PZC Packet 021594PLANNING A,.d ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Westgate Building - PUD
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Rezoning Request from RHDC to PITD
PROJECT TYPE: Rezone from RHDC To PUD
ZONING: Proposed - PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Yes
INTRODUCTION
This is a Public Healing before the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Elk Meadow Partnership has submitted an application requesting a change of zoning from
RHDC to PUD for Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The lot is
approximately 1.02 acres in size. Attached please find a proposed PUD Development
Guideline which fully describes the applicant's request.
ZONING SUMMARY
The property is currently zoned Residential High Density Commercial (RHDC), which
allows a variety of residential and commercial uses, including a hotel, lodge, bed and
breakfast, multi -family dwelling units, and support retail, restaurant, and service shops not
to exceed 20% of the floor area of the building(s) on site.
Rezoning this property to PUD would allow the applicant to construct an approximately
15,000 sq ft, two-story retail/office building and associated parking consistent with the
following project elements:
PROPOSED PUD ELEMENTS
Uses:
1. Retail Stores
2. Professional Offices
3. Personal Service Shops
4. Restaurants
Proposed Development Standards:
1. Minimum lot size: 1.02 acres
2. Maximum building height: 48 feet
3. Minimum building setback Front - 20', Rear - 10'
Parking shall be allowed to encroach 15' into the required front setback.
Roof overhangs shall be allowed to encroach 5 feet into the required rear
setback.
PLANNING Ai.O ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Westgate Building - PUD
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Rezoning Request from RHDC to PUD
A trash enclosure shall be allowed in the rear setback as indicated on the
conceptuai landscape plan drawn by Dennis Anderson, ASLA, dated
January 24, 1994
4. Maximum site coverage: 30% (13,500 sq ft)
5. Mimmum Landscape area 20%
MLAimum square footage (on two levels) has been specified as 20,000 square feet.
Parking will be provided in accordance with the Town of Avon Zoning Code.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Zoning Comparison
EXISTING ZONING (RHDC]
Multi -family, hotel, lodges, retail
shops, festaurants, service shops, churches,
aboveground public utility installations(SRU)
Min. lot size: 1 acre
Max. bldg. height: 60'
Min. bldg. setback front -25
rear -10'
side -7.5'
Max. site coverage: 50%
Min. landscape: 20%
Max. density: 25 U/.Acre
(up to 20% commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING (PUD)
Retail, prof offices, personal service shops,
restaurants
1.02 acres
Iw
20' with parking encroaching 15'
10' with trash dumpster and 5' roof overhang
encroachment
No side yard
30%
20%
20,000 square feet commercizl
The proposed PUD will provide development which is consistent with o� less than current
RHDC develonment standards.
PLANNING Aj-40 ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Westgate Building - PUD
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Rezoning Request from RHDC to PUD
Sate Access
The proposed entrance to the site is located off W. Beaver Creek Blvd., opposite the
entrance to the Sunridge Condominiums.
The intersection of W. beaver Creek Blvd. and Hwy. 6/24 bas been identified for
secondary intersection improvements in the Comprehensive Plan. If the Town determines
that future street and intersection improvements are necessary in this location, the
applicant agrees to participate in the cost for such improvements.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Residential High Density zoning is designated to the north, east and west of the site (the
Sunridge Condominiums). To the immediate south is Hwy. 6/24, and beyond that is the
Beave. Creek PUD.
STAFF COMMENTS:
L. Conformity with the Avon Comprehensive Plans, goals and objectives;
Comment: The proposed rezoning generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan in the
intended uses and with the site's location (See page 5, PUD Submittal).
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, the sub-
area design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town;
Commeni: The proposed project complies with the design theme and guidelines through
the use of building material, landscaping and mass (See page 5, PUD Submittal).
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and
a-Iiacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, character, and orientation;
Comment: The proposal is compatible with surrounding development and improvements
in terms of height, massing and scale (See page 6, PUD Submittal).
PLANNINC A,.D ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Westgate Building - PUD
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Rezoning Request from RHDC to PUD
4. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity;
Comment: The intended commercial uses will be generally compatible with the
surrounding residential uses (See page 6, PUD Submittal).
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed;
Comment: The are no geologic or natural hazards identified.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community;
Comment: The existing site conditions have no vegetation and the proposed Landscape
Plan indicates pla.tting between the Highway and the project's parking (See page 6,
PUD Submittal).
7, A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on
and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town transportation
plan;
Comment: Internal circulation and parking for the project are adequate (See page 7, PUD
Submittal)
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function;
Comment: There are no natural or recreation features to preserve on this site Views will
not be blocked by the building due to the lower massing in comparison to the
sunounding structures (See page 7, PUD Submittal).
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan
shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and
efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases:
Comment: No phasing is proposed.
PLANNING Ai, J ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Westgate Building - PUD
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Rezoning Request from RHDC to PUD
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation
systems, roads, parks and police and fire protection;
Comment: The utilities are adequate to serve the project (See page 7, PUD Submittal).
11. That the exi3ting streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry
anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed
PUD.
Comment: The existing streets are a1equate to handle the additional traffic (See page 7,
PUD Submittal)
In addition to the above guidelines, the Zoning Code (Section 17.28.080) establishes
criteria for review, recommendation and approval of a rezoning, which are listed
below:
L Is the proposed rezoning justified by changed or changing conditions in the
character of the area proposed to be rezoned?
Comment: The expanding Beaver Creek PUD designates this intersection as one of the
main entrances into Beaver Creek. Commercial at this intersection is appropriate (also
see page 7, PUD Submittal).
2. Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan?
Comment: The proposed PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (also see page
7, PUD Submittal)
3. Is the proposed use(s) compatible with the surrounding area or uses?
Comment: 7 he proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses
(also see page 7, PUD Submittal).
4. Are adequate facilities available to serve development for the type and scope
suggested by the proposed zone?
