Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
PZC Packet 030105i,
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
AVON Meeting
March 1St, 2005
a^po Meetings Held At: Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
5:00 pm Commission Work Session
(Discussion of Items on Agenda)
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -
(Please note that all times provided are estimates only)
I. Call to Order at 5:30 pm
II. Roll Call
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Consent Agenda: Approval of the February 151", 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
VI. Discussion with Mayor Wolfe: Follow up discussion of P&Z and Council work session.
VII. Minor Project — Windows/Addition (5:50pm — 6:05pm)
Property Location: Lot 38, Block 32, Wildridge Subdivision/4560 Flat Point
Applicants/Owners: Susan & James Dreisbach
Description: Susan and James Dreisbach have submitted a Minor Project application to change the
roof pitch on a portion of a roof at their duplex. This change in roof pitch would facilitate the addition
of additional windows and may enhance their views facing south. The roof pitch would change from a
6:12 pitch to a 2:12 pitch for an area measuring approximately 275 square feet. The Residential
Design Guidelines do not support 2:12 pitch roofs.
VIII. Sketch Design — (6:05pm — 6:15pm)
Property Location: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540 Beaver Creek
Blvd.
Applicant/Owner: Davis Partnership Architects/Daniel Ritsch
Description: The applicant, Davis Partnership Architects, is proposing a multi -family project on this lot.
Two options have been submitted for review. Option 1 is proposing 19 units (13 dwelling units and 6
accommodation units). Option 2 is proposing 13 dwelling units. The applicant would like feedback on
the concept plan prior to initiating a zoning application for either option.
VIX. Sketch Design — Duplex (6:15pm — 6:30pm)
Property Location: Lot 68, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/4223 Wildridge Road West
Applicant/Owner Stephen Turner
Description: The applicant is proposing a duplex on this 5.24 -acre property. The lot is a steep
downhill lot on Wildridge Road West and faces the June Creek Drainage on the western border of the
Wildridge PUD. As proposed, the property would be accessed through an access easement on the
developed property to the south (Lot 69). Building materials include stone, timber, and stucco.
Posted on February 25` , 2005 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby
• City Market, main entrance bulletin board
• On the Internet at http://www.avon.org / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
X. Sign Design — City Market (6:30pm — 6:45pm)
Property Location: Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/72 B.C. Place
Applicant Dave Betts, Store Manager
Description: The applicant, Dave Betts — Store Manager, is proposing an advertisement sign near the
main entrance to the City Market grocery store. The sign measures 30 square feet (5' x 6') and
consists of wood, metal, and glass. This sign is strictly for advertisement and includes an area for
current sales at King Soopers/City Market stores.
XI. Final Design — Single -Family (6:45pm — 7:OOpm)
Property Location: Lot 76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5651 Wildridge Road East
Applicant/Owner: AJA Studio PC/Ray Verlinde
Description: The applicant is proposing a single-family residence on this duplex -zoned .55 -acre lot.
The sketch design was reviewed by the Commission at their December 7,2004 meeting. The
proposed residence has a maximum building height of 32.5'. The proposed materials include stucco
finish, wood siding, asphalt shingles and corrugated metal roofing, and stone veneer.
XII. Other Business - (7:00pm — 7:15pm)
Property Location: Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2520 Old Trail
Applicant/Owner Bob Mach
Description: Bob Mach submitted a Minor Project to eliminate the wrap around portion of a deck and
to reduce the size of the deck on the house (currently unifier construction) by approximately 126
square feet. This application was denied at the Commission's February 15, 2005 meeting and was
appealed to the Town Council. The Council remanded the decision back to the Commission for
further review in order for the applicant to explore alternative design solutions. Mr. Mach has
resubmitted with another design option for the west elevation of the structure.
XIII. Adjourn (7:15pm)
Posted on February 25", 2005 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby
• City Market, main entrance bulletin board
• On the Internet at http://www.avon.oro / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
r
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
February 15, 2005
Council Chambers
Town of Avon Municipal Building
400 Benchmark Road
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Smith.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions or amendments to the agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts of interest to disclose.
V. Consent Agenda
Commissioner Karow motioned for the approval of the Minutes from the February
1st, 2005, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; Commissioner Didier
seconded and the motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Savage abstaining due
to his absence at the meeting..
VI. Special Review Use — Drive through Bank — PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lot 22-13, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision/245 Chapel Place (Chapel Square, Building C) — Resolution
05-02
Applicant/Owner's Representative: Greg Gastineau
Description: Greg Gastineau is requesting a Special Review Use (SRU) Permit to
.allow for the use of a drive -up teller window for the future site of a Wells Fargo
Bank. The drive -up teller would gain access just south of the Outback
Steakhouse Monument sign at the access road behind City Market. Drive -up
teller windows are not specifically allowed in the Chapel Square PUD, therefore a
SRU permit is required. This agenda item is a Public Hearing.
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report to the Commission and asked for an
additional condition be added to the Staff Report that the Applicant should apply
for a Minor Subdivision to remove easements along the property line.
Commissioner Didier questioned the property line issue and the driveway width.
Greg Gastineau approached the podium as representative for the Applicant. He
commented that he has read the Staff Report and can adequately address the
CADocuments and SettingsUatieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK2\021505.D0C
Page I of 7
A
issues including the property line. He continued with the length of the driveway
as an issue of entrance and exit and not stacking.
No public response.
Public Hearing Opened
Public Hearing Closed
Commissioner review was positive to the project. Commissioner Struve
questioned the commercial and public lanes and expressed the public
convenience was a good factor. Commissioner Evans commented that the
project meets the criteria for Special Review Use, it meets the Town's zoning
codes, and the use is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan and it
was compatible with adjacent uses.
Commissioner Savage motioned for approval of Item VI, Special Review Use —
Drive through Bank, Property Location: Lot 22-B, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek Subdivision/245 Chapel Place (Chapel Square, Building C) — Resolution
05-02, with staff's recommendations 1-3, plus the addition of the property line
condition. Commissioner Trueblood seconded and the motioned passed
unanimously.
VII. Sketch Design — Commercial Building Addition
Property Location: Lot 22-B, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision/245 Chapel Place (Chapel Square, Building C)
Applicant/Owner's Representative: Greg Gastineau
Description: In conjunction with a Special Review Use (SRU) application, the
applicant is proposing a sketch design plan to add a canopy and associated drive
through lanes for a drive up banking facility. The proposed drive through would
be located on the former "chapel" site, behind the City Market grocery store. All
materials and colors of the canopy would match the existing building to the south
(Lot 22-A), and the bank would occupy the entire first floor of the building.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report.
Commissioner Evans questioned the parking code and its relation to the drive up
situation. Eric Heidemann commented that if the parking spaces from the Chapel
Square were in surplus and it granted through a mixed-use clause when Chapel
Square was created. Commissioner Struve questioned the type of classification
of the structure and it was voiced that it classified as B occupancy - Business.
Greg Gastineau approached the podium as representative of the Applicant. He
mentioned that he saw no issues with Staff Report or the recommendations but
questioned Recommendation No. 5 of the staff report regarding the signage.
Matt Pielsticker responded that signage should be presented at Final Design.
CADocuments and SettingsUatiebV-ocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\0LK2\021505.D0C
Page 2 of 7
Mr. Gastineau continued with the easement and transformer were property of
Holy Cross Energy and his meetings with them concluded that a 6 -foot increased
width, 3 feet on both sides, of the canopy would straddle the transformer. Holy
Cross Energy would vacate the transformer, turned over to a private splice vault
for the electrical underground and accessible by manhole, move the easement
over to the north and place the transformer in the landscape area. Mr. Gastineau
was consulting with his architects to provide at Final Design the concerns of Holy
Cross Energy for Commission approval. Mr. Gastineau continued that trees,
which would be removed, would be relocated within the property perhaps on the
island created by the drive thru lanes.
Commissioner Didier commented that the flat roof was a concern and felt that
arches may enhance the project. Mr. Gastineau replied that most roofs in
Chapel Square were flat and the square design was for vehicle clearance.
Commissioner Evans mentioned that the arch could not be created in this
location. Commissioner Evans continued that the roof color could be more
appealing with the black removed and replaced with an earth tone and he
continued that the lighting was a concern and recommended recess fixtures.
Commissioner Trueblood commented that signage redundancy might be an
issued. Mr. Gastineau presented to the Commission the proposed signage that
still required Wells Fargo Corporate approval.
VIII. Minor Modification
Property Location: Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2520 Old Trail
Road, Applicant/Owner: Bob Mach
Description: Bob Mach has submitted a Minor Project for a design change to his
single-family project that is currently under construction in Wildridge. The
application proposes to eliminate the wrap around portion of the deck and to
reduce the size of the deck on the house by approximately 126 square feet.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report.
Commissioner Didier asked what the reasoning for the deck elimination. The
applicant was not presented and the application was opened up for
commissioner review.
Commissioner Savage began the discussion by commenting that this issue had
previously addressed by the Commission and voiced that Mr. Mach is looking for
this modification since he changed the design feature without Commission
approval and now is seeking approval for another design feature. In other words,
Mr. Mach put a fireplace where it didn't belong and now he needed to wrap a
deck around that elevation and it presents a fire hazard from the exhaust of the
fireplace.
Commissioner Evans commented that commissioner rationale should focus on
design guideline standards. Commissioner Struve voiced that the visual of the
CADocuments and SettingsUatieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\021505.DOC
Page 3 of 7
fireplace bump out required the deck. Commissioner Karow commented that the
firebox bump out and the wrap around deck help the code by adding additional
materials and satisfies design review considerations. Commissioner Trueblood
asked to abstain from this project due to previous conversation with the
applicant. Commissioner Evans agreed with Commissioner Struve and his
recollection of the original submittal. West elevation approval at previous design
review and does not believe that it is in conformance. Commissioner Evans
continued that the fireplace bump out is approximately 24 to 30 inches off the
wall and with the deletion of the deck, there is no bump out grounding, its an
appendage stuck on the wall and makes no sense architecturally. At the time of
the last review of this project, the Commission approved the two new fireplace
bump outs, one on the west elevation and one on the east elevation that came
out on the ground and granted approval on the west elevation with the condition
that the deck remain in place and wrap around the project.
Commissioner Savage motioned for denial of Item VII, Minor Modification, Lot
45C Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2520 Old Trail Road, Applicant/Owner: Bob
Mach, with Commissioner Struve seconding the motion. The motion passed 4 to
1 with Commissioner Karow opposing and Commissioner Trueblood abstaining
due to exparte contact with the applicant.
XI. Comprehensive Plan Update
Description: Distribution of the February 9th Public Review Draft of the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff will provide the Commission with a summary of
proposed changes to the content, organization, and format of the Draft
Comprehensive Plan.' Staff will also update the Commission on the scheduled
open house and upcoming public hearing dates. No action required.
Eric Heikemann presented his memo to the Commission. Dominic Mauriello,
representing Vail Resorts, approached the podium to address his comments that
were distributed in letterform to the Commission. Mr. Mauriello commented that
the "Red House" be eliminated as a historical structure from the Comprehensive
Plan as it does not lie within the Town of Avon boundaries and his clients are
concerned with the "gateway" image and may be prone to deed this building to
the Town of Avon at some point.
Commissioner Evans voiced that the "Red House" did not present any cultural or
historical relevancy to the Town of Avon. However, Commissioner Evans
pointed out that the Town via the Comprehensive Plans has the right to give
guidance and recommendations regarding parcels of land that are not within the
boundaries of the Town.
Other Business:
Eric Heidemann voiced to the Planning and Zoning Commission the concerns of
the Town Council concerns regarding fencing in the Design Guidelines. Tambi
C Documents and SettingsUatieb\Local Settings\Tetnporary Internet Files\OLK2\021505.DOC
Page 4 of 7
Katieb commented that in a Joint Session between Town Council and Planning
and Zoning Commission, the subject of fences was opened. Mr. Xatieb
mentioned that the guidelines needed to be strengthened with regard to fences
and wanted commissioner input prior to proceeding. Commissioner Evans
questioned the goal of Town'Council in this area. Commissioner Karow voiced
that clarity was the issue in the fencing guidelines and continued with the his
recollection of the background that was in the original Wildridge PUD to allow the
deer to roam to per the desires of the National Forest Service. Commissioner
Didier commented that there would need to be areas that would conform to
fencing such as Eaglebend due to the railroad in its backyard. Commissioner
Evans reiterated the need for clarification and direction from Town Council on the
issue of fencing.
Commissioner Struve mentioned to the Commission that the Comprehensive
Plan include a comment on the 420 acres, West Avon Parcel, to be clear to the
Forest Service that it be developed as a recreational parcel. Commissioner
Karow voiced that other adjacent parcels be reviewed and documented in the
Plan.
Mrs. Bob Mach approached the podium, apologizing that her day-care parents
were late in picking up, to understand the denial of Mr. Mach's Modification
Application and to voice her opposition to the wrap around deck as a privacy
issue for the duplex next door. Bob Mach approached the podium with apologies
for arriving late due to a "crack-up" on Nottingham Road and asked for
understanding of the denial of his application. Commissioner Evans explained to
the Machs that it would take a motion to re -open the decision of the Commission
regarding this application. Commissioner Evans continued that the application
was denied with a 4 to 1 vote; Commissioner Trueblood abstained due to an
exparte contact that he felt would exclude him from voting on the application.
The consensus of the four commissioners that voted on denial that, at the time of
the last review of this project, there were numerous items re -approached for
approvals after the fact and after things had been changed. At that point in time,
the Planning and Zoning Commission had made a number of concessions with
regard to the design features of the home. Commissioner Evans continued that
specifically two items that were approved at the last project review, 2 new firebox
bump outs with one on the west elevation and one on the east elevation, and the
denial of the deck wrap around on the west elevation, which was to show support
for the bump out that was added by the builder without prior approval from the
Commission. It only made sense to have this bump out there if there is
something to support it. Right now, this bump out is hanging in mid air with no
grounding and no support and that is not supported by the Design Guidelines.
The maintaining of the deck as it wraps around as originally proposed and
approved by in the Final Design Review for this project adds that base and
grounding to make it look as if something is supporting that bump out. Based on
previous criteria, the anchoring and base of the bump out was again discussed
and decided by four members of the commission that the deck was needed there
00ocuments and Settings\tkatieb\Local Setlingffemporary Internet Files\OLK2\021505.DOC
Page 5 of 7
0
to have the design make sense and look like it is actually grounded and
supported by something. Mr. Mach voiced that if a buyer shows up; this buyer
should have the ultimate say in this issue and not an appointed board. Mr. Mach
continued by saying that it was his property and no one else can see it. The
Machs argued the decision of the Commission. Commissioner Evans again
repeated the format and foundation of this denial and mentioned a recourse
would be to appeal to Town Council the Planning and Zoning Commission
decision.
