Loading...
PZC Packet 042192STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Lot 1, Lodge at Avon Avon Towne Square Request for Extension INTRODUCTION: Subdivision of Design Review Approval The owners of Lot 1, Lodge at Avon Subdivision have requested a one year extension of their design review approval for the Avon Towne Square project. Final design approval for the Avon Towne Square was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 15, 1990. As specified by Section 11.00 of the Avon Design Procedures, Rules and Regulations, "approval for a project, shall lapse and become void two years following the date of final approval unless a building permit for project construction is issued. The applicant may apply to the Planning and Zoning commission for approval of a maximum extension of one rear." The Avon Towne Square project consists of a tQt-Al gross square footage of 45,000 square feet. The project is designed with a main buildinq of 40,000 square feet in three stories. The first floor will he retail, with office, retail and restaurant uses above. A secondary building of 5,000 square feet is planned as a free-standirg restaurant site. There are 181 parking spaces on the property with a loading berth for each building site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission grant a one (1) year extension of the final design approval for the Avon Towne Square project on Lot 1, Lodge at Avon Subdivision. RECOMMENDED ACTION Presentation of application 2. Applicant's Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, JGsvrt. ��-vL� Jim Curnutte Town Planner STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Mal Page 2 of 2 Lot 1, Lodge at Avon Subdivision 0 Avon Towne Square Request for Extension cf Design Review Approval PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued (� Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( Date Patti Dixon, Secretary Q�?� The Commission tabled this item until the May 5, 1992 regular meeting, stating that they would feel more comfortable about extending the design review approval if the applicant would attend the next meeting to respond to questions that the Commission felt were still unanswered at the original design review. AFA14, 00� STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Lot 58, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Bill and Esther Jones Single Family Residence Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Bill and Ester Jones have requested final design review of a single family home on Lot 58, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Lot 58 is 2.17 acres (94,525 square feet) in size, however, slightly more than half of the lot (49,500 square feet) is platted as "non -developable area" within which no development is allowed. The size of the remaining developable portion of the lot is 45,025 square feet. Lot 58 is located at the corner of West Wildridge Road and June Point. The lot slopes toward the southwest at 30-40% on the east side of the lot and 15-30% on the west side of the lot. Existing grade in the area of the proposed residence appears to be approximately 20%. The landscape plan submitted in conjunction with this house is very conceptual in nature. On May 21, 1991, the applicant received a final design review approval for a different single family home on Lot 58. [he building and grading costs associated with that approval exceeded the applicant's construction budget. the applicant's have redesigned the house somewhat, and have moved its location closer to the road. The May 21, 1991 approval included the following four conditions: Driveway entrance must conform with Town standards. 2. A revised grading plan be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Applicant provide a detailed landscape plan. 4. Color samples and numbers be supplied for the record. On February 4, 1992, Mr. Jones received conceptual design review of the new single family residence. The Planning and Zoning Commission comments at that time were: 1. The applicant review the detailing on the dormer; 2. The applicant review the roof lines as they connect into the garage element. STAFF REPORT TO April 21, 1992 Page 2 of 4 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Lot 58, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Bill and Esther Jones Single Family Residence Final Design Review 3. The applicant provide a more complete landscaping plan and site plan. The building is two stories high (26' max.) and has gable roofs. The living area is approximately 2,500 square feet. An attached two car garage is located at the southern end of the building. Exterior building materials include rustic channel cedar siding, cedar door and window trim, 6 panel wood doors, wood clad windows and asphalt shingles (Tamko Heritage 30). The chimney cap and all exposed foundation walls will be painted to match the building. A railroad tie retaining wall and planter area will be utilized on the north side of the entryway. The applicant wishes to utilize gutters and downspouts on portions of the building, however, the full extent of their use cannot be discerned by looking at the drawings. The driveway will be finished with asphalt. Proposed building colors will be discussed at the meeting. 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 type and quality of materials constructed and the site upon of the improvement, including of which it is to be which it is to be located. COMMENT: The building materials appear to be suitable with Town Guidelines. The applicant has chosen the most buildable portion of the lot to place his house. 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 n STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1pril 21, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lot 58, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Bill and Esther Jones Single Family kesidence Final Design Review grading will be contained within lot lines. This building is located on one of the most northerly lots in Wildridge and should not negatively impact solar and view corridors or the privacy of neighboring properties. