Loading...
PZC Minutes 092193RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 4 September 21, 1993 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on September 21, 1993, at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins. Members Present: John Perkins, Jack Hunn, Patti Dixon„ Henry Vest Rhoda Schneiderman, Sue Railton, Buz Reynolds Staff Present: Steve Amsbaugh, Director of Community Development, Mary Holden, Town Planner Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary All members were present except Henry Vest, Jack Hunn and Buz Reynolds. Henry Vest and Buz Reynolds arrived at 7:32 and Jack Hunn arrived at 7:35. Lot 32, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision_ Beck & Associates. Final Design Review and Sign Program Steve Amsbaugh stated that the Commission saw t!Ls project at conceptual level on August 17th. The Commission had a few comments, but basically directed them to prepare the final drawings and come back. Amsbaugh stated that the Town Engineer has reviewed the site and grading and landscape plan with him and they have little or no problem with the parking layout or street access. or the drainage characteristics of the site. A4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 2 Lot 32, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Beck & Associates. Final Design Review and Sign Program. (cont) Amsbaugh pointed out the existing building and the proposed building on the site plan. Lot 32 is presently a parking lot. The applicant is proposing to add a 4000 square foot footprint of a building on this lot, rearranging the parking, rearranging the landscaping and irrigation system. Basically they are using the same building materials as the original building. They are setting the building back into the hillside. That allows them to free up the front and side areas for parking, a loading dock area, adding a turn around for the dumpster location and rearranging some of the parking. the front parking area remains generally the same, one existing parking area is twisted sideways, and the parking area along the side will remain basically the same. They also propose to relocate into the parking islands some of the large mature trees that are now existing. That will help considerably in the maturity of the landscape detail. The landscape islands are proposed to covered in sod. Amsbaugh stated that he assumes that these will also be snow storage areas. He pointed out on the plan that generally reflects clusters of large mature trees in a sod island along the front and reseeding any of the disturbed areas with natural seeding. Amsbaugh stated that they are proposing on this property 19 parking spaces. The requirements of the building is 10 spaces, therefore, they have 9 extra spaces. They have 13 spaces on the existing lot, so if combined, they have a total of 32 spaces. The parking lots do interconnect. The building has a flat roof, is split faced concrete block, and the soffits and fascias are standing seam metal material. The colors will be the same as the adjacent building. In addition to final approval of the building and site development plan, they are requesting final of a sign program for this building. It is a simple sign program, in that they already have an approved sign program for the existing building that shows two sign locations on the face of the existing building. They are expanding that program to show one new sign on the new building, in the same location, centered on the fascia. The one sign would not exceed 24 square feet in size. Staff recommends final approval of the design of the building and site development plan and approval of the sign program with the following conditions: 1. Any structural retaining wall must be engineered by applicant and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Final drainage, driveway design and culverts must be approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 3 Lot 32, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Beck & Associates Final Design Review and Sign Program, (cont) 3. Amsbaugh stated his condition about the dumpster should be scratched since they have provided adequate dumpster site location and adequate building materials. 4. The Sign Program for Lot 33 will apply to improvements on Lot 32. 5. Attic storage space over the office area shall not be used of any other use without reviewing parking requirements with the Department of Community Development. Dave Peel, representing Andy Beck, stated that the building, and site plan has remained the same since the first submittal. There were a couple requests from the Commission regarding the building on Lot 33, and one of them is to keep the west side of that building neater. This has been cleaned up. Someone years ago, before Mr. Beck bought the building, stained the planter retaining wall a blue and that will get changed. They intend to keep all the mature landscaping that they can save. For ones that do not make it, the replacements would be an eight foot minimum and a two inch caliper replacement for others. Peel stated that the snow storage will be the same as it is now. Jack Hunn asked if the lighting would change and Mr. Peel stated that it would not. They are just relocating one of the existing standards. The general consensus of the Commission was that this was a very well done project. Henry Vest moved to grant final design approval and sign program approval for Lot 32, Block ? , Benchmark Subdivision, the Beck !'ommercial Building, with the following conditions: 1. Any structural retaining wall must be engineered by applicant and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Final drainage, driveway design and culverts must be approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 3. The Sign Program for Lot 33 will apply to improvements on Lot 32. 