Loading...
PZC Packet 070792STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 14, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision S. Kristin Goddard Bed and Breakfast Special Re-iew Use Public Hearing INTRODUCTION Kristin Goddard is requesting Special Review Use approval to operate a bed and breakfast in her home on Lot 14, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Ms. Goddard received design review approval for her 3,200 square foot single family home on March 6, 1990. A certificate of occupancy for the building was issued on July 12, 1990. All construction activity on the lot is complete, including landscaping and driveway paving. Ms. Goddard has indicated that two of the three bedrooms in her home will be used to accommodate her guests. She will provide breakfast, but no other meals. The Goddard residence includes a two car garage, however, Kristin has only one car and is the sole resident of the house. Ms. Goddard intends to contract with Vail -Ski Areas, Inc. to book her rooms throughout the year. STAFF COMMENTS The following criteria as listed in Section 17.48.040 of the Avon Zoning Code, should be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission when reviewing a Special Review Use application. A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code; COMMENT: The Avon Zoning Code defines a Bed and Breakfast Residence as "an owner occupied dwelling unit that contains no more than three guest rooms where lodging, with or without meals, is provided for compensation". The applicant's proposal complies with this definition. All other requirements imposed by the zoning code are being complied with. B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan; COMMENT: Page 1.2 of the Comprehensive Plan contains Avon's vision statement. The first paragraph of the vision statement reads "Development of facilities and activities which not only enhance the Town's role as a principle, STAFF REPORT July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 3 TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Lot 14, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision S. Kristin Goddard Bed and Breakfast Residence Special Review Use Public Hearing year-round residential and commercial center in Eagle County, but also foster a strong year-rourd tourism base". Staff feels that the proposed bed ar:d br=akfast residence is an affirmative step to further this vision statement without negatively effecting adjacent property owners. C. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Such compatibility may be expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features, site design, and the control of any adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc. COMMENT: Staff believes the requested bed and breakfast residence will be very compatible with adjacent uses. There are currently no other residences within 200 feet of the Goddard home at this time. Even if Lot 14 were surrounded by other residences, Staff does not believe that the use of Ms. Goddard's two bedrooms by guests would alter the residential character of the neighborhood. There is more than adequate room for parking on Lot 14. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommendation is for approval of this request with the condition that the building retain it's residential character by not installing any signage on the property or the building. The proposed bed and breakfast residence should be easily located by it's physical street address alone. A-%, A"� STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 3 of 3 Lot 14, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision S. Kristin Goddard Bed and Breakfast Residence Special Review Use Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Y"em ��1stCG Jim Curnutte Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (, ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn DateI'ViV411 lz— ,Patti Dixon, Secretary The rommitcinn approved the bed and breakfast residence with the Gond' ion a m STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek John Heilman Parking Variance Request Public Hearing INTRODUCTION The Benchmark Plaza Building, located on Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision was constructed in 1981-1982. The building is three stories and contains 19,850 square feet of leasable area. There are 30 underground parking spaces that are reserved for tenants and there are 33 surface spaces for a total of 63 parking spaces. If all of the leasable area in the building was office space the building would have a parkin; demand of 60 spaces. However, there is a 1215 square foot restaurant and a 1308 square foot retail shop. The parking demand for the building as it is currently being used is 71 parking spaces. John Heilman wishes to operate a restaurant in the 1308 square foot space that was occupied by the Casa Bella retail shop. The restaurant will create a parking demand of approximately 10 spaces more than the retail use. This conversion would put the building parking demand substantially over the parking available on site. The following table demonstrates the existing and proposed parking demand: CURRENT 17,327 square feet office space at 3/1000 750 square feet restaurant seating at 1/60 1308 retail space at 4/1000 71 Space Demand PROPOSED 17,327 square feet office space at 3/1000 750 square feet restaurant seating at 1/60 1308 square feet restaurant (900 sq. ft. -seating) at 1/60 80 Space Demand The Avon Zoning Code addresses parking in Chapter 17.24. Section 17.24.010 of the code states that when the intensity of use of any building is increased that the required parking for that use must be provided. There is no opportunity on this site to add parking, so Mr. Heilman is requesting a variance to the parking standards to allow a restaurant to occupy the former Casa Bella retail space. Mr. Heilman's STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 5 Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision John Heilman Parking Variance Request Public Hearing proposal is to operate the restaurant as an evening only dinner restaurant, thereby avoiding daytime parking conflicts with the office use. STAFF COMMENTS Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: SECTION 17.36.40 Approval Criteria A. The relationship of the requested variance to other ex -sting or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; STAFF RESPONSE: Restaurant use is allowed in both the Town Center and Shopping Center zone districts. These districts both contain buildings that have parking to accommodate restaurant uses. Immediately adjacent to this property is the Benchmark Shopping Center. The Benchmark Shopping Center is a mixed use building that contains two restaurants. This building is currently maximizing all of it's available parking. No further changes of use which would intensify parking demand will be allowed on that property. B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a specif--j regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. STAFF RESPONSE: The Benchmark Plaza Building was envisioned and built as an office building and the parking was designed accordingly. The granting of a variance to allow a restaurant would, in the or,inion of Stc^.ff, constitute a grant of special privilege. There are properties in Town which have been developed with the abil-ty to provide flexibility in tenant mix. These properties have gone to further expense by developing parking appropriate to Town standards. ­' 'ON STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 3 of 5 Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision John Heilman Parking Variance Request Public Hearing C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; STAFF RESPONSE: There would not appear to be any negative impacts upon this criteria. SECTION 17.36.50 Findings Required The Commission shall make the following written findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the sa... e district. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the obje,::tives of this title. 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the came district. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 4 of 5 Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision John Heilman Parking Variance Request Public Hearing STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff recommendation for this variance is for denial. The granting of this variance may he considered a special privilege. The Benchmark Plaza Building was developed as an office building with parking facilities appropriate to an office building. Any increase in use intensity should be accompanied by an increase in parking. The proposal to operate the restaurant during the evening only has the potential to create a difficult enforcement situation. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Rick Pylman Director of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 5 of 5 Lot 20, Block 2, Benc`mark at Beaver Creek Subdivision John Heilman Parking Variance Request Public Hearing PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted (—�) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn (� Date Patti Dixon, Secretary The f_.ommission approved the parking _variance EeWLeSts citing SPrtinn C-1 of the 'inninCc that the Strict l'+nral interpretatinn and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hard�;,i; inrnncictont Wlth�hP_ objectives of this title. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COhMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing INTRODUCTION Brian Vedder is requesting a variance to allow for a fifteen (15) foot building encroachment into the required twenty five (25) foot front yard setback on Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. The building encroachment involves the garages on both sides of the duplex. Lot 45 is 0.99 of an acre (43,124 sq. ft.) in size. The units themselves are approximately 2,650 and 2,100 sq. ft. in size, not including the garages. The applicant has stated that the variance is necessary to provide reasonable access to the garage without excessive elevation differentials. Also, the original subdivision guidelines provide for up to 15' front yard setback variances when a nroperty has an average slope of 20%-30%. Mr. Vedder has indicated that his lot has an average slope of 26%. STAFF COMMENTS Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: SECTION 17 36.40 Approval Criter_la A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; STAFF RESPONSE: Lot 44 to the west has a building under construction at the present time. This building was designed in a manner that allowed all portions of the building to be outside of the 25' setback area. Lots 46 to the east and 48 to the north are vacant. Staff does not feel that the garage encroachment will have a significant negative effect on the future homeowners of these lots or on the character of Wildridge as a whole. B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Front Yard Setback Variance Request Hublic Hearing STAFF RESPONSE: As mentioned previously, the building being constructed on Lot 44 to the west is meeting all of it's setback requirements. Since Lot 45 is not significantly steeper than Lot 44, it would not appear that relief from the strict enforcement of the setback requirement is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public : afety; STAFF RESPONSE: There would not appear to be any negative effects upon the items listed in the above criteria. SECTION 17.36.50 Findings_Re�uired The Commission shall make the following written findings before granting a variance; A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, 2. There are exceotionai or extraordinar- circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for denial of the variance request as presented. Staff feels that the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be eetrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is not warranted fro any of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. A resolution documenting the Commission's decision and fingings regarding this variance request will be presented at the July 21, 1992, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. .-,41, -W% STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, /C—Cc�L�2cvL G� Jim nutte ✓ Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( 1 Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdr Gate__�'L Patti Dixon, Secretary The Commic\sinn apnrn pd the front yard sethack variance citing the following findings: A That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties rla 'f' d in the camp dictrirt• R That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental tothe public health. safety. or welfare. or materially injurious to proper ies or improvements in the vicinity;_ and L.--T—hat the STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 5 of 5 Lto 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder D;iplex Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing variance is warranted for the following reason: The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result _ in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Brian Vedder is requesting final design review of a proposed duplex building on Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Lot 45 is .99 of an acre (43,124 square feet) in size and is located on Wildridge Road East. The Vedder duplex received conceptual design review and denial of a 15' front yard setback variance request at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 16, 1992. the Plaining and Zoning Commission offered the following conceptual design review comments at the meeting: - The large sloped roof over the garage is not working, consider a flat roof if you want to use sod. A variance might be more acceptable if the garage roof had a different design. - The image of the house from the street could be improved. - Having the garage doors face the side lot lines is a good idea. - The cantilevered portion of the building