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: The proposed building appears to be compatible with site topography, however, the boulder retaining walls on the north and south sides of the driveway do not appear to be adequately reflected on the grading and drainage plan. 5.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: The appearance of this residence as viewed from neighboring properties and public ways seems acceptable. 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 final design review application with the following conditions: 1. The driveway entrance must conform to Town standards. 2. A revised grading plan must be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 4 of d Lot 58, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Bill and Esther Jones Single Family Residence Final Design Review 3. A revised landscape plan must be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action RR�especrrt''ff,ulllyy _submitted, JimyCurnutte� Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Condition / Continued ) Denied ( ) WithdrawnL i Date Patti Dixon, Secretary�y The ComMission granted final design approval with the condition that a revised landscaoe plan show.inq more detail on the the landscapingand more detail_regaarding the boulder retaining wall be provided for Staff approval. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Medical Center New Sign Program and Variance Request Design Review INTRODUCTION Alan Aarons of Hightech Signs, representing the Avon Medical Center, a part of Vail Mountain Medical, is requesting approval of a new sign program on Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivison. The program includes 3 signs described as follows: 1_ Building Identification Sign - This sign consists of individual 6" and 14" cast aluminum letters with a white enamel finish. These letters will be mounted flush with the building's east wall and will Ue indirectly illuminated by ground mounted spot lights (3'.. The medical center's logo will be mounted next to the letters. This logo will be plastic with a white plexiglass face. The total square footage of sign area to be mounted on the building is 38.9. 2_ Monument Si -n - A 4' x 6' (24 square foot) monument sign is intended to be located at the southern end of Lot 70. This single faced sign will sit on top of a 3' x 6' brick wall. The bricks used on this wall will match the building. The sign will feature a bronze finish cabinet over a white lexan "solar" face. The sign will be internally illuminated, however, because of the bronze finish, only the letters themselves will be lit. Total sign height is approximately 7'6". The applicant has requested a variance in order to place this sign 3' from the front property line. 3. Exit Only Sign - This i' x 2' sign will be placed on the existing brick pedestal that had been used previously by the former building tenant (Commercial Federal). The box sign will match the colors used on the monument sign and will be used to warn cutomers not to turn into the southern driveway. A variance will also be necessary for this sign to be placed in the location shown on the site plan. The applicant will present color and material samples at the meeting. 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. W STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIJN April 21, 1992 Page 2 of 5 Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Cieek Subdivision Avon Medical Center New Sign Program and Variance Request Design Review Section 15.28.060 Sign Design Guidelines_ A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood, ana 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 aetermined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission. D. Architectural Harmony. The sign ana 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 teet out from, and around the perimeter of, the sign shall be landscaped. F. not allowed. G. wattage than and should properties. be directly Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surtaces are Lighting. Lighting should be or no greater is necessary to make the sign visible at night, not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and • w r STAFF REPORT TO April 21, 1992 Page 2 of 5 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Medical Center New Sign Program and Variance Request Design Review Section 15.28.060 Sign Design Guidelines_ A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious with 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 ano its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures. E. Landscaping. Landscaping is raquired for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping. 1. A minimum of five lineal feet cut from, and around the perimeter of, the sign shall be landscaped. F. not allowed. G. wattage than and should properties. be directly Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are Lighting. Lighting should be or no greater is necessary to make the sign visible at night, not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and t�' STAFF REPORT TO April 21, 1992 Page 3 of 5 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Medical Center New Sign Program and Variance Request Design Revieo 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.