PLANNING Ai, v ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Westgate Building - PUD
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Rezoning Request from RHDC to PUD
Comment: There are adequate facilities available to serve the proposed project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the rezoning of Lot 3, Block 3,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek from RHDC to PUD with the following findings and
conditions:
Findings:
1. The rezoning is justified due to the changing character of the area.
2. The rezoning is consistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed use is compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding area and
uses.
Conditions:
1. The FUD Plan and PUD Guidelines described above (including allowed uses, site
access, parking and development standards) be incorporated into and binding upon the
PUD zone district designation for Lot 3, Block 3, BM@BC
2. If the Town determines that future street and intersection improvements are necessary
in this location, the applicant agrees to participate in the cost for such improvements.
PLANNING Ai.J ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Westgate Building - PUD
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Rezoning Request from RHDC to PUD
RECOMMENDED AC'r10N
I. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Commission Review
6. Commission Action
Respectfully Submitted
Steve Amsbaugh
Director of Community Develor hent
PLANNING Ai, J ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Westgate Building - PUD
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Rezoning Request rrom RHDC to PUD
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date/Y -ftSue Railton, Secretary AC �A
Westgate Building, with the following findings and conditions:
1. ine rezoning is iustiried due to the changing character of the area.
2. The rezoning is consistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed use is compatible with and complimentary to the
CONDITIONS:
I. The PUD Plan and PUD Guidelines (including allowed uses, site access
and development standards) be incorporated into and binding upon the
PUD zone district designation for Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek.
2. If the Town determines that future street and intersection improvements
are necessary in this location, the applicant agrees to participate in
the cost for such improvements.
�1 ^
PLANNING Ai.J ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kr:PORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Westgate Building
Conceptual Design Review
PROJECT TYPE: Westgate Building Commercial and Office Project
ZONING: Proposed PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING" YES
INTRODUCTION:
An application for conceptual review of a 15,000 square foot commercial building has
been submitted by Elk Meadow Inc. It will be located on Lot 3, which is 1.02 acres and
has a slope of approximately 2-3%. This project requires the property to be rezoned to
PUD (see PUD Rezone stmTreport, Feb. 15, 1994).
The proposed building will stand approximately 34-36' in height and contain two levels.
Following are the building materials:
Roof
Metal Standing Seam
Green
Siding
Stucco
Undetermined
Other
Stone
Undetermined
Fascia
Wood
Undetermined
Soffits
Wood/Aluminum
Undetermined
Window
Clad
"
Window Trim
%N ood
"
Trash Enclosure
Stucco
Match building
The Landscape Plan consists of 18 spruce, 6' minimum height, 22 aspen, 2" minimum
caliper, I I cottonwood, 2" minimum caliper, and 8 crabapple, 2" minimum caliper. An
automatic irrigation and drip system have been proposed.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments:
Site Plan Comments:
L An accurate grading plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site
disturbance, will be needed for Final Design Review;
2. Landscaping should be located out of snow storage areas,
3. Access into the site needs to be resolved prior to Final Design review,
4. A required loading space needs to be identified,
5. Snow storage needs to be indicated, and
6. Treatment of the nmoff from the parking lot needs to be addressed.
PLANNING At,%0 ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kEPORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Westgate Building
Conceptual Design Review
Design Comments:
1. A northeast elevation needs to be submitted for Final Design Review,
2. Will the dumpstcr have gates? If so, indicate the materials to be used and provide an
elevation of the gates,
3. Site and building lighting needs to be identified;
The intersection of W. beaver Creek Blvd. and Hwy. G & 24 has been identified for
secondary intersection improvements in the Comprehensiverian. If the Town determines
that future street and intersection improvements are necessary in this location, the
applicant agrees to participate in the cost for such improvements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation.
Respectfully Submitted
Mary Holden
Town Planner
PLANNING AN k) ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Westgate Building
Conceptual Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (''r
Date /�s/S Sue Railton, Secretary�C�4�iCD
As a conceptual design review, no fo-mal action was takei, dt this time.
landscaping, but the general consensus was that this was a�very nice �b ilding.
1
i
1
1
I
I
I
I
g --
U
O
16 ♦♦
ti.
al Q
y'
ice_-----
i
■:
�C
k, w.
l t$
-�
i ta .
NI
1
I
Y
I
a .
Y
I
s I
.
P
I
PLANNING A .J ZONING COMMISSION STAFF .PORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 19/19, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Metcalf Place
Final Design Review
PROJECT TYPE: Warehouse
ZONING: Industrial/Commercial COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Yes
INTRODUCTION:
Mark Donaldson has submitted plans for Final Design Review of a warehouse/o'iice
building, of approximately 27,548 square feet on Lot 18/19, Block 1, BM@BC. It will
contain two levels and stand approximately 48' in height. Following is a list of the building
matefials:
Roof
metal
Colonial red
Other
Concrete Block
Amazon Beige
Accent Concrete Block
Henna
Stucco
jasper Tint
Window
Aluminum
Colonial Red
Doors
Steel
Jasper Tint
Hand/ Deck Rail
Steel
Colonial Red
Flues
Metal
Ui.finished
Flashings
Metal
Colonial Red
Garage Door
Co!oniai Red
Retaining Walls
Concrete Block
Amazon Beige
The !andscape plan includes.
Colorado Blue Spruce 13 6-8' tall
! odgepole Pine 4 6-8' tall
Quaking Aspen 4 2" cal.
Wildflower Mix
Revegetation of all construction scars wil' be done with native grasses and irrigation will
be provided to tach planting area shown on the Landscape Plan.
S'i AFF COMMENTS:
This request was reviewed as a conceptual a: the December 7, 1994 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Commission commented on the fallowing:
Coloration of the blocks,
Roof shape and material;
Parapet wall seeming a little monotonous,
0%
PLANNING Ai.V ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ,.r;PORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 1.8/19, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Metcalf Place -
Final Design Review
Different types of entry to the bays and conformity with the entire building,
Massing of the building and possibly having two buildings;
Height of retaining wall in the back; and
Concern over snow storage.
