Loading...
PZC Packet 062785[• STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 6/27/85 Upper Eagle Valley Regional (dater Authority Nater Treatment Facility Tract P, Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION This is a conceptual design review for the new water treatment facility that is proposed on Tract P, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. This first Phase is anticipated to be a part of an overall development plan which would include a Town Event Center which will probably be built over the water treatment plant and along the North side. Design review should include this in the considerations. The submittal includes a Site plan which shows the building location, grading and drainage, and the existing utilities, as well as the proposed underground pipelines serving the facility. There is also a conceptual landscaping plan along with floor plans and elevations of the building. The total square footage of the building, and the dimensions are not shown on these plans. Section 5.00 Design Guidelines The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design: The suitability of the improvement, including materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located; The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements; The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement; The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property; The objective that no improvemp-' ill be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that v monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired. STAFF COMMENTS: The plans submitted are adequate for a conceptual design review, with feedback to the applicant. The grading and drainage plan shows the potential for ponding in the railroad right-of-way, as well as an area in the Northwest corner of the site. This will have to be corrected. There is also no plan to deal with the treatment of runoff from the parking lot. This should be outlined in the Drainage report whish is not included with this submittal. The parking lot, as designed, shows undersized parking spaces. The minimum size should be 9' x 18'. The parking spaces also encroach into the 10' setback along the lot line. This could possibly be corrected by moving the building and parking lots to the East, otherwise a variance would be required. There are no color schemes or material lists by which to determine the final appearance of the building. The landscape plan does show the types and sizes of planting materials to be used. Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Upper Eagle Valley Regional Water Authority Water Treatment Facility • Tract P, Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Conceptual Design Review • Page 2 of 2 4W'N RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. Introduce proposed project; 2. Conceptual review of project with feedback to applicant; 3. Continue review for complete design submittal. Respectfully Submitted, ri g� En ineering Technician Planning and ZoningAction:_ Approved as S-ibmitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved/ with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )) Withdrawn ( ) Date Gw/a Patricia Cuny, Secretary RW/je 00 go STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 6/27/85 Ray Duplex WON Lot 51, Block 3, Wildridge Final Design Review INTRODUCTION This is a continuance from the June 13, 1985 meeting. Approval of the Conceptual Design was given at that time with the applicant directed to address the following concerns: rr 1. Submit a complete grading and drainage plan for the site; 2. Trim the corners of the building where the timbers join one another; 3. Provide adequate room for turning and maneuvering in front of Unit B. STAFF COMMENTS: Applicant has addressed the items mentioned above. The grading and drainage plan is complete for full design review. The new grading plan shows the driveway leaving the existing road at a 6" grade, changing to a 7.5" grade through the middle of the drive, and ending in a 2% parking area. There is a 1.6% fall away from the building, across the parking area. A turn -out has been provided in front of Unit B, as requested. The building elevations also show the addition of 2 x 10 trim boards at the corners where the timbers come together. The new driveway design indicates two retaining structures, one as high as 6 feet, which will require a structural design approved prior to const- ruction. The other wall is only about 2.5 feet in height. The size and type of materials to be used will also have to be indicated. The grading plan shows a cut bank at the beginning of the drive to bre approximately a 1.5 to 1 slope, which is the maximum slope which can be revegatated. Applicant should be aware that any slope greater than this will be difficult to revegatate. Applicant should also be aware that the culvert at the beginning of the driveway must have at least 1 foot of cover. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. Introduce Project; 2. Planning and Zoning Commission review of submitted materials; 3. Act on proposed design. Respectfully Submitted, d t ng n ering T chnician • n Staff Report to Planninq & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Ray Duplex Lot 51, Block 3, Wildridge Final Design Review Page 2 of 2 Planning and Zoning Action: Approved as Submitted ()< Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied Date iP S Patricia Cuny, Secretary RW/je 0 D7- STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - 6/27/85 Wynfield Inn Lot 2, Wynfield Subdivision Preliminary Design Review INTRODUCTION Conceptual design approval was granted on this project at the June 13, 1985 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant was asked to address the comments from the previous staff report. In particular, two items from the Master Plan Issues Section of the report, and all the items in the Site Development Plan Issues Section, and the Zoning Issues Section. Those items are as follows: A. Master Plan Issues Item: Have adequate provisions been made for pedestrian circulation within the site and to adjacent sites? Comment: Some walkways have been provided through the project to help link it with surrounding properties. Howeve,', the five foot width of the walk- ways is minimal and should be larger to accomodate in:reased pedestrian traffic as surrounding properties are developed. A walkway along Wert Beaver Creek Blvd. should also be considered. Item: Are there adequate provisions for sidewalks, curb and gutter and greenbelt? Comment: The grading plan shows curb around the building only; should curb be provided around the parking lot as well? B. Site Development Plan Issues Item: Lot line setbacks and easements are not shown, but lobby and check-in area appears to encroach into front lot setback along Wynfield Place. Comment: The Administration building has been relocated per setback requirem,.nts. Item: The number of driveway entrances seem excessive. Two entrances should provide adequate access and circulation. Comment: The number of entrances to the parking area have been reduced to two. The main entrance to the project is a double entrance and may still cause some confusion for the guest who is unfamiliar with the area. Item: Consideration should be given to entrance location with respect to street intersections. Minimum distance of 100 feet is recommended where possible. Comment: The single entrance to the project has been relocated per the staff suggestion. Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Wynfield Inn Lot 2, Wynfield Subdivision Preliminary Design Review Page 2 of 3 Item: Refuse bin access is somewhat questionable. It may be necessary to angle enclosure for access by trash turck. Comment: The refuse bin now blocks the sidewalk on the west side of the project and may be no more accessible than before. Item: Project size requires one 12' x 35' loading space. This does not seem to be shown on site plan. Comment: The required loading space has been added, but may not necessarily be useable as shown. However, it may be adequate for the proposed development. Item: Plant sizes and numbers are not specifically stated on landscape plan. Comment: The landscape plan now shows the sizes and quantities of the planting materials, but it has not been adjusted to accomodate the new walkways that leave the project. Item: Landscape plan should consider site distances at entrancP�i and street intersections. Comment: It does not appear that site distances at the intersections have been considered in the new landscaping plan. Item: It may be desireable to consider sign program for building as a part of landscape and building design review. Comment: Preliminary information on sign sizes has been included in this submittal, however, material types and design details have not. The current submittal shows a total sign area of approximately 144 sq. ft. According to the Sign Code the site is allowed approximately 123 sq. ft. This issue may be resolved once the specific plans for the signs are submitted. Item: Site grading and drainage plan should be submitted prior to final review. Comment: A site grading plan has been submitted, but a drainage study and design of treatment for the parking lot runoff have not been. It should also be noted that the minimum size for a culvert under a public roadway is 18", and the current plan calls for a 12" culvert. C. Zoning Issues Item: Current town records indicate there are a total of 60 Hotel/Lodge Development Rights available or. Lots 29, 30, 31, & 32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. These Development Rights are the total for all lots with no specific number assigned to individual lots. The proposed development would require 150 Hotel/Lodge Development Rights plus 1 Residential Development Right, or approximately 38 s Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Wynfield Inn Lot 2, Wynfieid Subdivision Preliminary Design Review r Page 3 of 3 fractionalized Residential Development Rights. This issue should be resolved prior to final design review approval. Comment: The Residential Development, in the form of the manager's apartment, has been taken out of the proposal. However, the proposal still owl requires 150 Hotel/Lodge Development Rights. Item: The project is located on Lot 32 and a portion of Lot 29. Preliminary plans and final plat for the resubdivision Lots 29, 31, & 32 have been submitted to the town for review and approval. This approval process should also be complete prier to final design review approval. Comment: A revised plat has been submitted including Lot 30 as requested in the plat review. A variance request has also been file' to reduce the required street right-of-way from 50 feet to 40 feet. Drawings submitted with variance request indicate a cul-de-sac from West Beaver Creek Blvd. and no access from Avon Road. These changes should be considered in evaluating the project design and no final approval given until these issues are resolved. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Introduce proposed project; 2. Preliminary review of project with feedback to applicant; 3. Continue review for complete design review submittal. Respectfully Su mitted, JaZl_ Wriineering Techician Planning and Zoning Action: Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved ;wiithh�Modified Conditions ( ) Continued (� Denied ( )/) Withdrawn Date— �1: —r, Patricia Cuny, Secretary_ RW/je -•, 40 STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 6/27/85 Lots 29-32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Proposed Lot 2, Block 1, Wynfield Subdivision Wynfield Inn Variance Request to Reduce Street Right -of -Way Width to 40 Feet INTRODUCTION: s Applicant is requesting a variance from subdivision regulation (16.40.060) pertaining to right-of-way widths. The requested variance would allow decreasing the right-of-way width of proposed Wynfield Place from 50 feet to 40 feet. The variance request is accompanied by a sketch showing preliminary plat revisions changing the configuration of Wynfield Place from a through street to a street starting at West Beaver Creek Boulevard, and terminating with a cul-de-sac. Section 16.12.020 of the Avon Municipal Code States: A. Upon application by a subdivider, the town council, may at its discretion, grant variances, as provided in Chapter 16.44, from some or any requirements of these regulations based upon the following criteria: 1. Whether a strict, literal application of these subdivision regulations would result in an undue hardship to the subdivider due to the purpose, size, shape, location, and character of the proposed subdivision; 2. Whether the provisions of the regulations from which relief is requested are not materially important, in a planning sense, to the orderly controlled development of the tract in question; 3. Whether the granting of the request might adversely affect the use of the land in the immediate area of the tract in question. B. A variance granted by the town ccuncil may contain limitations as to time or disposition or use of the tract in question in order to insure that the stated purpose of the variance request is realized. (Ord. 79-9 S2.Ob). The Town Council has referred this variance request to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendations prior to Council action. STAFF COMMENTS: The variance request is for a reduction in the minimum street right-of-way width from 50 feet to 40 feet. This should be maintained as a separate issue from the plat revisions shown on the sketch submitted with the variance request. ft Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Lots 29-32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Proposed Lot 2, Block 1, Wynfield Subdivision Wynfield Inn Variance Request to Reduce Street Right -of -Way Width to 40 Feet Page 2 of 5 STAFF COMMENTS, CON'T.: abl. Questions related specifically to the variance request are: 1. Has the developer shown undue hardship that would result from a 50 foot right-of-way width requirement? 2. Has the developer shown that granting of the rcouested variance is not materially important, in a planning sense, to the orderly controlled development of the tract in question? 3. Has the ueveloper shown that granting of requested variance will not adversely affect the use of the land in the immediate area of the tract in question? The following comments may be pertinent to the above questions: 1. Undue Hardship a. The 10 foot reduction in right-of-way width does not create a developable tract which otherwise does not exist; b. There are no physical limitations on the site which would require the narrower right-of-way; 2. Materially Important in Planning Sense a. Requested variance would not provide adequate width for future turn lane; b. Requested variance would reduce available space for walkways, greenbelt and utility installations; 3. Affect on Use of Land in The Area a. Elimination of future turn lanes could significantly impact vehicular traffic circulation in the area; b. Reduction of space for walkways could restrict pedestrian movements throughout the area; r Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Lots 29-32, Block 2, Benchmark at Proposed Lot 2, Block 1, Wynfield Wynfield Inn Variance Request to Reduce Street Page 3 of 5 STAFF COMMENTS, CON'T.: Commission - 6/27/85 Bea,.er Creek Subdivision Right -of -Way Width to 40 Feet c. Reduction of available greenbelt areas may have a negative impact on aesthetic quality throughout the area; Reduction in available space for utility installation may require installation under paved areas or additional easements across private property. The following