phases of the project.
Phase I - 61 units, all recreational amenities will be in this phase.
Phase II - 28 units and PhaseIII - 51 units. Parking for phase I will be
® 201 spaces. Phase II is 86 spaces and Phase III is 46 spaces. Total of 333 spaces.
Drainage ditch - convert a part to a creek as visual amenity. One part to be
shallow pond for ice skating. Will maintain trees along the river. The
property is zoned RHDC with limitations. Phase III will be the only area
with anything over 60 feet high. Materials will be stucco (cool gray with
white) & stone. White clad windows. Roof will be a monteray tile "blue flash"
The plan shows there is a deceleration lane heading west & they may need
an acceleration lane heaing east. Snow guards will probably be used on the
roofs. Landscaping - Will not be a lot of ornamental and decorative planting.
Will be maintaining the trees and the creek. Will supplement with some new
Spruce, Cottonwood & Seedless Ash.
Bill suggested that some trees be planted along the service drive area.
Terrill stated that this is not ready for final approval. Snow removal,
public pathways, traffic at the intersection/entrance, extremely steep banks
along the river are the items to be looked at in more depth. This is an
inadequate application and feels this should be tabled so that the information
can be reviewed in detail.
Norm commented that the property has not been through the subdivision review
process, where the soils reports, geology reports, drainage reports, etc.,
need to be submitted for review. Would recommend they follow through with
the subdivision proceedings. There is some grading into the area which is
to be undisturbed, restricted easement area. One of the requirements of the
subdivision regulations is that the irrigation ditch requires an easement
of average width of the ditch plus 20 feet. Could possibly be places where
this could affect the building locations. Need more details on drainage study.
Snow storage doesn't appear to be adequate. Some of the parking spaces on
the plan are smaller than what is required. Loading spaces are not shown.
Jim Morter - stated they need 11 small car spaces in Phase I and 10 in Phase 2.
All of the spaces will be underground. Would like to apply for a variance for
this if possible. Would like to ask for a credit of half of the required
parking for restaurant/commercial area which would be 26 spaces. They have
provided 53 spaces for restaurant/commercial.
Bill stated that the parking standards which were set up are a minimum.
Jim Morter - would like to have lock -off bedrooms in some units. How do they
handle the parking?
-4-
Mike stated that there are to be 2 parking spaces per unit. There is no
provision for this matter.
Terrill - not sure if lock -offs are allowed unless they are considered
accommodation units. Could apply for a variance and have 2 spaces for
regular residential units, 1 space for each accommodation unit, and the
variance could provide some other reasonable solution.
Jerry suggested that the Zoning Advisory Committee discuss this matter.
Applicant requested that this matter be tabled until the next regular meeting
(February 17, 1982).
Item No. 5, "Las Mananitas Restaurant" @ Christie Lodge, Exterior Re -model
the No.
Les Morgan made the presentation. Requesting approval for an exterior
chase addition. Showed some pictures with different elevations.
Tommy commented that the Condo maps will need to be amended to include
this addition.
Jim asked if this has been submitted to the Health Department? Dick stated
that the equipment has been approved. Has Fire Dept. approval also.
Jim commented that a wall should be around the exhaust. Air conditioning
unit should be on isolaters. Doesn't like the idea of this being_ on the
outside of the building.
Jim made a motion to disapprove this item based on the fact that it is
unsightly, it is in the front of the building. Feels there is a better
solution to this addition. Motion was seconded by Tommy. n voted yes
2 voted no, motion was carried to disapprove this due to aesthetic reasons.
Terrill read a letter from the Design Review Board to the Mayor regarding
City Market's appeal to the Council for the signs.
Bob stated that a letter should be sent to the Town Council informing
them of the Design Review Board's decision and reasons why they did not
go with RHDC zoning for Confluence @ Beaver Creek. Reasons being the
traffic problems, height of buildings, density too high.
Jerry stated that he wants to keep the power in the Town. It would have
been better to have the applicant withdraw the application and re -submit
to the DRB under SPA zoning. Doesn't feel that anything should be approved
across the tracks until a traffic study is done.
Bob commented that a study has been done for the bridge and it was turned down.
Need another public access.
Bill commented that the access onto Avon Road is totally unacceptable and
that the density is too high for the site as it is now.
Jim - as submitted, they needed to supply a lot more information. There is
no way to effectively judge the impact of the project on the area.
Terrill suggested that a Board Member attend the Town Council meetings to
inform the Council as to what goes on at the DRB meetings.