The applicant is proposing a variety of bay finishes depending on the tenant need. There
are nine different types of door/window elevations and three types of metal doors. The
configurations will not be determined until individual tenants are in place. The variety will
help break up the mass of the building, but this Final Design Review approval would
include only those elevations shown.
The majority of snow will be hauled off site, with a small amount of storage east of the
parking area.
Lighting and a sign program will be brought back at a later date fcr Commission review
and approval.
The final drainage and grading plan should be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the
issuance of a building pern.it. On the grading plan, true limits of site disturbance must be
shown, along with construction fencing distinguishing disturbed and undisturbed zones.
Further, the areas of disturbance should be revegitated with, not only native grasses but,
native vegetation.
The retaining wall on the west side of the building varies in height with the tallest point
being approximately 21'. The wall will be made of the Kevst(,-te concrete block retaining
wall system, (similar to that being utilized in Mountain Star subdivision). Attached to this
-eport is information regarding this type of system.
The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the final design of this
project:
Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town.
Comment: This proposal is in conformance with Town codes.
The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which
it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located.
Comment: The type and quality of proposed buildin& materials and lar dscape materials
are consistent with Town guidelines.
r'i ^
PIANNI iG Aril ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ..r,PORT
February 15 1994
Lot 18/19, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Metcalf Place
Final Design Review
The con:pvtibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties.
Comment: The building and site design proposed will have no impacts on adjacent sites.
The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography.
Comment: The west portion of the site is seep, with the east portion begin the most
buildable and the location of the building.
The visual appearance of any proposed imprevement as viewed from adjacent and
neighboring properties and public ways.
Comment: The proposed improvements will not be very visible due to the grade changes
of surrounding properties and the alignment of Metcalf Road.
The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the
vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaireti.
Comment: The proposal meets the objective of this guideline.
Che general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals,
Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
Comment: The proposal is in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the
Town of Avon.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission approve this application with .ti-- :ollowiag conditions:
1. The lighting and sign program be brought back for approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
2. A construction fence be placed on site prior to and during construction, that delineates
construction and non -construction zones.
3. The final grading and drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
4. The meters be placed on the building.
5. All flues, Flashings and vents have a finished surface.
6. All retaining walls over 4' in height be designed by a licensed Engineer.
PLANNING Ai -40 ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ..SPORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 18/19, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Metcalf Place
Final Design Review
7. Disturbed areas shall be revegetated with native vegetation (including sage and
glasses).
8. The elevations shown are those approved. Any variation to these elevations need
Final Design Review approval by the Planning and 'Zoning Commission.
9. Special Review Use approval will be required for uses other than those Fpecified in
Section 17.20.010.B.
Respectfully Submitted
Mary Hol en
Town Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions
Approved with modified zonditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date /5- Sue Railton, Secretary
SEE ATTACHED PAGE
Lot 18, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Metcalf Place
Final Design Review
The Commission granted final design review approval with the following
conditions:
1. The lighting and sign program be brought back for approval.
2. A construction fence be placed on site prior to and during construction
that delineates construction and non -construction.
3. The grading and drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
4. Meters be placed on the building.
5. Flues, Flashings and vents have a finished surface.
6. Retaining walls over four feet in height be designed by an engineer.
7. Disturbed areas shall be revegetated with native vegetation in
addition to the native grasses they are proposing. (sage, etc.).
8. Special Review Use approval will be required for uses other than those
specified in Section 17.20.010.8.
9. Window and door configurations can vary with tenant without coming back
for design review, but all colors will remain the same.
10. The color palette be brought back to Staff for approval, in specific,
the jasper color to be refashioned so as to be toned down and all the
doors and bays on the lower level to be the same color as the stucco
finish.
�..
7|
]
|g
z �| lit 1 ,
0 0
X0
Iwo
\!
§It
!§\
\§]
Iwo
ki
t'-'
u
4
rl
IJF
I
I �
N �I/91111P111��11��11--11-11--11--11-11��11��11��11��11��1 ? �.
Ilu�lllllll , 11„11,111„11„11„11„11„11„11„11„11„11�
�I
IIIIIIII
I .
I�IIIIIIil�llllllulilllllllll[I�Illl�ii�llllllll' . �,:
.............91.111fll•111 ...............�..,,..,,..,,.., ...II' 11”
�i111iii1ii1ni�41ii„ ii,�ii� ii„ii,�l,�ii„i1i 1�
��I Ix ■■1 ■11���11 11 11 III 11..1
PRIOR
il. ll�--- IIa
,RI OR0911 1111111111111111111111 \
,.
LIIII�II...11�__- .�flud1110.11. d
I
a `i
• RETAINING WALL SVS MS
STANDARD UNIT
Installation Guidelines
• 1990 KeyStone Retamirg Well Sy to Inc.
The KeyStone Retaining Wail
System was developed with simplicity
of construction in mind.
The following steps will guide you
from start to finish.
STEP 1.
PREPARATION OF BASE LEVELING PAD
Excavate a shallow trench to the length and
width dimensions of your KeyStone wall. Pro-
vide space behind the KeyStone unit to allow
for granular backfill. Standard modules should
be placed on a 6" leveling pad of compacted,
well draining granular fill (Le., sand, 1/2"- 3/4"
crushed stone or gravel) at 95% Std. Proctor
compaction or equal. We recommend addition-
al trench depth for below grade placement of
KeyStone units on a ratio of 1 "below grade for
each 8" of wall height above grade.
STEP 2.
INSTALLING THE BASE COURSE
level each
direction -_'._ r - �� Bea
—✓ to touch
Install the first course of KeyStone Standard
modules side by side over the prepared leveling
pad. Level each unit aide by side and front
to back. Place the units such that the kidney
shaped recess is on the bottom. Make sure units
are in correct alignment. Use pins or backside or
unit for straight wall alignment. Units should
touch side point to side point as diagrammed.
STEP 3.
INSTALLING INTERLOCKING PINS
r,
Place the 91/4 "x 1/2 " reinforced fiberglass pins
Into the paired holes in each module. Once in
place. the pins will automatically set back the
next course from the units below per step 5.
