PZC Minutes 050681RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
MAY 6, 1931, 7:30 P. 1M.
The regular meeting of the Design Review Board for the Town of Avon was held on
May 6, 1981 at 7:45 P. M. in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon in
the Benchmark Shopping Center, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order
by Chairman Bill Pierce.
All Board Members were present, also present was John Dunn, Town Attorney. Larry
and Tom came in later. Russ Gionetti, Building Inspector appeared in Dick Evans'
place.
Item #l, ORDINANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 1981: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
12, SERIES OF 1979, TO PROVIDE A VARIANCE PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ZONING
CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON.
John Durin presented the Ordinance ("Ordinance No. 81-9") and a handout to the Board
explaining the use of variances from ordinances. John read through the Ordinance,
explained from the handout the advantages and disadvantages of allowing
variances. John expressed concern that variances should be used rarely and
cautiously, rather than overused. The decision of the Board could be final,
it could be final unless appealed to the Council, or each decision of -the Board
goes to the Council for final consideration.
Bill: the Board met twice during the past two weeks in work sessions and the
Ordinance was discussed during those meetings. fie mentioned the items which the
Board would like to add or subtract from the Ordinance please see notes j°or the
Design Review B=,d work SessZon, ApriZ 22 and 29, 1981. John: notification of
the variance requested should be the responsibility of the applicant, the Town
would publish in the newspaper, at the expense of the applicant. The affi-
davit suggested by the Board was discussed, the base fee for a hearing, the Board's
decision final unless appealed to the Council and conditions, fee paid at the
time of application, clarify the difference between a variance and a zone change,
no allowance for zone changes, the definition of a variance, right for the Board
to table a variance request.
Bill asked for comments from the audience. Jim Wells, audience: if this Variance
Ordinance is made part of the Zoning Ordinance, then is any deviation from the
Zoning Ordinance a variance; has to do with land use. The Zoning Ordinance and
the Design Review Board Ordinance could be put into one document, to eliminate
conflicts, should be the applicant's responsibility. Larry: the Town should
dictate the wording on the notification signs and notices, or the Town prepare
the sign. Tom Nevison, audience asked about loading spaces, loading spaces were
discussed. There being no other comments, the rest of the agenda was brought
before the Board.
Item #7, Avon Road Professional Building, Design Modifications, Lot 56, Block 2,
Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 81-12-2.
Buff Arnold represented this project. Avon Road Professional Building received
final approval, (meeting of February 4, 1981, approval with contingencies).
They would like to now remove the top floor of the building and convert one-half
of one parking level to commercial use. There is a net reduction of leasable
square feet of 6,000 square feet, there will be fewer parking spaces, the building
is redesigned on the front level at grade, loading spaces were addressed and 10
are required for this building. There are now 14,500 square feet of commercial
space, 32,000 square feet of office space; before it was 52,000, corrected to
47,000 square feet of office and about 5,500 square feet of commercial space.
The buildingdid have 52,000 square feet net leasable, now 47,000 net leasable.
-1-
What was the upper parking level is now three feet below grade at the bus turn
around, there is now store front along the mall on the upper parking level.
The materials, site configuration and everything else will be exactly the same,
including the structure except for one less floor. The front entrance has changed.
The Board would like to see the original drawings to compare the changes with
it.
The ceramic face around the front has increased, the amount of net leasable floor
space has decreased about 6,000 square feet, the height was 58 feet, it is now
50 feet. The parking in the front one-half of the building has been reduced,
before there were four occupied floors, one and one-half parking level floors
and the parking in the back is still the same number, changed somewhat to accom-
modate the loading spaces.
There is 47,155 square feet of commercial area and 118 parking spaces. The Board
asked John Dunn about the compact car spaces shown - about one-third of the spaces
shown are for compact cars; the Zoning Ordinance states that parking space size
is 9 X 18 feet. A discussion concerning parking and loading spaces followed.
Russ Gionetti: the Building Department has not had enough time to check the
loading spaces, but it appears that the configuration of the spaces will not work.
Bill: temporary spaces stay work for smaller loading vehicles. Buff: three or
four functional spaces may be found, all ten shown may not work. Bill asked
the Town Attorney if it is possible for the Board to grant approval for this
project as presented, John stated that it appears not - the parking spaces do not
meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The back-up room for the
loading spaces may not be adequate.
Bill asked for comments in reverence to items other than the difficulties of
the parking spaces - the overall building design. Ken: does the frontage of
the building have anything to do with the change in the overall master plan of
the mall master plan that is being worked on. Wells, audience: it will agree
with the plan.
Bill stated that the Board is not able to give approval based on, apparently,
the fact of the compact car situation; no other objections for the rest of
the design. Buff: Can temporary loading spaces be designated parking spaces?
The Board is not sure at this time, but probably not.