Commissioner Trueblood questioned Lot 61 and the changes that were proposed
by the owner, and asked why the Commission was not informed of the
condemnation earlier or a Commission person was not invited to sit in on the
Executive Session by the Council. Tambi Katieb responded that it was not within
his authorization to advise the Commission on the matter until it an offer was
made to the Owner of the subject property, also noting the frustration of the
applicant for Lot 61 with the timing. Mr. Trueblood was requested to discuss
Commissioner presence at Executive Session with the elected policy body.
Commissioner Trueblood voiced a failure of communication between Town
Council to P&Z, stating that the physical arrangement of the joint work session
was not conducive to a meaningful dialogue since he felt Council had to speak
down to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Karow questioned the condemnation criteria and process, and the
proposed use. Commissioner Evans mentioned that Al Williams was offered
compensation for the acquisition and has until 3/8 to respond. Commissioner
Evans noted that rationale behind the acquisition appeared to be a logical
location for transit, adjacent to the railroad.
Commissioner Struve wanted on record to show appreciation to Commissioner
Evans for his professional approach to a difficult situation regarding the
developer presentation at the joint work session meeting. Commissioner Didier
acknowledged the value of the joint work session and thought it still represented
a value to the developers to hear the concerns. Commissioner Evans
appreciated the session to better understand the Council vision and viewpoints
on Main Street and Lot 61.
Commissioner Trueblood mentioned the ease with which the Gates project
approval had occurred, and the new difficulty for Lot 61 regarding the timeline of
the project that has been pushed out. Mr. Katieb mentioned that a sketch plan
application could be on the table within the month since the Lot 61 project does
have entitlements at this time, and that it was up to the owner and developers to
determine whether a better project for the Town and themselves would cause a
PUD amendment. Commissioner Trueblood questioned the vision of Main Street
and whether it is reflected in the new Comp Plan. Tambi Katieb commented that
the Town Center plan considers the project and the Comprehensive Plan
acknowledges the public improvements required.
CADocuments and Settings\tkatieb\Local SettingsUempotary Internet Files\OLK2\021505.DOC
Page 6 of 7
Mr. Katieb continued with an update on anticipated Lot C PUD applications and
the forthcoming Confluence submission.
IX. Adjourn
Commissioner Evans made the motion to adjourn. Commissioner Trueblood
seconded and the motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at
7:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Andrew Karow
Vice Chairman
CADocuments and SettingsUatieb\Local SettingMemporary Internet Files\OLK2\021505.130C
Page 7 of 7
4
Staff Report
MINOR MODIFICATION V�
C O L O R A D O
March 1, 2005 Planning& Zoning Commission meeting
Report date February 24, 2005
Project type Modification to Final Design — Roof Change
Legal description Lot 38, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning PUD — 2 Units
Address 4560 Flat Point
Introduction
Susan and James Dreisbach have submitted a Minor Project application to change the
roof pitch on a portion of a roof at their duplex. This change in roof pitch would facilitate
the addition of additional windows and may enhance their views facing south: The roof
pitch would change from a 6:12 pitch to a 2:12 pitch for a roof portion measuring
approximately 275 square feet. The Residential Design Guidelines do not support 2:12
pitch roofs.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design Review
Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing
the design of this project:
1. The conformance with provisions of the Town of Avon Zoning Code.
This application conforms to all Zoning Code requirements. The maximum building
height remains unchanged.
2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains.
The project appears to generally comply with the goals and policies of the Town.
3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed Improvements.
The project complies with existing development rights as approved in the PUD.
4. The design plan Is in compliance with all design plan submittal requirements.
Residential Site Development:
No changes to the site design are proposed with this application.
e Residential Building Design:
o Design Character. The Guidelines state that building design should take
advantage of solar gain and view corridors.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 38, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — Roof Design Modifications
March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielsticker
Att: Exterior Elevations & Building Cross Section
Letter from applicants, dated February 7'h, 2005
Letter from duplex neighbor (east side of building), dated February 7'h, 2005
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
s
0
z
O
¢
w
w
�
C/)
LU
�
)
�o
)§
{ /
}
e\�
A
®-
�
` ~
C
«
LLI
�
d:)
)e
§
\j
]§
]
LUG
�x
§§�
§§
\/$
)2\
A2E<
z
O
¢
w
w
�
C/)
LU
�
lw
■
q \\ §§ \@
) %$\ (\ \� °E 2 j( \
466J U} /� 2/ }
$ moi $§ §\ ))/ a3 ] `
§) § /�
�2= #• �
<X!
dee ;LI
o S f»� fm f/
2(7 6 §§§ ))0 $ �~ �� °] 3\
§@k r§ �qb 322 a§ )2 }22 )n
f
/!
\
RECEIVED
F E B 0 7 2005
February 7, 2005 immunity Development
Dear Community Development Board,
We are submitting plans and a minor project application for a modest update of our
duplex in Wildridge at 4560 Flat Point, West Unit. Attached is a letter of support from
our duplex neighbor. There is a vacant lot adjacent to our property to the west, which is
owned by a person in England, Consequently, we have not been able to discuss this
modification with them. It does not appear that any other neighbors would potentially be
impacted by the proposed remodel.
Please contact us, the architect, or the structural engineers if you have additional
questions. Thank you for helping our community develop in a thoughtful way.
Sincerely,
Jim and Susan Dreisbach
February 7, 2005
Dear Community Development Board,
I am writing in regard to the remodel plans submitted by my duplex neighbors, Jim and
Susan Dreisbach, at 4560 Flat Point Road, West Unit, in Wildridge. I have seen their
plans, dated February 4, 2005, which document that their proposed changes will not
negatively impact my property or views. I support their changing the line of their roof to
accommodate additional windows to the south in order to extend their view of the valley.
Sincerely,
Charles Sawyer
4560 Flat Point - EastUnit
RECEIVED
FEB 0 7 2005
Community Development
Staff Report
Sketch Desi
7vi
�n COLORADO
March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date February 23, 2005
Project type Duplex
Legal description Lot 68, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning PUD — 2 Dwelling Units (Duplex)
Address 4235 Wildridge Road West
Introduction
The applicant is proposing a duplex on this 5.24 -acre property. The lot is a steep
downhill lot on Wildridge Road West and faces west to the June Creek Drainage on the
border of the Wildridge PUD and Forest Service. As proposed, the property would be
accessed through an access easement on the developed property to the south (Lot 69).
This access easement was platted on the Wildridge Final Subdivision Plat, Replat
Number 2.
The property is divided in half by a 30' Utility Easement. Additionally, a significant
portion of the lot underneath the Utility Easement contains a platted non -developable
area. This application proposes to keep all development on the top portion of the lot,
above the 30' Utility Easement.
Building materials for this duplex include: stone, timber, and stucco. Numerous retaining
walls are required to gain access to this difficult lot. There is approximately 300 feet of
driveway required to access the north unit (Unit B) of the structure.
Staff Comments
The design of the proposed duplex appears generally conform to the Town of Avon
Residential Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines. The site design
recognizes the steep existing grades (ranging from 35% - 70%) and the building is cited
in a linear fashion to work with these extreme grades. Site disturbance appears to be
minimized with the proposed layout.
Site access is through an access easement on the neighboring property to the South.
The driveway grades are consistent with the Design Guidelines. Grades equal 4% for
the initial descent off Wildridge Road and quickly reach 100/6 slope for the main portion of
the driveway. Driveway grades diminish when approaching the structure to allow for
vehicle turnarounds.
The building height appears to exceed the maximum allowable height requirement of
thirty-five (35') feet. This is of particular concern on some of the large west facing
ridgelines and this must be confirmed at the time of final design submittal. The massing
of the building and proposed building materials is generally consistent with the
Guidelines.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 68, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Sketch Design
March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3
Existing and proposed grading must be clarified at final design. All existing grades must
be dashed lines extending through the building, while all proposed grade lines must be
solid lines. Additionally, the ridge heights for all roof ridges must be indicated on the
final design submittal.
This duplex development appears to be designed in a manner that creates an integrated
structure on the site, with enough variety and architectural interest to distinguish itself
from a single family home. The design appears to conform to this duplex guideline.
As stated above, various retaining walls are required to gain access to the site. All
retaining walls appear to conform to the definition of "non-structural,' ranging in height
from
The sketch plan as presented generally conforms to the Town's residential design
guidelines. However, staff has identified issues that need further clarification prior to
submittal of the final design plan. These issues include: 1) Existing (dashed lines) &
proposed (solid lines) grading, 2) retaining wall cross sections provided for multi -tier
walls, 3) driveway drainage details, 4)
Design Review Considerations
The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the
specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria:
A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Zoning Code.
B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of
the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review
Guidelines.
The Commission will take no formal action on the sketch plan application. Rather,
direction on the design will be given to the applicant from Staff and the Commission to
incorporate in the final design application.
Full size plan sets will be available for you to provide written comments and guidance to
the applicant at your March 1 st meeting. If you have any questions regarding this project
or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4413, or stop by the Community
Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielsticke
Planner
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
•
•
0
•
Lot 68, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Sketch Design
March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3
Standing on Access Easement looking at Approximate Driveway entrance
On Wildridge Road looking south towards entrance and Lot 69
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030
Fax(970)949-5749
7
VwvPn 04--?- r' -:a U9 LB °P-9-D'.PI "W3 O Q O W N a — v a •
W BY9t'9Z6'W 1 •-9'0'd F p Y Q W
C
A....ne..... y C ~ Olf�' jo^ N 3 P
f� $ p g
L37 4 p e
jul! O
0 = / `� / / (}'':Jai'' I C3
O
U -j
Y
� rl,j•
_ _ ?r;�Y
li 3 / J GO
W 4 �?,:
l ltif,�'A rir(I
n:
/ \ `
Iri
of
11�''t rr• v`t; � '^ �
+yr. ; �}•t I I �
I 1: x ±,"� ;i`,,(•"Ij'n.4 ,h. r'+ d!.3—
i t• f••.`; I �
ui7L"i 8� I
(!','?!:s.. A�`'i�.�'s'r'1'�' I�'� ' a' Y•�t+, I I I I I
I I .: t%'"•' r iS•i f,r. q; a K',;'v' 7 I
I I T�.)�.h�. h'(;1.'�:�rf� ,; �YI'i,4'✓,..,y —1 I I 1
t I I II
22 vi
YZ• r Tlr: �i ��:l:�r'��:.}• .� i��. I I � 1 I 1
I �"?H .N Y/•�r pf.%Y'L?; 'i•I � _ I I \� � _ I � I I 1
d+'�fyl'j(f'•!'� t":yj„+�, • <' ' I —'F1 M� 1 I\ 1 I I I
y„. tit'.•%Y,.
I T��I f �:S Cs�,l•I,t�ll fi!�y I \ , \ , \
=t{'C�s'i:.5>rti'"'i, iti?i �k�rr'i''{:: •$ I 1 / � �\ 1 \ \ 1 I
I 'Snh, f'luv:'y� �(.'•dr4•!yii�� 'hy 1 �/ 1 \ � � \1 '1 \\ I \, II
I I`.�:ri'r}•,{! j.'";:zi4�:'I,��,�y.,.,,��yyy,}�. � \ �\ \\ y1 11 \ , i
I �'j�+�`,•Ss:tP'{^�v{'%'sh°3:” ;�:; 1'i;�,;t�.. \ 1, \ \ 1 1 � 1 1 I
yi;•:�a f>y V:: Ii; u1. 1 4.. \ 1 \ \ I I 1 0 uiu
ui
4•
I ;'i:".r'•.r'sl i�„*'�i:!';?;ly�,5:�%`t�jr, ;rri,',i.�:j>: \\' \ \ 11\ \ T
'r"'y;;}�r?:.9i1',..� �,r, .y i.r.l I•i,�,:. s��.%.; .a+`i". \' — .l- —r'\— I
\ r. , j,l nr.�• r�'•', �'��ii 54' rtir� r; 1 1 1 I
i'�.,� .t� f�' ♦+, r,,,55 a's�'til'•'• li f.t 1 1 '^ I
Q I I ;i' ('r.�F��{S<^r y �,:.• .: ''`+y�,� A,, 1 , 1 1 1�
',,0"V:.j!>i:k�;,,ri'f:�/Ll'J.F�'ti4•Flti ��r)�'1�,.: \ , 1 I
I 'a G,�rr j,� aFy,. 1; r 1'•r:95 I I
I '<�:,, •';7.�:, k',. iii r :t $,� �„ i.C; t,�si; � I I II 1 1
I ,,'�. vT ✓r ,� ' 1t �:% 2" t,4'; �+M1 I': ,:V �; ,' I 1 1 1 1
,,',(( 4.N,?(�h`L:i:+: {it I Y1u� 1 1
r•'r'`'^,;�'9�yS't,. � ' T � •o '.� . II\ / j I 1 ' r
I �y�i ;ti+s�.:,'•���';.4i.,�'.n... pI. I , I ��� 1 I I I
coI
'IV
11 ('1�\
II'L 11J/'I I 'll 1 11 11 II �I II �1 � I� I— JI I
Q—
I
I I I 11 IF— 1.11 I 1
1 \ 111 1 I
W
p
Q t I
I
N I I
I I 1
I
C
}1 • j
{~d BM9Z'OZ6 4d Lf9lB opaSOB[-'°0d
W BrrV'9Z6'OL6—ouoyR SOB[ -"IL
Y
tl
_ iA�•,O �n� �.i. An�.eeiR. n.ni.n�,,:V ~ OII" ��� N W `
Lu
= V
O C
� N
U
C
O —
U Q
W of
IL
/I
To
g / I
/ / I
/
S4tn
ONO
O / :a,•`�i(' qv }
we
0 A'..% k
It
fl AK.Y.
o
4 II II �^�jj:v
J
I •rr �, v �
co
I� x �Air''a'r... ♦rti;i}' a .?tiii•N`: 8 I �'
I i ,����%/,3�r•.�.;y,4 Js;rr a' ".rn''"aA� I I II �
I I "r{ /'V S.Y. 1•Y:l7f"�..�• ��,,�� a I I
�i5: �•'�. .�e;T.e:y l.y,Y' M11 I�fj�t i. I
t 4�is
I •� �yw r°•''� I � �I— I t I
I ��?'`k�I�?�•�' h ;� I ld� I 1 j I I I
O I ;y,� 'r�kr 1%'r 'n• iy/I 01 I II I� 11
I ,:��„car'/•?” Y�J c.(��, '� 1•. I �� — _ — � I
R i>4•'.,.;I�.��;;'�}{n:': I I \ �\— 11 II � I I I I I
I I .,{i•F�`;Yy�yf' ;f�i x;�1'?J�'r�'%1���r I / \ 1\ \\ \may � \ \ 1 I I
I 11�."%5�:�•}:1: :';e.� �'F>i•,i�ttr'I'rlJ.': �!.,!:. . \ 1 , , '. '� \ 1 I
I �
W wv�wO4vnry.l�ow:° ZC918 opwoio�vp,wp3 F dW 3 N
SY) ` T a
9"r 9Z6'016 - —W x*1 *O d Q = CCCY O } _V
0 cL
W` 9 '� O LO F
a p
V F� 6P R O
Delr ,; < J e
C p� t 3 LL s
C V
0 C
V N
Y—
C w
F_
Lt_ Q O
d.
c i 00
p
a 1
p w
� N
guj uj�
w
J
LL i5 LLJJ
Q w w w
00 goo
Do 3 0000
N
Fim a
®I
�I
1 1 1 1 1 1 __J •9,[
111111 ---
____LLL111
O
E
_ ❑
.Ed
3
a�
�o
.a
4 0
_ o
NOILtltlVddS 11Nf1 —_— _—_—_—_—__
Mz
a a
~
i°"'g°^O'I"°W'luw:a LC9l8 olmxge�'ep,wp3
W"9L6'OC6 —W 5081 x^8'O'd
O
Q
W
M
3�
N
�
�
i
1
�6��a0 i x�.l.!• o�A. fel x>�V
Q
~
W� ��]'.
y
hW
Am
O
7
� ~7 u4
�
.�C0 L
a
s
=
~
gEE
< 0
Q
o
u_-
!
