Loading...
PZC Packet 011789STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 17, 1989 Lot 17, Block 1, Filing No. 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Jamieson Duplex - First Phase John Railton, Architect Final Design Review INTRODUCTION John Railton, on behalf of Ron Jamieson, is requesting Final Design Review for a single residence on the above named Lot. This Lot is zoned for two residences and is proposed to be developed in two phases. The first phase will be on the west. The second phase labeled future development will be on the east. The two site improvements of the design that will serve both residences are the entry stairs and the driveway. They will both be constructed in the first phase ensuring that the first phase site improvements render the first phase self-sufficient. Mr. Railton has indicated that the second phase might not be identical to the first, therefore, he is not seeking final design review for the second phase as well. STAFF COMMENTS The following should be taken into consideration when reviewing this application: 6.11 The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. This application meets all requirements of the Zoning Code and previously received approval for a front setback variance on December 20, 1988 at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 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. The proposed improvement and land use is in compliance with the intent of the Zone District and i• a Sts Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission Jar,..ary 17, 1989 Lot 17, Block. 1, Filing No. 1 Eaglebend Subdivision Jamieson Duplex - First Phase John Railton, Architect Final Design Review Page 2 of 6 the site specific zoning. Proposed exterior materials, building scale and site improvements are similar to existing and proposed ne)ghboring development. This proposal is essentially a "detached duplex". The site improvements for the two residences are intregral, but the residences are physically detached. This represents a new and innovative direction that has the potential V) become a standard of duplex design. The following are considerations for the Commission in regards to this type of development. The potential for phased development clearly more likely: It is suggested that the application b, required to locate all building and site improvements for both phases, exclusive of detailed landscape plans for the second phase, on the site plan and that assurance be provided that any disturbed portion of the site scheduled for future development be regraded and revegetated to pre-existing conditions. As :?lways, it is encouraged that all phases of a phased development stand on their own. The two residences under the detached duplex development scenario will liKely be more Proxemic to each other than development on a normally subdivided parcel. It is suggested that the two residences be complimentary or similar in height, roof forms, architectural detail, fenestration, exterior materials, lancienaning deaign and other pertinent aspects in order to insure visual i.armony. At least one element of a detached duplex design will be owned in common, that being the driveway. It is suggested that if there is significant deviation from the site and building design of the second phase from the first, that the approval of the owner of the first phase be a consideration for Final Design Review. Most duplex Subdivision agreements have provisions that would address this, but they are normally private covenants. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1969 Lot 17, Block 1, Filing No. 1 Eaglebend Subdivision Jameison Duplex - First Phase John Railton Architect Final Design Review Page 3 of 6 The close proximity will likely cause more significant impacts on the two residences than on adjacent properties in regards to view, solar exposure, glare, vehicular circulation, and visual and audial privacy. It is suggested that this be taken into consideration when reviewing the application. The attached duplex mitigates some of these impacts by turning the "backs" of the residences toward each other at the party wall. The detached duplex has the potential for higher site impact by driveways and walkways du% to the greater separation of garage and building entries than an attached duplex would have. The detached duplex scheme tends to push the buildings to the limit of the side setback, therefore, minimizing the sideyard and possibly creating more radical grade transitions between the property line and the built improvements. The Town of Avon's side setbacks are uniformly 7.5 feet. This width is suitable for drainage and minor landscaping elements. 6.13 The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. The proposed development has no unusual or significant impacts on neighboring peoperties in regards to view, drainage and vehicular circulation. There is a very similar duplex development on Lot 19, Block 1, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision. 6.14 The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography. The proposed building steps down the site in- crementally and minimal retainage is indica�ed on the site plan. The driveway grade is shown at ten percent, the maximum recommended by the Des'gn Procedures, Rules and Regulations. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1989 Lot 17, Block 1, Filing No. 1 Eaglebend Subdivision Jameison Duplex - First Phase John Railton, Architect Final Design Review Page 4 of 6 6.15 The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. The residence may be viewed from Eaglebend Drive and directly adjoining properties and has no unusual or significant visual impact. 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. This project is similar to the duplex located on Lot 19, Block 1, Filing 1 in regards to site layout, architectural oesig- features and color. Both buildings are well detailed and sensitively architecturally massed. It is suggested that the proposed development be stained an alternate shade to distinguish it from its neighbor. 6.17 The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Eaglebend has yet to designation in order Policies and Programs STAFF RECOMMMENDATION be given a district to determine applicable Goals, for the Town of Avon. If the Commission finds that the application conforms with the applicable criteria, approval fcr Final Design Review is recommended conditioned by the following: 1. The proposed development be stained an alternate shade as approved by the Commission to distinguish it from its neighbor. 2. All site disturbance be regraded and Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1989 Lot 17, Block 1, Filing No. 1 Eaglebend Subdivision ,lameison Duplex - First Phase John Railton, Architect Final Design Review Page 5 of 6 revegatated to its pre-existing state in those areas not scheduled for sod or landscaping in order to ensure that the phasing of development has no adverse effects. 3. Approval of the owner of the first p`ase of development be required for Final Design Review approval of the second phase, if the second phase design has any significant deviation from the design of the first. 