Loading...
PZC Minutes 041581gECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FETING MINUTES C)F DESIGN RE�IBOARD IEW APRIL 15, 1981, 7:3� PM. - held on Town of Avon was Avon the of the Town of to order Review Board Chambers was called of the Design Council1 The meet 45 P• M' in the Tow" Colorado. �qular meeting 1981 at �Av°n ' Center, , 1 15, Shopping thechairman ha B man Bill Pierce. Attorney JY nt, also Present was John Dunn, Town hers Mi Present rose In later - NO - All Board Mom e came NDING ORDINAN g PECT CherYl and A� WITH Larry[ _ AN ORDINANCE $ OR D HE VIOLATION 1981 OF THE DESIGN NO. 4, SERIES OF PENALTIES TO REQUIRE APPROVAL PROVIDING ORDINANCE NT: AND Item #1 PANS FOR DEVELOPME g1_4„� - There TO, SERGES IF,ON ,•Ordinance once comPleted THERE N No. Series tf u der which buithe hanges in the �. 4 , ted Ordinance circumstance regarding the an „e„ to John Dunn presen regarding the was mentionee No. 81_4 will add or other was some question ek plaza that nO building e Buck Cre prdinanc e t in compliance altered• that building• .to PrOvide d exc p Nor shall could be arts of .. d or constructs Boar of certain p he Zoning Ordinance Review structed or use t sh be erects the Design t be reCon all height or lot coverage Section 4'2 ° improvemen t approved by imprOvemen the Design ture or of developmen structure or ments, strut or other require eon approved by with the Plan uildinq arking lot shall first b any completed b density, p alterations s to US struction or the Ordinance altered s such recOn d and the unless motion recommend tie Boar requested the Town oard"- comments from Review B the Board by a m between that ed for Board stencY John made the reghe Council. Bil B 11 stated issues of inconJohn stated that adoption by werenIt ally address to address uidelineS• for and there orneY Board 9 the Town Att n Review ties• to the audience to directand the Desig inconsisten ding Council rat than ted actor the Zoning ordinance ra constructed fans will be misunaers t be to the P Board projects must changes Review there are two things: P the Design states Review Board and Ordinance sta the Design Plan is approved by The roved by once a P and plans appthe Board; eXplicit, brought beforeto strictly. the Ordinance are the Board the PA must be adhered ales for changes t must be approved b he Zoning Ordinanc d that the r for develoPme ecaping in terms of 198 John state The plan landscaping NO. 4� Series d be so- include la ously- shoul ment does not 1 of Ordinance unanim for develop nova it was Passed to recommendhae motion and e made a moti°Tom seconded 3, Ben( Alice Council, 3, Block the Town encies, Lot rOval Continq e Building, ApP Summarized the continger #2a, ReYitaq No. 81_3_16. SubdiFile Pacific Heritage•d on 1 or two other Items. vision, spaces required an s represented requested to se( W ill 11da ,umber ° f loading the Board which the lighting `, the numb lighting laces where and wall IIgh Will P ted thewald r'or indicated the places e is ur resen (.) walkway the wattag to Lee Buch ed entrance laces' a associa recess in five P the Building bei Ming, will be given to There entrance 119 pole lighting ttaIS will be bout 16 feet. fluorescent p used, submi height will be lights will be , roval- the constru ction beginsan was granted aPP the lighting p -1- Letter from the State Department of Highways: they have been requested to build an entire new lane from where the road starts can/ing to the intersection. It is in the process of being formalized, indicating a semi truck using the loading spaces. The letter will be forwarded to the Building Department. Trees were added for screening. A parking space was removed for easier access to the loading spaces. There being no objections, the truck access and landscaping modification were granted approval contingent upon the number of spaces being adequate. Loading spaces: John made the distinction between loading spaces (which are the spaces in question) and loading docks; loading docks are not the issue. A loading space is a parking space, 10 X 35 feet, which has a sign which reads "loading space only", they are larger than parking spaces. If there are to be one space per 5,000 square feet of commercial as stated in the Ordinance, this project will be required to have seven loading spaces. Will would like to assign the existing loading spaces (shown on their plans) as permanent and to assign five additional spaces as temporary loading spaces. This can be done without completely blocking the lane. The Zoning Ordinance requires 10 feet wide and 35 feet long for each loading space. The square footage of the building and proposed use of the building: the top three floors are 8,588 square feet each of offices, the first floor is 5,000 square feet of retail or office and 3,600 square feet will be restaurant. There are two levels of parking underneath. The parking requirements are met, even though one parking space was removed. Tom stated concern for the undesignated part of the building, it may affect the number of loading spaces. Will stated that 5,000 square feet is undesignated. Mike mentioned Ordinance No. 81-4 dis- cussed earlier in the meeting; alterations to the building may mean alterations in the parking, etc. There is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that allows for variances from the Ordinance. Dick stated that the number of seats in the restaurant will affect the number of parking spaces required, as well as the square footage. There are five or six