Size: 8"H x 18"W x 24"D4
Wt: 94 lbs. (approximately)
Exposed Face: 1 Square Foot
*Unit color, weight, and depth may vary slight.
ly by region. Consult your local KeyStone repre-
sentative for current data and product options
(dual setback unit, straight sided cap, and straight
splitface).
Specifications subject to change without notice.
STEP 4.
INSTALLING BACKFILL 6 COMPACTION
1
Fill all voids between KeyStone units and
behind units. This fil I should consist of Vz ". 3/4"
crushed stone or clean, well draining granular
fill. This allows for water drainage and compacts
easily. Manually compact to eliminate potential
settlement.
Backfill behind gravel drainage zone using
existing soils. (Note: Heavy clays cr organic soils
are not recommended due to water holding pro -
parties.) Compact to 95% Std. Proctor.
Upon completion of backfill and compaction,
sweep the units to remove small pebbles, debris,
etc. so the units rest evenly upon one another.
Backfill and compact every 8" course.
STEP 5.
INSTALLING ADDITIONAL COURSES:
A
Place the next KeyStone Standard module
over the positioned fiberglass pins so it bridges
two units below in a running bond pattern. Pull
the KeyStone module towards the face of the
wall until the module makes full contact with
both pins. Repeat steps 3, 4 and 5.
STEP 6.
INSTALLING KEYSTONE CAPS:
,
Use KeyStone Cap units (without top surface
pin holes) to complete your wall. Place the Key.
Stone Cap over projecting pins on the unit
below. Pull forward to the automatic setback
position. Backfill and compact.
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The base course must be carefully leveled
and placed on properly compacted granular
fill. When constructing walls less than 3' - 0"
high, modules can be placed on firm, un-
disturbed, inorganic soils.
2. Backfill must occur on a course by course
basis.
Note: Only lightweight mechanical compac.
tion equipment should he used within 3' .0"
of the back of the units.
3. In areas of high public accessibility or poten-
tial vandalism, we recommend a construction
adhesive or epoxy cement be used around
the perimeter underside of the cap prior to
unit placement.
4. Building curves into your KeyStone retaining
wall requires a few special considerations. Con.
vex curves require a small gap between adja.
cent units (see diagram). For concave curves,
touching edges of each unit should be slightly
overlapped (see diagram). Gapping and over.
lapping will vary somewhat with the degree of
curvature desired. A general guideline is as
follows; At the base course, set units with gap
or overlap so pins of adjoining units are 12"
apart. (see diagram)
Convex Concave
5. A dramatic shadowing and textured effect
can be achieved by combining KeyStone
Standard with KeyStone Mini units on alter
nate courses (8" .4" 8" etc.).
6. Contact your local KeyStone representative
for design options, patented soil reinforce-
ment guidelines on walls exceeding 6'.0",
and water applications.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS: KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS. INC " 7600 FRANCE AVENUE MUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 • MN 612-897.7040 • 14IM7472971
L1050 PRPRED 01 USA Ke55tae IhWNtg WaU &i ema a wend q' one or noted U.S. Patent rl a 4?14.876 end Deo 295,7r 295.788;296.007:296.365; FAX 612297-3asa
297,464: 297,574: 297.767:296,463: 299.067: 300253:300251: 301.064; 311.444: (l CRO. No. 45991
TYPE A
NOLL= PETAL
►.art
TYrWAL ALL enOLK
AND POUKA DOOM
TYPE 5
OYt16eAD ROLLer stEEL DOat
Pu
TTIrJL ALL oV930 Ao coati
00=Err DOOR NO. 101
1
y kMP-."`
rrPE c
RnLM rrt¢ DOOR
PA
MtFN Ao coat NO. 401
Y,iqAb.l "txppr D 5
LmM 3'.4^ Pm- CLEAR 6.6.
IT=t2. T — L
2- V-0, CA -A" V-2- 2 -0- JF2' V.V- 2' -E -12.F 1�11
;. Al 1" F—(Al �— I � bm. CLEM
Al NKLATM,
4 4LA" ", �GUAR16::t -
-&MU-ATM CA -AW
(TBTv®1
j At
rr?*E 2 rrm 3
WOLLCW MMAL. AL .14OLLOW Pliff761,
rAwr
7-ri-r-AL ALL OW" rl MCAL P40M HO 1C2 TTTWAL DOOM NO. 2n AND 220
MMLCW PWAL
POOPRO
DIV. CLE� 3'-A' L
MMA-ATED
2
7' J:53 q7 E! 13" CA -A" I 3'-0- J -2 -
AT u
am
i4
WV CLEAR
TTM 4 MU.ATW GLAO& rrFE 5
Ma I M PWTAL rTEMP404m) walm
PAWr
TYMCAL DOOM NO. 20 AND 2M
Tyro I rrpE a
ALLP"4Lri ALLP*V
CA&&'Wif#DMD CA&W'LMALDdED
mot
O
TYPE t
ALAJ'
CAOLMWt
TYPE 6
ALLMWW
CAGEMEWAM=
"D�'/W �n�c�,s t"�wn S
PL MING A.,D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF KEPORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 46, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Buck Springs Project
Conceptual Design Review
PROJECT TYPE: Buck Springs Residential Project
ZONING: RHD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION:
The applicants have submitted plans for conceptual design review for a 12 unit project
located on Lot 46, (.853 of an acre). This lot has slopes of approximately 2%.
The configuration of the units will be duplexes, with six buildings located on the site. The
buildings will contain three levels and stand approximately 36 1/2' in height. Follcwirg are
the proposed building materials:
Roof
Siding
Other
Fascia
Soffits
Window
Window "frim
Door
Door Trim
Hand/ Deck Rail
Flashings
Chimney
Garage Door
cedar shingles
natural in color
6" bevel lap
natural
stucco
white
cedar
natural
Ix6 T&G cedar
natural
wood clad
white
clad brick mold
white
S.C. wood
natural
wood
Benjamin Moore 697
clad brick mold
white
G.1
natural
Not indicated
5 gal.