4. Attic storage space over the office area shall not be used for any other use without reviewing parking requirements with the Department of Community Development. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 014 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINU'T'ES September 21,1993 Page 4 Lot 60, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Hale Duplex, Final Design Review of Conditions Steve Amsbaugh stated that the Commission reviewed this project at the final design level at the September 7th meeting. At that time the Commission tabled the item after much discussion, to have the applicant look into different building massing to try to do away with the mirrored image effect. Amsbaugh stated that the Hales have spent some time on this and has submitted an elevation. He stated that if the Commission feels comfortable with the elevation that they are proposing, the Commission should consider final approval of the project. He stated that they have not changed the building footprint and therefore they haven't changed the site development plan. The have not changed the concept and type of building logs and the general layout. They have just done some things to the garage and the roof line, which have really addressed the mirror image concerns. Amsbaugh stated that, if the Commission sees fit, he would recommend approval of this design review, with the conditions stated in the September 7th Staff Report. Brian Hale pointed out the differences on the new elevations made to eliminate the mirror image. He stated that they completely rotated the gabled front roof over one unit and opened it up with a large dormer. Then over the garage area, rather than having a gabled front roof they have completely flipped that roof, opened it again with a large dormer. They have left the other side as it was. The entrance has been relocated. Buz Reynolds felt that the applicant had done everything that the Board asked. Jack Hunn stated that he felt that it was a much improved project, but he still has a problem with what is an attached duplex. He feels this is a weak connection, but since there is not a solid definition, so it is really up to each Commissioner's opinion. He stated that the window fenestration could be studied a bit further to further differentiate one unit from another. Patti Dixon stated that it definitely an improvement. Henry Vest asked if there was still a jog. The applicant stated that one side is higher than the other and one sets forward, approximately 3 feet. Vest asked what the connection was. The applicant stated that it is a storage unit for both units. Rhoda Schneiderman had no problems with this presentation. Sue Railton asked what the dividing piece down the center of the big windows. The applicant stated that it is a matching log. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 5 Lot 60, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision Hate Duplex Final design Review of Conditions. (cont) Buz Reynolds asked about the roofing material. The applicant stated that it would be a 300# asphalt shingle that is made to look like shake. Further discussion followed on the windows and the colors. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design approval for Lot 60, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1. Any structural retaining wall must be engineered by applicant and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Final drainage, driveway design and culverts must be approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Meter locations should be on the house and screened from view. Patti Dixon seconded. Henry Vest asked what kind of posts would be used on the decks. The applicant replied they would be logs. The motion carried, with Jack Hunn voting nay. Lots 27/28, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Mountain Center Sign Program Design Review Steve Amsbaugh stated that this is an application for a sign program for the addition to an existing building. Phase II of Mountain Center is now under construction. He stated that the building elevations are shown on the wall. Generally, Phase II matches the existing building. A sign program has been approved for Phase I and that sign program includes, generally, 2 x 12 signage. He pointed out on the elevations where those signs are located on the building. The applicant is proposing the same pattern to occur on the building that is now under construction. The change in the proposed sign program, if it is approved, is that they would like to reverse out the concept. They will be 2' x 12', but they want them to be, instead of light backgrounds and dark lettering, dark backgrounds with light letters. The other request in this application is for a building identification sign. The identification sign would be located in an existing landscape island at the far eastern end of the existing building. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 6 Lots 27/28 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Mountain Center Sign Program, Design Review, (cont) Amsbaugh stated that, because they are requesting the double facing signs along the traffic side of the building, and also providing the back elevations with sign blank locations, he is suggesting as a matter of approval, that a condition be made that the primary business identification sign occur on the south elevation and only a business identification one the door, etc. Staff recommends approval of this sign program for Phase I and Phase II, with the following conditions: 1. That the requested temporary banners be consistent in background color and lettering color of the permanent sign program. 