The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 051794PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision asSchneiei der Residence Final Design Review r PROJECT TYPE: Single Family ZONING: PUD, Two Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Michael Schneider has submitted an application for Final Design Review of a single family residence on Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge. The lot, 1.52 acres in size, slopes to the south at approximately 40%. The single family dwelling will contain two levels and stand approximately 30' high. The single family will consist of the following materials: Roof Siding Other Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues/Flashings Chimney The landscape plan includes: Materials Colors dimensional fiberglass/shake gray N/A stucco tan redwood taupe redwood/cedar taupe clad black stucco tan fir/oak tan pine tan stucco/plexiglass sheet metal match bldg none Ponderosa Pine 7 2" cal Aspen 10 2" cal. Juniper 15 18" Ground cover is proposed with carpet bugle. An irrigation system has not been indicated. The retaining walls to be of medium size rock cobbles REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the April, 19, 1994 meeting and made the following comments: 1 window trim, a a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision am Schneider Residence Final Design Review 2. turnaround area in front of the garage, 3. accuracy of the grading on the elevations and the reed to show the retaining walls, 4 steep slope guidelines, 5. grading plan and elevations being in sync, 6. plexiglass elements in the handrails; 7. concentrating the landscaping a little closer to the home, 8. adding shrubbery as part of the final landscape plan, and 9. see west side elevation with the existing and proposed grade and type of treatment. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has not addressed the concerns brought up at the conceptual design review concerning the 8% cross slope on the driveway, showing limits of site disturbance, all utility connections, the construction/erosion control fence, correct setbacks, turni�round in front of the garage, adding shrubbery, or showing retaining walls in the elevations The driveway and radius must be moved back from the shoulder in order to make the turn into the driveway Setback variances will be required for the retaining walls to be located in the setbacks The elevations indicate spot lights on the building The Code does not allow for spot lights DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment This proposal is not in conformance with Town codes A variance to the setbacks must be applied for and approval granted The suitability or the improvement, including type and quality of materials or which it is to he constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment. The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines and the Wildridge Subdivision The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment All impacts will be contained on site PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Schneider Residence Final Design Review The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment The proposed improvements are no; compatible with the slopes due to the 8% cross slope on the driveway The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment The visual appearance are consistent with surrounding improvements The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Comment The proposal is not in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve the application with the following conditions: I A revised grading and drainage plan be submitted and approved by Town Staff prior to the application for a building nPrmit, which address the concerns of 8% cross slope on the driveway, limits of site disturbance, all utility connections, the construction/erosion control fence, correct seivacks, turnaround in front of the garage, and additional shrubbery 2 A variance be applied for and approval granted for the retaining wall encroachments into the setbacks 3 Meters be placed on the building 4 Flues, flashing and vents have a finished surface that matched the buildim, color scheme 5 A construction/erosion control fence be placed on site prior to any disturbance RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Schneider Residence Final Design Review 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted ' " CQu-1� 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 ( ) d Date S �71V �L Sue Railton, Secretary�(ip f -'-A The Commission granted final design review approval with the following conditions: 1. A revised grading and drainage plan be submitted and approved by the Town es the concerns of 8% cross slope on the driveway, limits site disturbance, all utility rnnnectinnc the conctriictinn/erncion control fenre correct cethar4c turnaround in front of the garage, and additional shrubbery. variance De dppllea Tor and appr-uVdi granted or the retaining wall en- croachment into the setbacks. 3. Meters be placed on the building. 4. flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface that matches the building color scheme. 5. A construction/erosion control fence be placed on site prior to any disturbance. 6. No spotlights be placed on the house, alternative lighting be found and be presented to Staff for approval. NAIEN VAL AI. tJ rsi.a� vRKK 71 t N4f1 / INSTALL /?I T ADORE PEDESTAL NF]`1 s.. R4]R G ' NS]' 1 O 1 4]4 (`�L SSI� ISS :I NSFORWER • \ ,t (FUTURE BUU)M STE) �m \ a i;3p� I \\ 1 �\\ \ \\\ \\\\`\ P 111 1111 1�i1 1, 1 1,111\ 11� 1111 ,,11 \111'\ 111111'111"1 l,�1�1i111111i11\\i,11,111111�1111,` � ` \ \ �\\ 1111111 \\� 1111 `11111,1\111 �\1111111\ \ \\ \ v c NOTE% I) ALL OSTURBED AREAS TALL BE RE`EOTATED/S®m WN NATIK MI S. 2) SNDR STORAGE AREA 9W1 BE N.ONO THE DMYEMAT MID T( ROAD ]ALL PROPOSED SL P s ARE 2 1 OR RATTER. A BAUIINC SETBACKS MR T 2D' LOE/REMI 10' • • EXISTING GROUND-/ - -4" prepared by. RUBINO SURVEYING 9150 W. JEWELL AVE. SUITE 118 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80232 (303) 985-3095 ;. a L ol J f ;, 1 is w I • is w I All PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 90, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE. Duplex ZONING PUD, Two Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING" YES INTRODUCTION: P R Construction, Inc has submitted an application for Final Design Review of a duplex on Lot 90, Block I, Wildridge The lot is 59 acres in size The duplex will contain two levels and stand approximately 28 1/2' in height The duplex will consist of the following materials The proposed landscape plan includes the following Colorado Blue Spruce 4 6-7 Aspen 9 2 1/4" cal Mnt Mahoganv 12 2-3' Serviceberr, 8 2_3' .Automatic irrigation and Kentuckv bluegrass sod is proposed REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application at the .April 19, 1994 meeting and commented on the following asphalt shingle roof, garage facade, the roof line variety which does not seem to fit together, Materials Colors Roof presidential shake shadow gray Siding cedar channel lap amherst Other stucco Fascia r s cedar midnight skv_ Soffits r s ply amherst Window clad white Window Trim cedar or stucco midnight skv_ Door clad whitey Door Trim cedar midnight skv Hand/Deck Rails redwood natural Flues galvanized midnight sky Flashings galvanized paint to suit location The proposed landscape plan includes the following Colorado Blue Spruce 4 6-7 Aspen 9 2 1/4" cal Mnt Mahoganv 12 2-3' Serviceberr, 8 2_3' .Automatic irrigation and Kentuckv bluegrass sod is proposed REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application at the .April 19, 1994 meeting and commented on the following asphalt shingle roof, garage facade, the roof line variety which does not seem to fit together, Irl► � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 90, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision • Duplex Final Design Review C7 C-1 integrating the bay windows better, integrating roof slopes; and changing the deck strategy. STAFF COMMENTS: The colors, building materials and building lighting have not been indicated on the plans The color and materials are not a big concern since samples have been provided, but lighting has not been addressed. The grading plan indicates a 13% plus grade in front of the south unit garage The applicant must revise the grading plan to eliminate the 13%. Further, the plan indicates a boulder wall will be needed to prevent any I 1 slopes on the south property line Revegetation has not been indicated and there must be some provision for revegetation. The deck is shown encroaching into the setback, which is not allowed. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project. Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment: This proposal is not in conformance with Town codes due to the 13% grade in front of the south garage. A revised grading plan, approved by Staff, showing a gentler grade and no encroachments into the setbacks will make the project in compliance with 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 building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines and the Wildridge Subdivision The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment All impacts will be contained on site The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment The location of the proposed improvements are appropriate for the site A A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 90, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment The visual appearance are consistent with surrounding improvements The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the icipity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline The 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 the application with the following conditions 1 Meters be placed on the building. 