Not indicated
white
The landscape plan consists of the following:
Blue Spruce
4
8-10'
Bristlecone Pine
5
8-10'
Lodgepole Pine
5
8.10'
Aspen
i4
1 1/2-2"
White Poplar
13
1 1/2-2"
Cottonwood
13
1 1/2-2"
Pfitzer Juniper
I P
5 gal.
Tammy Juniper
10
5 gal.
Red Dogwood
8
5 gal.
Serviceberry
6
5 gal.
Potentilla
6
5 gal.
s
PLANNING Ann) ZONING COMMISSION STAFF..r.PORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 46, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Buck Springs Project
Conceptaal Design Review
STAFF COMMENTS:
The RHD zoning district allows townhomes, condor iniums and apartments at a density
not to exceed 20 units/acre. Proposed density is 14 un;ts/acre.
Required parking for a 12 unit development is 24 spaces, plus 4 guest spaces. This
i;pplication provides the required parking.
Project comments are as follows:
Site Plan Comments:
I. A grading plan, on a certified topography of the site, showing true limits of
disturbance must be submitted for Final Design Review;
2. The building appears to abut the setbacks, in which case, overhangs P.,e not allowed to
extend into the setbacks,
3. Provide access agreement for the use of the 25' access and utility easement on the
northeast property line;
4. Label guest parking spaces on final site plan; and
5. Note on the plans the trash dumpster location or type of trash c-)llection.
Design Comments
1. Indicate the type of proposed fireplaces on final plans;
2. The proposed Aspens, Cottonwoods, and White Poplar need to be a minimum of 2"
caliper; and
3. The final landscape plan submitted needs to match final building configurations and
should include the type of ground cover and irrigation proposed..
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation.
Respectfully Submitted
lu
Steve Amsbzugh
Director of Community Development
ANN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kkePORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 46, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Buck Springs Project
Conceptual Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action
Date/S zft Sue Railton, Secretary_
As a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken that this time.
The applicant is proposing rix duplexes on this site. The Commission -Fad
problems with the mirror image concept, the closeness of the buildings,
and the snow storage—. -lite CUllllHi�-b1Q1l bidted thdt they would .z to see a
massing model. They also need to see the proposed colors. They also felt
that lcnmia of the vatinnc afore boring, especially with the win •' placements.
They also felt that ti.e planning for this lot needs good landscaping.
' r
_ o �
I � I
P
T
e
n
P
•■
13 {
J
t71
i
LJ
Y
i
C
T,
W
�� II
8
a
n
Z 'S
0
I
'
Ce
PLANNINC A,�v ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ,.SPORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 58, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Sindlinger Single Family
Conceptual Design Review
PROJECT TYPE: Sindlinger Single Family
ZONING: PUD. Two Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION:
An application for conceptual review of a single family residence has been submitted by
Bruce and Toni Sindlinger. The singie family residence will be located on lot 58, Block 1,
which is approximately .51 of an acre and slopes to the north at approximately 17%.
The residence will contain two levels, one being a walkout basement and will have the
following exterior materials:
Roof
asphalt
no color indicated
Siding
1 x 8 cuannel rustic cedar
"
Fascia
wood
"
Soffits
wood
"
Window
clad
"
Window Trim
wood
"
Door/Trim
wood
"
Hand/ Deck Rail
wood
"
Flues
clay
Flashings
aluminum
"
Chimney
wood
"
No landscaping plan, or colors of materials have been submitted for review.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The solar orientation is not optimum for the proposed residence. TF.e north elevation
contains the most glass, while the east, west and south elevation , r --,stain little or
moderate amourts. However, the best views for the site are to ;'ie ncrth
Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are our comme•its:
Site Plan Comments:
1. An accurate grading plan, on a certified topography, showing the true limits of site
disturbance will be neided for Final Design Review,
2. Retaining wall- over . in height need to be designed by do engineer.
I*% A--,
PLANNING A..,J ZONING COMMISSION STAFF --PORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 58, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Sindlinger Single Family
Conceptual Design Review
Design Comments:
1. Indicate gas or wood burning for the proposed fireplaces,
2. Floor plans for the basement level need to be subm"vcd.
3. Colors an(I materia'; need to be indicated on the elevations; and
4. Architectural detail needs to be provided on the deck acid building lighting.
5. A Landscape Plan must be provided for Final Design Rev,ev.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation.
Respectfully Submitted
Mary Holden
Town Plannei
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTYON:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( }
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (Vr
Date ./SIc Sue Railton, Secretary
As a conceptual design review, no formal action was taker, at this time.
However, _ e omm sston a —si c aTFy—T t e a esign. ey s fa fea
there needs to be some landscaping along the long expanse of the garage
and-the--exp"ed4etmdati" needs some–sort–e€–treatm t.
X1001 �A'7Q 1 d
1 0 1
1 r 1
1 I 1
1 1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I _
I
I
I I
\ 1
1 \
� 166IV9
1
I
I
I
11
1
1
It
1
1 1
1 I
I 1
I
1 I
I
I
\
\\I
w
4
ti
h
'
1
4
h
'
1
4
e
101
e
am
PLANNING AN ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Lot 6, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Sunflower Townhomes
Final Design Review -Residential Project Entrance Sign
PROJECT TYPE: Residential Project Entrance Sign Approval
ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION:
Larry Ast, of Hightech Signs, has submitted an application for Final Design Review
approval of a residential project entrance sign for Sunflower Townhomes. Following is a
description of the sign:
* The material will be 1 1/2" urethane sign foam ;
* It will be sandblasted to create relief;
* Placement will be at the entrance to the project and will stand 6' in height; and
* Primary colors will be a gray background with white text and yellow, black and green
for the flower.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The proposed sign is within the allowed sign area and under the maximum height allowed.
"Bien Guidelines' and review criteria from the Sign Code
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 scall, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call
undue attention to itself.
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.
PLANNING Ai.0 ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Lot 6, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Sunflower Townhomes
Final Design Review -Residential Project Entrance Sign
Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper or
vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if
determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission.
D. Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure shodld 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.
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.