2. Any existing landscaping displaced or disturbed by installation of the freestanding building identification sign be replaced by shrubs consistent with the approved landscape plan and be in such a nature as not to block the visibility of the sign or egress into the parking lot. 3. Only one tenant sign be allowed per commercial tenant and that choice be allowed to the second floor applicants. Les Shapiro stated that Larry Ast, from Hightech Signs would address the sign issue. However, on the building identification sign, it was approved in generally the same spot at Phase I approval, but it was on a trash enclosure. They never put the trash enclosure in because it looked ugly there, so they are now requesting a refined identification sign. Larry Ast stated that the request to change the light space to dark space is a result about the comments from staff that there was too much glow from the existing signs. They feel that reversing them will tone down the glow about two-thirds. They are also proposing that all lease renewals require the tenants in the Phase I area to comply with the new sign program. In a very short period of time all signs would be the same image. With respect to the back of the building they would like to amend the request a little bit. They can scale down the size of'hose signs and they are proposing that they not be illuminated. The purpose is so that when people drive around around to the back they can identify which location the tenants are occupying. If it is just on the glass or, on the door, it is often blocked by delivery vehicles or other cars. What has worked out on Phase I has turned out to be non - obtrusive and the back of the building is not visible from any other property. Only the copy portion of the monument sign will be illuminated and the background will be opaque. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 7 Lots 27/28_ Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Mountain Center Sign Program, Design Review. (co:irl Discussion followed on how often the leases are renewed. Mr. Shapiro stated that they are renewed every three to five years. Discussion followed on the colors to be allowed and type styles to be used. Discussion followed on the intensity of the lighting. Considerable discussion followed on making the colors of the signs opaque, rather than translucent. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the sign program for Lots 27/28, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with the following conditions: 1. The medium to dark backgrounds for all signs be opaque. 2. Temporary banners be consistent with the background and lettering color of the permanent sign program. 3. Any existing landscaping displaced or disturbed by installation of the freestanding building sign be replaced by shrubs consistent with the approved landscape plan and be in such a nature as not to block the visibility of the sign or egress into the parking lot. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she would like to add another condition: 4. Non -illuminated signs, not to exceed ten square feet, can be placed for tenants in the rear of the building, above each door. Reynolds seconded. Reynolds stated that a condition should be added that all signs comply with the new sign program within a three year period. Discussion followed on this matter and the matter of enforcement. Rhoda Schneiderman amended her motion to add that the Commission strongly recommends that within a three year period, Mr. Shapiro and his company do everything in their power to persuade tenants to change to the present sign program. This was added as a fifth condition stating: 5. The landlord would encourage all tenants to change their signs out to the new sign program within three years. The motion carried unanimously. r1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 8 Lots 27/28, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision_ Mountain Center Sign Program Design Review. (cont) Les Shapiro stated he had one other item he would like to discuss and this is the matter of the color of the building. Previously the Commission had requested that he look into changing the color of the building. He stated that after considerable research, etc., he is requesting that the color remain the same. He also provided a letter from all the tenants requesting that it stay the same color. John Perkins stated that he had voiced his personal opinion and he has talked to other members of the board and they like the color and the Commission would not make him change. Buz Reynolds asked if, when they paint Phase Il, are they going to paint Phase I. Shapiro stated that they would not right off, but probably within t! o year. Lot 71, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision North Court Sign Program Design Review Steve Amsbaugh stated that the North Court building consists of retail space, with parking and street frontage located along Beaver Creek Place. The building is under construction at this time. At the time of design approval, the Commission approved relief areas along the building elevations for the signs to be place. He pointed out the elevations on the plans. They are proposing that each tenant be allowed twenty square feet of signage. The tenants may display signs in two relief areas, however, probably for maximum effect, they will go for one twenty square foot sign within one relief area per tenant. They are also requesting in their sign program the use of two building identification signs. He pointed out on the plans where those signs would be located. The third part of the sign program would allow a freestanding video drop box for the video tenant that is located on the eastern portion of the building. In addition, they are proposing that each tenant be allowed temporary signage while approval and production of the permanent sign is underway. Staff