2. Flues, flashing and vents have a finished surface to match the building color scheme 3 Revegetation must include native bushes 4. A revised grading plan, approved by Staff, prior to a building permit application, be submitted indicating a gentler grade in front of the south unit and no encroachments in the setbacks 5. Building lighting be approved by Town Staff prior to placement RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3 Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted —f')�C-A.Ar Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 90, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (✓) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 4,c�� / �g q� Sue Railton, Secretary __ . ��__- r The commis5iu granted final design approval with the following conditions: I. Meters be placed on the building. 2. Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface to match building color scheme. 3. Revegetation must include native bushes. 4. A revised grading plan, approved by Sta , prior to building perm—if application, be submitted indicating a gentler grade in front of the south unit and no en cruarhmvnt—jTF-tb-F— s2ttrarks:— __-- 5. Building lighting be approved by Town Staff prior to placement. 6. Additional landscaping to be approved by Staff. 7. Driveway width be a minimum of l`ourteen feet wide. K • / / i +.r ZZ co LOT\ 0 •O ` .59 ACRO IPA It — \� { 1-- 1(� VC. � 11 1� 1 \ 1 1 1 — 1 I \ \ 1 \ 1 1 s � 1 1 1 \ 1 I I J o I �O� I L Q u UIL BACK LINE--- "�- --- 10- I O S 5fi 288-44110 W - � 60.00 . - W PoY ELEVSEWER 1L. R07SC t21 INV. ELN.- p073.3'3.3- Go n c..�•.o..S NANCE, nPUNACE h I PI" W.. }• , /v� /� u.� -r- aEl p7 - ,, • .i . �.A ��i'��it�C BIW , .. .'� LAI'�.��. .... 4.::.' :.':'j'ir,.jiiAget 2i.4e.,-. . ,v�.wiA.+..A:i.�.. __ 1. ' 0 ��, O p N h V �n N � a u �� U j� n w i M a 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 97 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Romanelli Duplex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Romanelli Duplex ZONING: PUD, Two Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: An application for Final Design Review of a duplex has been submitted by Romanelli Partners. The duplex will be located on lot 97. (51 acres'), which has slopes ranging from 16-22%. The duplex will contain three levels and stands 35' in height. The duplex will consist of the following materials: Material Color Roof membrane roof w/gravel metal standing seam Other colored sprayed on concrete Fascia redwood Soffits " Windows metal clad Window Trim redwood Door redwood Door Trim " Hand/ Deck Rail " Flashings galvanized metal Chimney colored sprayed on concrete/ clay chimney pot Greenhouse wood frame prefab. Other parapet molding The proposed landscape plan will include Serviceberry 7 5 gallons Mnt. Mahogany 2 5 gallons Englemen Ivy 10 5 gallons gray zinc gray desert tan natural 11 gray natural natural M to match adjacent surfaces deserttan match other wood trim natural redwood Climate compatible sod is being proposed An irrigation system is proposed for the garden and sodded areas. Revegetation will include native grasses. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 97 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Romanelli Duplex Final Design Review REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application at the February I, 1994 meeting and had the following comments: a little imposing for the lot, metal roof, stack like chimneys, suggested concrete tile roof, project work with sensitive landscape plan, landscape be substantial in order to break up impervious materials, sample of concrete finish, and provide small site plan showing development in relation to lot. STAFF COMMENTS: The retaining wall located in the front yard setback will require that a variance be applied for and approval granted. Section 6.25, D. Roofs: #4 states "Roofing materials should be durable, weather resistant and suitable for environmental conditions encountered in this area. Colors should be natural or earth tones. Large expanses of bright, reflective materials will not be acceptable." Further, the Commission created a policy for metal roofs in Wildridge, which has been attached to the report. The site plan is not complete in that it is not certified by a land surveyor or engineer, utility connections are not shown, slopes appear to exceed 2 1, drainage does not appear to work behind the structure, and detail has not been provided on the retaining walls Building material, colors and lighting have not been called out on the elevations. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment This proposal is not in conformance with Town codes A variance to the front yard setback is needed. 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. 50 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 97 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Romanelli Duplex Final Design Review Comment fhe type and quality of proposed building materials are new to the Wildridge Subdivision but the appearance will be similar to standard materials used in the area. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment: All impacts will be contained on site. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment The proposed improvements are compatible for the site The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment: The proposed visual appearance is consistent with others in the area. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline. The 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 the following conditions if the Commission determines that the proposed metal roof is appropiate. I . Meters be placed on the building 2 Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the structure 3 Slopes may not exceed 2 1 4. A front yard setback variance be applied for and approval granted for the retaining walls. 5. A revised site plan, on a certified topography, be submitted and approved by Staff showing utility connections, limits of site disturbance, drainage, and detail on the retaining walls. If the site plan substantially changes, it will be brought back to Planning and Zoning for approval 6. Retaining walls over 4' must be designed by an Engineer A a PLANNIP'G AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 97 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Romanelli Duplex Final Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted ly Mary Holden Town Planner A a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 97 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Romanelli Duplex Final Design Review PLANKING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) 4pproved with recommendM conditions ( ) i Approved with modified conditions Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date / / Sue Railton, Secretary .«—) T� ..rAnted final riesign 1. A revised roof choice be brought in. 2. A revised landscape plan be brought back, with the addition of trees and 3 Mntarc ha nl__T aced—en tha huiilding� 4. Slopes may not exceed 2:1. 5. A front yard setback variance be applied for and approval granted for the 6. A revised site plan, on a certified topography, be submitted and approved by Staff showing utility connections, limits of site disturbance, drainage, and detail on the retaining walls. If the site plan substantially changes, it will be brought back to Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. 7. Retaining walls over 4' must be designed by an Engineer. 0'1 i1 ---------- t _---------------- 1 - ------------------ - 1 ,• on D1 a (OHIO ��Y I f I I I I ;4 y,Tll� E J i� a r S�OI�J�1 'tau NI �OIVINNy1d �an1oa Cl ua z11HOae 'I 7 r.z� civ EOE ��Ks all,8594 � ,�'°'r� oon p L' XOR oft S�OI�J�1 'tau NI �OIVINNy1d �an1oa Cl ua z11HOae 'I 7 r.z� civ 3 S h ffi q7 o j �+ �'v Ory o N h + ti i I I p i � h M% Planning & Zoning Commission Policy Metal Roof in Wildridge February 16, 1993 The Planning and Zoning Commission has approved metal roofs in Wildridge. It established criteria in a work session held on December 1, 1992. The Commission stated that metal roofs could be considered in Wildridge on a case by case basis if the following conditions are met: 1. Subtle, low gloss colors are used. 2. seam spacing is at a mini- i of 18 inches. 3. The roof material be no lighter than 24 gauge. 4. The applicant supply a large sample. 5. Integrated trim pieces must be utilized. 6. A metal roof must be compatible with the architectural design. a 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 20, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Pressley Duplex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Pressley Duplex ZONING: PUD, Two Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Donald Pressley has submitted an application for Final Design Review of a duplex, which will stand approximately 32'. The duplex will be located on Lot 20, which is approximately 44 acres in size and has a slope of approximately 24%. The applicant is requesting Final Design Review without a conceptual design review. The duplex will consist of the following materials: Materials Color Roof asphalt comp shingles weathered wood Siding 8" r.s. redwood bevel gray smoke Other cement stucco startime Fascia I x4 on 2x 10 r. s. cedar gray smoke Soffits rough sawn plywood gray smoke Window metal clad wood white Window Trim 2 x rough sawn cedar startime Door metal clad white Flues/Flashings sheet metal gray smoke Chimney stucco startime The landscape plan consists of 12 aspen at 2" caliper, 4 radiant crab at 2" caliper, and 4 pinion pine at 8' high Sod and native grasses are shown for revegitation with an irrigation system. STAFF COMMENTS: Finished slopes may not exceed 2:1 and where they exceed 2:1, retaining walls will be needed to reduce the slope. The site has slopes of approximately 24%, but the position of the building takes advantage of the gentler slopes on the site. Staff suggests the grades around the structure be revised and if possible use a stacked boulder retaining wall at the edge of the front lot setback. 