4. Approval of proposed exterior lighting. 5. Location of exterior hose bibs on building permit drawings. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application; 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Commission Review of Submitted Materials; 4. Act on Application. Respectfully submitted, 7 i Lynn Fritzlen Department of Community Development a r w Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1989 Lot 17, Block 1, Filing No. 1 Eaglebend Subdivision Jameison Duplex - First Phase John Railton, Architect Final Design Review Page 6 of 6 PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions (✓l Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date I -I1 Sq Denise Hill, Secretary The Commission approved the project with the following staff recommendations. 1. The proposed development oe stained ar alternate shade as approved by by the Commission to distinguish it from its neighbor; 2. All site disturbance be regraded and revegatated to its pre-existing state ir those areas not scheduled for sod or landscaping in order to ensure that the hp asing of development has -no -adverse effects= 3. Approval of the okner of the first phase of development be required for final design review approval of the second phase, if the second phase desi n_has any_siD— nificant deviation from the design of the first; 4. Approval of _ proposed exterior lighting; and 5. Location of exterior hose bibs on buileing permit drawings. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING CUMMISSIUN January 17, 1989 Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark At Beaver Creek Canopy and Signage Slifer Real Estate Sign Program Amendment INTRODUCTION Dennis Galvin of Slifer Real Estate, on behalf of Brian Pesch, owner and sign program administrator for the Avon Commercial Building, is requesting approval for an amendment to the approved sign program of February 19, 1987, to allow signage for his business. The sign program was previously amended on March 3, 1988 with approval of the Slifer Designs canopy and signage, which added an approximate 26 square feet of signage to the previously approved 108 square feet. The 26 square feet included the entirety of the front face of the canopy. The approved sign program has no provisions for the addition of any signage. The Town of Avon Sign code limits signage to 64 square feet per commercial lot unless an approved sign program is adopted. The canopy is identical in size, construction and lighting to the Slifer Designs canopy, although the background color will be blue as opposed to burgundy. The awning will be located directly to the north of the existing Slifer Designs canopy. The Avon Commercial Building is a relatively unornamented building with simplistic massing. The canopies provide visual interest and a protected entrance to attract commercial traffic. It is the concern of the Staff though that the sign program is being approved somewhat piecemeal. The building is presently being remodeled and it is likely there will be several new tenants requesting exterior signage in the coming months. It is recommended that prior to any further signage being approved for the Avon Commercial Building, the owner or sign program administrator obtain approval for a revised comprehensive sign program reflecting the anticipated needs of the entirety of the building tenants. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1989 Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Canopy and Signage Slifer Real Estate Sign Program Amendment Page 2 of 5 STAFF COMMENTS The following are applicable guideli-ss and considerations for the approval of the proposed signage and improvement: Sian 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, includ-ng 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 plast4s, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to the locat-.on, at the sole discretion of the Commission. D. Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color wSLh the surrounding structures. E. Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all freestanding signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping. 1. A minimum of "ive lineal feet out from, and around the perimeter of, the sign shall be landscaped. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1989 Lo:. 91, Block 2, Benchmark at• Beaver Creek Canopy amd Signage Slifer Real Estate Sign Program Amendment Page 3 of 5 F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed. G. Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturbing manner. H. Location. On multi -story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be limited to the ground level. (Ord. 86-3-1(part)). Design Review Criteria. The planning and zoning commission shall consider the following items in reviewing proposed designs: A. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located; B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements; C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement; D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any 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; F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code, and are appropriate for the project. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1989 Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Canopy and Signage Slifer Real Estate Sign Program Amendment Page 4 of 5 vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. STAFF RECOMMMENDATION If the Commission finds that the application for the amendment of the sign program is in conformance with the applicable guidelines, approval is recommended, conditioned by the following: Prior to any further signage being approved for the Avon Commercial Building, the owner and/or sign program administrator obtain approval for a revised comprehensive sign program, reflecting the anticipated needs of the entirety of the building tenants. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. introduce Application; 2. P:�sentation by Applicant; 3. Commission Review of Submitted Materials in conjunction with Sign Design Guidelines; 4. Formulate action by Commission Respectfully submitted, Lynn Fritzlen Department of Community Development ra Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 1989 Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver CreeK Canopy and Signage Silfer Real Estate Sign Program Amendment Page 5 of 5 PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted (,,"/) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn () Date I I 1 4 ) Oq Denise Hill, Secretary A (� eX44,e AW The Commission approved the canopy and signage for Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, for Slifer Real Estate, with the recommended condition that prior to any further signage being approved for the Avon Corr.a.ctcial Building, the owner and/or sign prccram adrricistrator obtain approval for a revised comprehensive sign program, reflecting the anticipated needs of the entirety of the building tenants, and—subject, to the Staff's approval of the exterior improvements-.--------