Loading...
PZC Packet 100389STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 3, 1989 Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision South Harbor Development Company Duplex Residences Design Review INTRODUCTION The applicant, South Harbor Development Company, wishes to construct on 1_ot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision a duplex residential structure. This lot has special circumstances. Forty percent of the site is located within the 30 foot high water setback. It includes the water course of the Eagle River. Special provisions should be considered which prevents the removal of rative riparian vegetation on this site. According to information on the application and accompaying exhibits, the proposed structure has a building footprint of 2,160 square feet contained in a wood framed structure. Height estimated from building elevation appears to be within limitations of 35 feet. Insufficient information and dimensions are provided to calculate building area ratio and to verify statistical and use information. Zoning and Home Occupation provisions prohibit real estate offices and tourist homes. The site plan indicates that disturbed areas of land will be revegetated with sod and native grasses. The structure has board and batton siding, with river rock stone veneer foundation. Roof pitch is 8/12, cedar shakes, Color scheme is not indicated. Approximately 64% of the entire site will be disturbed. Type and location of existing vegetation is not indicated in sufficient detail. Approximately 400 square feet on the south side of high water setback will be excavated 5 feet below present grade. The usable open space area is not indicated on site plan. Main drainage channel for the site is located in the driveway. Driveway grade is not shown. STAFF COMMENTS Section 6.10 - The Commission shall consider the following Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 1989 Page 2 of 6 Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Sub Division South Harbor Development Company Duplex Residences Design Review items in reviewing the design of a proposed project: 6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules ano regulations of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The project appears to meet applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. Unusual conditions occur on the site. The location of the structure appears that it will kill several mature willow trees. Rear setbacks are recommended to be calculated from 30' high water setback. 6.12 - The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. COMMENT: The type and quality of materials are compatible with existing structures in the vicinity. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The maximized building footprint will cause damage to riparian habitat. Drainage from parking lot should not be allowed to enter riparian habitat unfiltered. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography. COMMENT: The alteration of topography and removal of vegetation is excessive. Disturbed areas should be reduced and not permitted south of high water setback. 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 residence does appear to pose deleterious effects from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Excavation of stream bank is inappropriate. Color scheme not available. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 1989 Page 3 of 6 Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision South Harbor Development Duplex Residences Design Review similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. COMMENT: The improvement is residential in nature and dissimilar to others in the vicinity. Monetary and aesthetic values may be impaired. Excessive di3turbance and use of the riparian habitat will cause long term irreparable damage. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs fir the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposal is in general conformance with adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon, except for the proper use and protection of the riparian habitat of the Eagle River. The effect of improper treatment of the riparian habitat will increase stream bank erosion and contribute to a diminished water quality standards. Applicable Goals, Policies and Programs are as follows: Page 24 *7. Encourage design standards which protect structures against damage from natural hazards. B. Policies: *2. Provide for adequate snow removal and storage facilities, as well as the retention and removal of pollutants from surface runoff. 4. Discourage the construction upon, or removal of, native vegetation from steep slope areas in order to prevent erosion, landslides and unsightly scarring. Page 25 11. Protect the Eagle River and its streambanks as well as other significant water courses from non-essential filling and dredging, removal of trees and other established Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 1989 Page 4 of 6 Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision South Harbor Development Company Duplex Residences Design !review vegetation, confinement of its floodplain, and the incursion of pollutants. STAFF REC00.MENDATION Insufficient dimensions and information are available to determine or verify statistical data and uses presented on subittal. Application should be continued until adequate information is available. An appropriately sized culvert be located in drainage channel at the beginning of the driveway. Structure and site grading should be setback 10' from high water setback in order to protect root systems of trees located in riparian habitat. Heavy icing of driveway could result from using the driveway as a primary drainage channel. The applicant has not submitted materials or exterior color samples for review. The applicant has not indicated method of irrigation. Suitability of vegetation material for local climate cannot be determined. Revegetation material for disturbed areas having steep slopes cannot be determined. Methor of maintaining revegetated areas is not indicated. Accuracy of statistical information and dimensions cannot be verified from exhibits provided for review. Trash Storage: Not Shown. Location of existing vegetation and rock outcroppings: Not Shown. Drainage: Not shown in sufficient detail to determine if prior treatment or arosion control methods are necessary before allowing runoff to exit upon steep portion of riverbank. Ramp grades: Not Shown. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 1989 Page 5 of 6 Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision South Harbor Development Company Duplex Residences Design Review Existing plant materials to be removed and retained: Specific locations and species not shown. Parking appears to be in excess of permitted uses for the site. Suggest one parking space be deleted so that building can be moved 9' to the north reducing the need to cut into existing stream bank. Site visit by Planning Commission is recommended prior to making final design review decision on this application. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application (Staff); 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Staff Comments; 4. Commission Review - Action Respectfully submitted, James F. Lamont Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 1989 Page 6 of 6 Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision South Harbor Development Company Duplex Residences Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date D 6 Denise Hill, Secretary krial P The Commission continued this item until a site visit could be made, which was scheduled for October 10, 1989. Decision on this application will be made at the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 17, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 3, 1989 Lot 24, Block 1, Deep Rock Water Sign Variance Design Review INTRODUCTION Benchmark at Beaver Creek The applicant requests an approximate 84.5 square feet Individual Business lot sign for Deep Rock Water to be located on Lot 24, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The applicant seeks to change the sign size and quantity provided for in approved sign program. Building front is 89 lineal feet. STAFF COMMENTS SECTION 15.28.070 - 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; COMMENT: Sign is to be constructed of 2051 blue plexiglas. Letter of 5" channelized dark bronze. Illumination is by neon light. Sign is suitable for location, however size of sign would not permit additonal signs on the building. If sign were approved as a multiple business sign it would be permitted to be 37 square feet. Forty for the 89 lineal feet of the building front where shown to be tenant occupied in the original sign program. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements; COMMENT: Adjacent and neighboring sign conform with concept of sign program. Quality of adjacent and neighboring signs are consistent with intent of sign program. C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement; COMMENT: Plexiglas and neon lighting are adequate quality material. The method of supporting the sign is appropriate. The purpose of a sign progzam is to main -.in a. visual consistency throughout the property. Staff Report to October 3, 1989 Page 2 of 4 Lot 24, Block 1, Deep Rock Water Sign Variance Design Review A. the Planning and Zoning Commission Benchmark at Beaver Creek D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property; COMMENT: The size of the sign is larger than other signs on adjacent or neighboring property. The size of the sign would not be in scale with another sign on the building if the tenant space is occupied. E. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or iissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monet++ry or aesthetic, will be impaired; COMM:NT: Aesthetic values may be impaired as the size of the sign would not be consistent should another sign be requested for the structure. 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 appears to be in compliance with the sign code if the approval is given for an individual buisness lot sign and the present sign program is repealed. Original sign program provided for 2 signs, Deep Rock and other of indeterminate sizes. Multiple Business lot signs would be permitted to be 37 and 34 square feet respectively. Maximum of 6a square feet for all sign is maximum area without a sign prog am. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation; COMMENT: The sign is primarily oriented to vehicular traffic. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 1989 Page 3 of 4 Lot .4, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Deep Rock Water Sign Variance Design Review STAFF RECOMMENDATION Determination should be made if application voids the provisions and benefits of additional square footage as provided for multiple business lot signs approved under a sign program. Determination should be made to classify the site as an individual buisness lot, not eligible for additional signage. Determination should be made, if the site is to be multiple business lot, how much additional sign area should be assigned to each tenant, RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application (Staff); 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Staff Comments; 1. Commission Review - Action Respectfully submitted, James F. Lamont a 6'�% Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 1989 Page 4 of 4 Lot 24, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Deep Rock Water Sign Variance Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( A Withdrawn ( ) Date 101'7,109 Denise Hill, Secretaryrou"a� The Commission denied this application on the grounds that the proposed sign is too large for the building facade and is out of proportion with the architecture of the building. S.AFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 3, 1989 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 51 Beaver Creek Place Re/Max Vail Valley Sign Variance Design Review INTRODUCTION The applicant requests an approximate 20 Lcuare feet Multiple Business lot sign for Re/Max Vail Valley tv be located on the 51 Beaver Creek Place Building. The apllicant seeks to change the sign location and standard mounting technique as provided for in approved sign program. STAFF COMMENTS SECTION 15.28.070 - Design Review Criteria The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing proposed designs: A. . The suitability of the improvement, inclu ing materials with which the sign is to be constructed and '.he site upon which it is to be located; COMMENT: Sign is to be constructed of 1/2" acrylic panel secured by angle iron braces in north opening of north tower of building. Sign program calls for sign to be located in east opening of north tower and to be painted steel mesh. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements; COMMENT: Adjacent and neighboring sign conform with concept of sign program. Quality of adjacent and neighboring signs are not consistent with intent of sign program. Background of existing painted steel mesh has had to be augmented by temporary backing in order to improve visibility of signs. Solid white backing behind steel mesh is an improvement to effectiveness of sign program. C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement; COMMENT: Acrylic sign face is an adequate quality material. The method of supporting is a significant alteration to the overall concept of the sign program. The purpose of a sign program is to maintain a visual consistency Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 1989 Page 2 of 4 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 51 Beaver Creek Place Re/Max Vail Valley Sign Variance Design Review throughout the property. The proposed sign can be viewed from other angles, including from behind. Special attention should be given to the visibility of the supporting structure for other public areas on the site and in the immediate vicinity. D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property; COMMENT: The exposed nature of the tower location will expose the rear of the sign and its supporting structure to view from adjacent and neighboring properties. E. The objective that no i:erro-pment will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired; COMMENT: Aesthetic values may be impaired as the design theme for the sign program is not being carried out. Architectural approval calls for painted steel mesh to be located in all tower openings. A change in location of the sign does not appear to impair either monetary or aesthetic values. F. Whe+.her 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 appears to be in compliance with the sign code. Exact color and size of sign cannot be determined. Lighting is indirect from below. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation; COMMENT: The sign is primarily oriented to vehicular traffic. The sign program calls for the sign to be located in the east opening of the north tower. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 1989 Page 3 of 4 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 51 Beaver Creek Pklace Re/Max Vail Valley Sign Variance Design Review STAFF RECOMMENDATION Determination should be made if the painted ste%1 mesh is a critical part of the sign program. Determination should be made that the exposure of the structural supports and the rear of the sign is compatible with the intent of the sign program. Determination should be made that the change in location is compatible with the intent of the sign program. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1, Introduce Application (Staff); 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Staff Comments; 4. Commission Review - Action Respectfully submitted, James F. Lamont L a a Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 1989 Page 4 of 4 Lot L �, Block 2,, Benchmark at Beaver Creek r I&I M- x VAI- VOIACI Sign Variance Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ✓j Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date 10 13 1 r5l)_Denise Hill, Secretary DZWZ, lm& The Commission granted approval to the Re/Max Vail Valley sign at 51 Beaver Creek Place with the conditions that (1. The applicant explore mounting possibilities that would be the most compatible with the architecture of the building; and (2. If there are objections to visual appearance of the mounting of this sign from the east side, that mesh screening be placed in the east elevation to cover it. a