parking spaces which will be affected by the temporary loading spaces proposed, if those spaces are assigned for long term parking, hindrance will be lessened. The Board was individually polled for opinions, the general opinion was that the number of loading spaces is adequate. Bill asked for comments from the audience and there weren't any. The Board stated that the loading spaces are ade- quate as described for this particular project, a letter from the Fire Department approving the emergency access with the proposed loading space solution should be sent to the Building Department. Item #2, Heritage Building, Sign, Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 81-3-6. Teri Dresner presented the sign. The sign will be wood carved, similar to the sign they built for the Charter at Beaver Creek, hand cut wood. The location will be at the corner of Highway 6 and West Beaver Creek Boulevard on Lot 3. Teri stated that the sign conforms to the Sign Ordinance, this is a temporary sign and will be removed when the building is completed and the signage goes up on the building. Bill requested that it be removed when the Certificate of Occu- pancy is issued. This temporary sign is for sales purposes, the State Highway Department requires that any sign be 50 feet from an intersection, the sign will not be lighted. Let the record show that aZZ Board Members are now present. There being no objections, approval was granted for the sign with the conditions that it be removed when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued; if they prefer to keep the sign up after that time they are to come back before the Board with that request. Item #3, High Country Plaza Zone Change, Lot 3, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 81-3-17. Allen Bulter represented High Country Plaza. The total building area is 22,757+ square feet. The required off-street loading spaces are four, they propose three. The required parking is 55.24, they have parking for 54 cars. They are requesting a special hearing regarding open space requirements, the loading space require- ments and the off-street parking requirements. The open space requested is 22.70 -2- rather than 250, off-street loading spaces requested are three rather than the required four. The hardware store will be on the ground floor, about 11,900 square feet, the deliveries will occur each Monday morning, one truck. Rio Grande Motor Freight addressed a letter to the Town Council stating that the tractor -end trailer is 34 feet long for local deliveries. Allen mentioned other buildings in the Avon/Vail area and the number of loading spaces which they have, also mentioned were buildings in the Denver area and their loading spaces. Bill stated that each item would be discussed separately. He asked the secretary if any letters have been received by the Town regarding this public hearing, there have not; he asked if any one was present in the audience to make a state- ment regarding this issue, there was no one. Open space: because of the loading space, the open space has been cut back. Bill stated that variances are requested and/or granted when a particular hardship exists. The reduction of open space is minimal, but there is not particularly a hardship case presented. John stated that the Zoning Code does not allow for variances from the Code, it is absolute, the Board does riot have the authority to grant or recommend reduction in open usable area. The Board was cautioned to be con- sistent in their approvals or recommendations, temporary loading spaces which do not obstruct many parking spaces may be a solution. Similarities to the Pacific Heritage loading problem were discussed. For a 55 foot long truck to turn completely in the paved area, they would have to take out some of the building. Norm Lamb mentioned that other projects have used parking spaces as temporary loading spaces, the loading spaces seem adequate for this building. Allen stated that 'there were no recommendations to the Council from the Board regarding their project when they went before the Council during the last meeting. The word "variance" does not appear in the Zoning„Ordinance. Bill stated that they must comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board has approved the use of driving lanes as loading space. The Board can not grant a variance on parking and can not grant a variance on site coverage or on loading space requirements. Allen asked if the Board has granted variances in the past, Marilyn Minor, audi- ence, stated that City Market has two loading spaces when the legal requirement is for eight spaces, the Zoning Ordinance was in effect when that project was approved. Jack Minor, audience: the Town Council was looking for a recommenda- tion from the Board. The Board could request that the Council review the require- ments for parking as required in the Zoning Ordinance, in reference to loading docks, the Board has made that request. Jim Wells, audience: the Board can recommend to the Town Council that the Ordi- riance be amended, someone on the Board needs to be responsible for communicating with the Council. They do have a place which can be used as temporary loading spaces, Allen will put it on papter and bring it in. Allen will defer his final presentation of the project until the new plan is presented. Dick stated that final approval can not be given unless the ramp grade is 140 or close to it, the exit drive is only 18 feet wide, the radius may not work, entrance culverts