recommendation is for approval of the sign program for the North Court building, with the following conditions: 1. Temporary tenant signage be consistent with the background and lettering color of the permanent sign. 2. That the applicant apply for a Development Sign permit for the non -permitted project sign lc-ated at the construction site. 3. That the video drop box be painted to match the building and/or trim colors. Drop box shall not display additional advertising and be marked for "video cassette return" only. I& PLANNING AND ZONING Ck SSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 9 Lot 71, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, North Court Sign Program Design Review. (cont) Mark Donaldson, representing Bruce Allen, stated that he really did not have much to add unless the Commission has questions regarding the individual sign colors. The pan channel letters are all in the black anodized frames. The tenant signs allow for a variety of colors. North Court will be in rigid style letters in the green plexiglass lens that will match the roof color in the same black fram:, and "At Avon" will be done in a script in a neon that matches roof color. Donaldson stated that Jim Benson was present and would discuss the drop box. Jim Benson stated that, in terms of the video box, he did not know that the color and logo would be an issue. He stated that the box has already been built and painted and stenciled. They have spent quite a bit of money on it. It is a reflective blue. They matched the color of the box to the signage. On the side they have the logo imprinted in white. Discussion followed on the location of the box and the tact that cars would be going the wrong way in order for the driver to drop off the videos in the box. Discussion followed on the color of the box. The general consensus was that the sign program was fine. Chairman Perkins asked if Staff felt comfortable that the drop box was already ordered and has a logo on it. Steve Amsbaugh stated that he was not aware, with the application submittal, that this had already been done, and he stands by his recommended condition of trying to match the box in some way with one of the building colors. Jack Hunn asked how he felt about the traffic being encouraged to go the wrong way? Amsbaugh stated that he had riot been presented with the plan that the Commission now has before them and he feels he should take a look at that. Further discussion followed on the potential problem that the location of the box might cause. Chairman Perkii.s suggested that the Commission approve the sign program and ask that the applicant take some pictures of the drop box and return so the Commission can review the drop box as a separate item. Amsbaugh stated he would be comfortable with that. He stated that he would also like time to review the layout of circulation in relation, because of the i ecent approval of the parking plan without this item included in the site development plan. Sue Railton moved to grant approval for the sign program for Lot 71, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek with the following conditions: 1. Temporary tenant signs be consistent with the background an,* `etering color of the permanent sign. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 10 Lot 71, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision North Court Sign Program Design Review. (cont) 2. That the applicant apply for a Development Sign permit for the non -permitted project sign located at the construction site. 3. The video drop box be brought back for further review. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. L of 13. Filing 1_Eaglebend Subdivision, Exterior Color Change Design Review Steve Amsbaugh stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission granted final design review approval of this project on December 15, 1992. It is a duplex located in Eaglebend Subdivision. The duplex exterior is a combination of stucco and cedar siding with a cedar shake roof. The approved colors of this building were stucco to be white, cedar siding to be gray and the trim to be a teal color. The requested color change is to modify the color combination to include white stucco, cedar siding in natural cedar, which is a Spice Chest SW -3513, and trim in a Wharf Brown, which is SW 30-11. Color samples will be provided. Amsbaugh stated that he visited the site to make sure that this color combination would not conflict with any other color combinations in the vicinity and it does not. Staff recommendation is to approve this request for a color change. Tony Seibert provided samples of the colors. Patti Dixon moved to approve the color change as submitted Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 25. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision. Fourplex Conceptual Design Review Steve Amsbaugh stated that this is a conceptual review of a townhouse development called Old Trail Townhomes located at the corner of Old Trail Road and June Creek Trail. Access would be from June Creek Trail. The site is .74 acres. It slopes generally from the northeast to the southwest at about 10%. The existing site coverage is in native grasses and sage and has some scrub oak on the site. The parking lot is generally flat in location and is located on the south side of the building. The driveway up to the parking lot is about 5% for the first 20 feet and about 12% on into the parking area. Amsbaugh stated that guest parking spaces are shown, but his measurements don't show that �� Ao*, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 11 Lot 25, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision, Fourplex. Conceptual Design Review_ (cont) they can put a 9 x 18 foot parking space in the locations they are drawn in. Total site