C V
c
Illi
aO N
I
2 V
c H
�U=
I
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
P
I
� y
r N O`
---------
;
I
,
8 Q
I
W
LL.
Q ZCie
_
o�aQ
_
---------1
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
_
V y,
LjS
.s•.i
3
4
!r
b
v
I
o
a
(D00
o
a
FFr
.f•,(
r----
I
J p_
_
_
V
1 2
I
I
I
O
e
e
----Nouvavdas�n -
--------
.P,SZ
0
. [•,fl
dl
b
0 ❑
01 r
Vw'!°"O4—P' pow:• ZC91B °P—n "PJ—P3 O C W N 3 m C
Br" 9Z6'M "" 4d SIDBI "^B'O'd �'
Co
v F p 'V SR = N ` < J 8 3 k P
y N g< -1 1 1 rl i All
Z
cu
o
..=
LV
oO�
LL- Q-------------------- 11S-I 11S—Il --- ---
�z� � m
ILoser,el YI
b
I•,Y
----_ 00
4
� I
I
� I
Qo g
.P.6
O
oq� ,Zl
N
,O N
O _
ce
V W
I
CG W W I °0
w33
I
I
I _
I
Vwpnpyucp
W
v
-Now:• ZC918 °P°JOI°�'+W""P3
P"9Zd'OZ6 `-.,w SOOI *°B'O'd
.n0 .r.
�
O
F
=
r
d
aR
` �•
(
Q
H
=
W
W
�^
N
°EtE�
C
�`
6
MM _a
W
(L�.
X
� k
g
!
7,1
PJul
{C
t
d
3
LL
Vt
<
.o
4
V
C
o_
Ir---------------------
1" o J
1"
agz�
A6i
"Et ,tl
a
❑
❑ �
b
L— — — — — — — — — — — J
----- -
- - - --
001
I
EDI
I
I
I
o0 r----,
I
I I
I
z1
v
1 � I
I O I
—
Q—
1 I
I I
I I
LU Z
�S
CUM
Lm:o�no
.a91
4
8
ll
CC ce
LU LU
a
N �
a
Bvt4'9ZE'OL6 "-Nd SOPI �.9'O'd
� �
W
�.
�
�y
Y
F
•
t
7,1,
Y
N
8
< n
�^
4
8
ll
CC ce
LU LU
a
N �
a
Yw'po.p4"DN'
_
SM 9L6 W `—w 1081 •°9'O'd
%
p
W
a
m02
wiz
3
a4-
a ;
z
d
s
N�
1 J
Q
O
P.
isr�
_
v
N
< d
3
�-
v
� C
a . � �
.P.Z
z��
N W
V Z
L.
W o -'
I IL
�z"1
d.
11 I'll
I'll 11 il IIITII Hill
n�
11 11
Hill I III ft I
LIJU
---------------------------
-----
-
-------
-
b
11-1 Hill 11 1111
Q
till
b
.P.Z
c V
o �
c H
V =
LL.
cgQ
W of
cgz�
0.
s
0
z
m
.� 0 0 7-1
Wz
0
Z � �
I �
I I
I LU
8�� �I
g�Q$
� �� i G, 8 �1 H�5 6 uj
W
0 © © .(•,8
I
V k°^O'P'DW `Row:a Lf918 °P°i1°:�"P10^`P3
0
O
W BvtV'9id'O(6`w°yd SOBI �°B'O'd
H
da
v
D-Mli
s
O
V
s
0
z
m
.� 0 0 7-1
Wz
0
Z � �
I �
I I
I LU
8�� �I
g�Q$
� �� i G, 8 �1 H�5 6 uj
W
0 © © .(•,8
I
r
.Y,B
V
W
Bt1V'9Z6'OC6 ^ wayd SOBI *oB'O'd
SM 9Z6+mp�. -4d LC9lB °P°wlo� XoG'O'3
I.i..�,•, i •A.,,.re�,,•n,.�nnl ,. n,y
O
H
e
d
H
p
1� j6�
i z
d
Q
N
o
W
N
W
M
3
_
y
.21 <
L C
O O
W V
x
V
W
A�
C4
a
ee
o
AulN
$
W W
e
o
r
a
II 3 `^
V
N
< n
ion
I= V
C
0 C
z 2 �-
� c
V =
`_Q
0
W o -'
�z;�
IL
t,s All
31I!
;SII
LL,
w 4
a
.Y,B
a � N z 'n •
LO a 4 a
Ir
Staff Report
Sketch Desi
f /7
AVON
nCOLD RASO
March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date February 24, 2005
Project type Multi -family
Legal description Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Zoning Residential High Density - RHD
Address 540 Beaver Creek Blvd.
Introduction
The applicant, Davis Partnership Architects, is proposing a multi -family project on this
lot. Two options have been submitted for review and general comments. Option 1 is
proposing 19 units (13 dwelling units plus 6 accommodation units). This option would
require a rezoning, which is discussed later in the report. Option 2 is proposing 13
"whole ownership" units, which is based on the current entitlements of the property
(RHD). Each option is proposing two building footprints.
Staff will first address Option 2 in this report as we feel this option generally meets the
requirements of the RHD zone district. Option 1 will be discussed second.
Background
Previous owners of Lot 12 obtained final design approval from the Town of Avon in
1998, but the final design approval has since lapsed and the property is under new
ownership. In May 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a final design
application for Lot 12 based upon the following finding: (1) the project's massing, height
and architecture are incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The
applicant revised the final design plans and the project was approved in July 1998. The
revisions include the following:
Reduction of massing and height. The number of stories has been reduced frorr
five (six including the garden level) to three (four including the garden level).
Vertical steps in the south elevation further reduce the project's massing.
Reduction of building footprint area by 3,000 square feet.
Increased compatibility with adjacent projects in terms of materials and a
reduced amount of glazing on the south elevation.
Staff mentioned the 1998 final design application because there may be similar issues
the Commission may want to address with this application as with the 1998 application
(see attached 1998 Staff reports). It appears that massing, height and architecture were
the major issues with the 1998 plans.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12, Block 2, BMBC Sketch Design Beaver Creek Vista
March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 4
Staff Comments
The design of the proposed multi -family residence (Option 2) appears to generally
conform to the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial. and Industrial Design Review
Guidelines. The proposed building height appears to be consistent with the residential
design guidelines. The maximum building height of the structure measures 54 feet,
which is less than the maximum allowable of 60 feet. The maximum lot coverage of 50%
has been adhered to. The applicants are proposing 12, 641 square feet (42%) of lot
coverage.
Option 2 Staff Comments
The building materials proposed with the current application appear to be of high quality
and the building design would blend in well with the neighborhood's "alpine" character.
Staff does not have any issues with the building materials or architecture.
The RHD zone district allows a maximum of 50 percent site coverage and this project is
proposing 42 percent site coverage. On the Summary Sheet, the applicant states there
will be 64 percent site coverage. This percentage was calculated including asphalt
surfaces in addition to the building footprint. Section 17.08.750 of the Municipal Codes
states that 'site coverage means the portion of a site covered by buildings, excluding
roof or balcony overhangs, measured at the exterior walls or supporting members of the
building at ground level.' Asphalt surfaces are not included as part of site coverage.
The site coverage for this proposal is 42 percent, with the two buildings encompassing
12,641 square feet of Lot 12 (site coverage for the main building is 8,515 square feet
and the duplex unit is 4,126 square feet).
The issue Staff has with Option 2 is whether the unattached duplex building is necessary
and if the two units could be incorporated into the main building. Removing the duplex
building footprint would decrease the amount of site disturbance (from 42 percent site
coverage to 28 percent site coverage) and may preserve a larger view corridor for
adjacent properties. Although the site coverage for the proposed two buildings is under
the maximum allowable of 50 percent, Staff would prefer only one building footprint on
this site. The massing of this project as proposed is excessive for this site.
The zoning for Lot 12 allows for a maximum of 13 dwelling units and 13 are proposed.
The zoning allows for a maximum height of 60 feet and it appears the maximum height
proposed is 54 feet. The final design plans denied in 1998 proposed a 13 unit - 6 stories
high building. The applicant revised the plans and was approved for a 13 unit - 4 story
high building. Option 2 in the current application is proposing two buildings, one that is 4
stories high with 11 units and a duplex unit that is 2 stories high. The adjacent
properties vary from 2 to 3 stories high.
The landscaping requirements in the RHD zone district require a minimum of 25 percent
of the site to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing to landscape 36 percent of the
lot. On the Site/Landscaping Plan (Sheet L1.0) it appears landscaping is proposed
outside of the Lot 12 property boundary and within the Beaver Creek Blvd. right-of-way.
Landscaping in the Town right-of-way is prohibited. Removing the landscaping from the
right-of-way will decrease the proposed 36 percent, but it appears landscaping will still
be above the required 25 percent.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12, Block 2, BMBC Sketch Design Beaver Creek Vista
March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 4
On the Site/Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.0) it appears parking is proposed within the 25'
building setback. A variance will be required prior to or along with the Final Design
application in order for parking to be allowed within the 25' building setback along
Beaver Creek Blvd. Staff does not believe a hardship exists on this lot for a variance to
be approved and thus would not recommend approval to the Commission for a parking
variance request. On Sheet A1.0 (parking floor plan) stacked parking is proposed for
spaces 1-8, with no aisle. The Town does not permit a parking design of this type.
The applicant is proposing 37 parking spaces for this project. It appears that with the
two spaces removed from the 25' building setback and the 4 spaces removed from the
parking floor plan (spaces 5-8), the required number of spaces for this project will be
deficient by one parking space. 32 total parking spaces would be required for Option 2
and only 31 will be provided.
Minimum driveway curb cuts for multi -family projects require a minimum of 20' and
maximum of 24'. The applicant is proposing two 22' wide driveway curb cuts. One
driveway curb cut is permitted and two are proposed. The Commission must specifically
approve additional points of access.
Option 1 Staff Comments
It does not appear Option 1 meets the Residential High Density (RHD) zoning district
requirements. Lot 12 is .69 acres and the RHD zoning district allows a maximum of 20
dwelling units per acre. Staff believes this entitles the owner to a maximum of 13
dwelling units to be developed and 19 dwelling units are proposed with Option 1. Also,
the owner is proposing "hot beds" for Option 1 and this type of use is neither an 'allowed
use' or 'special review use' in the RHD zone district. As submitted, Staff does not
support the concept for Option 1 due to the proposed use of "hot beds" and the 19
dwelling units not meeting the RHD zone district requirements. It appears the massing
and density of the two buildings would not be compatible with the adjacent properties.
If the Option 1 concept were to be pursued, the owners would be required to apply for a
rezoning of the property. The Town of Avon does not currently have a zone district to
match the density proposed for Option 1 on a lot less than 1 acre. Staff would require
the applicant to rezone the property as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and apply for
specific development rights. The PUD would be reviewed with the same criteria as this
application. Staff believes the massing and density of this option is not compatible with
the adjacent properties.
Issues to Resolve Prior to Final Design Submittal
The sketch plan as presented for Option 2 generally conforms to the Town's residential
design guidelines. However, staff has identified several issues that need further
clarification prior to submittal of the final design plan. These issues include: (1) the
massing of the two buildings appears to be incompatible with the site; (2) the parking
floor plan shall be revised with no stacked parking for spaces 1-8; (3) no parking spaces
are permitted within the 25' building setback along Beaver Creek Blvd.; (4) landscaping
is not permitted in the Town right-of-way; (5) specific approval from the Commission is
required for a second curb cut; and (6) it appears the required number of parking spaces
is deficient by one space.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 12, Block 2, BMBC Sketch Design Beaver Creek Vista
March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 4
Design Review Considerations
The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the
specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria:
A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Zoning Code.
B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of
the Town of Avon Residential Commercial and Industrial Design Review
Guidelines.
Staff will prepare a memo to the Commission highlighting anticipated areas of discussion
for the submittal materials. The Commission will take no formal action on the sketch
plan application. Rather, direction on the design will be given to the applicant from Staff
and the Commission to incorporate in the final design application.
Staff will provide full plan sets for you to provide written comments and guidance to the
applicant at your March 1, 2005 meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748-4017, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
gi?4-4e<(
Kenneth Kovalchik
Planner I
Att: May 5, 1998 Final Design Staff Report
July 7, 1998 Final Design Staff Report
Town of Avon Municipal Code Section 17.20.090 — Residential High Density (RHD)
Letter dated February 14, 2005 from Davis Partnership Architects
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
14 February 2005
Town of Avon
To the Planning and Zoning Commission:
Dear Board Members,
The Owner of Lot 12 would like to develop the site zoned RHD (Residential High
Density). The purpose of this cursory review is to get the best direction for the owner
to proceed, given the information put before you today.
The previous approved development on this property was planned with surface
parking on the northern half of the site and a 6 -story structure facing the lake, on the
southern half. (Those plans are included in the back of this package for reference.)
In contrast, our plans for Lot 12 place a multi -family structure on the northern half of
the site and a "triplex" building on the southern half, whereby minimizing the building
mass facing the park and holding back the west edge for the benefit of neighboring
sight lines to Beaver Creek. In addition, proposed underground parking and
perimeter landscaping will have virtually no impact on the neighboring properties.
The zoning regulations call for a minimum lot size of one acre. Lot 12 is 0.689 acres.
This lot was however rezoned after the lot size was set and we believe this removes
the requirement for the minimum lot size. With 20 dwelling units per acre allowed,
we believe that entitles 13 units on the lot. These drawings show two options:
"Option 1" includes 19 units, of which 6 are "accommodation" rentals, with the
balance being "for sale" residential condos. Option 2 includes 13 "for sale" units,
meeting the zoned density requirement. Both options show the same proposed
building envelope, site coverage, and landscaping.