on the south side is awkward. Consider removing it or placing lots of landscaping in front of it. - Consider a steeper roof pitch over the dwelling units. - Consider simplifying the roof structure. - Step the building down the hill to reduce the excessive building height. The Vedder duplex units will be accessed via asphalt driveways which approach the houses from the northwest and northeast at a grade of approximately 8-10%. The proposed two and one half story building is approximately 4,750 square feet in size, not including the garages. The maximum building height is 35.5'. There is a gas fireplace located in each unit. Exterior building materials are as follows: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Final Design Review - Medium cedar shake singles - 1" x 6" T&G cedar siding (Dusty Warm Grey) - Stucco (Slate Grey) - Cladded wood windows - Stucco deck pilasters - 2" x 6" x 10" cedar fascia - Stucco chimney chase A landscape plan and a grading and drainage plan has been submitted for the Commission's review. The grading plan shows that most site drainage will be directed toward four drains and carried off to either side of the building. The landscape plan shows a mixture of trees and shrubs. Disturbed areas will be revegetated with a native grass seed mix, wildflowers and sod. An automatic sprinkler system will be used for irrigation. STAFF COMMENTS The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of a proposed project: 6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: This proposal is in conformance with the Avon Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town, provided the accompanying front yard setback variance application is approved, and the excessive building height shown on the conceptual drawings has been corrected. 6.12 - The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. COMMENT: The type and quality of both building and landscaning materials are suitable with Town guidelines. All of the proposed building materials have been utilized 0 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Final Design Review throughout Wildridge on numerous occasions. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The siting and landscaping of the building is sympathetic to the adjacent residFntial property. All grading will be contained within lot lines. The applicant has made a number of design changes to the building in an effort to improve it's compatibility, especially on the building's north elevation. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: The property slopes toward the south at approximately 26%. The building appears to be integrated pretty well with the topography. 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: The apearance cf this residence trom neighboring properties and public ways seems acceptable. The applicant has addressed all of the comments made by the Planning and Zoning Commission at conceptual review. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposal is in conformance with the adopted goals, policies and programs of the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this design review application with the following condition: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7,1992 Page 4 of 4 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Final Design Review - Those portions of the concrete driveway thresholds and lanterns located in the utility easements will need review and approval from all utility companies prior to the issuance of a building permit. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, tnuttelannerP�Gt�1?sc-t Jim Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn Date Patti Dixon, Secreta The Commission tabled this item with a strong canceptual endorsement, to allow the applicant to address concerns that the Commission had regarding the safety of the driveways and the allowance for snow removal snow shed a more detaile landscape plan the safety of the sod roof and more hardlined elevations so that the Commission could see more ,1� STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 16, Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Saddleridge Towrhomes Building Color Change Request Design Review INTRODUCTION: Gregg Sanders, on behalf of the Saddleridge Townhomes Association, is requesting design review approval to change the color of the five-plex building on Lot 16, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. The building is currently stained with a semi -transparent rust colored stain with a brown trim. The new colors being proposed for the building are as follows: Building Material 1" x 6" Cedar Lap Siding Front Door Garage Doors Door & Window Trim Fascia & Deck Rails Color Devoe #SC -12 Creekside Natural Wood Devoe #SC -12 Creekside Devoe #1D22C Wizard Devoe #1D22C Wizard All of the above listed colors will be applied as a solid body stain. Color chips will be presented at the meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and discussion of proposed material change request. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Presentation of application 2. Applicant's Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, � � �,,, v, e� Jim CurnUtte Town Planner Planner STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZUNING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Lot 16, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Saddleridge Townhomes Building Color Change Request Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( Continued ( Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( Date1 W Patti Dixon, Secretary After considerable discussion by the Commission and Applicant regarding the colors proposed the Commission tabled this item until the next meeting and asked the Applicant to provide other colors for the Commission to consider. ,., L: L�] 2STAF, =PORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July . 1992 or. Lots 13, 14, 15, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision we Buck Creek Condominiums Building Color Change Request Design Review INTRODUCTION: Gregg Sanders, or behalf of the Buck Creek Condominium Association, is requesting design review approval to change the color of the two ten-plex and one fourteen-plex buildings on Lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The buildings are currently sided with stucco (Sr)erwin Williams - August Moon) and red cedar siding (coated with a clear linseed oil). The new colors being proposed for the building are as follows: Stucco: The applicant has indicated that they will try to match the existing color as nearly as possible All Wood Surfaces: Will receive the Devoe #SC -23 Country Redwood Stain. Front dpprs will be left as is. Color chips of the proposed colors will be presented at the meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and discussion of proposed material change request. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Presentation of application 2. Applicant's Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, AV Jim Curnutte Town Planner `�T STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 2 a Lot 13, 14, 15, Block 2, Benchmark :at Beaver Creek Subdivision Buck Creek Condominiums Building Color Change Request Design Review we PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued (Denied ( ) Withdrawn ) Date Patti Dixon, Secretar At the applicant's request the Commission tabled this item until the next STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 109, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Sherman/Peters/Lane Duplex Building Material Change Request Design Review INTRODUCTION: On February 4, 1992, Charlie Sherman, Peggy Peters, and Larry Lane received final design review approval for a duplex on Lot 109, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. The exterior building materials approved at that time included stucco siding, cedar shake shingles, stone facing on deck support columns and foundation walls, and wood windows and doors (cedar siding on garage doors. The applicants are now proposing a change to the approved roof material, from cedar shingles to asphalt shingles. The building owners wish to use the 320 lb per square Tamko Heritage II shingle. The color will be rustic slate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and discussion of proposed material change request. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Presentation of application 2. Applicant's Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Town Planner j STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Lot 109, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Sherman/Peters/Lane Duplex Material Change Request Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTIONN Approved as submitted ( — 1 approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn Date Patti Dixon, Secretary The fommiction gr ntPd approval for tha ratniactad rhanga from rariar o STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COh,MISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Bristol Pines Townhomes Material Change Request Design Review INTRODUCTION: On March 19, 1991, Mountain Coast Homes, Inc., received final design review and fractionalization approval for the 14 unit Bristol Pines Townhouse prcject on Lot 70, Block 1, Bencrmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The project consists of two buildings containing six and eight units respectively. The eight-plex building will house 4 two bedroom units and 4 three bedroom uni-rs. The six-plex building will be comprised of 4 two bedroom units and 2 three bedroom units. The residential portion of the buildings are located on the upper three levels, with one car garages, a mechanical room and some storage space located on the lower level. All of the units include a gas fireplace. The Staff report presented to the Planning Commission on March 19, 1991, specifies the following exterior building materials: - Redwood and stucco siding - Cedar shingles - Aluminum clad windows - Metal deck railings - Spherical pendant lights During the meeting one of the Commission members asked the applicants representative, Mark Donaldson, if redwood siding is really going to be used on the building. Mr. Donaldson stated that since the applicant was considering a solid body stain for the siding he didn't want to commit to redwood, but stated that it would be some type of wood siding. In early May, Mountain Coast Homes, Inc. submitted a building permit applica:.ion for construction of the project. During staff review of the construction drawings, it became apparent that a number of changes from the original design review approvals were being proposed (fenestration, siding, removal of pendant lights, etc.) Staff feels comfortable approving the proposed changes on a staff level with the exception of the following: - Change from cedar shingles to asphalt shingles. The applicant would like to use the 360 lb. per square Timberline shingle. The color will be weathered wood. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNIN13 AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Bristol Pines Townhomes Material Change Request Design Review - Change from natural board siding to masonite siding. Mr. Donaldso, has indicated to staff that when he told the Commission on March 13, 1991, that he wanted to leave the siding type open he thought thct included masonite. On June 16, 1992, the Planning Commission tabled this application to allcw the applicant time to get together with the Beacon Hill Homeowners to make them aware of, and hopefully obtain their concurran:e for, the proposed changes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and discussion of proposed material change request. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Presentation of application 2. Applicant's Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte ryy� Town Planner 41 41 a y .�N STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Bristol Pines Townhomes Material Change Request Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions (--)Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continue ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn 7 Date Patti Dixon, Se.retary v The Commission granted approval of the siding material change from cedar siding to masonite siding and also approved the proposed architectural changes. ft M STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 95, Block i, Wildridge Subdivision Gossett Duplex Final Design Review INTRODUCTION David Gossett, with Marcal Construction, Inc., has submitted a final design review application for a duplex on Lot 95, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Lot 95 is 0.45 of an acre (19,602 sq. ft.) in size and is located on Old Trail Road. The Gossett duplex received conceptual design review on June 16, 1992. The Planning and Zoning Commission offered the following comments at the meeting. - At final review, submit carefully conceived grading/drainage and landscape plans. - The north and east elevations of the building need a lot more work to add interest. - Consider a chnage in massing (north elevation), not Just a change in building materials. - Consider putting the garage doors on two different elevations of the building. - More landscaping is needed at the entrance and along the drive. The Gossett duplex will be accessed via a 14' wide asphalt driveway which approaches the house from the southwest at approximately 10%. A landscape/grading/site plan has been submitted for the Conmission's review. The proposed two story duplex is approximately 5,200 square feet in size, not including the two car garage for each unit. Maximum building height is 28'. There is a gas fireplace in the living room of each unit, aE well a- a second story deck adjacent to each unit's living roj.n. Exterior building materials are as follows: - 310 lb. per square Timberline asphalt shingles (sla*�e blend) - 1" x 8" channel lap cedar siding (forst green) - Stucco (light peach or beige) i STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Lot 95, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Gossett Duplex Final Design Review - 2" x 6" rough sawn cedar fascia (forest green) - Metal clad wood windows (white) - Copper on chimney caps, flashings and flues - Exposed aggregate walls next to driveway STAFF COMMENTS The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of a proposed project: 6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other, applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: This proposal is in conformance with the zoning code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. 