Loading...
PZC Minutes 030188RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MARCH 1, 1988 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning end Zoning Commission was held on March 11 1968, at 7:35 PM 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 Mark Donaldson - Members Present: Frank Doll, Charlie Gersbach, Mark Donaldson, Buz Reynolds, Mike Blair, Tom Landauer Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Engineering and Community Development, Ray Wright, Engineering Technician, Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant, Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Lot 21Block: 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Avon Commercial Building Parking Variance - Resolution_ 88-2, Continued from 2/16/88. Wright stated that at the Planning and Zoning meeting of February 16, 1988 the Commission moved to deny a variance request for a reduction in parking requirements for Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, and directed Staff to prepare a resolution stating the reasons for denial. Wright stated that Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the resolution at this time. Donaldson asked if there were any questions regarding the resolution. Reynolds moved that the Commission adopt Resolution 88-2 as written. Doll seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Lot 1 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek; Derby Station. Design Review Continued from 2/16/88_ Wright stated that Pester Marketing has requested Design Review of a detached storage building that they would like to place behind their new store. The proposed structure would be placed an the concrete slab an the west side of the building by the back: door. The building would be approximately, 8 feet square and about 14 feet high. It is wood construction, with a barn style roof. A drawing of the proposed building along with a plan showing its location and a letter from Pester Marketing have been submitted for review. Wright stated that Mr. Lou Radiff of Pester Marketing was present to discuss this item. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minute' -3 March 1, 1988 Page 2 of 7 Lot 1, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Derby Station, Design Review Continued from 2/16/88 - (continued). Mr. Radiff stated that he was the area sales manager for Pester Marketing. He stated that they needed additional space to store their paper products. The initial design did not anticipate the amount of business they were going to do in the fountain and they have just run out of space for storage. Reynolds asked if they couldn't just add on to the building. Radiff stated that it was a matter of cost at this time. It would cost at least four times the cost of this storage building. He stated that they would conform to the colors and landscape and hopefully it would not stand out. It would be a temporary situation. Doll asked what was meant by temporary. Radiff stated possibly a year or two before he could get approval to make a permanent addition to the building. Donaldson asked if they had any other options that did not include a storage building of this type. Radiff stated he did not have any other options. There is no other site to place another structure. 6ersbach asked if there were any zoning restrictions in that area that prohibit this type of building. Wood stated that the Commission should consider the design review criteria provided in the staff report, in what ever action the Commission takes. Donaldson then read each criteria and asked for comments from the Commission members. The general concensus of the Commission was that this was not an appropriate structure for the proposed area. Discussion followed on color, etc. The Commission asked Planner Jim Lamont to comment regarding Lhis item. Lamont sated that the design of the Derby building and the statement it makes at the entrance to the communinty was a major consideration at the time of design review. He stated that he felt that there are other structures that would be compatible with the back side of the building that would serve the same purpose. He felt that a wood structure on the rear of the building could be constructed that would match the screening fence that is already there. He urged the applicant to ask the Commission to review a different type of structure that could get them through the twc year period and look at building a permanent addition to the facility that would match the current structure. This was his recommendation to the Commission. Blair stated he had no objection to some sort of temporary structure, but one that needs to blend in more than the one proposed. He stated that rather than deny this application, he would rather have the Commission ask the applicant if he would want to consider an alternates proposal. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes March 1, 1988 Page 3 of 7 Lot 1 Block i Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Derby Station, Design Review Continued from 2/16/88 - (continued). Donaldson stated that if this was agreeable with the applicant, this matter could be tabled and the applicant could come back within thirty days with another proposal. Radiff stated he would give it a try. Doll moved to table this item at this time with directions to the applicailt to return within the appropria*e time with a temporary structure that is more compatibI to the building already constructed on the site. This should be done within thirty days. Blair seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Lodge at Avon Subdivision, a Resubdivision of Lots 57-60, Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Vail/Beaver Creek Resort Real Estate Development Sign - Design Review_ Gersbach stepped down as a voting member of the Commission due to a conflict of interest regarding the above described item. Wright stated that Vail/Beaver Creek Resort Real Estate has applied for design review of a development sign for the Lodge at Avon property, located at the corner of Benchmark and Avon Road. A drawing of the sign has been provided. The proposed sign is approximately eight (8) square feet. Gersbach stated he was representing Vail Associates Real Estate and they are responding to their clients request to market those properties. Donaldson asked if they had any problem with setting it 10 feet back from the property line. Gersbach stated that this was no problem Discussion on color and size followed. Blair moved that the application as presented be approved in accordance with Section 15.28.080 (H) of the sign regulations and as long as the sign is placed 10 feet from any property line or road right-of-way. Reynolds seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Lots 1 & 2 Sunroad Subdivision Vail/Beaver Creek Resort Real Estate Development Sign Design Review. Gersbach stepped down as a voting Commission member due to a conflict of interest regarding the above described item. Wright stated that