The previous approved plans had approximately 60% site coverage. Our proposal
calculates 64% site coverage. Landscaping, parking, and building heights shown will
all meet the Town of Avon zoning regulations.
Sincerely,
Davis Partnership, PC RECEIVED
c E B 1 8 2005
Community Development
Scott Nevin, AIA
Associate Principal
Attachments: Drawings Dated February 15, 2005
Davis Partnership PC., Architects Denver Office: 2301 Blake Street- Suite 100 Denver Colorado 80205-2108 303.861.8555 Fax 303.861.3027'
Vail Office: 0225 Main Street - Unit C 101 Edwards Colorado 81632 970.926.8960 Fan 970.926.8961
'Zoning — Zone District Regulations
SAME AS
ORIGINAL
(b) Allowed uses. The following uses shall be
permitted in the RMD District:
(1) Multiple -family dwellings, including
townhouses, condominiums, apartments.
(c) Special review uses.
(1) Home occupations;
(2) Residential bed and breakfasts;
(3) Aboveground public utility installa-
tions;
(4) Churches.
(d) Development standards.
(1) . Minimum lot sizes: one-half (.5) acre;
(2) Maximum building height: forty-eight
(48) feet;
(3) Minimum building setbacks:
Front: twenty-five (25) feet;
Side: seven and one-half (7.5) feet;
Rear: ten (10) feet;
(4) Maximum site coverage: fifty percent
(50%);
(5) Minimum landscaped area: twenty-
five percent (25%);
(6) Maximum density: fifteen (15) dwell-
ing units per acre of buildable area. (Ord. 91-10
§1(part))
17.20.090 Residential High Density – RHD.
(a) Intention. The Residential High Density
District is intended to provide sites for multiple -
family dwellings at a density not to exceed twenty
(20) dwelling units per acre.
til
Supp. 3
Section 17.20.080
(b) Allowed uses. The following uses shall be
permitted in the RHD District.
17-23
(1) Multiple -family dwellings, including
townhouses, condominiums, apartments.
(c) Special review uses.
(1) Home occupations;
(2) Bed and breakfast lodges;
(3) On-site rental offices;
(4) Aboveground public utility installa-
tions;
(5) Churches.
(d) Development standards.
(1) Minimum lot size: one (1) acre;
(2) Maximum building height: sixty (60)
feet;
(3) Minimum building setbacks:
Front: twenty-five (25) feet;
Side: seven and one-half (7.5) feet;
Rear: ten (10) feet;
(4) Maximum site coverage: fifty percent
(50%);
(5) Minimum landscaped area: twenty-
five percent (25%);
(6) Maximum density: twenty (20) dwell-
ing units per acre of buildable area. (Ord. 91-10
§ I (per))
G
Town of Avon
Final Design
Staff Report
May 5, 1998 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date May 1, 1998
Project type 13 Unit Multi -family Residential Building
Legal description Lot 12, Block 2, Benclunark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Zoning Residential High Density (RHD)
Address 0540 West Beaver Creek Boulevard
Introduction
The applicant is proposing a 13 -unit apartment building with two levels of structured parking,
and direct access into the building from both parking levels. The proposed building is six stories
tall. The project features a large reception lounge, a hot tub area, substantial tenant storage, and
two rental offices. Materials include a combination of cedar, stone veneer and stucco siding.
The lot is the last remaining undeveloped RHD parcel along West Beaver Creek Boulevard (on
the north side of Nottingham Park). The majority of the site gently slopes down to the park,
though access from West Beaver Creek Blvd is fairly steep.
On February 3, 1998, the Commission conducted a concept review of this project. The
Commission commented on the following items:
• The project's massing and height compared to neighboring projects.
• Inclusion of the manager's apartment into the project's overall density.
• The south elevation's compatibility with the rest of the building.
• The amount of architectural detailing on the side elevations.
• Snow shedding onto the parking structure's driveway.
• The amount of viable snow storage area.
• The potential for the project to operate as a "condo hotel".
Design Review Considerations
According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4. 10, the Commission
shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project:
Town of Avon Community Development
(970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
j:1p&z\staff reports119981050598112b2bcfd2.doc
1
Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, page 2
May 5, 1998, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning
Code.
Allowed use: The project conforms to the allowed residential use. In response to concern that
the project might be operated as a "condo hotel," the project's owners have provided a letter
stating this is not their intent (please see attached letter dated April 8, 1998).
Density: The Town of Avon Zoning Code specifically indicates that accessory apartments
count toward a parcel's maximum allowable density. Therefore, the elimination of the
manager's apartment brings the project into conformance with the parcel's allowable density.
Lot Coverage: The proposed 38% of building coverage conforms to the 50% maximum.
Setbacks: The structure's roof overhangs extend right to both side yard setback lines.
Extreme care would be required during construction to ensure the project does not encroach
into the setbacks.
Easements: No proposed encroachments.
Building Height: The largest determined height of 60 feet on the south elevation conforms to
the 60 -foot maximum limit. Extreme care would be required during construction to ensure
the building does not exceed the maximum allowable height.
Grading: All proposed slopes conform with the maximum of 2:1 slope guideline and the
proposed driveway grades conform to Town standards.
Parking: The 16 surface parking spaces and 15 structured parking spaces exceed the required
30 spaces (2 spaces per unit plus 4 guest spaces).
Snow Storage: Staff has determined the effective snow storage equals approximately 1,359
square feet, 40% short of the required 2,983 square feet based upon a total impermeable
surface area of 14,914 square feet.
Landscaping: Staff recommends additional landscaping to better screen both the parking
structure's west elevation and the trash enclosure. The Sign Code also specifies a minimum
of landscaping associated with the project identification sign.
2. The conformance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
3. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed.
The proposed types of materials are appropriate for the project and the neighborhood.
However, staff has concerns with the application of these materials (see Design Review
Consideration #6)
4. The design of site grading and drainage to minimize impacts to adjacent sites, rights-of-way
and easements.
Staff is concerned that snow storage areas would drain onto neighboring properties.
Additionally, engineering review indicates that the proposed detention pond is not required,
since the project's impermeable surface area does not exceed 25,000 square feet.
5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site
disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other
significant alteration of existing topography.
The parking structure and residential building combine effectively in response to the site's
topography.
6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to
street, quality of materials, and colors.
Town of Avon Community Development j:\p&z\staff reports\1998\050598\12b2bcfd2.doc
(970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
/4,
Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, page 3
May 5, 1998, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Staff believes the project's massing, height and architecture are not compatible with the
surrounding residential neighborhood.
The proposed structure is significantly more massive than any other project along this portion
of the Nottingham Park Residential District. The existing pattern and scale of low, highly
articulated buildings allow views both into and out of Nottingham Park. The scale of this
project conflicts with this pattern.
The perceived six -story height would be twice that of any of the two- to three-story
neighboring projects.
Staff also believes that the southern elevation should better reflect the immediate
neighborhood's "alpine" architecture. The established pattern of low, highly articulated
buildings with steeply pitched roofs and dark wood siding interfaces comfortably with the
park and creates the immediate neighborhood's "alpine" feel. The dominant windows and
application of stucco on the upper portions of the building conflict with the neighborhood's
architectural pattern.
7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that
monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
Staff believes the disproportionate mass and height, plus the contrasting architecture conflict
with the neighborhood's existing scale and pattern of development.
8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and
Programs for the Town of Avon.
Staff Recommendation
Though the project presents many positive attributes (preservation of a neighboring project's
views, structured parking, quality construction and interior amenities) staff believes the overall
mass, height and architecture are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore,
staff recommends denial of this final design.
Recommended Motion
"I move to deny the final design for the residential project on Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision, as depicted on the plan set dated April 29, 1998, based upon the
following finding:
1. The project's massing, height and architecture are incompatible with the surrounding
residential neighborhood."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Town of Avon C
(970) 748-4030
ppaixstart repores� 1an0wou1oo1
N
Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, page 4
May 5, 1998, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Planning & Zoning Commission Action
❑ Approved as submitted
XDenied
❑ Approved with conditions (noted below)
❑ Tabled
❑ Withdrawn by applicant
Conditions of approval, reasons for tabling or withdrawal of application, or basis for denial (refer
to code or guidelines by number):
Commissioner Dantas moved to deny Final Design approval for the multifamily
residential building proposed for Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek —
Subdivision --Beaver Creek Vista, as depicted on the plan set dated April 29, 1998,
based upon the following finding: —
1. The project's massing; height and architecture are incompatible with the —
surrounding residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Klein seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
AttgfQ s
/ CSG Date % 9
"'Sue Railton, Secretary
Town of Avon Community Development J:\p8z+staff reports11998\050598\12b2bcfd2.doe
(970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
41
,#
Town of Avon
Final Design Staff Report
July 7, 1998 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date July 2, 1998
Project type 13 Unit Multi -family Residential Building
Legal description Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Zoning Residential High Density (RHD)
Address 0540 West Beaver Creek Boulevard
Introduction
The applicant has submitted a design for a 13 -unit apartment building. The Commission denied
an earlier application for this site, finding that the "project's massing, height, and architecture
(were) incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood." The applicant has revised
the design in attempt to address the Commission's previous concerns.
The revision include the following:
• Reduction of massing and height. The number of stories has been reduced from five with a
ground level basement to a three with a garden level basement.
• Vertical steps in the south elevation further reduce the project's massing.
• Reduction of building footprint area by 3,000 square feet. a
• Increased compatibility with adjacent projects in terms of materials and a reduced amount of
glazing on the southern elevation.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4. 10, the Commission
shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project:
1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning
Code.
Allowed use: The project conforms to the allowed residential use.
Density: The project conforms to the parcel's allowable density of 13 dwelling units.
Lot Coverage: The proposed 38% of building coverage conforms to the 50% maximum.
Setbacks: The structure's roof overhangs extend right to both side yard setback lines.
Extreme care would be required during construction to ensure the project does not encroach
into the setbacks.
Easements: No proposed encroachments.
Town of Avon Community n•VI
(970) 7484030 fax (970)
Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, page 2
July 7, 1998, planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Building Height: The largest determined height of 48 -feet on the south elevation conforms to
the 60 -foot maximum limit.
Grading: It appears some graded areas exceed the maximum of 2:1 slope guideline and that
some grading extends beyond the property lines. Staff believes these details can be revised at
the time of building permit submittal. The proposed driveway grades conform to Town
standards.
Parking: The 16 surface parking spaces and 14 structured parking spaces conform to the
required 30 spaces (2 spaces per unit plus 4 guest spaces).
Snow Storage: It appears the project is 322.4 square feet short of the required snow storage
area. Staff believes that this relatively small area of required snow storage can be included at
the time of building permit submittal.
Landscaping: The landscape plan appears sufficient and in conformance with Town
guidelines.
2. The conformance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
3. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed.
The proposed materials are appropriate for the project and the neighborhood.
4. The design of site grading and drainage to minimize impacts to adjacent sites, rights-of-way
and easements.
5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site
disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other
significant alteration of existing topography.
The parking structure and residential building respond effectively to the site's topography.
6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to
street, quality of materials, and colors.
Staff believes the project's massing, height and architecture are compatible with the
surrounding residential neighborhood.
7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others In the vicinity that
monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and
Programs for the Town of Avon.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends final design approval with conditions.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the final design for the 13 unit multifamily residential project on Lot 12,
Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, as depicted on the plan set dated June 29,
1998, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the required snow storage area be provided.
2. That all disturbed slopes do not exceed the maximum 2:1 slope guideline.
3. That all grading be confined to within the property boundaries."
Town at Avon Community Development Ppsztstan
(970) 7484030 Fax (970) 9495749
Ile
Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, page 3
July 7, 1998, Planning &Zoning Commission meetin
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respecffully su ttte
Town of Avon community
x (9708
lopment
(970)748-4030 ) 949.5749
Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 (970) 949-4280
July 14, 1998
Robert Borg
Robert Borg Associates
PO Box 7626
Avon, Co 81620
Re: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Final Design
Dear Mr. Borg,
This letter is to follow up on your application for Final Design at the July 7, 1998, Town of Avon
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. The Commission approved your project with the
following conditions:
1. That the required snow storage area be provided.
2. That all disturbed slopes do not exceed the maximum 2:1 slope guideline.
3. That all grading be confined to within the property boundaries.
4. The exterior lighting on the decks and parking lights be approved by staff.
5. Colors to be approved by staff.
6. Landscaping on the south side to be clumped together and additional landscaping to be added
to the western elevation and the aspen trees to be clustered together.
Enclosed is a copy of the approved project's plans. As a reminder, these plans will form the basis
of your construction plans.
Before submitting for your building permit, please revise your plans to meet the above
conditions of approval. I strongly encourage you to call George Harrison at 748-4020 for a pre -
application meeting to help insure a complete building permit application.