0% 0% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 20, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Pressley Duplex Final Design Review The roof form on the north and east elevation have the potential to shed snow in front of the garages. Driveway grades for residential projects may not exceed 10% DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the 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 building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines and the Wildridge Subdivision. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment: All impacts will be contained on site. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment. The location of the proposed improvements are on the gentler slopes of the site. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment: The visual appearance are consistent with surrounding improvements. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment. The proposal meets the objective of this guideline. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 20, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Pressley Duplex Final Design Review 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 the following conditions 1. Meters be placed on the building. 2. All flashing, flues and vents must have a finished surface to match the building. 3. Revegetation must include native bushes. 4. A revised grading plan be approved by the Town Engineer, prior to application for , building permit, which shows grades appropriate for the site improvements. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 20, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Pressley Duplex Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (✓� Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date i5y . /gq�,SueRailton, Secretary The Commission granted final design review approval with the following conditions: 1. Meters be placed on the building. 2. All flashings, flues, and vents must have a finished surface to match building. 3. Revegetation must include native bushes. 4—revise gra ing p an a approve y t e own Engineer, prior to application for a building permit, which shows grades appropriate for the site improvement. 5. Staff will review water to be diverted of the entranceways. 6. Additional landscaping be added to the south elevation by the breakfast nook to be reviewed and accepted by Staff. 1 1 � 0 V ix "uma wwawwaa KU E 0 AVW 03AI333b r"1 r v Y �U V -r- s i m N A n P- V � Vr M °a N � 5un -a v IS 0 3 S � 1 O � u O s . 0 yfy N V d' Q. z r v v 0 A n -v -a 0 V 3 S � 1 O Y ° O X � N V d' Q. z J j. 1 ;r MN033430 AIINAMro f 04 71 71 ft NN vJ A ru0 S= rao v .y a P y u 3 a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 116, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Wertz Single Family Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single Family Residence ZONING: PUD, One Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION Michael Sanner, on behalf of Michael and Laurie Wertz, has submitted an application for Final Design Review of single family residence on Lot 116, Block 1, Wildridge. The lot, .56 acres in size, and slopes to the east at approximately 45%. The single family residence will consist of the following materials. The landscape plan includes Colorado Blue Spruce 6 6-8' high A`pen 16 1 1/2"-2" cal Serviceberry, Sagebrush, 100 total 5 gallon Mountain Mahogany, Snowberry Ground cover will include native grasses and wildflowers whe,e ground disturbcd A drip and automatic irrigation is proposed Straw bales are proposed for erosion control. Materials Colors Roof concrete the Beaver Creek Blend Siding stucco Omega Dutch cream Fascia Ix6 ove, 2x10 SW woodridge Soffits fir plywood woodridge Window clad wood Eagle forest green Window Trim half log woodridge Door wood .woodridge Door Trim half log woodridge Hand/Deck Rails log woodridge Flues metal Dutch cream Chimney versatech stone river rock blend Garage 1x6 woodridge The driveway will be concrete with red sandstone color An asphalt apron will be provided where the driveway ties into the street The landscape plan includes Colorado Blue Spruce 6 6-8' high A`pen 16 1 1/2"-2" cal Serviceberry, Sagebrush, 100 total 5 gallon Mountain Mahogany, Snowberry Ground cover will include native grasses and wildflowers whe,e ground disturbcd A drip and automatic irrigation is proposed Straw bales are proposed for erosion control. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 116, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Wertz Single Family Final Design Review REVIEW HISTORV At the April 19, 1994 meeting, the C . imission commented on the following: the use of cultured stone; the rounded window and the log trim, and the amount of SII and regradipu that will be done on the northeast of the garage. STAFF COMMENTS The landscape material must meet the minimum Town standards, which includes 2" caliper deciduous trees. The plans are showing a construction/erosion control fence on the downhill side of the lot. The fence will be placed prior to site disturbance. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS The Commission shall consider the fo:lowing items in reviewing the 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 p,oposed building ar,6 landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines and the W idridgc Subdivision The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment All impacts will be contained on site The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment The proposed improvements are comp-:ble with the site The v,sual appearance of .my proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent .:nd neighboring properties and piblic ways. Co raiment The proposed visual appearance is consistent with others in he area PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 116, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Wertz U..tgle Family Final Decign Review The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline. The 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, polici ;s and programs for the Town of Avon STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve chis application with the following conditions 1. The landscape material meet the minimum Town of Avon size standards 2 All flues, Flashings and vents have a finished surface 3 The construct inn/erosion control fence be placed on site prior to any site disturbance Respectfully Submitted Y Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 116, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Wertz Single Family Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions Approved with modified conditions ( ) Conrmied ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Q Date / / Sue Railton, Secretary e6" 411 The Cnmmicsion orated final design review approval with the fnllnwinq conditions: 1. The landscape material meet the minimum Town of Avon standards. 2. All flues, f fishings, and vents have a finished surface. 3. The construction/erosion control fence be placed on site prior to any site disturbance. i M u ;.a 1\ P t _ I" a u ;.a 1\ P r"'1 ' . ., a � i 'I i ' -o ' �� I I -, -Z� =? ,„ ;� , 4 4 u� ' C�{ ;� •r. ' �jr �5 s r _, , v i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD, Two Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Jerry Miramonti, on behalf of Calhon Construction, has submitted an application for Final Design Review of a duplex on Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge The lot, 79 acres in size, slopes to the south at approximately 30% Unit B of the duplex will contain two levels and unit A will contain three levels The duplex will stand approximately 35' in he;,, -ht The single fancily will consist of the following materials Roof Siding Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues/Flashings Chimney The landscape pian includes Materials Colors asphalt by "GAF" weatherwood stucco cream el rey I x 12 r. s. on I x6 r s moorwood 1x6 t&g moorwood clad 2x 10 or 2x 12 r s moorwood clad 2x 10 or 2x12 vs moorwood 2x r.s. moorwood galvo match bldg. stucco cream el rey Colorado Blue Spruce 6 6-10' high Cottonwood 3 2-3" cal Flowering Crabapple 7 2 -3" cal Serviceberry 1 1 5 gallon Purple Lilac 8 5 gallon The plan indicates that "all 2 1 cut slopes to be raked and seeded with Colorado high altitude, no clover, seed and native wildflower mix Then cover and stake with erosion control jute blankets and hay to protect seed and trap moisture " Irrigation is proposed by hand PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: The duplex connection is by a stepped retaining wall, walkway deck and roof. The Planning and Zoning Commission has stated that a strong architectural connection must be present. Certain slopes on ,ite concern Staff and would like to remind the applicant slopes may not exceed 2:1. The water connection will require two lines with two :hut off to the units DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shell consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: Conformance with the Zoning Code and 3ther applicable regulations of the Town. CommentThis 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 building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines and the Wildridge Subdivision. The compatibility of t► a design to minimize site impactF to adjacent properties. Comment. All impacts will he contained on site The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment: The location of the proposed improvements are app. opriate for the site The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment The visual appearance are consistent with surrounding improvements The objective that n(,, improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review The 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 the application with the attached conditions: 1. Meters be placed on the building. 