The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 06079404 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT .Tune 7, 1994 Last 72, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Brofos Residence Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single Family ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES 11 91110 Guy Parker, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Eric Brofos, has submitted an application for conceptual design review of a single family residence on Lot 72, Block 1, which is .65 acres in size and slopes to the west ,/o. The single family unit will contain two levels and stand approximately 25' high. The single family unit will consist of the following materials: The landscape plan has been included in your packet. STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan submitted does not show the setbacks for Wildridge Subdivision and a portion of the residence is in the front setback with the drivewav turnaround area closer tr,an 10' to the front property line. The site grading indicates finished slopes steeper than the allowed 2:1 on the west and east sides of the residence. The landscape plan indicates the spruce in caliper, and the juniper and lilac are speci '-d as sizes available. The spruce must be specified in height, with a minimum of 6', and the juniper and lilac msut be a minimum of 5 gallons. Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments: Materials Color Roof celotex presidential wood tone Other lahabra stucco oatmeal Fascia r.s. cedar BM clear wood finish Soffits 1x6 T&G SPF " Window se:mco taupe Window Trim stucco misty Door/Trim fir BM clear wood finish Hand/Deck Rail peeled logs " Flues/Flashings galvanized not indicated Chimney stucco oatmeal The landscape plan has been included in your packet. STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan submitted does not show the setbacks for Wildridge Subdivision and a portion of the residence is in the front setback with the drivewav turnaround area closer tr,an 10' to the front property line. The site grading indicates finished slopes steeper than the allowed 2:1 on the west and east sides of the residence. The landscape plan indicates the spruce in caliper, and the juniper and lilac are speci '-d as sizes available. The spruce must be specified in height, with a minimum of 6', and the juniper and lilac msut be a minimum of 5 gallons. Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments: I\ -N PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 72, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Brofos Residence Conceptual Design Review 1. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR; 2. The type of driveway needs to be indicated; 3. True limits of site disturbance need to be indicated, 4. All correct setbacks need to be shown; 5. Building and overhangs are not allowed in the setbacks; and 6. A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence may be needed for this site, depending on the slopes and grades. Design 1. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations; and 2. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations and samples provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 72, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Brotos Residence Conceptual Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (v) Date a Sue Railton, Secretary As a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. The C .- 1 Utility GO ReEtion& ;aeea—to be shewn on the site plan far final design review. 2. The type of driveway needs to be indicated. 3. True limits of site disturbance need to be indicated. _ 4. All correct setbacks need to be shown. 5. Building and overhangs are not allowed in 'he setbacks. 6. A �wnstructivnJ m trray�e - — needed for this site, depending on the slopes and grades. 7_ The manaive Ton the site is a concern 8. Additional landscaping and an automatic irrigation system is needed. 9. Clarification of some of the detailing on the elevations is needed. ^J o�uu 02 J I 04 06 1 I 1 I I I I I /RMOAIEMIDMIUKODAREAS I 1 V" VALMORERMXADM LCH J I I I ( SEROO M6lAWSTOWOVER46• ( + I r 1 I I j i I I I I II EXISTING z tONTOLI S I � . I I I I j I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 i WMREKOATE LOWERLL RMD AWWtA9 + CH AERNIlOOLM M6IW OVER V BEROBIOH6U'MET6 VOMER 4Y I I I 1 I 1 I �\ I I I I ti •� LL ELEV 6106 FFE 6115 10 front garage 6114.75 14 J m Ir 1.. l � • p 1� + l m' W r 0*4 ICS X11 Y Z l,J J W 11J t - r - .. 1i ICS X11 Y Z l,J J W 11J .0" ,.*y FLANT gC,HEPULE: SYMBOL 51ZE 5 gal A5 AVAIL. ---- 26 cj 5 gal. Imica- 3" cal. 5 gal QUANT. NAME 4 5ERVIGE BERRY (AMELANCHIER) 2 LILA;( 5)RINGA JAFONICA) J. TREE LILAC 9 FOTENTILL.S (FRUM05A) rnlx "gold drop " and "snow flake" 3 SLOE EFRUGE 5 5PIRAEA JAPONICA " Al.PINA" A5 AVAIL. 6 JUNIFER16 communia " COMPRE55A" pG m*I Ka K i� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Sterling Residence Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single Family ZONING: PUD, One Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Sam Sterling has submitted an application for conceptual design review of a single family residence on Lot 55., Block 3, which is .71 acres in size. The lot slopes to the west at approximately 25%, however, there are portions of the :ot with slopes in excess of 40%. The single family unit will contain three levels and height varies from 31' to 37'. The single family unit will consist of the following mater,als: The landscape plan includes the following: Spruce 4 as required Ashen 6 as required Cottonwood 2 as required Juniper 300 square feet High altitude Kentucky sod, native grasses and seed, to include native sages and thissel, is proposed. A drip irrigation system and replanting native materials are proposed. Material:, Color Roof asphalt shingles tan Siding cement stucco dove