Sincerely,
Beth Salter
Administrative Assistant
Enclosure: Design Review Plans
Building Permit Application Checklist
Building Permit Application
Right -of -Way Application
cc: Michael Matzko, Director of Community Development
1:\P&Z Meeting Letters\199810707981Lot12,blk2BMBCBorg.doc
11
o O0
coNLO
z O
O
wa O
O 00 N (� w N
Z
a O Z p O Z p aJ.
aa O Z O p p p
Z a
wZaz 0 z z 0 z z U) L6
Z a z a a z a a 0
x UaO� O O O CL O O j
w mWJp p O O O O to to w w
0 F- LL p J J O J J Z Z Z J
Z zU)OJ W p 0 O LL LL Op W W O O D w
F- g-IZLL Z 0 LL 0 H Z LL.F3F- w~~~ w
O W W Q Y F-0 000 0005 w0 0000 0 00 �C, J>>> J ry
.J = F - W Q ofm W mm(n �mmU) Ummm aPmm 0m a W w w a
W W W
O fn Q a ll -N fn NNN HNNN ON Cn --NF- —
� -
In 04 Lu04 CO V M LL
O O N MItN M to O N M
UJJQQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q co
Z W
0 U.
W N o 0
`'j
sun
- 00 O
�
O
ix
�+ -
J o
v
Wcr
W Qw
Y
W
Y
o L
w
= a
a
w
w
75
�;M
M;N
1n
N
�
�
n
M
n(10
Cl)MI M
7
C
C
C
C) CV
3 a
0 c
'osff�
m
�
�
m
(o�pp
C CL
C
N
N O
y
3
g
� O
w
�
w
U
ca
t
y
t
7
C
C
C
O =
C
.�
0
d
o
0
M
•- �
u>ZZZZZZZCn
�
N
N O
� O
j
U
7
�
>
>
>
W
'
�aan.aU
�
33
cnv�tnm0cn0
WQa
m
o
o
C
p�T
e-
N
M
�
�
v
�,,v
yi y
N� 7
C
O
N
�(.r
N (6
�N
i f0
f0
IC
f6
� Q
_
Of C
�
c
O
-C
II
�
o
m
O
t
ca
i
U
0
Q
U O
(00
Q7
�
z
O
i
Vi
�N
CL
N
i
I '
Qi
M; d�
p�
'
W
�
W`
Oj
V�
y�(m
CnEN
ml.m
NSM
m
N
m
Cl)
m
�
�
>
>i
M���
V
N
N
II
001
W
w
zi
O'
y
�
�I
O
75
N
to
O
7
C
C
C
C) CV
3 a
0 c
'osff�
m
�
�
m
(o�pp
C CL
C
N
N O
y
3
� O
w
�
w
U
ca
t
y
t
7
C
C
C
O =
C
.�
0
d
o
0
M
•- �
�
N
N O
� O
U
�
>> C
0 0 @
•`
o
o
o
o
C
c
a a
0
v
CO
C
C
G
C.
c
c
O
II
�
o
m
b
t
ca
�`p
0
U
0
7
�
(00
Q7
�
N
O
N
N
i
I '
M; d�
p�
I`
C
N
L
M���
V
N
N
II
�
O'
y
�
n�O
W �
D% O
� � h�s6 ey ts: 6g/ 1N3Y165y\ 3JtlrvNtlG ONr llriLn 6 G
I
1 j
m
►Wi=n ��.`"_�— — —'` — _� `-�c,<_ \ � 'lt••�, `-, ; ; ,'o q� a
.fb'ICZ Ai
d. yr HhM nLLn
rb ,BI,f4.y0 N � P6 j j
`s
t'J JH ^910tl d) .]06l W,��� dH'lW SZ 1001 MMk'v Iti'nrP OJDle9lea':Fryrpp1401
r\
v
V
�
O
O
0
L�
Q
7
G
R.2b
_iol
E -O
€E5£
EL
Sn
q e�o'o
U
o
-
_
�
o
E
� � h�s6 ey ts: 6g/ 1N3Y165y\ 3JtlrvNtlG ONr llriLn 6 G
I
1 j
m
►Wi=n ��.`"_�— — —'` — _� `-�c,<_ \ � 'lt••�, `-, ; ; ,'o q� a
.fb'ICZ Ai
d. yr HhM nLLn
rb ,BI,f4.y0 N � P6 j j
`s
t'J JH ^910tl d) .]06l W,��� dH'lW SZ 1001 MMk'v Iti'nrP OJDle9lea':Fryrpp1401
F ...
R.2b
_iol
€E5£
EL
Sn
q e�o'o
-
_
s7�h
-e'sao
� � h�s6 ey ts: 6g/ 1N3Y165y\ 3JtlrvNtlG ONr llriLn 6 G
I
1 j
m
►Wi=n ��.`"_�— — —'` — _� `-�c,<_ \ � 'lt••�, `-, ; ; ,'o q� a
.fb'ICZ Ai
d. yr HhM nLLn
rb ,BI,f4.y0 N � P6 j j
`s
t'J JH ^910tl d) .]06l W,��� dH'lW SZ 1001 MMk'v Iti'nrP OJDle9lea':Fryrpp1401
HOS1Ri -131NVO
NOAV
U 10l
S31ibOdO2ld
NldiNnOW 341SN3MJ0
z
a
w
a
U
co
0
z
VJ
8
8
0
wj
A
HaSII2l �DIMda
NOAV
Z � iM
SDU1 ]Dd02id
NIt/1NnoA �iaisNl iD2ja
z
a
W
�
a
i
a��
E
3�W
D
U
N
0
i
E
JNx
�Ce
t
� ?
0*4
N
E>.
a
z
x
{
�
v
e
S 3
Asa �
3�
ii � wY FMMi
d � #�
3
s dAW
3
e
�
i,"
8
. ��
�
���� nc . & .y
. ;x e€.,e.
..�.
? ;
. � �1 ��fi pY'�ia�
T
f� �
.,., ��jj
�x
•y�.a
?
,�
r
�--
i
IEIIIIII
I—,'
DT
+a"
a
t
x
0
4
c
#
t
a
d
i
e
�
e
i
�g
HOSllld 131NV(l
NOAV
Z1 10-1
S3W:J3dObd
NI`d1NnOW 341SN33W
z
a
of
0
0
J
U -
CD
z
Y
a
mmmAAAAmmAA
iii�iii�iii�ii� - ��! a
HOSiN 131NVO
NOAV
Z � 101
S3W:J3dO:Id
NI` iNnOVI 341SN33bO
z
a
ce
O
0
U-
N�
LL
U -
I
8
0
HOSllb -131Md(l
NOnd
U 10l
S31ild3dMid
NIViNnOIN 3GISN331:10
A
Z e
4 , I
�1 m
8
ga
o
0
N
o
o
LL
81
Z
r
Q
\
o
�
f�/1
m
<
F
� W
O
r
G
U)
O
=
a
Z e
4 , I
�1 m
HOSllb 131NVO
NOnd
Z � iol
S31i2GdObd
NlbiNnoIN 3aIS>133210
z
O
O
z
a
0
0
J
L-
0
l
No
HOS1R1 -131Mdd
NOnd
Z 6 10-i
S311213d0l-ld
NIViNnoN MIS)I33210
z
O
O
8
a I I I ill g!
0 �}
o
0
J P, a ��
LL
z
� n
� � a
Q
Z Yc I a
LL
0
0
O U �
b
J
HOSlIb 131NVG
NOAV
Z I 101
S311b3dO2ld
NI` iNnOIN 301SN33210
N
z
O
I..L
O
z
a
of
0
0
J
LL
0
z
0
U
w
U)
I
J
Z e
J
81
HOSlll:l 131 NV(l
Z
o
ga.
NOnd z IIx
J
M
z � 101 O_
o
0
•
CL
s
m
a
Q W
S31ibGdO2id
a
NI` iNnOIN 3a1SN33210
o
a
HOS11b -131NV(l
NOAV
Z 610-1
S311l13dObd
NIVINnOVI 3a1SN33210
N
z
O
a
0
z
CL
lyO
O
J
LL
O
L-
HOSiRA 131NVa
NOnd
U iol
S311213dM:Jd
NI` iNnOVI 30ISN331:10
U)
z
0
o
LL
w
m
0
r
`
LL
6
O
U
1=/I
Z
-------cl �
r•--- I I
° o I o I
I I
I e B
7-1
I I I
I I m
I
I �
I ,
KO= a®H
iofa0
O O
O O
J-�
LL LL
0 0
Z z
O§ p§
U� �
�
e Oe
0
0
DOC 01 1 0 0 0 1 EB,
� I I
I
I I � I m
---- o °®� I o 0 0 ®❑
O ®®
oo of I
I �
I o j 4 0
I I I
� o
;L Z
Z
I •.
g �
CL p
O
O LL
-1 0
ILLZ
O§
0.
n
I
I
Y GJ
I
I
I
HOSIRJ 131N` G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I j
Z
k
I
I
I
i
I
I
1
W
I
I
I
I
I
J
W
W
I
W
IF—
w l
> I
I
>>
J
I
II
w W
I
I
I
JIB
I
I
I
Y GJ
I
I
I
I
HOSIRJ 131N` G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
Z
k
I
I
I
i
I
I
1
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
i
I
I
I I
� g
NOAV
o
I I
wi
wi
wi ti
U lol
a
o
WI
JI
a
N
w
o
m
a
/� W
S311l:l3dMJd
w
s a
NId1NnoW 3GISN3MJ0
w
3
0
r
a
c a
I
I
Y GJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
1
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
i
I
I
I I
J
I
I
I I
wi
wi
wi ti
O:
Z @
WI
JI
WI
JI
WI
JI
HOSlIb 131NVO
NOAV o r—
Z6101 a Z 9
N
S3MJ3d0id w
2 Q a
NIViNnoIN 341SN3M10 o a
t
i Illi
I,I1 Illi
— 1 41 ➢� fi• i
➢P �0■ �� ■ ��_ ■ � �d'�17j�1f&,P717j�,fR�dj
III 'r.-� lr_a 9!I ➢,ali i9'E 9f R JIE�I
lllllllllllli— - �■ f u�i Cl`= ■ Ci=3 ■ C 9''Tf11919JIjIfl Q.
� 1= � ryrl,ai9la�i�!��Isyi lig
_
I
■_ g1E�� f , r9 E E
. CC B o ; � i➢1• o I�l,� oJ.jf�� +i, �,�
—!c e,zi . �IC1= I� I•I I•I I■I 916➢IE
\�irl'1�,4,,r!�d i 111111111=_1!r'rn tl,' � IjOlf' (1j'`a �.
J111
■
�■ C I_I � ''I➢+E t 9a,ojl;j (ijna 9ljl
t I—� —I■ CI— ..I� ' \,11!&,r`II� P lil [i 'IPIr3117I!yIR71rD'�IAif➢lii t+ali7�fPll'', 6�J�'IE�{I7ajs;9`fl
I■� �) II_momfifli
■ �� { IIIIIIIIIIIII " miiiuiiii�a=� � ■ C'-1 � ■ C'-1 � ■ C�= '',
■■ ■ ■■ ■■ +a;' - - —L---1 — -I -=-I , 1 111
■ / ,IIIIIIIIIII :_.IIIIIIIIIIIII?� I �_ � � s1E�°
.; III����a,�ien rtv,P,.ii ' ffffl���ll= f���l�iff�flfilo ffE�f�fIIIIIEIE�— �+'
_ I IIIIII_ : iil 0 ,til C■_ C�_ I� C;-
� =ii ■ ''ll ICI.ICI_ _ICS= 9
�■ i- =�I-1 _h 1fff�fffl!S_= �ffffflfffflfll!=I f111111ffffffffl i61,.a1l,ilgi`avg
Fowl
'1 _l
41 C�— I■I — — — �I�if(�'ha�l''
I—� r'� — Ic � . ®' �` ■ �r`da., +�;9bE' 1717"`mr
1= y�srR,fl. ➢ 9 ■ ➢ 911,1
■ �_ � C 1= C] �il ��� �il &I�!a,l�j? �I�.��jlr�E�IJ!I
ri 9 6 dE ➢ a rE
CIg1i19{t7tS1'I lfi{�yl'i
_ rr
Sm
■ -� � I ➢ � - ' - •, �'' 7u➢iQas lj "f 71 ^ ;rvSf
➢rl
UE
ON
I �
�r
■ , lip; R, —��' ,, r, ,r,�
_ � ,r 7,,,� — � ���I;�,f,�a9,�;�111r,;J,➢,IPQ,1,d
• 1 .
�111�,➢di,{ dUAfilfi,IRilrh7iC,o!14d1!71M{➢titRi!!�f➢t I + E, �➢(I i f �,mQ I f ➢
/ -..... _S 7Pli�li7{.; l7j ➢rftlJ?flljo,pP{iJ,1117j1,1
Rr , r7j1�i I
t �r Ifll,
�� \ IgfE flhal -
� J C �R=a ■ C �" a.1r,�ta:.n�d1JI,,Ia:,Rr;o.1.i
III■■■ Fm— ■ Cr.
i F v1:
X111`;'
a� a�
HOS1RJ 131Mda
g
NOAV _o N
Z� 10-I ~ '
O
O
S3112:J3dObd W c
NIb1NnOVI 341SN33210 3 0 a
O U h
J
HOSiR:1131NVO s
16
O g
NOAV a C�
Z � iol w
N 0 ��
w
0 �
x o m�= QW
SAU1 OdObd
NId1NnON 341S)13MIO 3 o W a
ooraooa tvonv
U06 -6-M (OZO
uw000 37gv3
oz91e eavaoicc 'ea�.v 'srs� xoa-ae R - _
Ni_JHJ t1aM z 1 76 'Zi 101
lN3W]9VNV4Y N01100ffiSN00 'h'DIS�Q SISAItlVtl - '- L NJO'IE Zt LO'! \
S31d100S5b 9808 183808 t/1SIA X3380 .83hd38 n a `
L
Wo
IH3M135F3 /Jf1Ul1 9
"WMNyy�-
�-_
-
m
u
µa
Y
-_
�a
Z0 —
_- _ __
-
<___
____ ____
00 0�
--_ Q
u
u�
'
m I
o0
w
Ct
---------------
�-
—
b
-
-
-
! I
_
1�
nW Irl
m
.I
1
Y-1
II IGS
f
I
-
;
1
swr,irmaQ�no��'•.
FIN;
r i
I
I
ooraooa tvonv
U06 -6-M (OZO
uw000 37gv3
oz91e eavaoicc 'ea�.v 'srs� xoa-ae R - _
Ni_JHJ t1aM z 1 76 'Zi 101
lN3W]9VNV4Y N01100ffiSN00 'h'DIS�Q SISAItlVtl - '- L NJO'IE Zt LO'! \
S31d100S5b 9808 183808 t/1SIA X3380 .83hd38 n a `
13
IH3M135F3 /Jf1Ul1 9
"WMNyy�-
�-_
-
m
u
µa
Y
-_
�a
- -
_- _ __
-
<___
____ ____
00 0�
--_ Q
u
3
2
m I
o0
13
IH3M135F3 /Jf1Ul1 9
"WMNyy�-
�-_
-
-_
�a
- -
_- _ __
-
<___
____ ____
00 0�
--_ Q
_ ----
o0
w
Ct
---------------
13
IH3M135F3 /Jf1Ul1 9
"WMNyy�-
�-_
-
-_
�a
- -
_- _ __
-
<___
____ ____
00 0�
--_ Q
_ ----
o0
w
_
�-
—
b
-
-
_
-
f
I
-
;
_
I
I
__
I
1-
/
� I
1
_
_
I
v.
,
a
- -4\fit/
i�
■
-a
' �
,swntNlwoQnm9
"$
a mss+-
--
---------
`.✓-------
-
'I
17'n d
1 ddl S❑l"JN3
i
------
0111.