Loading space requirements were further discussed, office spaces is not speci-
fically addressed for loading spaces - commercial, industrial and warehouse are
stated. The use of the building may dictate the number of loading spaces. The
Board asked Terrill Knight, proposed Town Planner, for his opinion - follow the
regulation as it is, even though it may be unreasonable, then take proper pro-
cedure and make it correct, may give Buff direction that the regulation needs to
be changed; loading space is one of the least concerns, can develop a reasonable
solution.
The Board was polled to give opinion in that office space is not specifically
designated for a number of parking spaces, corrected to loading spaces per
square feet, but there is for commercial, can we eliminate the need for loading
spaces for the office space portion of this building? The Board's opinion is
that commercial means office space and that the Ordinance must be followed as it
is at this time.
Bill stated that the "no approval" must stand, compact cars have been incorrectly
considered before.
Item #2 Pester Corporation, Sign, Lot 1, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision, File
No. 1- -1.
Bill asked for information regarding whether this sign existed before the Sign
Code Ordinance, was it erected illegally or whether it was erected according to
the Sign Code Ordinance. Mayor Alpi, audience: the sign has been there for quite
awhile; it was unknown to anyone present at this meeting as to how long the sign
has been up. Bill: This sign will be reviewed as a new sigh unless evidence can
be produced at a later date, that the sign was erected before application was
required by the Town. Is the sign indeed 24 square feet as it is stated on the
application? Ken: table this matter until Dick Evans is back from vacation since
he started the question as to whether the sign had a permit. (please refer to
correct statement in the minutes of the March 4, 1981 meeting.) Alpi, audience:
take action tonight contingent on whether the sign is 24 square feet.
-2-
Bill stated that the sign itself should be addressed assuming that it is correct
and that it isnecessary to be an application. Charles Galloway represented
Pester Corporation. The Sign Code Ordinance states that signs are to identify a
business, not the products sold. Bill expressed his opinion that the sign is not
appropriate for this Town. The Board: if the sign does not meet the Sign Code
Ordinance, then it shoudl be removed, the Sign Ordinance states 12 square feet,
this does not meet that Ordinance. The question is: whether the sign was up
before the Ordinance was passed; would like more information presented with the
application.
The application was accepted because: the sign has been up about one and one-
half years, Pester Corporation was following the proper procedure by making
the application; a Board member thought the sign was put up recently and asked
Dick to look into the matter. The Mayor suggested that the sign be left standing
since it was put up long before the Sign Code Ordinance came into effect. Bill:
the sign will be tabled. If Pester Corporation does not hear from the Board
within a certain period of time, it will be approved as it is.
Item #3, Avon Lake Villas, Identification Sign, Lots 43 and _4_4,__Block 2, Benchmark
Subdivision, File No. 80-10-1. ^- - —� --
Fred Gorenz represented Avon Lake Villas. The sign was approved last fall for
six (6) months, or on a temporary basis. Fred presented pictures of the sign,
six feet wide by three feet tall, 18 square feet. He asked the Board's opinion
of the sign, the location will be kept where it is. Avon Lake Villas owns a
twenty (20) foot wide strip up to the road.
Bill stated that the sign is larger than the size allowed for a development sign
(16 square feet) Fred asked for an extension of six (6) more months to keep the
sign up since they are still working on the project. This is the only identification
sign there is for Avon Lake Villas Phases I, II and Iv. Phase III is still under
construction. Mike suggested that the design for the new signs come in to be
considered before the expiration of the six (6) months extension. The Board
granted approval for the sign to remain where it is for an additional six (6)
months, prior to that deadline, this sign or a new one for the total development
should be brought before the Board.
Item #4, Byron D. Brown Real Estate, Sign, Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision,
File No. 80-11-6.
Byron Brown represented the three (3) groups requesting signs, which were temporarily
approved on December 3, 1980. They were to get the signs approved by the condominium
association. Byron presented a letter from the association. Byron is representing
the sign committee and condominium corporation as a group of signs. The companies
listed have been approved by the condominium association to put up signs subject to
the approval of the Design Review Board. (Beaver Liquors approvaZ previousZy
granted, Byron Brown ReaZ Estate, VaiZ-EagZe TitZe Company, State Farm Insurance
Stewart titZe, C/M Land Company, M & I Incorporated, Land TitZe Guarantee.)
Anyone not listed must come before the association and then the Board for approval.
There are two (2) styles of letters - the elevita, the "0's" are a little bigger;
and the standard block. Bill: multiple business signs are allowed to be a maximum
of 12 square feet; other than the size, the style, colore, letters and lighting are
fine. Signs need to be reduced from 20 square feet. Byron asked for some leeway in
the size. The square footage of raised letter signs was discussed and whether signs
the size of the Beaver Liquors sign would be granted approval on this building, even
though the Sign Code Ordinance has been passed.
The minutes from the December 3, 1980 Board meeting were referred to. Terrill
stated that the intent of the Ordinance was to measure each individual letter rather
than the square footage around the whole raised letter sign; to encourage raised
letter signs.
The Board granted approval for the application made with the modification that not
more than 12 square feet per sign per business be allowed, as defined in the Sign
Ordinance. Byron would like to add the Timberline Properties sign to the list of
signs approved tonight, an extension of six (6) more months. Larry: would not like
to approve the Timberline Properties sign for another (6) months.