white Other 1x8 channel lock cedar not indicated Fascia 2x10 & lx4 r.s cedar " Soffits Ix8cedar &T-111 paneling sage gray Window clad wood white Window Trim 2x4 stucco relief not indicated Door clad wood white Door Trim 1 x6 painted or stained Hand/Deck Rails stained cedar, 6x6 post, 2x6 cap Flues/Flashings painted metal not indicated Chimney stucco " Garage steel paneled not indicated Other: retaining walls 6x6 treated lumber or concrete w/ stucco finish The landscape plan includes the following: Spruce 4 as required Ashen 6 as required Cottonwood 2 as required Juniper 300 square feet High altitude Kentucky sod, native grasses and seed, to include native sages and thissel, is proposed. A drip irrigation system and replanting native materials are proposed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Sterling Residence Conceptual Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: North Point Road abuts the east property line and Wildridge Road abuts thevest property line. The residence is accessing off North Point Road, where natural slopes and the bank of the road are steep. The slopes next to Wildridge Road are more gentle and provide better access to the site, however, there is more traffic on Wildridge Road. The building height, in certain locations, exceeds the 35' limit. Staff recommends the building, in addition to the foundation, step with the site to reduce the height. Retaining walls are shown in the front setback and grading in the 10' slope maintenance easement. The retaining walls will require a front yard setback and no disturbance is allowed in the 10' snow stack, slope maintenance easement. Thissel is not allowed since it is a noxious weed. Staff has reviewed the pro;,osal and following are -he comments Site PI m I . Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR; 2. Driveway grades may not exceed 10% and the first 20' of the driveway may not excee 14%, 3. Slopes may not exceed 11; 4 Landscape minimum sizes are 2" caliper for deciduous, 6' for coniferous, and 5 gallon for shrubs, 5 The type of driveway needs to be indicated, 6. A grading and drainage plan, needs to be or. a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance; and retaining walls 7 Building overhangs are not allowed in the setbacks, 8 A construction, .acsion control r nd site disturbance fence will be needed for this site. Design I Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations, 2. The north elevation show; an architectural element that does not extend to the ground, 3. Clarify the line shown on the east elevation, 4. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations and samples provided, and 5 The type of fireplace needs to be indicated STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Sterling Residence Conceptual Design Review As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden own Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) WitSdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action f Date 9�f Sup Railton, Secretary_.�� n SEE A I'TACHED PAGE I. Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Conceptual Design Review June 7, 1994 As a conceptual design review, no formal action was ta''en at this time. The Commission asked the applica-t to be aware of the following concerns: 1. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for final design revies. 2. Driveway grades may not exceed 10% and tho first 20' of the driveway may not exceed 4%. 3. Slopes may not exceed 2:1 4. Landscape minimum sizes are 2" caliper for decidLOUS, 6' for coniferous, and 5 gallon for shurbs. 5. Type of driveway needs to be indicated. 6. A grading and drainage plan needs to be on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance and retainjng walls. 7. Building overhangs are not allowed it the setbacks. 8. A construction/erosion control and site disturbance fence will be needed for this site. 9. Exterior lighting must be indicated on the elevations. 10. The north elevation shows an architectural element that does not extend to the ground. 11. Clarify the line siown on the east elevation. 12. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations and samples provided. 13. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated. �P¢�fiE 4,J•1+5y Tr 22 , ` t \ , t x 0 N• 1 9 / � � � � Y � � ... i / 1 a A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision 10 Units Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: 10 Units ZONING: PUD, 10 Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: ACL Limited Liability has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of 2 triplexes and I fourplex on Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge. The lot, 2.52 acres in size, slopes down to the west at + 34%. The buildings will contain three levels and stand .;2' high. The duplexes will consist of the following materials: Roof Siding Other Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hard/Deck Rails Flues/Flashings Chimney TraSh Enclosure Materials Colors celotex presidential weathered wood masonite Not Indicated stucco 2x 10 rs " masonite " bronze aluminum " I x4 r s. cedar " steel six panel " Ix4 r. s. cedar redwood " galvanized " siding " siding " A landscape plan has not been indicated. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed improvements do not utilize ;he natural contour of the site., with the lay out not taking advantage of the more gentle slopes on the site. The units proposed are within the allowed zoning, however, the size of the units are 2,200 square feet each causing ahs: large amount of site disturbance. Down sizing of the units will lessen the impact to the site. The guest parking shown for this project is in excess ref what is requires: Eliminating some of the parking would reduce site dis-irbance. Due to the amount of site disturbance and retaining walls proposed, Staff is requiring a perspective rendering of the site showing the all the retaining walls, in addition to the buildings PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7. 