2. Flues, flashing and vents have a finished surface to match the building color scheme. 3. Revegetation must include native bushes. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted _-J'-7jaAA�_ Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date—/AO---/;eft Sue Railton, Secretary ✓ ,� The Commission granted final design review approval with the following conditions: 1. Meters be placed on the building. 2. Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface to match the building __ color crhemo 3. Revegetation must include native bushes. 1 � 1 1t 1 � 9 * 1.4 "r � I��'(�liii lrt., YIH '. �,! ^!I� if >e." VIII I IIS i " Y 0,71 i 1' I . Ai . - 0 ' � 1611111M i • Il 03A1333X (•I I� l II1 III - t - 11 I iit !Jill I. i I i I !Ji ii I,fl I I i i�lll �III • I • �Il��i jl'' �' `" i i I,Ip, I III I-. ,- - SII `I Illi lil 1�i4'I q I i fj III I 'I'i lII ti" !Illli�illl l,l I I • Il ; i� �� ilI I � � I I; IIUIiI I' ii � J !f II i� �,,• �IiI{I ii i; -- (i I •,1 I�. 6 , i �` a .. i �` .. r ,, f .� v i �` .� v i �` MAY-11-94WED 1 2- 5 7 M i r a m o n s i G r o u r Architecture Inferior Design Pro%ect Considling N 11"ONT7 („;( UP P.02 11,00 Oaf,- �14Foev- LAI P.O. tw:395 Ehwrds, Crlarado 01632 303-92"262 P.02 11,00 CA, LAI a 0 ON lb1 MAY -11-914 WED 12:M7 M I r e Mo n Li G r our P_ 0 3 To: MiramnnU � Eros: Tin 6ovIe 5-16-94 r. 2 of 2 Q 16" o,r: Q' 6-1 112141.6" WT IF Section H No Scale 2 85 cont. top & bot. ® 12" o. c. to M4 +iii 16 "o.c. L s 14'-3" e" 4" dla. perforated PVC dialn In V x 1' gravel 3 tllter fabric to daylt. 0 A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek School Stock Pile Fill PROJECT TYPE: Elementary School ZONING: GPEH COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Jack Berga, on behalf of the Eagle County School District, has requested permission to stockpile structural fill on site for a period not to exceed six (6) months STAFF COMMENTS: Our main concern with this request regards setting precedent and being consistent with what has been done in the past. Stock piling of fill has not been allowed on other lots in Town for the following reas,)ns: dust control; maintenance; removal, and appearance. Another concern with this application is the District has not received Final Design Approval of the school, thereby prompting a building permit to be issued for construction Further, the conceptual site plan has not indicated that fill will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this application based on the above concerns RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3 Commission Review 4 Commission Action Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner 0% � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek School Stock Pile Fill PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) a Q 7N64L✓� Date 4=7�Sue Railton, Secretary ,/a;. /0�— After considerable discussion regarding this request the Commission tabled this appiication until such time the bond issue gets approved and the plans for the school have been approved. 'aPR-05-1994 09:13 FROM Lescher & Mahoney - PHX TO 13033281024 P.03 +wi �.� scra 0018CWT PC" .� HRAOLE C04 TT [LEAP. AItY SCHOOL • AV011 1 ,. ,• .a. .. .. a =t;\ ,', •+ I ,� a I;,.' •��;', :e / / ,' � a -.\. /.,\ a `*•. , ��':'�� •� + ' 7 ! e. /.i \1 «. e: `• ( a ��• �� \ �/ ... :Y' ...' e � �rIA _ a,��1 e;C iii ,•��1 �.� scra 0018CWT PC" .� HRAOLE C04 TT [LEAP. AItY SCHOOL • AV011 1 004 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 78, Flock 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review -Modifications Fnvjr• I I v "L: Iwo 1 nplexes ` JNING:.'UD-6 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONINGS YRS INTRODUCTION: This application was reviewed and tabled at the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting for the following concerns 1. Roof line as it relate to the front and back elevation needs work; and 2. Front and rear elevations need added interest by changing roof line and/or changing window fenestration. from unit to unit. STAFF COMMENTS: A revised grading plan has been submitted which shows a timber retaining wall in the side yard setback, vrhicl, ��ill require a variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve the application with the following conditions I . All meters be placed on the structures. 2. Flue, flashings and vents have a finished surface. 3. Sign lighting has not been approved, should the applicant wish to have lighting for the sign, the lighting be approved by Staff prior to installation 4. The location of the sign must be 10' from the front property line 5. A revised site plan, showing adequate back out space for the north and south garages must be approved by Town Staff, prior to the application for building permit. 6. A variance be applied for and approval given for the placement of the retaining wall in the side yard setback. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3 Commission Review 4. Commission Action Oft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six -Plea Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Two Triplexes ZONING: PUD -6 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING" YES INTRODUCTION: J.M.B. Enterprises has submitted an application for Final Design Review of two triplexes on Lot 78, Block 1 The lot is .78 acres in size and slopes to the southeast at approximately 20%.. The triplexes will contain three levels and stand approximately 34 1/2' high. Building lighting has been indicated on the elevations. The triplexes will consist of the following materials The landscape plan includes Cottonwood Materials Colors Roof asphalt shingles weathered wood Siding channel rustic cedar blue/gray semi -stain Fascia 2x 10 cedar heritage blue Soffits r.s cedar blue/gray Window Bronze aluminum 5 gallon Window Trim Ix4 heritage blue Door steel heritage blue Flues/Flashings galvanized heritage blue Chimney channel rustic cedar blue/gray The landscape plan includes Cottonwood 6 2" cal Aspen 12 2" cal Spruce 6 6-8' high Currant 12 5 gallon Radiant Crab 3 2" cal Buffalo Juniper 18 5 gallon Potentilla 28 5 gallon Snowberry 26 5 gallon Sage Brush 14 5 gallon Ground cover will consist of native grass and Flower seed mix Erosion control will include natural vegetation An automatic drip irrigation system is proposed STAFF COMMENTS: A t% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review The northern most unit and southern most unit do not have adequate back out space in front of the garage. A 24' back out area is needed. The applicant must reflect this on the site plan and approved by Town Staff prior to the application for a building permit The sign located may not be located within 10' of any propertv line DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment This proposal will be in conformance with Town codes once the site plan is revised to show back out space for the north and south units 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 building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment. All impacts will be contained on site The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment The proposed improvement is compatible The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment The visual appearance of the improvement is consistent with others in the vicinity The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. a 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six -Flex Final Design Review Comment: The proposal is in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. "Sign Guidelines" and review criteria from the Sien Code The proposed sign complies with the provisions set out in the Sign Code, however, lighting has not been indicated. Listed below are the guidelines and review criteria. Section 15.28.060 Sign Desifzn Guidelines A. Harmonious with Town Scale Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood, and with the townscape. B Harmonious with Building Scale The sign should be harmonious with the building scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself. C Materials. Quality sign materials, 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, 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 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 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. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review Section 15.28 070 - 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 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 sign is consistent with others approved in this area. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements Comment: The sign is similar to others in the area C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement Comment: The quality of the proposed sign material is accepta'Dle 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 complies with the Sign Code, however, the location of the sign must be 10' from the front property line G Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation Comment. The sign is primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review -Modifications Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (vill*' Approved with mod;fled conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date / Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission granted final design review approval with the following conditions: 1. All meters be placed on the building. 2. Flues, flashings and vents have a.f.inished surface. 3. Sign lighting has not been approved, should the applicant wish to have lighting for the sign, the lighting be approved by Staff prior to installation. 4. The location of the sign must be ten feet from the front property line. 5. A revised site plan, showing adequate back out space for the north and south garages must be approved by Tgwn Staff, prior to the apnliration f r building permit. 6. A variance be applied for and approval given for the placement of the retaining wall in the side yard setback. R= 375.00' A = 27. 07'32' ,Arc= 177.54' SLG=175.99'' S. /7.47'44"E. SCALE Y� = e bi s l'. 9 • K ob I 4b MIA At, ft a1 � .a ft a1 � C an F) „ir VI „ir ft 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 9, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Dwyer Residence Final Design Review -Modification PROJECT TYPE: Single Family, with future lockoff unit ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: The Planning Commission tabled this application at the May 3, 1994 meeting citing the following concerns: 1. Landscape plan; 2. Actual roof sample; 3. Fascia color being white, 4. Possible revision of windows in addition to window trim; 5. Snow shedding of the garage on the driveway, and deck, 6 Recommendation for an irrigation system, and 7. Sod and perhaps a more formal landscaping plan. STAFF COMMENTS: The original report is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application with the following conditions' 1. Meters be placed on the building. 2. A revised grading plan be approved by Town Staff prior to the application for a building permit. 3. Retaining walls over 4' in height must be designed by an Engineer. 4 Revegetation must include native bushes. 5. Grading may not take place in the 30' Metcalf Ditch easement or in the 30' mean annual high water mark setback 6. The existing cottonwoods must be fenced and protected during construction. 7 All flues, flashing and vents must have a finished surface matching the color scheme of the residence. 8. The existing cottonwoods must be fenced prior to any site disturbance RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 9, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Dwyer Residence Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single Family, with future lockoff unit ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Heuring Construction & Design has submitted an application for Final Design review of a single family residence with a future lock off apartment on Lot 9, Filing 1. The lot, .37 acres in size, slopes to the south at approximately 14.5%. The single family residence will contain three levels and stand approximately 35' high. The structure will consist of the following materials: Sod is proposed and all disturbed areas will be hdyro seeded with a grass and wildflower mix. STAFF COMMENTS: This lot abuts the Eagle River and has a 30' Metcalf Ditch easement and 30' mean annual high water mark setback on the south portion fo the lot. Grading is shown in the easement and 30' mean annual high water setback, which is not allowed. Further, the grading plan is not accurate, which complicates an accurate review of the proposal. Materials Colors Roof 3 tab, asphalt shingle weathered gray Siding rough cedar lap sausilito gray Other N/A Fascia 2x Dimensional blue -gray Soffits rough cedar ply sausilito gray Window eagle casements white Window Trim oak stain Door 6 panel Hand/deck Rails red wood Flues/Flashings galv. Chimney wood sided The conceptual landscape plan consist of the following: Pinion Pine 6 3" cal. Aspen 10 3" cal. Sandcherry 6-15 5 gal. Sod is proposed and all disturbed areas will be hdyro seeded with a grass and wildflower mix. STAFF COMMENTS: This lot abuts the Eagle River and has a 30' Metcalf Ditch easement and 30' mean annual high water mark setback on the south portion fo the lot. Grading is shown in the easement and 30' mean annual high water setback, which is not allowed. Further, the grading plan is not accurate, which complicates an accurate review of the proposal. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REP!" XT May 3, 1994 Lot 9, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Dwyer Residence Final Design Review There are mature cottonwoods on site that are not shown in the buildng footprint. The • applicant can preserve the cottonwoods by fencing them during construction. Revegetation must include native bushes found in the area along with native grasses and wildflowers. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment: This proposal is not in conformance with Town codes since grading is shown in the Metcalf Ditch easment and the 30' setback mean annual high water mark. 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 building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment: All impacts will be cont:vned on site. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment: The proposed improvement is compatible. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment: The visual appearance of the improvement is consistent with others in the vicinity. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment: The proposal meets the objective of thin guideline. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. 1 004 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 9, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Dwyer Residence Final Design Review -Modification 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted ,yv9q " Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (Vill' Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission granted final design review approval with the following conditions: 1. Meters be placed on the building. 2. A revised grading plan be approved by Town Staff prior to application for a building permit 3. Retaining walls over 4' in height must be designed by an Engineer. 4. Revegetation must include native bushes. 5. Grading may not take place in the 30' Metcalf Ditch easement or in the 30" mean annual high water mark setback 6. The existing cottonwoods must be fenced and protected during construction. 7. All flues, flashings and vents must have a finished surface matching the color scheme of the residence. 8. The applicant will redesign and relook at the window situation to be approved by staff. Pon y �I A I a V /, t K� rSf#{ h!'tif;ip'I4r�1'e�?"`i'�E� (`��tl' rdr,.ra`� l.i �`^�, ' ,•. ' R=325.00' L 7374' \ i4 s,�j� I�i�;L: �1"�• i�'ly} ;r IY„t :t \ U �� \ 1 � I t 1 W _ - r ,LT �•,� ygo i, 1 <C I V , I �• 1 11-L'QTTcw 1 o004 1 h ^ CAWING DEC* �s ,\`P `� ` <��/�i✓ CVL ,_ _ •� �• \\ ' '. �- � � /^ � �- r pT/ ;� ,� „f��/ :: , !.� :o O V 0 J � f ' ' f I i 0 C 0 0 lla PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPOKT May 17, 1994 Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Vail Bank Center Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE Retail/Office ZONING: TC --Town :.enter COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Dean Koll, on behalf of Vail Bank Center, has submitted an application for conceptual design review of 15,429 square feet of retail, bank and office space in Phase 1, and 10,304 square feet of retail and office for Phase 2. Phase I will contain four levels, one being a basement, and stand approximately 43' high. Elevation detail on Phase 2 has not been provided Building and landscape material have not been indicated at this time. STAFF COMMENTS: Lot 56, Block 2 is located in the 1. Town Center Zone District, 2. Comprehensive Plan Subarea 14, which designates this lot as having primary Streetscape development and public pedestrian space, and 3 Specifically addressed in the section on Urban Design, B Land Uses -General, in the Design Guidelines (attached are the sections from the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Guidelines) The applicant is requesting the Commission make a determination on the front, rear and side lot lines Section 17 08 470, B states "If a question arises as to what line shall be the front, rear or side lot line, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the necessary determination " This lot abuts Avon Road and Benchmark Road, giving it two frontages, however, Avon Town Square plans utilized Benchmark Road as the front and classified Avon Road as a side The Century 21 building plans, to the north of this site, designated W Beaver Creek Blvd and Avon Road as fronts, giving them two front yard setbacks This lot contains the Metcalf Ditch and sewer lines The site plan must reflect the Metcalf Ditch easement and the sewer easement In addition, the plans nerd to show how the easements will be dealt with regarding relocation and