coverage is approximately 30%. A landscape plan has been submitted for Commission comment and includes clusters of spruce and transplanted service berry, scrub oak areas, with ground cover beds in mountain wildflowers. There are four individual patio areas located at the rear of the four townhouse units. The dividing walls between the patio areas would be constructed of the same building materials as the house, stucco and cedar. They are also proposing one ground -lit identification sign at the project entrance. The building generally has a footprint of 5000 square feet. It might be at or exceed the maximum height allowance of 35 feet. The roof form is a gable roof form. They propose a three tab asphalt shingle roof in a weathered wood color. Exterior siding would be stucco in a fawn color and the fascias and soffits would be cedar in a natural oil finish. Window trim and garage doors would be white. As this is a conceptual review, Staff has no recommendation, but he feels that the layout of the parking area needs to be considered, in terms of the guest parking sizing, and also, he feels that more landscaping detail is needed around the individual privacy patios at the rear of the building. Amsbaugh stated that one neighbor has called him and one has visited the office today. They live on Lot 27, which is just to the northeast of this property, and they had concerns about the conceptual designs of this property. Amsbaugh read some of the comments provided by Michael Sanner, stating, briefly: The back elevation is flat and bland, not designed with any relief in scale, proportion not site sensitive. Building appears too high, especially in a non -forested setting where a low horizontal building might fit into the hillside better and feel a part of the landscape. Basic block house without offsets makes building appear too long and big clunky proportions. Material use is disjointed with use of stone. Windows are shotgun design on site elevations. This is a very ugly building and as a neighbor he does not appreciate it. The applicant, Joel Gros, stated that he would like too talk to Mr. Sanner, who was present. Mr. Gros stated that two years ago he presented a plan for a fourplex. The plan was very complex and was a very good looking building and also very expensive to build. When he saw what was built across the street and what the price tag the houses were going for, he said he could not compfte. Therefore, he made a much more simple, easy to build project. Chairman Perkins explained the procedure for reviewing a conceptual d --sign review, stating that no action would be taken tonight, only comments will be made. Buz Reynolds stated that the Commission requires heavier asphalt shingles than the three tab and also ones that have shadow effects. A 300# minimum is required. Reynolds also suggested stepping the a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 12 Lot 25, Block 2, Wildridae Subdivision, Fourplex, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) building to break up the blankness of the wall. Maybe step the building and follow the contour of the hillside down. Also, jogging the building might help. Jack Hunn stated that he was really in favor of the previously presented building. He suggested that the applicant look at that set of plans and how the units stepped on the site away from each other and up the hill, he thinks that site strategy and also the site access strategy might be salvaged in this new plan. Hunn stated that it would make for a much more interesting solution, without being as highly detailed, or as expensive to build in terms of the materials. Hunn stated that this is a very big, boxy, plain building. It is not very interesting and it is very inappropriate to Wildridge. Hunn suggested that the applicant find a way to break up the massing. He also had some concerns about the 12% driveway. Patti Dixon stated that she thinks it is a bit tall and blocky. She suggested stepping it into the site better. Also, it is definitely a mirror image building. Henry Vest echoed the comment regarding the mirror image. He stated that the back is very plain. He asked if there was a berm in front of the parking area. The applicant stated that there is a berm and some trees. Rhoda Schneiderman felt the roof fine needed more variation, as well as the back side. She felt that the applicant should do some different window shapes, not all rectangular, as well as incorporating not only the roof, but the building, back to front. She stated that since the applicant has a lot of room on the lot, she would like to see them move the whole building to the west as far to the minimum setback as necessary, which would create a better view corridor for the upstairs neighbor, and not hinder yours at all. Also, maybe think about putting garages on different sides, so that you do not have everything in front. Also, he wants to see a beefed up landscaping in the back. Sue Railton stated that she is disappointed in the design. It is very displeasing. It is not sensitive to the lot, which is a beautiful lot. She does not think the garages should be on the south side. The roof form has to be quite different. The rear elevation is quite unacceptable. The building should be stepped on the lot and should have more jogs in it. John Perkins generally agrees with all the other comments. He feels that this is a disappointing effort. He also agreed with Jack Hunn's suggestion of going back to the site planning strategy from the previous presentation and see what can be salvaged from that, and still simplify the design. Chairman Perkins summarized the comments as follows: r� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 13 Lot 25, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision, Fourplex. Conceptual Design Review. (cont) 1. The three tab shingles are not an acceptable roofing product in Avon. An architectural 3009 per square, variegated, rough shingle is required. 