are needed, the finished grading study is needed, and other items are required, the tandem parking should be restricted. Tom commented on the preparation of this project, more work needs to be done before it is presented. Bill: the 14% grade for the drive iw far too steep, the site appears to be overdeveloped. Other business with the Town Attorney: Cheryl: does the Board send a recom- mendation to the Town Council that the Board recommends three things - 1) the loading space requirement be reduced or revised, 2) a variance may be requested for a loading space and 3) that a variance can be requested for open space? Bill: ask the Town Council to address themselves to the question of loading spaces and the number required in the Zoning Ordinance and set up a provision for variance to any section of the Zoning Code. -3- The process of public notice was discussed. John stated that he needs the authori- zation from the Mayor to amend the Ordinance. Wells: the Council needs to be informed of the reasons or problems with the recommendations or approvals that the Board has given for the projects which are referred to the Council. Mark Peson, audience: why is there a format and a fee for a special review if the Board does not have the authority to grant a change? Bill: the special review uses are stated in the Ordinance and can be recommended. Cheryl has been in contact with other municipalities regarding loading requirements. Item #8, Skiview Condominiums, Rudd Construction, Inc., Revised Plans, Four Units Lot 18, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, File No. 81-3-2. Wayne Rudd represented Skiview Condominiums. This project was presented at an earlier meeting, Wayne is back with the recommendations made by the Board at that meeting. There are now two four foot offsets to the building, all four elevations are presented, the size of the trees and the entrance light have been added. The trees are four inch caliper, six feet high, more aspen trees have been added to the front of the building. The entrance light will be six feet high, regular residential light, all the corners on the building will be done in a dark trim, the siding is redwood channel lap, cedar shingles. There is not a design of the retaining wall shown, it is a railroad tie wall, there will not be a sign for the project. Trash storage - it is now back on the end of the off-street parking area. Black top will be used for the paved areas. Materials changed - the Board requested some use of stucco rather than all siding, and other material changes to accent the building. "Chip and seal" will not be used, Wayne stated that asphalt will be used. Bill again stated his objections to the use of this design in Wildridge. The rest of the Board: it would help to break it up with some different materials, may be stucco on the stacks and perhaps stucco below the first level decks, the stepping helps, the decks are held up by posts or they may be shortened and cantilevered, paint the chimney stacks a darker color, things could be done to enhance the building without spending a lot of money. Poll of the Board: the majority of the Board approves, this project was granted approval. Item #4, Avon Center at Beaver Creek, Sign, Lots 47-54, Block 2, Benchmark Sub- division, File No. 81-3-7. Norm Lamb represented Avon Center at Beaver Creek. This sign was presented at the last meeting, Norm presented pictures of the sign. As the building grows, the sign becomes less of an impact. The sign is framed canvas with air slits, tied down, it is moved as the building goes up. Bill stated that the sign can be kept up for six months, if they want it up longer, they are to come back before the Board on October 15, 1981; if it is in need of repair, the sign is to come down immediately. Based on the above comments, the Board granted approval for this sign. Item #5, Mountain Shadows, Roof Modification, Lot 76, Block 1, Wildridge, Sub- division, File No. 81-3-5. Rick Bolduc represented this project. They would like to extend the roof line all the way across, as opposed to just one-half way for each unit to remove a post which would go through the middle of the master bedroom and dining room. The vaulted ceiling will go all the way up, fixed windows will be added to the windows already there. The roof was approved with cedar shakes, they are going to meet with the Wild - ridge Covenants Committee to request a metal roof. The building does not create a high visual impact; there being no objections, the Board granted final approval for the modification. -4- Item #6, Peregrine Properties, Trailer Site Location, Lots 62-64, Block 2, Bench- mark Subdivision, File No. 81-3-14. No one was present to represent Peregrine Properties. Item #7, Avon 66 Partnership, Office Building, Preliminary, Lot 66, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 81-4-2. Kathy Warren, David Peel, architects and Jim Potter, owner represented Avon 66, This is a three story office building, 7,270 net square feet, 8,800 gross square feet. The building is bermed up on the northwest side and the northeast side. On the parking side is a planter two feet high, on two sides will appear as a 23� story building. Materials - all stucco, colors as shown, metal standing seam roof with a bank of skylights, cantilevered greenhouse on the south side on the second floor, the first floor has 2,200 square feet, entrance and handicapped access on the ground floor. There is a stair tower to the second floor, everything which