Vail/Beaver Creek Resort Real Estate has applied for design review of a development sign for the Sunroad property. This is another eight foot sign, very much identical to the one just approved. Gersbach stated that the Sunroad property is adjacent to the First Bank of Avon. 0�4k Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes March 1, 198E Page 4 of 7 Lots 1 & 2 Sunroad Subdivision Vail/Beaver Creek Resort Real Estate Development Sion. Design Review - (continued) Donaldson asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Reynolds asked if there would be only one sign. Gersbach stated that there would be only the one sign. Blair asked if the sign would cause any traffic or visual problems. Wright stated that there were none. Blair moved that this application be approved as submitted in accordance with the Staff comments including the rec=ommendation that the sign be no closer to 10 feet of any property line or road right-of-way. Doll seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Lot 69 Block ' Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Beaver Creek Place Development Sion - Design Review Wright stated that Bruce Allen, owner of Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, has applied for desion review of a development sign. The sign is approximately sixteen (16) square feet. He stated that a drawing had been provided and that the lot is located directly north of the Commercial Federal Bank. He stated that Michael Hazard was present to answer any questions the Commission might have. Hazard provided plans showing the location of the sign. He stated that the colors would be a dart: blue for Beaver Creek Place and a rust color for the remainder of the lettering on either a^ off white or pale grey for the background. Discussion followed on the location of the lot and the placement of the sign. Gersbach moved to approve the application as presented. Doll seconded. The motion passed unanimously_ Lot 21, Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Slifer Designs, Canopy and Sign Design Review. Wright stated that Slifer Designs has applied for design review of a canopy they propose for the entrance to their office in the Avon Commercial Building. The proposed canopy would incorporate their business sign and would contain fluorescent lighting. He stated that the applicant would provide color samples and photographs of similar canopies. Wayne Townsend, representing Slifer Designs, stated that Beth Slifer was also present to answer any questions that the Commission might have. He provided a plan view and elevation view of where the canopy would be on the building. He also provides photographs of similar canopies and samples of the proposed materials to be used. Blair asked about the approval of 29 square feet of signage, Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes March 1, 1988 Page 5 of 7 or if they already had 29 square feet of signage. Wright stated that this was what was approved and they do not at this time have a sign and what they are asking for is about 26 square feet. Discussion followed on the colors and materials followed. Donaldson stated the criteria to be followed when considering ! this matter. The Commission had no problems with the criteria. Donaldson asked if Lamont had any comments regarding this application. Lamont stated that knowing the applicant's performance throughout the community, he thinks it will be a very welcome addition to this building. Ms. Slifer stated that a red would be used for the canopy and ar off white or cream color would be used for the letters allowing the lighting to show through. She stated that they have not received the exact color samples from Seattle, Washington yet, but she A:d have a small color chart showing the colors. Also, she stated that they have asked the sign maker to scallop the edge of the canopy and wanted to know if that would make any difference to the Commission. The scallop would be in the white. The Commission had no problem with this. Wood stated that one matter should be cleared up and that is that this is a replacement of the previously approved sign. Townsend stated that it would replace the previously approved sign. Blair moved, that the canopy sign be approved as presented, as a replacement for a previously approved sign, with the materials and colors as presented, the colors being number 1160 cool white and number 1120 bright red on the Crismax color chart. Landauer seconded. Reynolds asked about the lighting. Townsend stated that it would be one fixture, double bulb. Ms Slifer asked if the motion could be amended to incicate a second choice of red, the color numbered 1111 wine if the first red color is not available. Blair so moved. Landauer seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. Readinq and Approval of Minutes of February 16, 1988 Regular Meeting. Doll moved that the Commission approve the minutes as written. Blair seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes March 1, 1988 Page 6 of 7 Other Business. Wood stated that he had prepared a definition for "building front" for discussion at this meeting as provided. He proceeded to state the previous definition and the revised definition. He stated that he had also revised the "lot front" definition. Discussion followed on various configurations of lots and what sides could be used for building and lot fronts. Wood described the procedure to make the revisions to the sign code. He stated that what needed to be done now was to reach some decision on what changes the Commission wanted to make. Wood stated that he had clarified some of the wording in sign allowance for multiple businesses also and proceeded to describe the changes. Discussion on these changes followed. Wood also asked the Commission if they wanted to continue reviewing development signs or would they prefer to have Staff handle them as long as they met the criteria stated in the code? The Commission directed the Staff to revise the code to state that Staff could handle them if they met the criteria. The Commission directed the Staff to prepare an amendment to the Ordinance to reflect the proposed changes to present to Council. The Recording Secretary reminded the Commission that they should discuss the changes they might want to make to the regulations on temporary signs prior to preparing amendments to the Ordinance. The Commission decided that this should be discussed at the next meeting and the amendments to the Ordinance should be put on hold. Discussion followed on the snow storage of Wynfield Inn. Blair thought there might be some drainage problem there. Reynolds stated that the light on the sign at Avon Auto Body was very bright. Reynolds moved to adjourn. Landauer seconded. The meeting was adjourned at S:SQ PM. Respectfully submitted, 3 Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes March 1, 1988 Page 7 of 7 Commission approval M. Blair P. Cuny T. Landai M. Donal, C. Gersb A. Reyno F. Doll 10-1� /04�) Date j / �y