-__Desi_gn 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 whi;-h the sign is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located: COMMENT: The sign design guidelines encourage three dimensional individual letters, with or without indirect lighting such as those proposed to be mounted on the building. Sign materials such as interior -lit box -type plastic signs, similar to the proposed monument and exit only signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, 1T determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements: COMMENT: The sign program Tor the building located on Lot 69, to the north incudes individual blue metal letters (6" to 16high) motnter" on a white steel mesh backing. all signs are indirectly illuminated. The City Market building On Lots 67 and 68, across the street to the west uses internally lit plexiglass faced metal cabinet signs. The Avon Market Center building next to Wal-MSrL, the Annex Building on Lot 65/66 and the Buck Creek Plaza building on Lot 72 all identify their businesses with various sized, internally lit, plexiglass faced, individual letters. Both the Avon Market Center and the Annex building have freestanding project identification signs near their front STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 4 of 5 Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Medical Center New Sign Program and Variance Request Design Review property lines. C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement: COMMENTS: The quality of the materials to be utilized appears to be acceptable. D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property: COMMENT: The proposed signs would not appear to have a substantially negative visual impact as viewed from adjacent or neighboring property. 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: It would not appear that the proposed signage would negatively effect the values of surrounding properties. 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 does comply with the Avon Sign Code. An individual business lot is allowed one square foot of sign area per lineal foot of building front. Since this building has 75.5 feet of building frontage, the applicants proposal Tor 3 signs totaling approximately 65 square feet of sign area is well within the code's allowance. G. Whethar the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedistrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. COMMENT: This sign is primarily orienteo to vehicular traffic. W 1b 11101 14� STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNIN3 AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 5 of 5 Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Medical Center New Sign Program and Variance Request Design Review STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the proposed sign program as submitted with the exception of the location of the monument sign. A more detailed explanation of Staft's concerns with this sign's proposed location is contained in the accompanying variance Staff Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( `� r Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date -Patti Dixon, Secretary__. The Commission grante approval of the sign program as presented, with the condition that the monument sign be moved to a location where a variance would not be required. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Medical Center Sign Variance INTRODUCTION Alan Aarons of Hightech Signs, representing the Avon Medical Center, a part of Vail Mountain Medical, is requesting a front yard setback variance for two proposed monument signs on Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The applicant wishes to place 2 monument signs within 3 feet of the front lot line. These signs are further described as follows: Monument Sign: This sign is 4' x 6' x 1' and sits on top of a 3' x 6' x 1' brick pedestal. It is propo ed to be located at the southern end of the building directly across from East Benchmark Road. The applicant has stated that the variance from the 10' front yard setback is necessary for two reasons: 1. In order to comply with the setback requirement some of the existing landscaping would have to be removed. 2. Even if some landscaping are removed and the sign placed 10' back from the property line, it's visibility would be very poor because of the surrounding vegetation. Exit Only Sign: T!iis sign will be approximately I'x 2'x 6" and is intended tj be placed on the existing brick pedestal on the north side of the south driveway. The applicant has stated that a variance for this sign is necessary for two reasons: 1. In order to utillize the existing sign pedestal which already has electric capacity in place. 2. In order to move the sign back it would have to be located on the other side of the sidewalk which would significantly reduce it's visibility and may lead to a dangerous situation if someone pulls into this driveway from Beaver Creek Place. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Before acting on a variance request, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors. a. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. I• J W STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Lot 70, 3lock 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Medical Center Sign Variance Request COMMENT: The relationship of the proposed exit only sign to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity appears acceptable. The intended location of the southern monument sign however, would negatively affect an existing drainage swale and possibly impair or increase the cert of certain road improvements planned for Beaver Creek Place. 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 applicant's request to place the exit only sign on a sign pedestal that has been in the same location for approximately 10 years seems reasonable. The applicant's chosen location of the southern monument sign appears to be directed toward people approaching the building from East Benchmark Road to the south. Even at the location requested by the applicant (3' from the property line) visibility of the sign face from either direction on Beaver Creek Place is minimal until you are almost perpendicular with the sign. Therefore, it would seem that sign visibility would not be negr. ly affected and possibly improved, if ii, were placed at 10' from the property line. It appears that the degree to which the applicant has requested relief from the strict provisions of the code are excessive. C. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. COMMENTS: Again staff would point out that the proposed location of the southern monument sign may interfere with future road work along Beaver Creek Place. 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. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Medical Center Sign Variance Request COMMENT: The relationship of the proposed exit only sign to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity appears acceptable. The intended location of the southern monument sign however, would negatively affect an existing drainage swale and possibly impair or increase the cost of certain road improvements planned for Beaver Creek Place. b. The degree to which relief from the Ftrict 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 applicant's request to place the exit only sign on a sign pedestal that has been in the same location for approximately 10 years seems reasonable. The applicant's chosen location of the southern monument sign appears to be directed toward people approaching the buiiding from East Benchmark Road to the south. Even at the location requested by the applicant (3' from the property line) visibility of the sign face from either direction on Beaver Creek Place is minimal until you are almost perpendicular with the sign. Therefore, it would seem that sign visibility would not be negatively affected and possibly improved, if it were placed at least 10' from the property line. It appears that the degree to which the applicant has requested relief from the strict provisions of the code are excessive. C. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. COMMENTS: Again staff would point out that the proposed location of the southern monument sign may interfere with future road work along Beaver Creek Place. 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. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Medical Center Sign Variance Request. 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; 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: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for the exit only sign. Although this sign has similar conditions as the southern monument sign (3' from property line) a sign had been located in this location for approximately the last 10 years. Approving the variance request would serve the purpose of legitimizing it's continued use. Staff recommends denial o:` the requested variance for the southern monument sign. Granting the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistant with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity (The Narket Center and Annex monument signs located directly across the street from the Medical Center both meet the 10' setback requirement). Also it would not appear that the strict or literial interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incons.stent with the objectives of this title. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Lot 70, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Subdivision Avon Medical Center Sign Variance Request RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn DatePatti Dixon, Secretar. The Commission granted a variance for the exit only sign but denied the variance for the monument sign, citing the findings that the qranting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege in- consistent with the limitations on other Droperties in thevicinity; and the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. --, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Lots 2-12, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision Jeff Spanel for Eagleberd Partnership Eaglebend Clubhouse Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Jeff Spanel, on behalf of Eaglebend Partnership, is proposing to construct a Community Center building (Eaglebend Clubhouse) on Lots 2-12, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision. On July 19, 1990 and July 26, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council, respectively, approved the Design Review, Fractionalization, and SPA Amendment requests for the Eaglebend Apartment complex. Tne approved plan consisted of 20-12 unit buildings, a community center building, approximately 450 covered and uncovered parking spaces, laundry and storage facilities and vgarious recreational and open space amenities. Since the community center building had not been fully designed at the time the rest of the project was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, their approval included a condition that the applicant present the plans for the center for final design review prior to its construction. On April 7, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed clubhouse at a conceptual level. The Commission made the following comments/suggestions: - The sidewalk on the far east side of the property should not encroach into the public right-of-way. - The parking spaces must meet the Town's minimum size standards. - The boiler flue should be painted to match the building. - The fence around the children's play area should be stepped down rather than sloped and siding should be provided on both sides of the fence. - Put lots of landscaping in front of the tence. - Glean up the area on the west where the posts are sticking up. The community center building is two stories high (35') and will be set back 30 feet from the east property line. The building will have approximately 5,120 square feet of habitable area and will t se a day care operation, social STAFF REPORT TO April 21, 1992 Page 2 of 5 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Lots 2-12, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership Eaglebend Clubhouse Final Design Review room, laundry room, offices (managers, day care, etc.) and storage space. The day care facility will be accessed on the south side of the building at grade, however, direct access to the 2nd level social room will be accomplished with berming on the north side of the building. The day care facility will have a play yard on the east side of the building. The play area will be surrounded with a 4' cedar fence. This fence will step down in the direction of grade, 12' (maximum) sections as requested at conceptual review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A 4' wide concrete walk will be installed along the entire south, east and half of the nDrth sides of the building. Exterior building materials include horizontal hardboard siding (meteor color) wood doors and attic vents (yellow) SGD windows (olympic white) and asphalt shingles. All wall caps, roofcaps, flashing, etc., will be painted to match adjacent surfaces. 