Jerry commented about Christy Sports sign at Avon Center. Bill stated that
Nick Dalba called him and said in the sign program he presented there was
nothing about temporary signs. It takes about 60 days to get a permanent sign.
He said that he felt it would be reasonable to allow a 60 day period for a
temporary sign. I told him tobring in his modified sign program permitting
signs of not greater than the allowable size. The one that is up now is over.
If they put up a sign of allowable size for a temporary period not to exceed
60 days, as part of their sign program, I think we (the Board) would appro%e
that. Jerry stated that is basically what he told them also. Until he comes
in we can't do anything. Bill - I don't have the right to give permission to
put up the sign. Jerry - they don't have permission until they come in.
(February 17, 1982).
Item No. 5, "Las Mananitas Restaurant" @ Christie Lodge,
Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, Fiero. 82-1-7.
Les Morgan made the presentation. Requesting approval for an exterior
chase addition. Showed some pictures with different elevations.
Tc,?xny commented that "he Condo maps will need to be amended to include
this addition.
Jim asked if this has been submitted to the Health Department? Dick stated
that the equipment has been apprnved. Has Fire Dept. approval also.
Jim commented that a wall should be around the exhaust. Air conditioning
unit should be on isolaters. Doesn't like the idea of this being on the
outside of the building.
Jim made a motion to disapprove this item based on the fact that it is
unsightly, it is in the front of the building. Feels there is a better
solution to this addition. Motion was seconded by Tommy. 4 voted yes
2 voted no, motion was carried to disapprove this due to aesthetic reasons.
Terrill read a letter from the Design Review Board to the Mayor regarding
City Market's appeal to the Council for the signs.
Bob stated that a letter should be sent to the Town Council informing
them of the Design Revievr Board's decision and reasons why they did not
go with RHDC zoning for Confluence @ Beaver Creek. Reasons being the
traffic problems, height of buildings, density too high.
Jerry stated that he wants to keep the power in the Town. It would have
been better to have the applicant withdraw the application and re -submit
to the DRB under SPA. zoning. Doesn't feel that anything should be approved
across the tracks until a traffic study is done.
Bob commented that a study has been done for the bridge and it was turned down.
Need another public access.
Bill commented that the access onto Avon Road is totally unacceptable and
that the density is too high for the site as it is now.
Jim - as submitted, they needed to supply a lot more information. There is
no way to effectively ,judge the impact of the project on the area.
Terrill suggested that a Board Member attend the Town Council meetings to
inform the Council as to what goes on at the DRB meetings.
Jerry commented about Christy Sports sign at Avon Center. Bill stated that
Nick Dalba called him and said in the sign program he presented there was
nothing about temporary signs. It takes about 60 days to get a permanent sign.
He said that he felt it would be •easonable to allow a 60 day period for a
temporary sign. I told him tobrinq in his modified sign program permitting
signs of not greater than the allowable size. The one that is up now is over.
If they put up a sign of allowable size for a temporary period not to exceed
60 days, as part of their sign program, I think we (the Board) would approve
that. Jerry stated that is basically what he told them also. Until he comes
in we can't do anything. Bill - I don't have the right to give permission to
put up the sign. Jury - they don't have permission until they cone in.
-5-
Jim stated he wasn't sure if they did the right thing in rejecting Christie
Lodge. The only reason I rejected it is to try and force these guys to go
back and find a new routing fur that thing. However, realisticall, , Randy
(Fire Dept.) is really tough on the fire codes and what he is saying is that
duct chase is a penetration that goes through a number of levels and therefore,
even though it's fire rated and has a 1 hour enclosure, the fire can get into the
chase and go through a number of levels. I'm assuming it's piercing a number
of different assemblies. If that is what they're saying then there is no way
they can route a pipe anywhere but on the outside of the building. If that is
the case, we've got nothing to do but approve it because he has met everything
else. He's going to put a little frame around it and spread the compressor
out so it do(sn't vibrate.
Bill - my understanding of the Building Code is that you can run chases
through the floors and all they have to be is rated.
J -;:n - he can't run it across a fire corridor especially if its a five foot
hallway.
Dick - if it was a self-contained chase and rated the same as the corridor,
they could probably do it, but they'd have a big column out in the middle.
Jim - if they come back and say they don't have any other place, then we don't
have any option but to approve it.
Bob made a motion to approve and accept the minutes of 1/27/81. Motion was
seconded by Jerry. Passed unanimously.
Cheryl motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Bob, passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Y `
`A(bxi
I
Melody Cummmm g's
Recording Secretary