information relates to revisions shown on the sketch submitted with variance request which are in addition to the requested change in_required right-of- way width. This sketch shows Wynfield Place as a dead-end street starting at West Beaver Creek Boulevard and terminating in a cul-de-sac rather than a through street as previously shown. The notherly line of existing Lot 30 is shown as relocated to the north at the common corner with Avon Road. The following may be pertinent in considering these changes: 1. The relocation of the northerly line of existing Lot 30 may preclude access from Avon Road to proposed Lot 1 (existing Lot 29), due to highway department restrictions. Past conversations indicate there are currently restrictions which require entrances to be located at least 300 feet from Interstate 70. The southerly line of Lot 29, (proposed Lot 1), is presently located approximately 345 feet from I-70. Dimensions are not shown, but the proposed lot line appears to be approximately 285 feet from I-70; 2. If an acceptable access location to Lot 29 (proposed Lot 1) is maintained from Avon Road, Wynfield Place would not be required as a dedicated street. All lots within the proposed subdivision would have access from existing public streets; A through street is desireable for improved circulation in the Avon Road, Beaver Creek Boulevard vicinity, but a dedicated street right-of-way is not required for access to any lot as shown on the original submittal. A public street through the subdivision was a recommended option to the developer, not a requirement; I• Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Lots 29-32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Proposed Lot 2, Block 1, Wynfield Subdivision Wynfield Inn P Variance Request to Reduce Street Right -of -Way Width to 40 feet Page 4 of 5 a STAFF COMMENTS, CON'T.: 4. A dead-end, cul-de-sac street does not improve circulation and is riot necessary to provide access to any lot as shown on the original submittal. If developer desires common access for proposed Lots 1, 2, and 3, a common access easement would seem to accomplish the same result without the town assuming responsibility for maintaining a dedicated street that is not required for access and does nothing to improve circulat`on patterns in the core area of town. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE: 1. Introduce requested action; 2. Presentation by applicant; 3. Staff comments; 4. Commission review of criteria for granting of variance and impact of indicated revisions to preliminary plat; 5. Formulate recommendation to Council; a. Recommendation to grant or deny variance requested based upon criteria evaluation; b. Ariendment to prior recommendation to Council with regard to approval of preliminary plat and proposed revisions to plat. Respectfully Submitted, Norm Wood Director of Engineering and Conmunity Development Plannir.4 and Zoning Action: Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved //with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied Withdrawn ( ) Date —Co % �S Patricia Cuny, Secretary ft Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Lots 29-32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Proposed Lot 2, Block 1, Wynfield Subdivision Wynfield Inn Variance Request to Reduce Street Right -of -Way Width to 40 Feet Page 5 of 5 NW/mml 00 • A= STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 6/27/85 Lot 51, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Ch s Zone Change RMD (Residential Medium Density) to RHDC (Residential High Density and Commercial) INTRODUCTION: Victor Mark Donaldson, architect, as representative of J. Kent Mueller, M.D., owner of Lot 51, Block 1, Benchmark, has requested a zone change from RMD (Residential Medium Density) to RHDC (Residential High Density and Commercial). If this zone change is approved, the change would be accomplished by adoption of an Ordinance amending the Town Zone District Map. Allowed uses in the RMD zone district include; duplex, multi -family dwellings, condominiums, townhouses, apartments and accessory building. Allowed uses in the RHDC zone district include; condominiums, apartments, hotels, lodges, motels, retail shops, show rooms, excluding motorized vehicles, restaurants, service shops, offices, accessory building, automobile service station. Other differences between RMD and RHDC zone districts are summarized as follows: Average Allowed Density Units per Acre Maximum Building Height 7.5 25 60' 80` The required notices of public hearing have been mailed and required fees paid. Schematic drawings showing a possible project which could be allowed under the revised zoning has been submitted. • • oid i111.As The procedure for zone change is outlined as: 1. Written notice of public hearing to owners of property within 300 feet of proposed zone change; 2. Public hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission regarding proposed zone change; 3. Report and recommendations from Planning and Zoning Commission to Town Council; 4. After receiving report and recommendations, Town Council shall hold a public hearing and act on proposed amendment. ■o Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Lot 51, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Zone Change RMD (Residential Medium Density) to RHDC (Residential High Density and Commercial) if Page 2 of 3 ' = STAFF COMMENTS: 1. See attached report from Jim Lamont with regard to conformance with Master Plan as per current state of development; 2. When considering the proposed zone change, Commission should consider all possibilities of what could be constructed under RHDC zone district and place little emphasis on schematic drawings submitted with application. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Introduce requested action; 2. Presentation by applicant; 3. Staff comments; 4. Conduct Public Hearing; 5. Consider application and information from Public Hearing; 6. Possible Actions: a. Recommend Council authorize preparation and then adopt ordinance rezoning Lot 51, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek from RMD to RHDC; b. Recommend Council deny requested zone change; c. Continue review of requested action pending receipt of additional information; d. Recommend applicant modify requested zone change to a more appropriate designation prior to action by Council. Respectfully Submitted, Norm Wood Director of Engineering and Community Development I� Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Lot 51, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Zone Change RMD (Residential Medium Density) to o RHDC (Residential High Density and Commercial) Page 3 of 3 [40 ioft Planning and Zoning Action: Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied Withdrawn ( ) Date /o /�%�l�S� Patricia Cuny, Secretary PAW/mml AS STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMISSION - 6/27/85 Lot A, Block 7., Benchmark at Beaver Creek Avon Center Building Special Review Use - Junior Village Outside Play Area INTRODUCTION: Helen Hochstetter, owner of Junior Village, has approval by Resolution #83-38, (see attached copy) whereas the Planning and Zoning Commission, under condition #1, is charged with review of the location, final design, and landscaping of the outside play area. The application is to move the outside play area that has been approved, from the east end of the Avon Center project to an area that is defined in yellow on an attached plan. The new area is approximately 2,100 SF, and is defined by a foundation wall, the building, and the parking structure deck. Section 17.20.030 Rules of procedure for special review approval A. The concurring vote of a majority of the total authorized number of members of the design review board shall be necessary for approval of a special review use. B. The design review board shall hold a public hearing on each request for a special review use, with the following special conditions required: 1. Notice shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area at least twelve days prior to the hearing date. In lieu of actual publication, the notice shall also be effective by posting the notice in at least three public pla;:es within the town in addition to posting at the office of the town clerk. A written notice of said hearing shall be sent by first class mail at least twelve days prior to the hearing date to property owners within the area of proposed use and within three hundred feet thereof. Owners of residential multifamily condominium units may be served by mailing a copy of any such required notice to the record address of the manager of their homeowners' association. 2. A fee of fifty dollars shall be charged to cover the cost of processing. The applicant shall also pay the actual costs of providing the notifi- cation referred to in subdivision 1 of this subsection. 3. The design review board, in approving a special review use, shall make a finding that the conditions in this section are satisfied by the reasons set forth in the application and that granting the special review use will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building and structure. Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Lot A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Avon Center Building Special Review Use - Junior Village Play Area D Page 2 of 4 Section 17.20.030 Rules of procedure for special review approval, con't. 4. The design review board, in approving a special review use, may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning laws of the town, violation of which shall be deemed a violation of this section. 5. If a special review use is approved as outlined above, the town council shall be notified in writing by the recording secretary of the design review board and the town council shall take final action granting, denying or granting with conditions identical to or different from those prescribed by the design review board, based upon testimony or evidence presented to either the design review board or the town council. In approving a special review use, the town council may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning laws of the town, violation of which shall be deemed a violation of this section. (Ord. 83-24 S1; Ord. 83-15 S1; Ord. 82-17 S1; Ord. 79-12 S3.4). Section 17.20.020 Grantinq of special review use Whenever a use has been designated a special review use, a permit for such use may be issued only upon approval of the design review board and town council. A. All applications for approval of a special review use shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.20.030. B. In considering the suitability of the special review use, the board shall determine: 1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code; 2. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this zoning code and the applicable zoning district; and 3. Whether the proposed use is designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses and uses in the area. C. No approved special review use may be modified, structurally enlarged or expanded in ground area, unless such modification, enlargement or expansion receives the prior approval of the design review board and the town council, which approval shall be obtained by repetition of the granting procedures provided in this chapter. (Ord. 79-12 S3.3). Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Lot A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Avon Center Building Special Review Use - Junior Village Play Area Page 3 of 4 Section 17.20.040 Special review criteria. Whenever it is indicated on the intent and use chart in subsection D of Section 1.7.20.010 that an application is subject to special review, the zoning administrator shall forward the application for development permission to the design review board which shall approve or deny the development after considering certain factors, including but not limited to: A. The adequacy of access to the site with respect to the width of the adjacent streets, their grades, intersection safety, visibility and entrance into the lot to be developed; B. Whether there exists safe access and sufficient water pressure to provide fire protection; C. The existent water pressure in the area and the ability of the water system to supply domestic needs; D. Whether there will be provided sufficient off-street parking as determined by: 1. The intended use of the property; 2. Walking distance to the downtown area; and 3. The availability of public transportation; E. The impact of the development, considering the potential for stream and air pollution, the availability of public transportation and other public or private services, and any other factors affecting the overall develop- ment and the surrounding areas, including but not limited to building height, view plane, drainage and other physical and aesthetica) features. (Ord. 79-12 S3.5). QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED: 1. Time of lease and extensions for the outside play area? 2. Fences: types, heights, and locations? 3. Landscaping: types, sizes, and locations? 4. Gate(s) in fences: locations and sizes? 5. Equipment: types, sizes, and locations? 6. Why the change from east to west? • Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 6/27/85 Lot A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Avon Center Building Special Review Use - Junior Village Play Area Page 4 of 4 QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, CON'T.: .� 7. Time frame of a maximum of 30 days to complete project if approval is obtained? RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Introduce Special Review Use request; 2. Presentation by applicant; 3. Staff recommendations; 4. Open Public Hearing with discussion by Commission; 5. Action on Special Review Use request. Respectfully ��S����ubmitted, ��,., 1N j11L6-M L Jim will iams Building Inspector Plarnino and Zoning Action: Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions (X Approved / with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( )tried ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date 6 % S� Patricia Cuny, Secretary s?trn JW/mol [• STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 6/27/85 M Lot A, Block Benchmark at Beaver Creek Avon Center Building lding Sign - Design Review - Penalty Box Restaurdnt _ INTRODUCTION The commission approved a Neon sign until June 21, 1985, (see attached letter from Town of Avon). Under the comprehensive sign criteria for Avon Center, the modifications to the sign program shall obtain additional approval from the Design Review Board. The owner of the building approves of the sign, (see attached letter from Maury Dailey dated June 5, 1985). Also attached is a copy of Comprehensive Sign Criteria for the Avon Center. Respectfully Submitted im Williams Building Inspector Planning and Zoning Action: Approved as Submitted (X) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Date 49/Q7/45� Patricia Cuny, Jk/je Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Secretary i4. STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 6/27/85 Lot 23, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Wolff Warehouse Building Sign - Design Review - Blue Steel Gun Shop • The sign allowance complies with the Sign Code Chapter 15.28 along with the letter from Greg Miller (see attached). Samples of sign and materials used along with colors are attached. Respectfully Submitted, Jim Williams Building Inspector Planning and Zoning Action: Approved as Submitted 0 Approved with Recommended Conditions (X) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Date 7 S Patricia Cuny, Secretary1 JW/je