Section 1 5.28.070 - Sign Design Review Criteria
In addition to the sign Design Guidelines listed above, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewing proposed sign
designs:
A. The ,uitability 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 sign is consistent with others approved in this area. The material being
used has been utilized for other signs in the area and will appear as a wood, sandblasted
sign.
B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements:
Comment: The sign is similar to others in the area.
PLANNING At.0 ZONING COMMISSION
February 15, 1994
Lot 6, !clock 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Sunflower Townhomes
Final Design Review -Residential Project Entrance Sign
C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement:
Commei:t: The quality of the proposed sign material is acceptable. Attached to this
report is information on the proposed sign material.
D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or
neighboring property:
Comment: The visual impact of the proposed sign will be consistent with existing area
signs.
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: The proposed sign meets this design criteria.
F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign
code and appear to be appropriate for the project:
Comment: The type, size and location of the proposed sign crnip!ies with the Sign Code.
The location was shown on the approved Final Design.
G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestr .an traffic, ;mc, whether
the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation.
Comment The sign is primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission approve this application as presented.
PLANNING Ai. t) ZONING COMMISSION
February V;, 1994
Lot 6, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Sunflower Townhomes
Final Design Review -Residential Project Entrance Sign
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Holden
Town Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted (✓` Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date 7� �$, jjf�, Sue Railton, Secretary
The Commission granted final design review approval for the identification
sign or o oc—I; W�Tdrfige, a§ sub- -
== 3 z== =SIGNS
. .. SIGN
DRAWING-
P.O. BOX 2688 . VAIL, CO 81658. 303.949.4565 . FA.u: 303.949.4670
zG
u~I
r.
rlrI 3
g
od
0
JOB # DATE / 3/ %By 6�=_ — A/E_ l --
CLIENCONTACT_ !A ksF/L1�1�
SCALE PHONE—
V
�
I
�I
n
d
�O
I
IN SIGN MATERIALS & SYSTEMS
Sign•Foom is like nothing you have ever
seen or used before and is, perhaps, the
most versatile construction material presently
used in the signage industry. It is a
lightweight, high density rigid polyurethane
Product that possesses remarkable strength
and durability. Sign•Foom,s closed cell pro-
perties make it waterproof and allow the
application of almost any finish.
The effects that are possible with Sign•Foom
are not only beautiful, but economical as
well. Consider the capability of replicating
the look of expensive materials, com-
bined with the ease of fabrication that
Sign -Foam affords. Explore the possibility of
developing innovative aesthetic effects pre-
viously
ro-viously not practical or even possible with
existing materials. Sign -Foam can not only
be used in place of other materials. it can
also be used in conjunction with other
construction materials you may currently be
using.
wix,4 RI sosn•Foam
As an alternative or in addition to aluminum
or fiberglass cabinets and reverse pan -
channel letters, Sign -Foam excels. It provides
the distinct advantages of routed edges,
sandblasted or tooled accents and a
considerable reduction in fabrication time.
Sign -Foam can be used in place of high
priced, metal dimensional letters. Greater
flexibility of letter styles, shapes and finishes
can be accomplished with this innovative
product.
Sandblasted graphics are once again a
beautiful and practical option for exterior
signage. Unlike wood, Sign -Foam does not
present the serious limitations of unmatched
grains, cracking, delcminating or warping.
Sign -Foam's even densities and texture allow
for predictability in machining and blasting.
Thanks to a variety of sizes and thicknesses,
the need for laminating is reduced to a
minimum or eliminated altogether.
Sign•Foam can, achieve the appearance of
a concrete base without the difficulties and
expense of a poured-in-placa installation.
Sign -Foam bases can be pre -fabricated,
coated with Sign -Tex', then installed with a
simple pole mount.
OA
Sign -Foam is a designer's dream come true.
At last, a material that allows you to
Produce almost any shape or finish; shapes
and finishes that are easy to fabricate,
beautiful and durable. Results from other
materia • are equaled or surpassed by
Sign • Fern
.a
�/ son•Foam
What makes Sign -Foam such an easy
Product to market to your clients? Simply
stated, they will have superior signage, often
for less, with Sign-Foom.
In addition to metal, wood. and concrete.
Sign -Foam can be used in place of tile.
slumpstone, brick or riverrock as a cosmetic
applique. The aesthetic options are limitless
Using Sign -Foam, in the proper applications,
is a key to your success as a designer.
Designing with Sign -Foam is very satisfying.
Truly distinctive graphics can be fabricated
within or below budget Isn't that refreshing
news?
Any ideas you may wish to explore may be
communicated by mail, phone or FAX.
sicn•Foam
You now have the option of designing with
a truly cost-effective material that can afford
YOU a substantial reduction in fabrication
time. Your clients will also be impressed with
the versatility and durability of Sign -Foam.
Each project that incorporates Sign -Foam
creates an appreciation for the product that
Promotes repeat sales with your satisfied
customers, as well as generating new market
potentials:
Sign -Foam will give you the market edge.
3
M/ simeFO til
Sign -Foam is a most efficient and versatile
material. It possesses machining, assembly
and finishing qualities similar to, and yet in
many ways, superior to those of other
materials.
FABRICATION STEPS
Sawing:
Sign -Foam may be easily cut with conven-
tional power tools such as circular, table, jig
and band saws.
Routing and Shaping:
Sign -Foam is readily formed with routers,
shapers, sanders and files. Sign•Foam, like
wood, retains fine details, yet will do so with
considerably less effort.
Adhesive Bonding:
The proper adhesive to be used with
Sign•Foom ^`epends upon the method of
construction, as follows:
Sign•Foam Structural Bonding: When bond-
ing Sigr •Foam to itself or metal, we
recommend a heavy -bodied elastomeric
epoxy such as 3M product's Scotch -Weld
DP -190 Epoxy System, This adhesive offers
a superior, fail-safe performance. It is very
strong, with bonds remaining integral in
environmental exposure. It is sandable on
exposed glue seams, which is necessary
for smooth exterior finishing.