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: The proposed community center building is in conformance with the approved PUD plan. In fact, the Avon Town Council specifically conditioned their approval of the plan upon the eventual construction of the community building. 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 building architecture and material selection are very consistent with the 20 12-plex buildings which surround this proposed building. The fence that surrounds the day care facility play area will be double sided with the same hardboard siding used on the building and capped with a 2" x 6" board. STAFF REPORT TO April 21, 1992 Page 3 of 5 r THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Lots 2-12, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership Eaglebend Clubhouse Final Design Review 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties COMMENT: The plan presented for conceptual review showed that the sidewalk on the east side of the building encroached into the public right-of-way. The new plan shows that the sidewalk encroachment has been removed from the right-of-way. The applicant has also deleted a proposed basketball court from the plan and replaced it with a volleyball court in an effort to address resident desires and improve compatibillity with nearby buildings. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography. COMMENT: The proposed improvements appear to work well with the existing topography. The large bermed area on the north side of the building is necessary in order to meet handicapped access requirements. The bermed area on the east side of the building is a result of the grading necessary to provide the handicap access ramp and an effort to contain and screen the day care play area. 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: The visual appearance of the building seems acceptable. "he landscape plan for the immed4ate area surrounding the builL;ing has beer provided as suggested 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: The proposed building is very compatible with the existing Eaglebend ApaiLment uuiiding5. The architectural style and exterior building materials of the Eaglebend project has previously been determined to be acceptable in the neighborhood. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 4 of 5 Lots 2-12, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership Eaglebend Clubhouse Final Design Review 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposed community building would further many of the Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon. The day care facility will provide care for as many as 50-70 children. The community room and surrounding recreational amenities will provide meeting places and opportunities for social interaction among the neighborhood residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of this final design review application with the following conditions: 1. The final plat for this property must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Final review and approval of proposed landscaping and regrading in the public right-of-way by the Town Engineer and Public Works Department. 3. The southside parking spaces must. meet Town minimum size requirements. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review a. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Town Planner ,may #A'N STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 5 of 5 Lots 2-12, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership Eaglebend Clubhouse Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ✓) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date Patti Dixon, Secretary The Commission granted final design review for the Eaglebend Clubhouse with the recommendation to substitute the lift in lieu of the ramp, if at all possible, and the condition that the final plat be recorded prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Tract B, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision The Alpines at Eaglebend Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION Jeff Spanel and Russell Thrasher, on behalf of Eaglebend Partnership, are requesting conceptual review of a proposed development project on Tract B, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision. This property was originally platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision. The property was 3.19 acres or 138,751 square feet in size. On August 22, 1989, a final plat was approved which amended Lot 1 and created the following lots: Tract A - .131 acre - Open Space Lot 1 - .105 acre - 1 dwelling unit Lot 2 - .139 acre - 1 dwelling unit Tract B - 2.81 acres - 30 dwelling units At the present time, the zoning on Tract B allows the following uses: Duplex Multi -family dwellings Condominiums Townhouses Apartments Accessory buildings and uses It is the applicants intention to apply for a PUD amendment for the purpose of adding single family dwellings as an allowed use on Tract B from those stated above to a single family designation. The preliminary PUD Guide for this project also includes an allowance for one rental