2. Step the building, break the mass, offset the footprint. Step the units up the hill. 3. Salvage the old site strategy. 4. Concealed garage doors if possible. Consider different garzge locations. 5. Break the plain, boxy building mass. 6. The 12% driveway is too steep and should be addressed. 7. The mirror image is not recommended. 8. The back wall of the building must be addressed. 9. The guest parking lot sizes need to be evaluated. 10. The roof line needs variety. 11. The window fenestrations, especially in the rear and side elevations need reworking. 12. Consider moving the building to the west. 13. More landscaping in the rear of the building is recommended. Lot 44, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision Reynolds Basketball Court. Final Design Review Commissioner Reynolds stepped down as a voting member of the Commission. Steve Amsbaugh stated tha° the applicant is requesting a change to their landscape, site development plan for the constructed residential home on Lot 44. The change would include the installation of a 20 x 30 concrete pad and basketball standard. The location of the basketball court would be on a flat terrace just to the southeast of the rear of the existing residence. There would be approximately a two to three foot cut. No retaining walls or fences are proposed. All disturbed site areas are proposed to be re -landscaped according to the original site development landscape plan. The pad is only visible from one angle. The adjacent residence can see it from one building corner. Staff recommends approval of the concrete pad and the standard with the following conditions: 1. Ail disturbed areas be restored in conformance with the original landscape plan. 2. No fencing be allowed around the pad without design approval. Amsbaugh stated that the applicant is installing this for the kids in the neighborhood, since no pocket park is planned for this area, and also, the driveway is too steep to put it on the front side of the house against the garage door. Discussion followed on the control of the ball. The applicant stated that the kids play volley ball there now and the ball dies on the grass. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 14 Lot 44, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Reynolds Basketball Court, Final Design Review, (cont) Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the basketball court on Lot 44, Block 3, Wildridge. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried with Jack Hunn voting nay. Discussion Item Mark Donaldson Color Change Steve Amsbaugh stated that Mark Donaldson, representing the people that just purchased the Peregrine/Grand On Avon building, requested some time to discuss the aspects of the upcoming redevelopment of that project. Mark Donaldson introduced Mickey Garth. Donaldson stated that the driving force behind this purchase is the commercial space. They are also looking for a new name. They are proposing to expand the 58,500 sq. ft. of commercial space to 70,000 sq. ft. Donaldson described some of the remodeling that will be done, including some re- roofing, and color changes, adding a second color to the existing stucco color, lightening up the inside walls and ceilings of the balconies, tearing out some of the solid walls on the residential balconies and installing metal grids .o allow more light. In the near future they will be meeting with staff regarding the cleanup of the site. They will be coming back to the Commission with all the exterior design changes. He described the parking required and the parking available. Jack Hunn asked if there were any other roofing materials that might be considered. Donaldson stated that the c,wners and contractors are recommending the proposed roofing material. Hunn stated that he was thinking of something that would soften the color away from the black, more toward the color of the stucco. He suggested the ballasted roofing material. Donaldson stated that too many of the roofs are too steep. Discussion followed on how the flashings would be handled. Mickey Garth stated that he really just came up tonight to tell the Commission how excited they are and how much they appreciate all the help the Town has given them. They want to be proud of it and so does Vail Associates. They are open to any comments anyone wants to make. They want this to move as smoothly as it can, and outside comments are important. The contractor seems to feel the building is about 85% complete. Vail Associates will probably start their tenant finishes right after the first of the year. The Commission thanked Mr. Garth for coming and they wished them the very best and assured them that the Board would be very cooperative. a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 21,1993 Page 15 Reading and Approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 7, 1993 Rhoda Schneiderman moved +o approve the minutes of the September 7, 1993, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Steve Amsbaugh stated that he should have done this at the beginning of the meeting, so at this time he introduced Mary Holden, the new Town Planner, who started today. HP stated that she had worked at Breckenridge for the past three years and was a town planner that was responsible for enforcement action, sign code interpretation, and design review. the things we deal with every meeting. The Commission welcomed her stating they were glad to have her join the Staff. With no further business, Jack Hunn moved to adjourn, Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, C� I K�11 7l � Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary 6 x !y"