-3-
Item #5, Peregrine Properties, Trailer Modification, Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark
Subdivision, File No. 81-3-14.
Gregory Gage represented Peregrine Properties. He stated that this is a clarification
of what was approved at the April 1, 1981 meeting. Greg presented a brochure showing
the trailer (24 x 60 feet). The application was made for a 720 square foot trailer
and it is actually 1,440 square feet. Peregrine is leasing Lot 61 for the trailer
installation from N.A.L. Construction.
The lot will be usedfor an information trailer, construction trailers, construction
storage, truck storage, etc. The trailers will be on Lot 61. The modular trailer
will be 1,440 square feet, and an additional construction trailer. The whole area
will be fenced, two culverts off of Avon Road. The application was made under
Peregrine Property Realty, the approval given to Peregrine Properties, the original
fee was paid for 720 square feet,, Greg stated that the size of the trailer indicates
a higher application fee.
The siding will be cedar (tongue and groove), 1 x 6, diagonal on the sides and vertical
on the front and back, a deck for the entrance, the roof will have shake shingles.
Greg would like approval for a year. It was suggested that security lighting be added.
It may have a 24 hour per day guard. It will be here the first week in June, the
construction trailer will be here May 15th. The sign and lighting will be presented
later. The Board granted approval for the trailer as shown, 1,440 square feet. No
one will be living in the trailer - a guard may be in there at night.
Item #6, Beacon Hill, Stroop Homes, Inc., Sign, Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark
Subdivision, File No. 81-4-4.
There was no one present to represent Beacon Hill.
Item #8, Planters of Vail, Garden Shop at City Market, Lots 67 and 68, Block 2
Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 81-4-5.
Marty Jones represented Planters of Vail. Marty would like to make an agreement
with City Market to locate a garden center on the south side of the building, for the
purpose of selling bedding plants, trees, shrubs and garden supplies. A modular
structure which would be taken down in the winter, a greenhouse 60 feet by 24 feet
redwood covered with a polyethylene roof, the rest of the area will be enclosed by
a five foot fence.
The structure is about 45 feet from the loading docks for City Market and about
120 feet along the building, two (2) 12-foot sliding doors to the enclosure. Tom
is concerned that the structure may look shabby. It will be taken down in late
September, 1981. The loading docks will be in back, the number of parking spaces
which will be taken up is unknown.
Concerns of the Board: theappearance, the number of parking spaces taken up, and
the accessibility of the loading docks for the trucks. 45 x 115 feet of parking area
will be used. Mike was concerned that adequate spaces be maintained for the store
and that there is adequate parking for the new use. Mayor Alpi stated that this may
be a change of use - from parking to garden center, the asthetics must also be
considered.
Larry listed three (3) problems: 1) the structure may be a special review use,
2) parking may be a variance and therefore can not be reviewed, and 3) the Board
may not be able to review anything not submitted by the owner of the property. Marty
presented a letter from the Manager of City Market, Bernie Berg, approving of this
structure. Bill read the letter. A sample of the building material was requested
by the Board. Norm Lamb: asked if a special review use was given for the Christmas
trees sold in December, it was not; a permit was issued for that temporary facility.
Mayor Alpi suggested that this matter be tabled until there are more facts available
The Board's decision was to not approve this project at this time, due to the questions
of parking, authorization, special review use, plans with dimensions, colors and/or a
picture and samples of the materials. The sign will not be reviewed at this time.
-4..
Item #6, Beacon Hill, Sign was again brought up. The application was not accepted
due to insufficient information.
Other business:
Terrill Knight - he was present tonight to get acquainted with the Board and
proceedings. He met with the Town Council last week and will submit a proposal
for doing planning work for the Town. He would like to have a work session with
the Board and exchange ideas, etc., within the next month or two. The Board would
like to meet Wednesday, May 13, 1981, at 7:00 P. M., in the Council Chambers or
in the Benchmark Conference Room.
Ordinances - discussion regarding the re -drafting of the Ordinances. Mike made
a motion that the Town Council direct that the Town Attorney forthwith go about
combining the present Zoning Ordinance and the Design Review Board Rules and
Regulations in a logical and sensible way. Ken seconded the motion. Mike amended
that the Town planning consultant be included as necessary. Ken seconded the
amended motion, the Board passed this resolution unanimously.
Applications and reapplications - the question of whether complete and proper
applications have been presented was discussed. Insufficient applications should
be denied a place on the agenda.
The minutes were read and discussed - checks for payment of the Board, letter from
Dick regarding the Savoy Square sign, page 3 near the bottom "papter" should correctly
read "paper", would like the Town Attorney to have the Savoy Square removed or
whether the Board has the right to do that, Bill will call Al about the sign. Alice
made the motion to approve the minutes, Tom seconded it and it was pass unanimously.
Cheryl made the motion to adjourn the meeting, Larry seconded the motion, it was
passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M.
-5-