apartment per unit as an allowed use. The PUD amendment process requires a public hearing and review and approval from both the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. THE PROJECT The applicants intend to subdivide Tract B into 19 single family lots ranging in size from 5,000 to 7,000 square feet. Two units will share a common driveway carrying out the theme begun by the existing units on Lots 1 and 2. Lots 17, 18 and 19 will all share a common driveway. Each home will be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the front lot line, 10 feet from the rear lot line and 7 feet from side lot lines. STAFF REPORT TO April 21, 1992 Page 2 of n THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Tract B, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision The Alpines at Eaglebend Conceptual Design Review Maximum building heights will be limited to 35 feet. Maximum building site coverage will not exceed 25% nor will the total habitable area of the buildings exceed 40% of the area of the lot. The applicants intend to offer potential buyers their choice of 4 different home models, ranging from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet each, including unfinished basements. Each house will include a 2 car garage, fireplace, asphalt shingles and hardboard siding. There will be four different building colors and trim/accent colors to choose from. No two similar house models will be placed next to each other. STAFF COMMENTS As this is a conceptual review, no staff recommendation will be made at this time. However, staff would like to point out that only certified solid fuel burning devices, gas appliances and gas log fireplaces will be allowed on this property. RECOMMENDED ACTION Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision John Perkins for Christie Lodge Proposed Building Modifications Final Design Review INTRODUCTION John Perkins, on behalf of the Christie Lodge, is requesting final design review of several proposed exterior building modifications at the Christie Lodge, Lot 25, block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. On March 3, 1992, Mr. Perkins received conceptual review of seven different main catagories of modif4cations on Lot 25. These modifications are summarized as follows: 1. Replace parking lot timber retaining walls with poured in place concrete. 2. Reconfigure the porte'cochere entries at both the east and west sides of the main lobby. 3. Redesign the buildings main entry facing East Beaver Creek Blvd. 4. Reside the entire project with a 29 gage steel siding. 5. Replace all 3 -tab asphalt roof material with 24 gage steel roofing. 6. Replace aluminum store front walls with other approved material. 7. Wrap commercial area canopy columns in fiberglass coiumn surrounds. As this was a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken, however, the Commission was basically in agreement with the proposed steel siding material, as long as it is integrated with other materials and accent colors that will make a cohesive presentation. Mr. Perkins has indicated that although many of the previously listed modifications are undergoing further discussion and will eventually be submitted for final approval, the Christy Lodge wishes to proceed with twc, of them at this time. Final Design review approval is requested for the following modifications to the Christy Lodge building: s• • • 4111111110 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision John Perkins for Christie Lodge Proposed Building Modifications Final Design Review ? All existing timber (8"x8") retaining walls are to be replaced with poured in place concrete walls. A form liner system similar to the one used on the railroad bridge (cracked fin) will be used. The color will be gray similar to the railroad bridge. 2. Residing of the entire project with a 29 gage steel siding product manufactured by "Alside Inc.", color to be mist grey. All appurtenant trim pieces and flashings will match. The framed balcony opening will be white. The commercial storefront accent color will be presented at the meeting. 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 quality of the proposed siding and retaining wall materials have been conceptually reviewed by the board pr,�viously and found to be suitable. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this criLeria. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: Not applicable. ED ■D = s "AN r. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision John Perkins for Christie Lodge Proposed Building Modifications Final Design Review 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: The appearance of the Christie Lodge as modified by the proposed siding and retaining wall materials as viewed from neighboring properties and public ways seems acceptable. 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 To.tn 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 final design review application as submitted. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Cc,-nmission Action Respectflly submi , iJ m Curnutte Town Planner STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 21, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision John Perkins for Christie Lodge Proposed Building Modifications Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( 'T Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn Date ---'—Patti Dixon, Secretary—__ The Commission granted approval for the new siding proposed and for the replacement of the timber retaining walls with the following conditions: 1. Final design of the retaining walls be submitted for the Commission to review. 2. Submit and return with the final choice of accent color. 3. Immediately remove the 4 ski storage hou5-e-s- that are on site and with a recommendation that the gaps in tine railings, which present a safety hazard, be filled in. 4. That an alternative material be considered for the commercial levels.