<rtn next xuwi I v
` 1
CS , ill ___. -
1[j _
-� - _ —
'qn if; N.-Ud- 83np7a 'M
J
LidW
J
z
Q
J
cr-
O
O
J
Lj
F—
Ln
II 1 111 I
I' I (I 111 II
III II fil II
III II fiI II
III II %11 'f
III II / II II
III I! // II II
III I' / II II
III I / II II
I II
I AI I I 1 I I
I I I
• 1
I
_ I
1 �
I
I ;
I
1
I 1
I I
I I
I I
' I
I I
t I
OVON JNIISIX3 30 3003
---------------------------------------------------
'GALS >13380 83A V38 'M
anll' IK.bt L: "1 Pt F: b -N 6-D p t•ap, r
1901-96Z U'00
OM070J 'NOAV
!�
IZ108 OJ 'N01371111 '3AI80 33N1BY2O 99ZZ
'AiNnoJ 370Y3
N33210 83AY39 lY Nl1YWNJN38
t
-
I
c
1N3W30YNYN N0110nM1SN00 'NOIS30 'SISAIYNY
Z )(1018 'ZI 101
o
S31VI00SSV 02108 183808
d1SlA >13380 83AV38
0
n
N
J
LidW
J
z
Q
J
cr-
O
O
J
Lj
F—
Ln
II 1 111 I
I' I (I 111 II
III II fil II
III II fiI II
III II %11 'f
III II / II II
III I! // II II
III I' / II II
III I / II II
I II
I AI I I 1 I I
I I I
• 1
I
_ I
1 �
I
I ;
I
1
I 1
I I
I I
I I
' I
I I
t I
OVON JNIISIX3 30 3003
---------------------------------------------------
'GALS >13380 83A V38 'M
anll' IK.bt L: "1 Pt F: b -N 6-D p t•ap, r
i
1
1
1
IV 1
I
II
I
1
1
I
i
1
I
i
t
I
1 SML4yr�
'u "57J?y
I
I !`
I L-1
I
------ — ----- -- -- --- — -- - —+
i
I
r' .fin
u ,
�I tl
1 !i
i1 II
^k! Agra
ILL - I
(�
X3437 tl3ddit
II I I
i
i
I
1
'OA18 :43383 83Ad38 'M
O
O
LL
O
Z
N
:a:e
dr5'- ..-
N:H C; '.n •.ol CvY
'NOAV
N
40 —SV / (COI
V L
1901-96Z
00rd010?
a1Ni IOO T9V3
1
I Z I OP 0.) :.40131.1111 '3/1!80 33811MO 99Z.
433Y l 8-IAV3t3 LV MNYWI ONM
'rl
o
co
r N01n1/1SN09 'NOiS30 'SISANW
11131t39rNYl10
L H:lt)1B 101
VAn
r
w
e
d
I
f
S31d100SSY 0808 12138021
d1Sl/1 >133210 83AV38
a
i
1
1
1
IV 1
I
II
I
1
1
I
i
1
I
i
t
I
1 SML4yr�
'u "57J?y
I
I !`
I L-1
I
------ — ----- -- -- --- — -- - —+
i
I
r' .fin
u ,
�I tl
1 !i
i1 II
^k! Agra
ILL - I
(�
X3437 tl3ddit
II I I
i
i
I
1
'OA18 :43383 83Ad38 'M
O
O
LL
O
Z
N
:a:e
dr5'- ..-
N:H C; '.n •.ol CvY
�P"�i'�, c
>13380 83AV36 'M
'NOW
1901 -961- (f 00
(XJV80103
Ld
'AINOT) 319y3
lZiog 0.,) 'nopilln '11#90 3381.1M) 99V
SYV39 IV 4)lv'kv")N39
0
o
I.,42R39VNM
E X1018 '?1 191
150
S31V100SSY 0808 183808
VISIA )13380 83AV39
>13380 83AV36 'M
LO
Ld
LLJ
0
LL-
C-)
>13380 83AV36 'M
1- N
LO
K
DO
J
LaJ
LLI
J
O
O
J
to
C6
J
LA.J
4!
J
O
LLO
J
'NOAV
(COO
90 —�6L (L OL)
OOVNOI00
.UN/)00 310V3
b
1Z108 OJ 'N01311117 '3N?/0 33Y.18b?10 99it
433?/0 83AF39 lY M2/Vi1HON319
i
u
1N3W39Wly r N0110naiSNOO 'NOIS30 'SISAIVNV
Z )DO IU 'i 1 101
S31VI00SSY 02106 1838021
b1SIA )133210 213AY39
1- N
LO
K
DO
J
LaJ
LLI
J
O
O
J
to
C6
J
LA.J
4!
J
O
LLO
J
r
11
I II II
I I 11
I I II
—� --- — — ----TTI
1� j• \ l
N
O
Z
O
Q.
LLJ
Oc
D
rn
J
W
W
JOL
W
O
F --
Z
W
'NOAd
�`
C� /^O ��
190 —961-
OOdMO !03
lcl
J
73
1Z109 00 'NO1311117 '3A/80 33816783 990E
N3Nff03 N
lN3 8.1A739 tVId .YM1'WNOfd36
-
0
m3W3o7N7W Nou:)nM1SNOJ 'NOIS70 'SISll7Nd
Z Y301(I 'el 101
S31 dI00SSY 0808 183808
d1SIA )133210 83A Y38
r
11
I II II
I I 11
I I II
—� --- — — ----TTI
1� j• \ l
N
O
Z
O
Q.
LLJ
Oc
D
rn
J
W
W
JOL
W
O
F --
Z
W
d
I
im
L
Q
Q
W
L
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
f
r
i
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
,
1
I
1
1
1
M
f I
u 1
I
'I O
II �
!! N
li
V
i C7
I
'NO+Y
a
JC
I
O h
F= h
p
O
11
1901—S6L (!C0f')
Olt 0703
W
w
W
3
0
'AINIIOJ 319Y3
I
f Zf UB OJ 'NO1311111 '.3n1110 33819YaJ 99ZZ
)133bJ Y3AY38 1Y Hb'MI4JN3S
m
1N3W30YNYW NOI1JnM15NOJ 'N9f530 'SISIIYNY
L )13018 'Z f 101
n
n
S31d100SSY 02108 1213908
VlSlA >13380 83AV30
0 o
N •°
a �
y�
c
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
f
r
i
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
,
1
I
1
1
1
M
f I
u 1
I
'I O
II �
!! N
li
V
i C7
I
m
a
JC
I
O h
F= h
p
O
11
W
w
W
3
0
awlP gl7d r� SZ rt I,t ..:Ir mw Ira �r-r+� r
ra
Staff Report7vi
SIGN DESIGN
C O L O R A D O
March let, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
Sign type
Legal description
Zoning
Address
Introduction
February 22, 2005
Advertisement Sign
Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision (City Market)
Shopping Center (SC)
72 Beaver Creek Place
The applicant, Dave Betts — Store Manager, is proposing an advertisement sign near the main
entrance to the City Market grocery store. The sign measures 30 square feet (5' x 6') and
consists of wood, metal, and glass construction. This sign is strictly for advertisement purposes
and includes an area for the current sales at King Sooper/City Market stores.
Background
The City Market store underwent a major renovation and addition in 1990. In conjunction with
the renovation a Master Sign Program (MSP) was approved for the property. The only record on
file for this MSP is a staff report written to the Planning and Zoning Commission (dated June 19,
1990) and the 'Planning Commission Action.'
Additional signage on the building was approved by staff for Starbucks in August of 2004. The
two signs were approved administratively under the premise that there was surplus available
square footage for signage, and the proposed two signs were consistent and of the same
construction quality (i.e. internally illuminated with pan channel lettering) as all existing signage
on the building.
The new proposed sign was installed without a sign permit. The applicant removed the sign and
submitted an application once notified by the Town that design approval and permit are required.
As proposed, the sign would be located on a support column at the main entrance to the store on
the west elevation.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Town of Avon Sign Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing proposed designs:
1. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be
constructed and the site upon it is to be located.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, City Market Sign Design
March 1", 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3
The Municipal Code encourages "quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or
sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass -faced
letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are
encouraged."
It appears that the proposed sign construction (wood, metal, glass) is consistent with the Sign
Code, however, staff is uncertain whether the sign quality and location on the outside of the
building is appropriate. This type of advertisement may be more appropriate inside the
building.
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements.
The Shopping Center district is a mixed-use neighborhood with predominately one and two
story commercial land -uses. Sign construction varies in the area, but the signs in the area are
generally interior lit box type cabinet construction.
3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement.
As mentioned above, the quality of the materials are consistent with the Sign Code.
4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent or
neighboring property.
The proposed sign should not have any significant impact to adjacent properties. The sign
would be visible from Beaver Creek Place and would be highly visible when entering the
building or driving by the main entrance to the store.
5. 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.
It is Staff's opinion that there will be no monetary values impaired with this sign. Aesthetic
values may be affected with the sign in the proposed location and the sign may be more
appropriate if located inside the building.
6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with the sign
code, and are appropriate for the project.
The proposed sign generally complies with the Sign Code in terms of height, size, and
quality construction quality.
7. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether
the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation
The primary orientation of the proposed signage is to foot traffic, which is appropriate.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, City Market Sign Design
March 1", 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the Sign Design application for Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision (City Market) due to conflicts with review criteria #1 and #5.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748.4413, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielsticker
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lots 67/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Sign Program
Design Review
INTRODUCTION
The City Market
Corporation is undertaking
a significant
expansion and renovation of the
Avon store.
A part of that
overall scenario
is a new sign
program.
The existing pole mounted sign will be removed. and all
building mounted signage will be replaced.
The sign code allows one square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of building frontage for a single use business.
City Market frontage, as a corner lot, is 544 lineal feet.
The proposed sign program for City Market consists of two
City Market logo signss of:(161 square feet each. One sign
will be located on the west elevation and one on the southern
elevation. The west elevation will also include an area of
signage that identifies various departments available within
the store. These signs, a total of six, will be constructed
of individual pan channel letters 18 in hoe in height. Total
square footage for this sign area is
y
The total sign area requested is 484 .square feet. As
previously mentioned, the lineal frontage is 544 feet, so
this proposal is within the size limits prescribed by the
sign code.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Commission shall consider the following sign design
guidelines in considering this sign program.
SECTION 15.28.060. Sign Design Guidelines
A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location,
configuration, design, materials, and colors should be
harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the
neighborhood, and with the townscape.
B. Harmonious with Building Scale. The sign
should be harmonious with the building scale, and should not
visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call
undue attention to itself.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 8
Lots 87/88, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Sign Program
Design Review
C. Materials. Quality sign materials, including
anodized metal; routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough
cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass -faced
letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or
without indirect lighting; are encouraged.
Sign materials,
interior -lit box -type plastic,
window signs are discouraged,
if determined appropriate tc
discretion of the Commission.
such as printed plywood,
and paper or vinyl stick -on
but may be approved, however,
the location, at the sole
D. Architectural Harmony. The sign and its
supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally,
and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures.
E. Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all
free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the
signage and surrounding building landscaping.
1. A minimum of five lineal feet out
from, and around the perimeter of, the sign shall be
landscaped.
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. 88-3 1(part)).
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing proposed designs
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 5
Lots 87/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Sign Program
Design Review
SECTION 15.28.070 Design Review Criteria
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: The materials of the proposed signs are
compatible and consistent with existing signs in the shopping
center district. The number and location of the signs is
appropriate for the building, but it is the opinion of the
staff that the size is excessive. We believe this signage
could be reduced in size and still present an effective
identity to the building. A total of 484 square feet of sign
area, while within the strict interpretation of the
allowances, may adversely relate to the scale of the
building.
B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring
improvements;
COMMENT: The adjacent properties intheshopping
center district are all similar to the City Market building.
The majority are single story, single or multiple business
buildings. The scale of the proposed signs may relate to the
Wal-Mart sign but will dominate the rest of the district.
C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in
any proposed improvement;
COMMENT: The quality of materials is consistent
with the shopping center district.•
D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement,
as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property;
The staff is concerned with the relationship
between the scale of the signs and the scale of the building,
but other that that, there is no other adverse impact.
E. The objective that no improvement will be so
similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that
values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired.
COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this
criteria.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 4 of b
Lots 67/68, Block 29 Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Sign Program
Design Review
F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity
of signs generally complies with the sign code, and are
appropriate for the project.
COMMENT: Staff believes the type, materials,
number and location of the proposed signs are appropriate and
well designed. We do have reservations about the proposed
size.
G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to
vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is
appropriate for the determined oritentation.
COMMENT: These signs.are
traffic which is appropriate for this
size of these signs however, appears
necessary for easy identification from
from Interstate 70.
This is a complete application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
oriented to vehicular
use and location. The
to be larger than 'is
both local streets and
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 5 of 5
Lots 57/08, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Sign Program
Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn l )
i
Date G Denise Hill, Secretary �
The Commission granted final design approval to the City arket Sign
Program with the revision of the six specialty item signs being dropped
from 18 inches to 12 inches and would be compressed both vertically and
horizontally, and that the north elevation City Market logo be spaced
the same distance from the top of the parapet wall.oc,.
OD
0
CIS
h—
C3
I-
0 N
0
In9O
0 (k
r
a ' o
y♦A v ,,,`•1,111111111111„/,/'
t
y 5C O .........%
n .,��1�T 'I?iy�
o .� CO 1
p d _I , „1 to i : 'n•.
3,'” a :,� .,'0'1 •�.CC,(.` SAO
L
�a I 9,0 n•
�4 II IxNI
Nr o
o IN v o
Jai I q
d i O
gt �Y
N yI >�
,A
a, � E
W ODE p
aa
�O Lr
o�
w
�00CS2
cc a u
JZ
1.. p
r
> CNQu
°H `
r
V1Co0
to ,rE U
f
a 0
d a J N
c
2�
La
r
r
� �Z W J T"" •� _��__1 �+�
Q N %
i
1fl rI
• I
' I I • t'.
•J
r
I
11 •1
11
• I I � 1
it` qT
i lJ
t i
�f
1 '
1 � .
U) 1
1(
Li
d
3 1
w nLi
M I O�
ff �
(01
I ,
1
1
1
I
\ I I
1
,
N 111
y,l J
I f]
1 r
r`�2 1 ti
Q
W
1
0
M
4a
z
V VI
J
d
N
OD
0
C7
--t
0
Q
Y
ci I
Z SWki
p
Q
_ J
�►A�
r
NWu7y0�tQp 46_j
ZaOT N
z�'rS
Z SWki
p
Qi T
pp��
~rJ�
Ng
N V
P, —CL r). .
4
w
W
N
pC z'U
iipu- -r
+ `w le rr. �'
►- r- .—.,.. w. i
lig
W A ww
Z H
0
z v1 r r
.g�gI:
.^. N F1
r Iff 10 P
. , � - 1 t 1• � Y"1. ,'•.; � �: I :N.�'i• ,,y.� • ;'...t,� c t, ,i? � r. � r 4�. G^ 31,. ,•;•,w
• -- .. .. ,.. .. ''1 _ ... .. .. ... .. ...... .. ... .. . "I ... .. .... .....'x .... .... ..''...... .:t•... �,�.y.:r, ., .........;r.. -i s!..�dC'.�:..::..... '1d... ..•...�.. :.> .....:r.(`.1�eK3�13•:� : . �.., :'a
iF n
N NnV?At�ni of Lf
to L^ '" a '• • '" io A�
1774((11 W N I M N N N V( N N LL
N
-+ LA N N N H N H b t VW 0 N VI t rN'f N Ln 0 Q 1�/1 1�/1 cc
�ryy O p�
� 2 IA �y N N � p .ti O tQ � H O p �O rQ" .p M O� H .•. t .p
• ° 0 Pf M in M fV C ti P'1 •+ NI H Q� N '�i 1�\ ,.Mi .^i F 1•f M N O S •~
0,
�+g � � m-
5
-
a'c 0 9; n� °
g 55
00 00
�.ci
25 11111
t✓. 2 Ov .� «<<
OS.+ t70 u ..°uo �...° Z 20 �0 -.