projects from the building is cantilevered four feet, with a deck on the north side, a wood framed building, no sign at this time. Bill requested landscaping around the parking area edge, the front of the building faces southeast, 22 parking spaces are required, they have 25, there are no loading spaces shown. Loading spaces - could provide temporary spaces at the entrance, there was considerable discussion regarding the location of the tem- porary spaces. Mike stated that a peniianent loading space is used exclusively for loading, temporary can be used for parking. Jim Potter stated that this is a preliminary presentation, they would like the Board's reactions to the general idea of the building. The Board would like to have something added, perhaps trees, to the street side to make it more inter- esting, or trim added. That side is 36 feet wide, the windows are recessed, bronze -tinted glass. The site coverage is 73.80, landscaping is to continue into the easement. Larry Goad, audience asked about handicapped facilities, Kathy stated that in commercial buildings access to toilet facilities on the level closest to grade must be provided, public buildings have different requirements. The Board is favorable to the design of the building, some landscaping added; the sign will be submitted later, David submitted the light fixtures. Item #9, Agett Builders, Inc., Duplex, Lot 12, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, File No. 81-4-3. Mark Donaldson represented Agett Builders. Each unit is about 1,800 square feet, one single car garage per unit, one other space each. The exterior material is cedar, Olympic stain #717, synthetic stucco is sto, #8616. All exterior lighting is soffit lighting, the driveway has a 5% slope, no driveway entrance lighting. The building is down below the side of the hill, sod roofs, seven feet difference between each unit roof level. The roofs are earth sheltered, about 18 inches, seeded with native grasses. Bill stated his approval for this design. Mark asked about the feasibility of using wind power, could it be housed properly; it may be considered. Landscaping - Windsor blue grass, mixture of buffalo and high altitude grasses, jute mesh will be used. Driveway lighting was discussed, whether it is necessary. Six Board Members voted for the project as presented, one voted to recommend a driveway entrance light - the Board granted final approval for the project. Dick stated that on a steep slope a ten foot setback is allowed. 9.70 other business: Ability of the Board to communicate with the Town Council was discussed. The information should be specific; perhaps in the form of a resolution or a letter; perhaps hire professional help for the Board; amending the Design Review Board guidelines and Ordinance, procedures for variances from the Zoning Ordinance, a work session to draft some changes, then a public hearing regarding the changes; letter to the Mayor for the Town Attorney to draft an amendment for a variance procedure for the Zoning Ordinance. Wells: there may be reasons that there is no provision for variances, perhaps the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Review Board guidelines should be revised so that Board related items are placed in the guidelines rather than the Zoning Ordinance. The function of the Board was discussed, that it may be more appro- priately a Zoning and/or Planning Board than a Design Review Board, the need for a planning director was discussed. Loading spaces were discussed, temporary spaces may be the answer to providing enough spaces for a building. The Board decided to have a work session before forwarding any recommendations to the Town Attorney, then go from there, they will review the Zoning Ordinance and the Rules and Regulations. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, 6:30 P. M., April 22, 1981, in the Benchmark Companies conference room. Ken will make copies of the present amendments for the Board Members. Wells: brought back the question of how the Board communicates with the Council, and it was discussed. It was suggested that the office staff - professional planner and secretary - be added to, for the Board and for planning and zoning for the Town. hill suggested that he meet with the Mayor and follow it up with a letter. Mike made the motion that the Chairperson of the Design Review Board go directly to the Town Council and request 1) that the Town provide a full-time secretary for the Design Review Board and planning and zoning matters immediately to main- tain the records, to provide public information and maintain communication with the public and the Council and everybody involved; and 2) that the Town be provided with a planning and design administrator either full-time or adequate time to assist the Design Review Board and other Town staff on a regular basis. Cheryl seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. The minutes were read - the fence around the temporary trailers for Pacific Heritage, Loto, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision: has it been installed? It will be checked. On the last page, "12:30 P. M." should be corrected to "12:30 A. M." Larry made the motion to approve the minutes, Alice seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously. Cheryl made the motion to adjourn the meeting, Tom seconded it, it was passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 A. M. Respectfully submitted by Jerre Sortland Recording Secretary Design Review Board -6-