Sheet Sign•Foam/Substructure Bonding:
When Sign -Foam is to be bonded to a
background or substructure that is not
visible, an exterior -grade. waterproof struc-
tural adhesive may be used. Gluing pro-
cedures are the some as those for
Plywood
Sign•Foam Applique Bonding: When
Sign -Foam plaques, letters or graphics are
to be mounted to a background surface
such as wood, metal or stucco, a high
quality exterior grade waterproof construc-
tion adhesive is recommended. As with
any applique material, mating surfaces
should be abraded and sealed.
Fasteners: When fastening Sign -Foam to
itself or a base structure, corrosion
resistant drywall screws should be used in
addition to the proper adhesive (Nails are
not recommended). Screwheads should be
driven slightly beneath the foam surface.
then filled with an automotive plastic
body putty. This filler should be sanded
smooth prior to finishing. In densities of
15-18 pounds, Sign -Foam can accept
other fasteners commonly used in wood
Products T -Nuts, corrugated fasteners
and bolt and washer assemblies.
4
E
Modular Construction:
A. Solid Block: Sign -Foam, in solid block
form of 4" - 12" thick can be used in
Place of aluminum, fiberglass, wood or
concrete structural systems. The Illustration
shown shows the attachment of a
Sign -Foam block to its base, A mounting
hole Is drilled into the Sign -Foam block
and then it is mounted to a structural
pipe support protruding from the base.
(Note: The cost effective use of solid block
Sign•Foam is predicated upon proper size
selection, thus eliminating labor cost in
fabricating sub -structures. In some cases
th=_ choice of solid block Sign -Foam is
Preferable to Sign -Foam box construction).
B. Sign • Foam Box Construction: This fabri-
cating method is most useful for small to
medium sized signage (For some smaller
sizes, solid block Sign -Foam should be
considered). Sign -Foam structures are
assembled with techniques similar to
those used for building with plywood. As
shown in the illustration, 1" thick 15-18
Pound Sign -Foam panels are bonded
with epoxy and corrosion resistant screws
to a Sign•Foom framework, then mount-
ed to a base with structural supports.
(Note: This method may be used for an
open-ended Sign -Foam box that may
sleeve an existing wood, metal or mason-
ry structure).
HERE IN
Full Service kniorApar!ments
11
Sanding:
One of the many favorable features of
Sign -Foam is the ability of this material to be
sanded - with excellent results. Sign -Foam
may be power -sanded or hand -sanded in
the same manner as wood, but in much less
time. Surfaces and edges should be sanded
smooth with 150-220 grit sandpaper prior to
the application of primers and finishes. (Note:
When using Sign -Tex finishes, Sign -Foam
surfaces should be abraded with 40 grit
sandpaper to insure easy application of the
selected Sign -Tex finish).
Finishing:
The basic technique of finishing Sign -Foam is
the application of primers and paints to
Produce a smooth surface. The procedures
for this basic finish technique are as follows:
I. Primers: Sign -Foam should be properly
primed before the application of any
paint. When finishing with enamels, an
automotive epoxy or polyurethane filler
Primer is recommended. Dimensional
Sign•Foam, letters and graphics under
20" can be sealed with a polyesther
sanding resin to reduce labor time in
finish sanding, With acrylic latex paints, a
multipurpose wood primer may be used.
Simulated Metal letters and Graphics
Sign•Foam's unique qualities of shaping
and finishing allow for distinctive shapes
and details with finishes that rival those
of aluminum.
As previously stated, Sign•Foam can
replace non -illuminated reverse pan -
channel aluminum letters. However, the
appearance of illuminated letters may
also be enhanced by applying Sign -Foam
appliques. This technique will give a
Previously flat letter a fuller shape, and
can allow for routing or even a sand-
blasted finish.
5u�n•Fon
2. Finlshes: Proper exterior finishes of
Sign•Foam can be accomplished with
several different types of paint, in which
quality, performance and expense are
variables. Recommended finishes are as
follows:
A- Polyurethane Enamels: These are
Perhaps the highest quality of exterior
finishes available. They offer superior
Performance in accommodating ex-
pansion and contraction, U.V. filtering,
color retention and resistance to
cracking. Polyurethane enamels are
easily applied with conventional spray-
ers.
B. Automotive Acrylic Enamels:
This type of enamel is best suited for
smaller Sign -Foam structures, letters
and graphics. They are more econo-
mical, but will produce excellent
quality finishes. They are more brittle
than polyurethane enamels.
C. Acryllc•Latex Paints: High quality,
heavy bodied acrylic -latex paints may
be used os a Sign -Foam finish.
Although these paints hove limitations
in color and durability, they are the
most economical of the approved
Sign•Foam finishes and are simple to
apply by hand or by use of a spray
gun.
I/ sion•Foam
E7
Sandblasted Signage
As previously mentioned, Sign -Foam
is an ideal medium for producing
_ sandblasted signage. Everything from
small graphic panels to large monuments
may be sandblasted in Sign -Foam. The
techniques of sandblasting with Sign -Foam
are the same as those used with wood.
The blasting stencil should be applied to
a primed 18 pound density Sign -Foam
surface. A pre -finished background may
be accomplished by priming, then paint-
ing the Sign -Foam surface with polyure-
thane enamel. Low -tack blasting stencil is
then applied to the cured finish prior to
sandblasting. Blasti�d graphics may then
be painted and the stencil carefully
removed. The results are high quality,
dramatic, durable and definitely cost
effective.
Woodgrain Texture
Sign -Foam may be wire brushed with
linear strokes, producing a texture remark-
ably similar to rough sawn wood. It can
be used to duplicate the appearance
of wood in architectural details.
Simulated Tile and Masonry
The ability of Sign -Foam to receive
custom shapes makes it possible to
reproduce a tile or masonry look on
custom signage. The inherent texture of
Sign -Foam allows for realistic grout lines
and stone texture (as shown on page 2).
Carving
Carving is a natural with Sign -Foam. It
handles like soft stone, yet finshes like
wood or metal.