�S g3. ob
/ aP
1
/o
d
J
1
:cgs
N
/ ate°'•°
Q
m S Y
b3A01
� � W
A
A
h �
h
cr
I ^uf
a
iF n
N NnV?At�ni of Lf
to L^ '" a '• • '" io A�
1774((11 W N I M N N N V( N N LL
N
-+ LA N N N H N H b t VW 0 N VI t rN'f N Ln 0 Q 1�/1 1�/1 cc
�ryy O p�
� 2 IA �y N N � p .ti O tQ � H O p �O rQ" .p M O� H .•. t .p
• ° 0 Pf M in M fV C ti P'1 •+ NI H Q� N '�i 1�\ ,.Mi .^i F 1•f M N O S •~
0,
�+g � � m-
5
-
a'c 0 9; n� °
g 55
00 00
�.ci
25 11111
t✓. 2 Ov .� «<<
OS.+ t70 u ..°uo �...° Z 20 �0 -.
�S g3. ob
/ aP
1
/o
d
J
1
:cgs
N
/ ate°'•°
Q
m S Y
b3A01
� � W
A
A
h �
h
r—
i
I
—
o
O O
z i
i
�
W
~
ts
'0
a a
v 1.1
YA A
iv N�33 i
8 1
�u
Z
$
n �
Sn n 0 0 0 o
ell
0-3 8 S 8
tw
n �,
D_&n si_
< <
n
o a
o
rn
<
o'
z i
i
W
~
z
D_&n si_
< <
i
Q
dz
p
o
=
CSt
u
G
3z
~�
yZj y
<
�<
�G D
44
OC c
AY '
C3
J
I
W
S s
Q C �
Wud
= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $
lu VI L
p '0 o
ED
9
,11
to
WN
---------- ------------I
...............
L_....._______
3 � ;
• - 41 1'r 1
I�
;2
0
N
I
I I 01.
WN1R1
C7
Chm
A
LC
~
Vii~
ry
x
I r )
z
� s
QQ s
d _ a
1-_
1laN .09
'ry
I
I
�+
' ti t Pi s
°
afx0•LiL)
I
I
I
co
W
D
A t®AS
I
.9 s.
.
14
/
—
o.rxo.za� o.rxo.zcz)
arxo•=U) I
naw .09
noH .re low .re
ED
4" m
mi
E-41
no
R
W VI
O
N W
8 �
C
j a 3 o ,� <
LU 0
119 t $
00002 S1 S�
-J W W W W W W H N VI J IL
4 m u C 6w W- t.*
I I I I III
1 1 .
r I r
I O O O
i i i i i�l
I I I I I~1
I I � I III
I
I I I III
I I I I III
f I I III
I I I I III
III
1
III
I I I III
I I I III
III
I I I I III
I I I I III
I I I I III
1 . 1
I I I I III
1
I ill
III
f I I I Ill
1
I I l I Ili
I I ( I I II
I I I I III
I I I III
1 1 1
1 1 I III
III
i i i I iii
I i i i iii
1
i i i j ill
1
1 I I I III
i I III
III
1
ill
I I I 1
I I I III
III
I I
Ill
I 1 1
III
1
III
1 ,
III
1 1
I I I III
1
I I I III
I I i I III
I I III
1 I
I I I III
1
I I I III
1
I I � I III
- I III
�•I� �,Y' ' I �'•• I
k• :I::"•,: � I I I I I
.Ic.• •.I•• •�y• 1 1
'I� ;::•I • � I I I I
1
Efl•�f• ..•t` I I II
1 11
I I �1
1
I
1
W I I
I
I i i � iii
• i i i i iii
1 1 ,
i i III
ii
i i i i l i
1
tii it
is 8
r
I I
1
I
i
I
I I
I I III
I Q d
4
1
I
I
1
III
111
i I
I I I
1
8
o
Y
r
w
v► O
999O(B9)218
tN
�.
a $age a�
©R2@soOO
0
0
0
0
P
V)
2c
0 0 0 0 0 0
9 9 a d w �
VV g t L'U
w w w w w in
4go %-I = 6w 61..
Iii
F111111
—irZE
i FEE
F_
ME mjj=
low.
__
_
MAE
MOMMLES,
SHE=
IE;
0 1
g
2
In
PCM
E3
E_ I II � _— _ 1
INS
NEWS=
�" ;a-��aeE
E3 2 17, 5
30! IIIIVI
REEDER .59=�
AXIMS p
Miz
E
egg: =Sam
MEN M Wxm�
.
C-taic-2 C 13
__M-
i-EE�`E���,
Mae i
S5111mgm -Era
MPF -
LN a -
le-E,311IMEWIS
LO
Oz LN lililil;llllllllmll
=am= --NES
des ;� �.� I'll
,P=-- Ulm
INS W,Mmm
RIB
re
- ,' LE
IN
rm
RME- i
m
l'ILII i I . ,
ow]
EMMA;'
.. I i I ( i i
owl
I10 -0s,11
ro-EW
X __;7
" 172"
Mi
.'a=2,
MaMn ZMN
MERsmME WIN
rig
omMb
lo
s—
Iyy E3
t3
�I I � Ia
III
III
I III
1 III
1 0 4
I III
III
i iii
i iii
III
I III
I III
i iii
I III
I III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I III
III
III
III
III
III
lil
i iii
I III
III
I III
I III
I III
III
III
I III
i iii
III
iii
III
I III
iii
III
III
III
III
I III
III
iii
III
III
III
W
a 1
c
« °
0
go
swi
t o U
Q m v d W ►� l7
l
qJ d o
r W ►- F-
I I I
I I I
O
N •
Not
No
Q
O
Iq N
�j C
o
�
O
ti
w, +o
VI
b
N
r
a
�
r
W
K 1f 'i O IA to N
©❑e El
tx
Z
e
r
O M
g�
r
40
4
Staff Report 7vi FINAL DESIGN PLAN
C O L O R A D O
March 1St, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
Project type
Legal description
Zoning
Address
Introduction
February 24, 2005
Single-family Residence
Lot 76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Planned Unit Development — PUD
5651 Wildridge Road East
The applicant, Andrew Abraham, is proposing a single-family residence on a duplex zoned .55 -
acre lot within the Wildridge Subdivision. The proposed residence has a maximum building
height of 32.5'. The proposed materials include a stucco finish, wood siding, asphalt shingles
and corrugated metal roofing and stone veneer.
The sketch design was reviewed at your December 7, 2004 meeting. The Commission
commented on the driveway width in front of the garage, if changing the position of the
home/garage could decrease the driveway length, and a majority of the Commission did not
favor the use of corrugated metal for a siding material.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Town of Avon Residential Commercial and Industrial Design Review
Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the
design of this project:
1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the
Town of Avon Zoning Code.
• Allowed use: A single-family residence is an allowed use for this lot.
• Density: The lot is zoned for 2 units.
• Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for this PUD is 50%. This project is in
compliance with the Zoning Code, proposing 30.5% lot coverage.
• Setbacks: All setbacks appear to be correctly indicated on the site plan. There is a 25'
front and 10' side and rear lot building setback.
• Easements: All easements appear to be correctly indicated on the site plan. There is a
10' Slope Maintenance, Snow Storage and Drainage Easement and a 7.5' Utility and
Drainage Easement.
• Building Height: This design appears to be in conformance with the 35 -foot maximum
allowable height requirement. The maximum building height is 32.5'. An Improvement
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
A t
Lot76, Block 4, W'ildridge Subdivision, Verlinde Single-family Final Design
March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 6
Location Certificate (ILC) at framing will be required to verify compliance with the
PUD's maximum height requirement.
Grading: The drainage swale indicated on the site plan does not appear to be supported
by the topography of the site. It does not appear that elevation 8,614' has been graded
correctly on the site plan. Proposed grade 8,614' extends from the garage to the
northeastern corner of the residence. The contour interval to the northwest of proposed
grade 8,614' is existing grade 8,614'. Two parallel contour intervals cannot be the same
elevation. It is unclear as to what the elevation will be for the drainage swale that is
located between the two 8,614' contour intervals.
• Parking: 3 parking spaces are required for this project, and 5 spaces (including garage
spaces) are proposed.
• Snow Storage: Adequate on-site snow storage is provided with 3,100 square feet. At
least 1,462 square feet of snow storage is required for the area of the proposed driveway.
• Landscaping: It appears that the Landscaping Plan is in conformance with the Town
guidelines. The maximum irrigated area allowed is 3,329 square feet. The proposed plan
includes 1,080 square feet of spray irrigation and 1,200 square feet of drip irrigation,
which totals 2,280 square feet of irrigated area. The total irrigated area appears to be in
compliance with the Town's 20% maximum irrigated area requirement.
2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive
Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains.
The project generally complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements.
Adequate development rights exist in the Wildridge PUD for a single-family or duplex
residence.
4. The final design plan is in compliance with all final design plan submittal requirements.
• Site Development:
o Site Design: The site layout utilizes passive solar use and the building location
compliments the existing topography of the site.
o Site Access: The access width and grades are in compliance with Town standards.
Adequate maneuvering for vehicles on site is provided. The applicant has
increased the driveway width in front of the garage from 22', indicated at Sketch
Design, to 25'.
o Parking and Loading: The parking spaces provided are in compliance with Town
standards.
o Easements: This project is in compliance with all platted easements.
o Drainage: During sketch review of this application Staff indicated that positive
drainage on the northwest area of the residence had not been provided. The
applicant has addressed the issue by filling this area of the site with approximately
6 feet of fill at the foundation and sloping the grade by four feet away from the
residence (8,618' to 8,614'). The applicant is also proposing a drainage swale
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Verlinde Single-family Final Design
March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 6
around the residence, from the garage to near the driveway entrance. Staff
requires further information to determine if the swale will provide adequate
drainage away from the residence. A drainage direction and/or slope should be
indicated on the drainage swale. The drainage swale indicated on the site plan
does not appear to be supported by the site topography.
The drainage Swale near the driveway entrance may need to be extended to ensure
all drainage is directed into the driveway entrance culvert. The drainage swale
near the garage may need to be extended to ensure drainage is directed toward
Wildridge Road East and not Lot 75.
o Snow Removal and Storage: Ample snow storage is provided on-site.
• Building Design:
o Building Height: As proposed, the height of the building is in compliance with the
35 -foot allowance.
o Building Materials and Colors: The proposed building materials (stucco and
wood siding, cultured stone, asphalt shingles) appear to comply with the
guidelines. The proposed colors are earth tone and the use of high quality
materials (multiple materials on each elevation) is encouraged by the design
guidelines.
o Exterior Walls, Roos, and Architectural Interest: This design proposes areas of
stone veneer, wood siding, and stucco. The exterior wall colors should be
compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. Varied roof pitches are being
proposed with 5:12 and 8:12 pitches for the asphalt shingled roof and 3:12 for the
corrugated metal roofs. The Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest
Requirement 5 of Section B states, `Large expanses of bright, reflective materials
will not be acceptable, however, metal such as copper, cor-ten may be acceptable.
Colors should be natural or earth tones.' The garage roof (south and west
elevations), and sections of roof on the east and north are proposing the use of
corrugated metal. The corrugated roof material is labeled `B" on Sheet A3.0.
A3.1 and A3.2. Staff does not feel the proposed use of corrugated metal on the
abovementioned roof elevations qualifies as a `large expanse' and would require
the metal be an earth tone or natural color.
o Outdoor Lighting: As presented, the proposed light fixture(s) comply with safe
harbor/exemption section of the Town of Avon's Lighting Ordinance. However,
the intent and purpose of the ordinance is to reduce light trespass through the use
of full cut-off light fixtures. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant come
back prior to building permit submittal with a revised fixture to comply with
Section 15.30 of the Town Municipal Code.
• Landscaping:
o Design Character: The landscaping proposed recognizes the drought conditions
that prevail in our region, and the tree species proposed are tolerant of drought
episodes.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Verlinde Single-family Final Design
March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 6
o Erosion Control: Adequate erosion control must be installed during construction.
Silt and straw bale fencing is proposed on the uphill and downhill side of the
residence during construction.
o Retaining Walls: No retaining walls are proposed with this application.
5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site
disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other
significant alteration of existing topography.
The design appears to be compatible with the site.
6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height,
orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors.
The project should not dominate the landscape of the property. The architectural style and
scale of the proposed development appears appropriate for the neighborhood and consistent
with adjacent properties.
High quality materials and earth tone colors should make this project beneficial to the
neighborhood as viewed from adjacent properties.
7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity
that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
This project will create minimal impact to neighbors and should not create monetary
impairment to the adjacent properties.
8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals,
Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
The project generally conforms to the adopted goals and policies of the Town.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of the final design plan for the single-family residence proposed
on Lot 76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions to be resolved prior to
submittal for a building permit:
1. A revised lighting fixture that complies with the Town Lighting Ordinance must be
submitted and approved by Community Development.
2. The site plan shall be revised to include the size, length, slope and invert elevation for the
proposed culvert beneath the driveway. The Town requires an 18" diameter culvert.
3. The street address for the property is 5651 Wildridge Drive East. All plan set sheets as
well as the topographic survey (address circled) shall indicate the address.
4. The landscaping plan shall be revised with the following corrections (a)the silt fence
should be extended on the western side of the property north towards the 8606 ft contour
line and (b) straw bales or other erosion control measures should be installed in the ditch
adjacent to Wildridge Drive East upstream of the 18" culvert already in place.
5. Grading/drainage shall be revised to correct the following issues (a) a drainage direction
and/or slope should be noted on the drainage swale. The drainage swale indicated on the
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
i
Lot76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Verlinde Single-family Final Design
March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 6
site plan does not appear to be supported by the site topography. It appears to lack
$positive drainage at the rear of the house, (b) the site plan shall be revised to ensure that
the site grading is such that the snow storage area does not drain onto Lot 75, and (c) the
drainage swale indicated on the site plan may need to be extended to ensure that it drains
into the culvert beneath the driveway entrance, and extended near the garage to ensure
drainage away from Lot 75.
6. The original date of the survey is 11/19/01 and was updated on 12/3/04. Note #4 on the
original survey states that 2 feet of snow was on the ground and that features may exisit
that did not show up on the survey. The Town requires a survey to be completed with no
snow cover. This note should be revised if the 12/04 survey was completed with no snow
cover; or a current survey conducted without snow cover on the lot.
7. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made
by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s)
shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748-4017, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
4
Kenneth Kovalchik
Planner I
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
• 0
Lot76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Verlinde Single-family Final Design
March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 6
SAME AS
ORIGINAL
r
a r 1T1oA1.,
+, "i, Y rw
r
J
4
Looking southeast
G1 -
V.
:,.
w?