6.12 - The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. COMMENT: The type and quality _r both the building and landscape materials are suitable with Town guidelines. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The siting and landscaping of the building is sympathetic to the adjacent residential property. all grading will be contained within lot lines. The applicant has made a number of changes to the building in response to the Commission's comments at the conceptual review meeting. 6.14 - The compatibility of the proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: Staff feels that the proposed building is compatible with the existing and amended topography of the site. �N 'IN STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lot 95, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Gossett Duplex Final Design Review 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: Landscape clusters have been provided throughout the property and all disturbed areas will be revegetated with a high altitude grass and wildflower mix. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesLhetic will be impaired. COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposal is in conformance with the aoonted goals, policies and programs of the Town of Avon, with the exceptions previously noted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this final design application with the following condition: 1. Issuance of a building permit will be subject to Town Engineer review and approval of the grading/drainage plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action �N '01N STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Lot 95, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Gossett Duplex Final Design Review Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Town Planner Cs' PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied Withdrawn ( ) c Date �14Patti Dixon, Secretary � a�- The Commission denied this application as proposed feeling that this presentation was more of a conceptual nature, than a final design review STAFF REPORT TO (HE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lots 2 and 4, Sunroad Subdivision Denny's Restaurant Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Jim Mcrter, of Morter Architects, on behalf of Kevin Killham, has requested final design review approval for a 5.066 square foot Denny's Restaurant on Lots 2 and 4 of tl,e Sunroad Subdivision. The combined lot area is 47,218 square feet. The building site coverage is 10% (5,066 sq. ft.), tire total impervious area, including the building, is 65% (30,668 sq. ft.), leaving 35% (16,580 sq. ft.) of the site as landscape area. The parking requirement is for 31 spaces and 48 have been provided. Building materials consist of stucco with aluminum window systems and a standing seam metal roof. The stucco color 1s beige and the roof is a blue green color. Actual color samples will be provided at the meeting. The design review request includes the building signage. The building frontage is 135 feet long and the sign code allows one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage. The sign program consists of four separate Denny's signs, one on each building elevation. The north and south elevation signs are 19.8 square feet each and the east and west elevation signs are 31.5 square feet each, for a total square footage of 102.6. The signs are constructed of individual can letters. The sign color will be presented at the meeting. At the conceptual review of June 16, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission listed as concerns the screenir: of mechanical equipment, the n3ed for substantial, matu;-e landscaping, and concerns with the phasing of the development and the site plan as related to the proposed commercial area. The architecture of the building has been amended to provide for complete screening of the roof top equipment from ground level. A landscape plan has been submitted and the landscape treatment proposed by adjacent developments has been reviewed and considered. The commercial/retail portion of the development has been deleted and the site plan has been amended to reflect this change. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Lots 2 and 4, Sunroad Subdivision Denny's Restaurant Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of a proposed project: 6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: This project is in conformance with the Avon Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town. 6.12 - The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. COMMENT: The type and quality of the materials are very similar to existing development within the area. The stucco building and metal roof forms are very appropriate for this site. The Staff has not seen an actual roof color sample yet, but we do have concerns with the selection of a blue-green color. It may be more appropriate to use a dark tone roof color in the application. The site plan indicates that four site lights will be located around the parking perimeter. No detail has been shown for these lights and it may be appropriate to utilize the same light the Town has chosen to utilize. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The grading and landscape plans have been designed to compliment both the Post Office plans and the Avon Streetscape plana. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: The proposed improvement; are very compatible with the site topography. 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and n-ighboring STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lots 2 and 4, Sunroad Subdivision Denny's Restaurant Final Design Review properties and public ways. COMMENT: The architectural style and building materials are appropriate for this application and will present a fine visual appearance. The architect has devised a creative and positive method of screening the roofing equipment. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs or the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposed improvements are in conformance with the adopted goals, policies and programs of the Town of Avon from a design standpoint. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for approval. There are several areas of the application that do need to be addressed, however. A color sample of the proposed roof material should be reviewed and u1scussed. A muted color palette is suggested in the design guidelines. The site should be reviewed to ensure compatibility with the design. The light source should not be directly visible. A condition of approval is that the existing property line separating Lots 2 and 4 must be vacated prior to issuance of a building permit. s • s e -� -N STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Lots 2 and 4, Sunroad Subdivision Denny's Restaurant Final Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, ?1( C ?Y4_V-.vAs Rick Pylman Director of Community Developmnt PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submi ed ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdra Date Patti Dixon, Secret The Commission granted final design approval with the following conditions: 1 Move the western portion of the loop drive further west to allow for more landscaping closer to the building, subiect to staff approval; 2 A minimum of 2 inch caliper for the aspen, with the recommendation that they be 3 inch 3 A nuted color palette be used 4 Ensure site compatibility with the design, light source should not be directly visible; 5. The existing property line separating Lots 2 h 4 mist be vacated prior to the issuance of a building permit STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Design and Construction Services, Inc. ilridgewater Terrace Tri-plex Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Earlier this year Tony Seibert, representing Design and Construction Services, Inc., received approval for three six-plex buildings on Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The property is zoned for 21 units and the site plan for the six-plex buildings indicated a tri-plex would be a future phase of development. The tri-plex is located in the western end of the ,evelopment, now known as Bridgewater Terrace Condominiums. The building is a three story gable roof form. Building materials are 1 x 8 cedar channel lap siding and asphalt shingles. Site plan revisions include new landscaping and five additional parking spaces. The site plan does show an encroachment of asphalt over the property line at the west end of the site. All improvements must be within the property lines of Lot 8. STAFF COMMENTS The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of a proposed project: 6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and oth r applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: With the exception of the asphalt ,encroachment over the property line at the west end, this project is in conformance with the Avon 'oning Code and other a?plicable rules and regulations of the Town. All site plan improvements must be within the boundaries of Lot B. 6.12 - The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. COMMENT: The previously approved six-plex buildings utilized both cedar siding and stucco as building materials. The proposed building would be enhanced by adding some stucco accent elements. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 3 Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Design and Construction Services, inc. Bridgewater Terrace Tri-plex Final Design Review 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The site plan shows an encroachment of asphalt onto the railroad right-of-way which is not allowable. Otherwise, this proposal conforms to this criteria. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: The proposed improvements work very well with the site topography. 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: This building should present a fine visual appearance from adjacent areas, although the addition of an additional building material would help break up the large elevations of this building. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Prigrams of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposed improvements are in conformance with the adopted goals, policies and programs of the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this proposal with the condition that all improvements fall within the property lines of Lot 8. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 3 of 3 Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Design and Construction Services, Inc. Bridgewate Terrace Tri-plex Final Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, WC V- W(- vwl�lj Rick Pylman Director of Community Developmnt PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ) Denied ( ) With Date Patti Dixon, Secreta The Commission granted final design approval to Bridgewater Terrace Unit D with the following conditions: 1. That the fence be approved from a six foot fence to a ten foot fence; 2. That the trim color be changed from a blue/teal to a white. 3. That the applicant submit a revised site plan showing all improvements on his property, and demonstrate to the staff's satisfaction that the additional parking spaces do function properly. 4. That stucco be added to Unit D to match the previously approved buildings. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot A, Avon Center Subdivision Avon Center Building Sign Program Amendment Design Review INTRODUCTION Larry Ast of High Tech Signs, on behalf of Shapiro Development Co., owner of the Avon Center Commercial Building, is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Program approved for Lot A, Avon Center Subdivision. The existing sign program allows tenant signs as follows: 1. Only back -lit pan channel letters matching the existing tenant signs and lettering style, color and finish may be used. 2. All new tenant signs shall be similarly mounted only on first level roof fascias as are the existing tenant signs. 3. A maximum of sixteen tenant cigns shall be allowed as follows: a. Up to ten tenant signs may be up to sixteen square feet each. b. The remainder shall be no more than ten square feet each. C. The post office tenant sign as curently exists may be placed in two locations and shall accordingly count as two tenant signs. The purpose of amending the sign program is primarily ;o clarify a number of sections in the program that have previously been somewhat ambiguous. The new program would provide more definitive controls on the type, size and location of proposed tenant identification signing. The secondary purpose of the amendment is to allow tenants to divide their total sign area allowance into a combination of individual letters Find cabinet sign (where the cabinet sign does not exceed 50% of the total sign) if they choose. Also, a company logo will be specifically allowed, and a section on temporary signage has been added. The total number, size, and location of the signs allowed has not changed from the previously approved sign program. STAFF REPORT July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 5 TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Lot A, Avon Center Subdivision Avon Centc,r Building Sign Program Amendment Design Review STAFF COMMENTS Staff recommends that the Commission review this submittal in conjunction with the following "Sign Design Guidelines" and review criteria from the Sign Code. Section 15.28.060 Sign Design Guidelines: A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious ,:ith the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood, and with the townscape. B. Harmonious with Building Scale. The sign should be harmonious with the building scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself. C. Materials. Quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass -faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission. D. Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures. E. Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping. 1. A minimum of five lineal feet out from, and around the perimeter of, the sign shall be landscaped. STAFF REPORT July 7, 1992 Page 3 of 5 TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Lot A, Avon Center Subdivision Avon Center Building Sign Prigram Amendment Design Review F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed. G. Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturbing manner. H. Location. On multi -story building, individual business signs shall generally be limited to the ground lever. SECTION 15.28.070 - Design Review Criteria In addition to the sign Design Guidelines listed above, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewing proposed designs: A. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located: COMMENT: The proposed amendment is very suitable with the building. The sign types allowed in the amendment are the same as the previous program, with the exception the cabinet signs are specifically addressed. The new program provides a maximum ratio (50%) of total sign area that may be made up of cabinet sign area. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements: COMMENT: The sign materials appear to be compatible with surrounding properties. The nearest completed building to the Avon Center is the 1st Bank building, which also has white faced individual letters. There are currently no cabinet signs in the Town Center zone district. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 4 of 5 Lot A, Avon Center Subdivision Avon Center Building Sign Program Amendment Design Review The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement: COMMENTS: The quality of the proposed sign materials are quite acceptable. D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property: COMMENT: The only visual change in this amendment from the existing program would be to allow up to ',alf of each new tenant's sign to be in a cabinet sign. E. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired. COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code, and are appropriate for the project. COMMENT: The type, height, size and quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code and appear to be appropriate for the project. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedistrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. COMMENT: These signs are primarily oriented to vehicular traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the proposed sign program amendment with the following comment: 1. The Commission may want to consider limiting the ratio of cabinet sign area to individual letter area to STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 5 of 5 Lot A, Avon Center Subdivision Avon Center Building Sign Program Amendment Design Review something less than 50% of the total sign area. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action /Respectfully submitted, L/ Jim rnutte Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submi d ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Contin ued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn Date tti Dixon, Secretary \ The sion granted approval of the sign program amendment, with the condition that the cabinet sign area be limited to a maximum of 35%. .�\ STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNI!;G AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Wessely Chambers for H & W Therapy Sign Variance and Design Review INTRODUCTION Wesse,y Chambers, representing H & W Therapy, is requesting a sign variance and design review approval to allow for the placement cf a sign that is not in conformance with the approved sign program. The approved sign program for the building limits the tenant identification signs to 20 square feet. Individual letters (6" to 18' high) are to be mounted on a painted (white) steel mesh backing. The letters must be the same :olor as, or a shade darker than, the corresponding tower color (blue or green). The painted steel mesh backing is to be located in the building tower openings. Store #5 (Domino's space) may split their 20 square feet of sign allowance between the two available frontages (north and east). All signs are to be indirectly illuminated by the existing suspended spot lights. H & W Therapy has signed a lease to occupy space #1, which is located on the south end of the builuing. They have requested the variance for the following two purposes: To allow them to split their 20 square feet of sign allowance between the east and south facing tower frontage. No increase in sign square footage is proposed. The applicant has indicated That the request is necessary for them to have adequate exposure to Avon Medical Center, which is the primary source of physical therapy referrals in the arra. 2. To allow them to use medium blue colored letters and logo on their sign rather than the teal green specified in the sign program. All other provisions of the sign program will be complied with. The owner of the building has reviewed the applicant's variance request and has no objections. The following variance procedure must be followed for reviewing a variance request as per Section 15.28.090. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Before acting on a variance request, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Wessely Chambers for H & W Therapy Sign Variance and Design Review a. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. COMMENT: The relationship of the proposed signs to existing and potential sigrs on the building seems acceptable. The Domino's sign area was divided into two faces and uses colors not specifically called out in the sign program. The Domino's sign was approved by variance in 1991 and does not appear to significantly detract from the intent of the sign program. b. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. COMMENT: The degree to which the applicant has requested relief from the strict provisions of the sign program appears to be the minimum necessary in order to i v'a th it p::r�<;ivc;d hardship. C. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. COMMENTS: Staff has no further comment. STAFF COMMENTS FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Wessely Chambers for H & W therapy Sign Variance and Design Review ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as submitted. The degree to which this proposal differs from the sign program for the building is so slight that it would not appear that approving the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. In addition, the variance seems warranted because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Avon Sign Code. Staff further recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission allow H & W Therapy to install a white and blue banner on the building until such time as the permanent signs are installed or August 1, 1992, which ever comes first. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner /er� '"1 ?00%� STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Wessely Chambers for H & W Therapy Sign Variance and Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION / Approved as submitted ( ✓)/ Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Contin ed ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawr�.�_ 1 DatePattiDixon, SecretaryC���! The Commission granted approval of the sign variance for H & W Therapy, citing the following findigns: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicintiy; and B-3 That the variance is warranted since the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lot2, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Mountain Comfort Furnishings Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION Joe Matyk, representing Mountain Comfort Furnishings is requesting a conceptual design review hearing for a 7,127 square foot furniture store on Lot 2, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. This project was previously reviewed on May 19th and the Planning and Zoning Commission had the following comments: - Concrete block may not be appropriate. - Elevation to I-70 is important. - Concrete block needs to have some inviting interest. - Take a look at sidewalks. - The mansart roof is not sat,sfactory/prefer pitched roof. - More detail/design work and blend in the landscaping. - Too much pavement/more landscaping needed. - Upgrade exterior finishes to be compatible with others in area. - Pursue arrangement with C -Mart for backdoor access. - Image to I-70 and Nottingham Road are equally important. - Separate the service and the front door. Contiguous material around the perimeter of the building, perhaps bay windows. The primary building material is still concrete block, however, some architectural design changes have been made. The I-70 elevation has improved and the building entry is more interesting. A gable roof has been added and the loading area and front entrance have been separated. STAFF COMMENTS As this is a conceptual review, no formal action will be taken at this time. Staff would refer the Planning and Zoning Commission to the comments made in the May 19th review and would also share one additional concern. The applicant has calculated the parking for this building at 22 spaces. This was arrived at by calculating 4737 square feet at the retail rate of 4/1000 sq. ft. and 2390 square feet at the storage/warehouse rate of 1/800 sq. ft.. The Staff does not believe this is an appropriate way to calculate the parking demand. It is very possible for the builcing to outlast the proposed ucF It is unlikely that STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Lot 2, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Mountain Comfort Furnishings Conceptual Design Review any other retail tenant would require that much storage area. Storage is not an allowed primary use in this zone district so the space could not be leased separately as wareho,ise space. The staff believes that there is a high potential for this space to be converted to retail use. The parking demand for this building should be calculated to allow flexibility for future use. The appropriate parking demand for this building is 28 parking spaces. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully submitted, lc_ �C Rick Pylman Director of Community Development Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 7, 1992 Lot 45, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Sam Ecker Residence Material Change Request Although this item was not scheduled for this meeting Mr. Ecker requested approval to change his proposed roofing material of woodruf to asphalt shingles The Commission granted said shange with the condition that they be a weathered wood color and at least 300 lbs per STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Lott, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Mountain Cc,nfort Furnishings Conceptual Dasign Review INTRODUCTION Joe Matyk, representing Mountain Comfort Furnishings is requesting a conceptual design review hearing for a 7,127 square foot furniture store on Lot 2, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. This project was previously reviewed on May 19th and the Planning and Zoning Commission had the following comments: - Concrete block may not be appropriate. - Elevation to I-70 is important. - Concrete block needs to have some inviting interest. - Take a look at sidewalks. - The mansart roof is not satisfactory/prefer pitched roof. - More detail/design work and blend in the landscaping. - Too much pavement/more landscaping needed. - Upgrade exterior finishes to be compatible with others in area. - Pursue arrangement with C -Mart for backdoor access. - Image to I-70 and Nottingham Road are equally important. - Separate the service and the front door. - Contiguous material around the perimeter of the building, perhaps bay windows. The primary building material is still concrete block, however, sone architectural design changes have been nade. The I-70 e'evation has improved and the building entry is more interesting. A gable roof has been added and the loading area and front entrance have been separated. STAFF COMMENTS As this is a conceptual review, no formal action will oe taken at this time. Staff would refer the Planning and Zoning Commission to the comments made in the May 19tn review and would also share one additional concern. The applicant has calculated the parking for this building at 22 spaces. This was arrived at by calculating 4737 square feet at the retail rate of 4/1000 sq. ft. and 2390 square feet at the storage/warehouse rate of 1/800 sq. ft.. The Staff does not believe this is an appropriate way to calculate the parking demand. It is very possible for the building to outlast the proposed use. It is unlikely that STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Lot 2, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Mountain Comfort Furnishings Conceptual Design Review any other retail tenant would require that much storage area. Storage is not an allowed primary use in this zone district so the space could not be leased separately as warehouse space. The staff believes that there is a high potential for this space to be converted to retail use. The parking demand for this building should be calculated to allow flexibility for future use. The appropriate parking demand for this building is 28 parking spaces. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully submitted, Rick Pylman Director of Community Development am CA