Moldmaking
Sign -Foam is superior for use in the
manufacture of mold shapes for use in
many mediums, such as fiberglass and
concrete.
vp
7
�I si3n•Foad'
Sign4oam is available in a variety
of sizes and densities. 4' x 8'
panels. 'i" thru 4" thick 6, 10, 15
and 18 pound densities are avail-
able. Stock and custom block and
Prefabricated panel boxes may
also be ordered. Please consult
Sign -Foam price sheet for purchasing
2'
information For recommended den
SIN applications, see chart at right.
C
O
a
V/ wri-Foam PRODUCT DATA
Chemical Properties
Polyether Polyurethane
Strength:
Sign -Foam exhibits an excellent strength
to weight ratio because of its high
strength polymer and cellular structure.
Durability:
Sign•Foam is very stable. It will not
corrode and is impervious to organic
decay. It is closed cell and waterproof.
(Note: Sign•Foom is sensitive to ultraviolet
light and should always be properly
finished with opaque paint).
Characteristics and Finishing Properties:
Fabrication and finishing techniques of
Sign•Foam are similar to those• of wood
products. .vith none of the problems
caused by grain lamination.
►/ slcn•Foam SAFETY INFORMATION
Exposure:
Sign -Foam is completely safe to use in
general manufacturing. Studies by Upjohn
Pharmaceuticals indicate polyurethane
foams are nontoxic and do notsensitize
skin. (Note: There is a possibility that
individuals who are very sensitive to
isocyanates may be sensitive to foam).
Dust
Machining Sign -Foam can create foam
dust and, as with any dust, should not be
inhaled or allowed to accumulate. Also.
air borne dust and particles may be
dangerous and abrasive to the eyes.
Standard particle masks and protective
goggles are strongly advised.
sinn•ar s Proo
P.O. WX 9573 • 8REA,.CA. •* 71w
�,b
Applications
�V--pee,
do
iiaiiooiCluLnnnnnnnim
�/ sim-Foam FIRE RETARDENT
Precautions similar to those used for pro-
tecting wood products form fire should be
followed. Although much less flammable
than wood or acrylics. Sign.Foam is flame
retardent. However, when exposed to
flame. Sign.Foom will only char on the
outside surface and will not melt (Nate: For
projects requiring thorough documentation of
Sign -Foam s test performance. such as gov-
ernmental projects, information is available
from Sign -Arts con request).
,V/ SI -Paarn WARRANTY
Sign•Arts Products warrants that the material
SIGN -FOAM will perform as advertised, for a
period of not less than three (3) years, when
used in accordance with specific instructions
described in fabricator's literature. This war-
ranty applies only to the product SIGN -FOAM
Sign•Arts Products assurnes no responsibility
for design, engineering, workmanship, or other
materials used in conjunction with SIGN•FOAM.
The exclusive and sole remedy under this
warranty shall be that Sign -Arts Products will
supply replacement materiol of SIGN -FOAM if
it is shown that the material originally
supplied was defective, provided that not
more than three (3) years have elapsed
since its original application_ Sign -Arts Pro-
ducts does not provide any other warranties
expressed or implied. Sign -Arts Products shall
not be liable for any loss or damage. direct,
or incidental or consequential, arising. out of
the use or the inability to ij!n �BcV4CES
SIGN • FOAM.
55 SO. YUMA ST.
DENVER, CO 60223
1-800-232-0607
• USA 800/338-4030 0 FAX 7141 "2n
PLANNING A.,O ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ..SPORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 1-2, The Lodge at Avon Subdivision
Avon Town Square
Final Design Review -Modified Landscape Plan
PROJECT TYPE: Commercial
ZONING: Town Center COMPLIES WITH GONIN'T) Yes
INTRGOUCTION:
Mr. AI Williams, the applicant, has submitted an application for a modification to his
approved landscape plan. This project received Final Design Review approval at the
December 7, 1994 meeting.
Following are the revisions proposed:
Plant Materuj Approved
Plan
Revised Pian
Isanti Dogwood 3'-4'
g
0
Bailey Redtwig Dogwood 5 gal.
14
21
Marshall Ash
S at 3" cal
6 at 3" / 4 at 2"
Green Mound Juniper
99
58
Bechtel Crabapple
2 at 3"
2 at 2"
Creeping Or-gon Grape Holly
160 at I gal.
300 at 1 gal.
Abbott Swoop Potentilla
4 at 5 gal.
5 at 5 gal.
Asp-
3 a' 3" cal.
0
S
2 at 10-12'
1 at 10'/ 1 at 12'
Redlake Current
2€ at 5 gal.
13 at 5 gal.
Little Princess Spirea
34 at 5 gai
30 at 5 gal.
Ural False Spirea
2 at 5 gal.
1 at 5 gal.
Nannyberry Viburnun
2 at 4-5' B&B
2 at 4-5' B&B
Ground Coy er and Perennials
60% at 1 gal.
40% at 1 gal.
40% to be 2 1/4" pots
60% at 2 1/4" pots
Blue grass sod and the sculptural pedestals are remaining the same. An irrigation system
has been proposed and detail on the system has been provided.
ST AF'F COMMENTS:
The placement of the landscape material is appropriate for the site and remains in keeping
with the Design Guidelines. The landscaping around the dumpster has not been altered
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission approve this application as presented.
PLANNING A,t) ZONING COMMISSION STAFF .,r.PORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 1-2, The Lodge at Avon Subdivision
Avon Town Square
Final Design Review -Modified Landscape Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
6-1-�
Mary Holden
Town Planner
O
PLANNING A,O ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ,.r:PORT
February 15, 1994
Lot 1-2, The Lodge at Avon Subdivision
Avon Town Square
Final Design Review -Modified Landscape Plan
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date Akl5, /�Sue Railton, Secretary�y��—
The Commission granted approval for the final design review approval
that Staff approve changes to include clusters of trees on Benchmark
Road, nnrthPaat aide in front of the building
me
:,A
h I Zeal ---I
uc.'j"ici U,
IJ33
:,A
h I Zeal ---I
Q
�
X
v
1- I
0