permission from the respective agencies. Final Design approval is being requested for phase I, however, a sj% plan for both phases has been included in the packet to show Commission how both phases will be constructed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPO^ May 17, 1994 Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Vail Bank Center Conceptual Design Review The required parking spaces for Phase 1 is 44, the applicant is proposing 43 The applicant needs to revise the pa,king plan to include the additional space. The southeast corner of the property shows a turnaround area that angles with the property line. Will the turnaround area encroach onto Colorado Division of Tran-oortation property9 If so, permission must be provided to Staff Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments Site Plan 1 The site plan must reflect grading, drainage and utility connections, 2 The Metcalf Ditch and sewer easements must be shown and treatment of them reflected, 3. Parking many be no closer than 10' to the front property line, 4 Overhangs are not allowed to extend into the setbacks, 5 A detailed landscape plan must be submitted for Final Design review, with a minimum of 20°iu of the site in a landscaped area, and showing the tie in with the Century 21 plans regarding pedestrian circulation, 6. Snow storage needs to be addressed, 7 Parking needs to have landscape screening from Benchmark and Avon Roads , & Primary streetscape improvements must be shown, Building Design 1. Building should reflect criteria set forth in the Design Guidelines and he Comprehensive Plan 2 Exterior building lighting, materials and colors needs to be shown on the elevations and detail provided for FDR, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPOMT May 17, 1994 Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Vail Bank Center 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 / Sue Railton. Secretary / As a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. This P�fE metre-tommtSs he --pa rk i ng , the roofing materials, and the lot lines. The front lot line will be on the 0 l ' O •� eek; .� � '; .a 9,•.. 4� I O •� eek; .� � '; .a 9,•.. 4� I 0 as .c I P �1 All I I ■ w I I 1041 Recommendations: • Develop Nottingham Road as a secondary streetscape. • Limit access points on Nottingham Road to simplify traffic movements. • Require landscape setbacks and internal landscaping of parking lots. • Limit building heights to three to four stories. Subarea 14: The Town Center is the urban core of the Town. It is envisioned Town Center to be an intensely developed area that is centered around an int,.mal pedestrian circulation system. Emphasis should be placed on creating inviti.-tg storefronts acid plaza areas for public interaction. Buildings should be closely spaced and range between four and eight stories. Recommendations: • Develop sign, architectural, and landscape guidelines specifically for ! the Town Center. • Develop public pedestrian mall (see description of public pedestrian E space on Page 5.6). • Site buildings to create various size spaces along the pedestrian mall. E Avoid long stretches of straight, narrow spaces. • Step back building floors from the pedestrian mall and adjacent roads to reduce building scale. F • Design the first floor of buildings with canopies, overhangs, or sloped F roofs. Provide architectural detailing for interest, particularly at ! ground level. • Use subdued colors on building faces and roofs, limit bright colors to t ground level, and use sparingly in association with signage or architectural accents. ! ! 5.24 • Extend mall paving into private entries to provide continuity. • Provide well lighted, pleasant pedestrian access from parking structures to the pedestrian mall and buildings. • Develop Benchmark Road and East and West Beaver Creek Boulevard as primary streetscapes. • Locate primary service areas and loading docks to buildings on Benchmark Road and Beaver Creek Boulevard. • Conceal utility boxes, trash dumpsters, and service areas. Subarea 15: This district is characterized by ' existing one to three story Core Commercial commercial development that is oriented primarily to shoppers District Who arrive by automobile. The district serves as a regional service center for the daily and long-term F needs of permanent and seasonal residents of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Presently, the vehicular circulation patterns are ill-defined and provisions for pedestrian access between businesses is minimal. F Recommendations: F Develop sign, architectural, and landscape guidelines specifically for E the commercial core. The theme should be of the same character as F that which is developed for the Town Center. Require new development and encourage existing development to F incorporate sloped roofs, sheltered entrances, pedestrian connections to existing development, and equal architectural treatment to all F exposed faces. Colors should be muted, with bright colors limited to ground level and used sparingly in association with signage or architectural accents. Develop East Beaver Creek Boulevard as a primary streetscape and E Beaver Creek Place as a secondary streetscape. F 5.2E .-�N 1I 3 E. Comments: • railroad track and trailer park detract from Approximate Area: 32,625 sq. ft. (0.75 ac.) overall quality of this parcel (parking structure B. could buffer) • parking structure and bus drop could work • Benchmark Road West (50' R.O.W.) together to reinforce center of Town • size of lot could accommodate large lodging A faciF'.y • Pedestrian Mall C. • gc,od relationship to future lift site 3 • maintain relationship to Pedestrian Mall • North: Parking • special attention must be given to street frontages W • South: vacant lot, Benchmark Road 3 • structured parking is preferable to surface parking 3 8. Parcel 56 A. Approximate Area: 32,625 sq. ft. (0.75 ac.) B. Accessible from: • Benchmark Road West (50' R.O.W.) • bus drop-off A • Pedestrian Mall C. Adjacent Land Uses: • North: Parking • South: vacant lot, Benchmark Road 3 • East: Avon Road • West: Avon Center, bus drop-off D. Recommended Parcel 56 Land Uses: • retail/commercial/office • partially Pedestrian Mall (connection to east side of Avon Road) • office • gallery/artist studio E. Comments: • excellent relationship to existing bus drop-off "� • could become hub of Pedestrian Mall • high visibility from Avon Road • no use that requires immediate parking 15 n • possible lower level access to Avon Road, upper level access to bus drop-off • provide for pedestrian connection between Tran- sit Center and Avon Roa"eaver Creek Blvd. intersection 9. Parcel 55 A. Approximate Area: 35,750 sq. ft. (0.82 ac.) B. Accessible from: • Beaver Creek Blvd. (80' R.O.W.) shared access with Avon Center C. Adjacent Land Uses: • North: Beaver Creek Blvd., 1st Bank • South: vacant lot • East: Avon Road • West: Avon Center D. Recommended Parcel 55 Land Uses: • restaurant • retail/commercial/office • gallery/artist studio • athletic club E. Comments: • provide for pedestrian connection between Tran- sit Center and Avon Road/Beaver Creek Blvd. intersection 10. Parcel 71 A. Approximate Area: 24,700 sq. ft. (0.57 ac.) B. Accessible from: • Beaver Creek Place (50' R. OW.) • proposed Pedestrian Mall Corridor C. Adjacent Land Uses: • North: vacant lot, Beaver Creek Place • South: The Annex (retail) • East: bank • West: retail/condos D. Recommended Parcel '71 Land Uses: • retail 16 F a fl N � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 24, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? NO INTRODUCTION: Mike Ray has submitted an application for Final Design Review of two detached units Lot 24, Block 2, Wildridge, which is a duplex. lot. Due to the type of duplex connection being shown, Staff is processing this application as a Conceptual Design Review The lot, 50 acres in size, slopes down to the west at 16% The buildi,ag height for the elevation shown is approximately 30 1/2' The units will consist of the following materials Roof Siding Other Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues/Flashings Chimney Material's Colors GAF 3209 burnt sienna wood Moorwood, 08164 stucco Pure ivory wood Moorwood wood Moorwood clad Forest green wood a„d stucco Not indicated Al 1 d ” woo c a wood/stucco/clad " wood " metal " stucco " A landscape plan list has been included in your packet STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting 2 units on a lot zoned for duplex The Town Council, in Resolution No 91-17, stated that "two unit lots mean attached duplex buildings and no detached duplex allowed and three units or greater lots would mean multi -family attached buildings of three units or more per building " Further, the Commission has defined a duplex connection of having a strong architectural connection and Staff would like the Commission to determine if this is an acceptable duplex connection site Plan I Finished slopes may not exceed 2 I, 2 The grading plan must show the tie in with June Creed Trail Rd 0 A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 24, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Conceptual Design Review 3 The topography must be certified by a land surveyor or engineer; 4. The landscape plan must meet minimum Town of Avon standards; 5. Guest parking shown does not meet minimum size requirements; 6. Revegetation of all disturbed areas is required, and must include native bushes Desien I . There is snow shedding in front of the garage, 2. There is no connection between the two units, 3. Colors and materials need to be called out on the elevations, 4. The type of fireplace needs to be inded, and 5. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission give direction and definition of a strong architectural duplex connection. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 24, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex 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 /^� Sue Railton, Secretary_ No formal action was taken, as this was a conceptual design review. The ommission was divided regarding a propose architecturalconnection for this duplex. Some members wanted to see a stronger connection. a Landsca"4ng / Revegetation Notes 1. The contractor shall prevent the release of sediment laden water from the construction .site and may be required to install additional control facilities at the direction of an inspector. r. 2. Contractor wiH provide topsoil, seed, straw mulch in all disturbed areas plus Jute Erosion control Mat or approved equal, in areas of 2:1 slope or greater for soil stabilization. 3. Any existing shrubs to remain shall be protected with secured haybails and/or raps of snow - fence per shnr$ 4. Native Grass Mixture to 6e spread at a rats of 1 pound per 1000 s.f. ;;. 5. Ground Cover to be punted 12' o.c. and soil shall be amended,yvith compost prior to ; installation of plants (2 yd. per 1000 s.f.). Contractor to provide mulch after installation. If fertilizer is used it shall consist of a balanced 10-10-10 and applied at a rate of 5 pounds per 1000 s.f. SPiant List`; L .B �[�'. _ awl+ ' •n MM AR. CT SA SD c �w.v r.r t rreerj�Sfirubs . , nrperus Horrzontalis Biu hip Juniper 5'/:gal h , 5 ,. UYs�tG, 7t �'_f��♦ dl •. , � y`. � t s ° � '-' z7 �• .. Artemisia Tndentata ,A4 ;'TallWestern Sage x Mo main Mahogany 7 ga . 8 . � 1r �... • F to t � - Ground Covers i, Y .• Antennaria Rosga .4 Pussy Toes 2 114' pots Cerastium Tomentosum Snow -in -Summer Sedum Acre` '� » do'ldmoss`.Stonecrop ,t Sedum'Dragons Blood' Dragons Blood - 314J175 Native Grasseb A �w.v r.r t rreerj�Sfirubs . , nrperus Horrzontalis Biu hip Juniper 5'/:gal h , 5 ,. UYs�tG, 7t �'_f��♦ dl •. , � y`. � t s ° � '-' z7 �• .. Artemisia Tndentata ,A4 ;'TallWestern Sage x Mo main Mahogany 7 ga . 8 . � 1r �... • F to t � - Ground Covers i, Y .• Antennaria Rosga .4 Pussy Toes 2 114' pots Cerastium Tomentosum Snow -in -Summer Sedum Acre` '� » do'ldmoss`.Stonecrop ,t Sedum'Dragons Blood' Dragons Blood - 314J175 Native Grasseb I I do f ,r A 0*4 WING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT t'7,1994 ,t 96, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision uplea Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD, Two Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Karen Cooke, Kevin Cooke and Elie Ovakine have submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of a duplex on Lot 96, Block 1, Wildridge. The lot is .46 acres in size. Slopes and other information can not be detrunined due to the lack of topographic information submitted. The duplex will contain thnec levels. The duplex will consist of the following materials: Plants are being shown on the site plan but the type and size are not specified STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the application and have the following comments: Site Plan: 1. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR. 2. The type of driveway needs to be indicated; 3. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certitied topography, showing existing and proposed contours, true limits of site disturbance, all easements, and setbacks, needs to be submitted for FDR; 4. A construction fence may be required to prevent any encroachments onto adjacent properties. 5. Slopes may not exceed 2.1 6. Drainage behind the structure may not drain properly; T Revegetation of all disturbed areas is require. and must include native bushes; S. Building o,,erhangs may not extci;u in the setbackE Materials Colors Roof asphalt shingles brown Siding NA Other stucco beige Fascia cedar natural Soffits cedar natural Window clad bronze Window Trim built up Ix4 stucco beige Door clad bronze Door Trim built up 1x4 stucco beige Plants are being shown on the site plan but the type and size are not specified STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the application and have the following comments: Site Plan: 1. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR. 2. The type of driveway needs to be indicated; 3. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certitied topography, showing existing and proposed contours, true limits of site disturbance, all easements, and setbacks, needs to be submitted for FDR; 4. A construction fence may be required to prevent any encroachments onto adjacent properties. 5. Slopes may not exceed 2.1 6. Drainage behind the structure may not drain properly; T Revegetation of all disturbed areas is require. and must include native bushes; S. Building o,,erhangs may not extci;u in the setbackE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 96, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Conceptual Design Review 9. The first 20 feet of the driveway, where it ties into tete street, may not exceed 4%, and Design I Colors and materials must be indicated on the elevations and samples provided for FDR submittal; 2. Building height may not exceed 35'; 3. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated, and 4. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR. STAFF RECOMMENDA FION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation Respectfully Submitted --Y Mary Hol en Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 10 / / Sue Railton, Secretary As a conceptual design review, the Commission took no Formal action. The E°^mTssi°Tr�e^erallY—kik but fel c cha -- considerabi,, more landscaping was needed. bm 0 ----caa--- _7 ') LD I m'- Z y - L v Q CL CL = J w -� CO y L � Z Ql v O J 5�- 3 m A'h C I x ' 9 A'h C I I• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Fourplex Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Fourplex ZONING: PUD, Fourplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? NO INTRODUCTION: Robert Kaufmann has submitted an application for conceptual design review of a fourplex on Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge. The lot, 1.1 2 acres in size, and has slopes ranging from 31 to 55%. The building will contain four levels and exceeds the 35' height limit'. The units will consist of the following materials: Roof Siding Other Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues/Flashings Chimney Trash Enclosures Materials Colors asphalt shingles not indicated horizontal cedar siding stucco 2x10 r.s. cedar painted plywood metal clad wood 2x4 r.s. cedar 6 panel wood 2x4 r.s. cedar 2x wood painted metal direct vent/painted metal wood-horz cedar siding A landscape plan has not been indicated. STAFF COMMENTS: Site Plan: 1. Finished slopes may not exceed 2:1, The applicant will be given the Steep Slope Guidelines, 3. Detail must be provided on all retaining walls and if over 4', designed by an Engineer, 4. The retaining wall encroaches in the side yard setback and a variance will be ne:ded, 5. Building height may not exceed 35', 6. Staff questions how functional the dumpster location will be for trash pick up; 7 The topography must be certified by a land surveyor or engineer and include true limits of site disturbance, utility connections, show all easements, 8. Revegetation of all disturbed areas is required, and must include native bushes. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI6N STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Fourplex Concep',mal Design Review Design 1. Colors and materials need to be called out on the elevations, 2. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated; and 3. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual, Staff has no recommendations. Respectfully Submitted � C4 --U/ 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 ( vj Date_4.41 / / rSue Railton, Secretary As a conceptual design review, no action was taken at this time. The Commission ins ruc e a app scan ring the gig t wt in the own regu a ions, provide some variation between the four units, and possibly in window fenestrations, etc. n IF r , rolft i . a �• ,. : �` } J 1 u N t ' P (i 4 PLANNING AND ONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 42, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Residence Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex with 2 Caretakers Units ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? NO INTRODUCTION: Tony and Debbie Scharph have submitted an application for conceptual design review of a duplex with 2 caretakers units on Lot 42, Block 3, which is .71 acres in size. The duplex will contain three levels and stand approximately 30' high. The single family unit will consist of the following materials: The landscap:: plan includes one 5-7' sprice, eighteen, 2" caliper aspens and nine each of potentilla, servicberry, and juniper. All will be 5 gallons STAFF COMMENTS: This lot is zoned for duplex. The proposal is for two main units with caretakers units, for a total of 4 units. This proposal is not in compliance with zoning for the lot Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments Site Plan: I . Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR. 2. A grading and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing. 3 true limits of site disturbance 4 A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence may be needed for this site, depending on the slopes and grades Materials Color Roof asphalt shingles no color indicated Siding stucco Fascia painted wood Soffits painted wood Window vinyl clad Window Trim painted wood Door wood Door Trim painted wood Hand/Deck Rails painted wood Flues/Flashings painted metal Chimney match walls The landscap:: plan includes one 5-7' sprice, eighteen, 2" caliper aspens and nine each of potentilla, servicberry, and juniper. All will be 5 gallons STAFF COMMENTS: This lot is zoned for duplex. The proposal is for two main units with caretakers units, for a total of 4 units. This proposal is not in compliance with zoning for the lot Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments Site Plan: I . Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR. 2. A grading and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing. 3 true limits of site disturbance 4 A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence may be needed for this site, depending on the slopes and grades ,1 0*4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 42, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Residence Conceptual Design Review Design: 1. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations; 2. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations and samples provided; and 3. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated. 4. Complete floor plans need to be submitted showing the all garages. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission direct the applicant to design a project that complies with the duplex designation for this lot. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitteri ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( `"1 Date-/) / /Q>'¢ Sue Railton, Secretary_ No formal action was taken at this time due to this being a conceptual design revs w.-�rifil—tris delFted arth�� are�tot al towed in the zoning for this lot. The Commission asked the applici:nt to look at changing tk+e en>iry,—xe�uaving the-pos.ts�n the east elevation_ ca R, 0 c< Aja 0 wjj n I,P,CLI a8p. LN3Wd013A3a UINOWWO�I 6661 £ 0 AtlV! ` Q3AI333L 1ECEIVED tAAY 0 3 1994 COMMUNItt U��UPMENI S IDENCE. i Ir i dge . $ubcl i v i j on do. �� t�,ND :Z7 «U 40 m11 ew 9 • - . � � 1. - , r r Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot I, Eaglewood Subdivision 58 Unit Complex Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: 58 Units ZONING: RHDC COMPLIES WITH ZONINGS Yes INTRODUCTION: Riverview Park Asso., has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of 58 units on Lot I of the Eaglewood Subdivision. The applicant is proposing 10 buildings standing approximately 40' high. The lot is 4.709 acres in size and is bounded by the Eagle River on the north and Hwy. 6/24 on the south. No building or landscape materials have been indicated. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the application and following are our comments. Parkine/Internal Circulation/Access Parking sizes and drive locations are not in conformance with the Code. The units are required to have 2 spaces each with additional guest parking. The units contain a one car garage with a parking space behind the garage. However, the space behind the garage does not meet the size requirements, therefore, the project is deficient in parking. Driveways and parking areas must setback at least 10' from the front yard lot line. The driveways and parking are shown adjacent to the front yard property line. Internal circulation is a concern to the Fire Department due tr• the tight turning radius. Another concern is access to the back sides of the buildings facing the Eagle River. The applicant must contact the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding the access to the site Site Plan An accurate grading and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing. a. true limits of site disturbance, b. existing and proposed contours, c all easements, including the sewer easement through the property, d. all property lines, e. utility connections PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 1, Eaglewood Subdivision 58 Unit Complex Conceptual Design Review f. all setbacks, including the 30' setback from mean annual high water/flood plain; and g, existing vegetation and type. 2. This side of the river has been designated for a public recreating trail. 3. Public access to the river is not shown. 4. The type of driveway needs to be indicated. 5. Building overhangs may not extend in the setbacks. 6. Snow storage must be indicated on the site plan. 7. Show the relation of surrounding properties and improvements to this site and improvements. Design: 1. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR. 2. Materials and colors must be indicated on the elevations and samples provided. 3. Building code requires a second exit from the third floor This lot is located in the Comprehensive Plan Subarea T River Residential District, which the guidelines have been included in your packet. A note to the applicant, the water main will need to be extended to the site from West Beaver Creek Blvd. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual, Staff has no recommendation. Respectfully Submitted —4-rl11"r Mary Holden Town Planner 4) 00% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 17, 1994 Lot 1, Eaglewood Subdivision 58 Unit Complex 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 �Al�' "" ry/-f� Sue Railton, Secreta This basically was a site plan conceptual review. The applicant provided a site plan snowing own omes. Discussion was on this proposal and how it fit on the site and the possibility of doing condominiums which would consist of taller, but less buildings, thus resulting in less disturbanee to the —site. No—formal action was taken at this time. ;. r'' ,/ ... 9 Recommendations: Develop -Beaver Creek Boulevard and any other future major access roads, as defined on Figure 5-1, to residential development as secondary streetscapes. Develop the intersection of U.S. 6/24 and West Beaver Creek Boulevard as a secondary intersection. adjacent to the Eagle River, provide Within building setback areas adjaca public access easement for public enjoyment of the river and construction of a public recreational trail. Require a minimum 30' building setback from the Eagle River. 5.17 • Limit building heights to three stories, and require developments to demonstrate preservation of views to the Town Center through the strategic placement of open space or the further limitation building heights. of • Encourage new development and redevelopment of eldsting _.� buildings to be in conformance with the overall design theme established for the Town. • Require a minimum 15' landscape buffer between the interstate right- of-way and pay icing areas, and 40' landscaped setback from the I-70 right-of-way for all residential structures. Subarea 7: River Residential Much of the River Residential District has been developed, but future residential development District that will occur along the river beyond the boundaries shown on the Urban Design Plan should be developed in accordance with the recommendations fcr this ubarea. The major design influences are U.S. 6/24, the riparian environment along the Eagle River, and public access to the river. The character of the river and its associawd natural habitat should be preserved by sensitive site planning, architectural detailing, and appropriate ro riate setbacks, scale of structures. odor, and Recommendations: Develop -Beaver Creek Boulevard and any other future major access roads, as defined on Figure 5-1, to residential development as secondary streetscapes. Develop the intersection of U.S. 6/24 and West Beaver Creek Boulevard as a secondary intersection. adjacent to the Eagle River, provide Within building setback areas adjaca public access easement for public enjoyment of the river and construction of a public recreational trail. Require a minimum 30' building setback from the Eagle River. 5.17 Subarea 8: Nottingham Park Residential District ^'N Require development to provide reasonable public access through their property to the river, and provide public parking and signage at strategically located trailheads. Buildings should be oriented to capitalize upon the Eagle River as an amenity. Parking areas, trash dumpsters, and other uses which could Potentially disrupt the quality of the river environment should be located and designed to have the least impact on the river corridor. Set buildings back from the river to preserve its natural character. Limit building height to three to four stories. The intent is to establish a scale of development that is subordinate to the Town Center and compatible with the river environment. Buildings should be designed to step down in height as they near the river and in response to the natural topography. • Require new development and redevelopment of existing buildings to be in conformance with the overall design theme established for the Town. • Where possible, buildings and parking areas should be located to preserve and promote the health of existing quality trees. • Plant trees to screen existing large residential buildings along U.S. 6/24. • Provide berms and landscaping between residences and U.S. 6/24. Nottingham Park is bordered to the west, north,.and northeast by existing high quality residential development. The structures are a visual asset to the Town. Missing, however, are provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists along West Beaver Creek Boulevard and adequate screening of parking areas. Landscaping around the perimeter Of the buildings could be enhanced. 5.1,;