Looking northeast
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
•
0
+-i
n
J
:o
r
{{ f
N7�^�ryf `� �t iNNq
HIM I
QO'J
i
•�
Q
�•
R
W
m _
V
�
r
1
4
�
{{ f
N7�^�ryf `� �t iNNq
HIM I
QO'J
���
�'���
,a��������o��
�����
� g � s s
o 0 0 0 ,�
�•��`� � 6'5,10 A3 �� 7 F
\ In
h �
� o
J
6 R
s
gF�
3 ^
m
Nul
I
F
aaa aaaaa a a
p', mum I
Him
��i
��
0
as
��
0
----
| (|
§
| �
�!|. |
)§§,■
�2!|;§§§\
•'•'�
�p
I
i
;
;
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
I I I III
ear
i
i
i i i ili j
i I i iii j
i I I iii j
i I i iii j
i i i iii I
i i i ill
i i i ili ;
I i I lid i
I I I III
i i i ill
i Hi
j i iji
i I iii j
i iii
I II j
I I III j
i
i i
i Hi j
I i iii j
i i iii j
i i jjj j
I i i ili ;
i i i iii I
i i j i iii I
I j I j
I j
I j
I j I i j
I j I I j
I
I j
I j jl II j
I j jl II j
I I I II j
I 1 I II j
I 1 I II j
I 1 I II j
I j l I II j
I I i I II j
i j l I IIII .� j
I if I IIII � j
I (I I III W j
I i I IIII 3 T I
I j — — -i- i+ji 3
I I III j
II I III j
I I i i II j
I I I III j
i I I III j
I I I III j
I I I I j
I I I I I I
I I I Id I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I j
I I
I I
I I
I i
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I i
hi
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
jjj
III
III
I Ii
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I�I
I I
I I
I
I I
111
of °i
i i l i
I
a�
0
x
^C �
o �
Boa©oaao
� @
a $ Hill
©0000aR-
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I j
I I
I I
I I
I i
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I i
hi
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
jjj
III
III
I Ii
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I�I
I I
I I
I
I I
111
a�
0
x
^C �
o �
Boa©oaao
� @
a $ Hill
©0000aR-
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
.17
I H
NHHIMH
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
.17
I H
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
.17
I I I I I I II
u
� r
i I i i i I
i I i i
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I II
I I I I I
I I I I II
I I I I I I
I I I I C I
I i I I i II
I i i i i I ii
I II
I i i i it
i i 8 i i i ii
I t
I 8 i i i
i I i i
i i i i i
i i 8 i i i i
i i i i i i
i i i I i
I i i i i
I I
i I I I
i i i i i i ii
i i i i i li
i i I i i I ii
i i i i i ii
i i i i i i ii
i I i ii
i i i i i li
i i ii
i I i i i i ii
ii
i i i i i ii
i i i i i i i
i i i i i i ii
i i I i ii
i i i i i ii
I i i ii
li i i i i
I ❑
I I I it
I I II
I ! I II
LI
I
I I I I II
I I I I I II
I I II
I I II
I I I I II
I I I II
i i I I I I II
I I I I I II
I i I I I II
I I I I I II
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I
I I I I I
p
I
I I i i i i ii
I
a i
N O }
F
44 s3s yyyy
X SAd
E
a�
O
a �
n
aoo�aao©
� ©000aaoa
s,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
li
!� I
I
I
Memo
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Eric Heidemann, Senior Planner
Date: February 24, 2005
Re: Minor Project Application — Deck Alteration
Summary:
At the Council's February 22nd meeting, the applicant, Bob Mach, appealed the Commission's prior
decision regarding the placement of a wrap around deck on property located at 2520 Old Trail
Road. The Council has remanded this item back to the Commission for further discussion. The
Council directed the applicant to provide an aftemative design that achieves the removal of the
western portion of the deck, but also addresses the Commission's rationale for denial. The
rationale for denial was that the removal of the deck would leave the firebox bump suspended in
the air with the appearance that the bump out was not supported by any architectural feature.
The applicant has submitted a site plan and revised western elevation that proposes the use of
three 4x12 Faux Structural Cantilever Beams beneath the firebox bumpout. The applicant also
proposes a 4' high privacy fence along the eastern elevation. Staff has advised the applicant that
this item requires the submission of a new Minor Modification Application and was not part of the
appeal made to Council or part of the action remanding this item back to the Commission.
Attached to this memo is the following background material.
1. Revised western elevation and site plan
2. February 170 Appeal Memo to Council and background information
'Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Tambi Katieb, Director of Community Development
Eric Heidemann, Senior Planner
Date February 17�h, 2005
AVON
C O L O R A D O
Re: Appeal to Town Council of Planning and Zoning Commission
Denial of Minor Project to remove portion of deck
Summary
On February 15th, 2005 the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a Minor Project
Application to remove a portion of a wrap around deck that was previously approved
through a Final Design Application. The applicant, Bob Mach, is appealing the decision of
the Planning and Zoning Commission to Town Council.
The subject property is a'single-family residence currently under construction located at
2520 Old Trail in Wildridge. The application proposes to reduce the size of the deck that
wraps around from the south to the west elevation of the residence. The deck has already
been constructed on the south elevation (per approved plans) and this application proposes
to eliminate the western portion.
The Commission denied the Minor Project because the proposal was "inconsistent' with the
Residential Design Guidelines. The rationale for denial articulated in the motion was that
the removal of the deck would leave the firebox bump suspended in the air with the
appearance that the bump out was not supported by any architectural feature. Attached for
your review is the staff report to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated February 15th,
2005, and a picture of the firebox bump out.
Background:
The Final Design Application for the subject propel, which included the wrap around deck
on the second level, was approved on August 5 , 2003. On October 19th, 2004, the
applicant requested several exterior and site design modification to the Final Design
approval, one of which was the removal of the portion of the deck and the inclusion of two
firebox bump -outs. At that meeting, the Commission approved the two firebox bump outs,
which were already constructed, and denied the removal of the portion of deck. The
Commissions rationale for denial of removing the deck was consistent with the February
15th decision by stating that the bump out along the west elevation needed the appearance
of support, which the Commission stated was achieved through the placement of the deck.
Memo to Town Council, February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2
Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Minor Project Appeal
Subsequently, the applicant missed the appeal period and resubmitted a new application for .
further review.
Commission Review Considerations:
According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4.10, the
Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the this project:
The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed.
2. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and
neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing,
height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors.
3. The objective that no improvement is so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity
that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
Altematives
• Uphold Planning and Zoning Commission decision
• Overturn Planning and Zoning Commission decision
• Remand decision to Planning and Zoning Commission for further review
Town Manager Comments
V
Attachments:
A. Letter from applicant to Town Council requesting appeal
B. Staff Report for Minor Project dated October 14t , 2004
C. Staff Memo for Minor Project dated February 7"', 2005
Memo to Town Council, February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2
Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Minor Project Appeal
Alucyuner* A
Feb. 16, 2005
Avon Town Council
Re: Lot 45c Wildridge
Request: Omit wrap-around deck
I am currently building a single family residence at 2520c Old Trail Rd. To buffer 2520 b and c I planted 2 large
spruce trees which will likely be 20 feet in diameter at maturity , almost touching the deck portion I hope to omit.
After commencing construction on the SFR, I realized that the 5 foot wrap-around deck will be a detriment to both
neighboring homes, making the lot C residence appear overly massive and encroaching even further into the small yard
space (airspace also) between the two homes. The wrap deck also would create unwanted shade in the small yard.
My appeal is to 1) omit this deck wrap and 2) allow 4' privacy screen for a future hot tub on the NE side of the new
home.
My efforts to build what I feel are the best improvements to the property include the following:
1) rezone fourplex to two dupl;xcs
2) down -zone second duplex to single- family ($700.00 design review fees paid)
3) 1st too -large house plan scrapped
4) New house plan approved ($700.00 design review fees paid)
5) 1st deck appeal (minor design modification) $75.00
6) 2nd deck appeal (minor design modification) $75.00
7) city council appeal $50.00
8) $3,000.00 worth of spruce trees planted \ $1,000.00 seeding \ hydro seeding on current project
I feel strongly about doing the right thing for the property, and I would submit to the council that the appearance of
the side elevation of the home in question has no bearing on the community - it cannot be seen until an observer
stands in the yard between the two homes. Nevertheless, I would like to improve the appearance of the fireplace
cantilever by adding 2-3 faux structural lookouts made of heavy timbers under the cantilever.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert A. Mach,
RECEIVED
F E B 16 2005
Community Development
PQ 4 g'' '/itejd6
ta.(a
( ply b
Staff Report Minor ProjectV70N
C 0 L O R A D 0
October 19, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report Date October 14, 2004
Project Type Minor Project — Building and Landscaping
Modifications
Legal Description Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Address 2520 Old Trail
Introduction
The applicant, Bob Mach, has applied for modifications to the final design for his project
currently under construction. Some of the proposed design changes have already been made to
the single-family home. Staff conducted a number of site visits, and deviations from the
approved plans were noted. This application was received after numerous submittal requests by
the Community Development Department.
Proposed design changes include:
1. Two berms on easterly prope.:-ty line ("surveyor to verify'), each with two 12' spruce
trees.
2. Install 40' length of 3' high split rail fence ("property line delineation") on property
line between Lot 45B and Lot 45C.
3. Install 20' length of 6' high cedar fence at north east comer of structure for hot tub
screening.
4. New window location for the main level window on north elevation.
5. Omit bellyband detail from all elevations except for gable bumpout on north elevation
and utilize continuous wood trim above windows in place of bellyband.
6. Omit deck on west elevation.
7. Two new firebox bumpouts with one on west elevation and one on east elevation.
These boxes utilize shingle roofs and accent wood siding.
8. Cedar sided double garage doors in place of one single arched door.
9. New swale between duplex on Lot 45B and Lot 45C.
Attached for your review are letters sent to the applicant in addition to a reduced copy of the
applicant's current (approved) final design plans from your October 21, 2003 meeting. Full size
copies of the proposed design changes and digital photographs of the property will be available
for your review at the meeting.
Town or Avon Commun4 Development (970) 749.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Minor Project for Design Modifications
October 19, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 2
Review Considerations
According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4. 10, the Commission
shall consider the following items in reviewing the this project:
1. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed.
2 The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height,
orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors.
3. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity
that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
4. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals,
Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
Staff Recommendations
After review of the required design review considerations and the Residential Design Guidelines,
staff recommends the following motions in correspondence with the above -listed design
changes:
1. Denied. After reviewing the survey stakes in the field, the two installed berms appear
to exceed the property boundaries and must be removed immediately. Any
disturbance to the adjacent lot should be restored to the pre-existing condition. No
occupancy certificate will be issued for Lot 45C until this work is completed.
2. Denied. The Residentia' Design Guidelines state "fences that delineate property
boundaries are not permitted." The Guidelines continue to say "fencing is
discouraged, and will only be permitted where it complements the character of the
property." This fence appears to violate the Guidelines.
3. Denied. It does not appear that this "hot tub screening" fence compliments the
character of the landscape or property. Additionally, the Guidelines clearly state that
fences over 4' are not permitted.
4. Approved.
5. Denied.
6. Approved.
7. Approved.
8. Approved.
9. Approved. Positive drainage must be provided and maintained away from the
structures.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please do not hesitate to
call me at 748.4017 or stop by the Community Development Department.
Res ctfully ubmitt ,
Matt Pielstick
Planning Technician
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Memo
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Matt Pielsticker, Planning Technician
Date: . February 7, 2005
Re: Minor Project Application — Deck Alteration
Summary:
Staff received a Minor Project application for a design change to the 2520 Old Trail
property where a single-family residence is currently under construction. The application
proposes to reduce the size of the deck. As approved, the deck wraps around from the
south to the west elevation of the residence. The deck has already been constructed on
the south elevation (per approved plans) and this application proposes to eliminate the
western portion.
Background:
A previous Minor Project application for design changes was heard at the Commission's
October 19"', 2004 meeting. At that meeting, action was taken on a number of exterior and
site design changes, including changes to the deck (see number 6 below). Attached to this
memo are reduced photocopies showing the proposed reduction in deck area.
The deck change being proposed with this application was denied at your October 19, 2004
meeting because the Commission felt that removing the deck would be inconsistent with the
Design Review Guidelines. The Residential Guidelines do not specifically address decks and
their placement. Subsequently, the applicant missed the appeal period and has resubmitted
a new application for further review.
Following is a recap of the previous Minor Design application and the changes that were
proposed, and with a brief progress update on each change:
1. Install two berms on easterly property lines, each with two 12' spruce trees.
Acorn: Conditionally approved. The neighboring property owner (Lot 44,
Block 2, Wildridge) must submit a letter of approval for these berms prior to
Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Progress: No letter has been received by Community Development. The
applicant has started dialogue with the neighboring owner's representative.
2. Install 40' length of 3' high split rail fence on property line between Lot 45B and Lot
45C.
Action: Approved.
Progress: Posts in ground.
3. Install 20' length of 6' high cedar fence at north east comer of structure for hot tub
screening.
Action: Denied.
4. New window location for main level window on north elevation.
Action: Approved.
Progress: Complete.
5. Omit bellyband detail from all elevations except for gable bumpout on north elevation
and utilize continuous wood trim above windows in place of bellyband.
Action: Denied. The bellyband must wrap around the entire north elevation of
the home and will terminate into the inside comers of the building.
Progress: Trim board has been applied to approved locations.
6. Omft deck on west elevation.
Action: Denied.
7. Two new firebox bumpouts with one on west elevation and one on east elevation.
These boxes utilize shingle roofs and accent wood siding.
Action: Approved.
Progress: 900/6 Complete
8. Cedar sided double garage doors in place of one single arched door.
Action: Approved.
Progress: Complete except for trim.
9. New swale between duplex on Lot 45B and Lot 45C.
Action: approved.
Progress: Not constructed.
F.•IPI"ftAZa7kWCWWWSS1MWffMM O67L4W82*RBobMeehM*WPrgW--td*
.0
qp m
Btu -O WA -I . VP.*o . ° gom ma od V
nyo • lTm* . -gwwn At
• '�M'l1iJl585 • '��
JSM aAWW
O
moIll
^o'
Oard(YI00 'NOAV NOm1llIagns zomcru
a an z m(na ' 9t JA►t
m
ZSf
O
m
4
Z
c
0
m
g
a.
Us©
C=31
NIn
Fz
ULII..J
W
CIQ
Q�
1z
m
u.
wJ 0
m
ZSf
O
m
4
00
FO
O O
Q a[)
J A
n- J
O w
W
<mw
a: C)
p Z
WOY
mHY
E
x
a
Im
Z
0
O
�?
ow
m_
m
Fz
wI'
Oo
w
2
U V O
J p
Q O
ZWpj
wJ 0
Fa
ONp
No
F-
O10:N_/
(Q')
o z
U-
ocrz
�O:
3 w
Opo
F -a '
(WO�
0w
5po
5;
0 CE
<w
3.
00
FO
O O
Q a[)
J A
n- J
O w
W
<mw
a: C)
p Z
WOY
mHY
E
x
a
Im