1994 Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision 10 Units Conceptual Design Review Site Plan: 1. Finished slopes may not exceed 2:1; 2. There is 20' of fall from the front the front to back of the first i Uilding; 3. The site plan must be at a scale of V = 20' due to the fact that the topography and grading plan are not very ledgeable at I" = 30; 4. Information must be shown on th,- tie in with Wildwood Road, 5. A large portion of the site is being disturbed; 6. Driveway grades may not exceed 10% and the first 20' may not exceed 4%, 7. Many large retaining walls are being shown on this site, and if over 4', they must be designed by an Engineer, 8. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR; 9. The type of driveway needs to be indicated, 10. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing: a. true limits of site disturbance; b. label property lines and other lines indicated but not identified, c. the rights-of-way; d. tie in to right-of-way; and e. setbacks. 11. A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence will be needed on site delineating the construction and non -construction zones; 12. Fire hydrants will be requiered at the entry driveway and at approved point in the site; 13. Revegetation of all disturbed areas is required, and must include native bushes, and 14. Steep Slope guidelines will be given to the applicant. Des4,,w 1. Colors and materials need to be called out on the elevations, 2. The individual unit square footage is large, a eating large site disturbance; 3. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated, and 4. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual, Staff has no recommendation. however, there is a great deal of site disturbance. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden' I Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision 10 Units Conceptual Design Review PAM PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: 3 Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (✓� Dabs 44o % Sue Railton, Secretary SEE ATTACHED PACE Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Conceptual Design Review June 7, 1994 As a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. The Commission asked the applicant to be aware of the following concerns. 1. Finished slopes may not exceed 2:1. 2. There is a 20' fall from the front to back of first building. 3. The site plan must be at a scale of 1" = 20' due to the fact that the topography and grading plan are not very legible at 1" = 30'. 4. Information must be shown on the tie in with Wildwood Road. 5. A large portion of the site is being disturbed. 6. Driveway grades may not exceed 10% and the first 20' may not exceed 4%. 7. Many large retaining walls are being shown on this site, and i over 4', they must be designed by an Engineer. 8. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for fin l design review. 9. Type of driveway needs to be indicated. 10. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing: true limits of site disturbance; label property lines and other lines indicated but not identified; the rights-of-wey; i. e into right-of-way; and setbacks. 11. A construction/erosion control and site disturbance fence will be needed on the site, delineating the construction and non-construc:tiol, ?ones. 12. sire hydrants will be required at the entry driveway and a':. approved point in the site. 13. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated. 14 Revegetation of all disturbed areas is required, and must include native bushes. 15. Steep slope guidelines will be given to the applicant. 16. Colors and materials need to be called out on the elevations. 17. The individual unit square footage is large, creating large site disturbance. 18. Exterior building lighting must be incicat.ed on the elevations submitted for final design review. r � n 1• iJ I I 1 ; 1,, . 1 ^bn • ipii � 1 I I'� , \ I \ 0o a r I { Or �� l �// (!i i •Ij I \; i - � 1." II lll`I�I� �'h 6 I ��.1 • �I' �/ .III �I� II I � -''�•/ I 1' I it l� �� 'hill /II II' ''illlii'I la O n �v Il 11� l ill, ; 7 --�. I� iillii�lll• V py1 {;�, I j y J I IL, 11i • 4 tip 17 -t ,1 I11III!rt � C. il, 'i ' '/':iii1 ' • llll'� � I' ili it I HIT Ip It b x I/rl/ql / %: 1 ; I I �l I j. " • '1 II,�iIl1�, I , I II11,1 rt ' 1 ;1 ; l f � ! _#• I /,��': ;;ii :;% t ti's ;` �� I I •r I 5 I a 1; \al r a ttv \� i � `.I�l�� u�.7/ x•18 'S � L.\ 11'}j' � SPai ki\ 1 I /I,� e I h b b u o / m t - K O Q / J • b R ' • h 7 . L I } 7 30 MEI -hill! 4� . . n A w `o . •• r PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 1, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Four Plex Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Four Plex ZONING: PUD, Four Unit COMPLIES W!TH ZONING? YES �1= INTRODUCTION: Laddie Clark has submitted an application for conceptual design review of a four plex on Lot 1, Block 2, which is 1.39 acres in size and slopes to the south at 16-34%. The four plex will contain three levels and stand approximately 32' high. The applicant has not indicated building material, color or a landscape plan at this time. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant would like the Commission to comment on the connection of the four plex, which is through covered breeze ways. The definition of a dwelling -multifamily in the Zoning Code is as follows: "means a building containing three or more dwelling units, not including hotels or lodges, but including townhouses, condominiums and apartments with accessory use facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off-street parking used by the occupants." Should the Commission feel the connection is adequate, and no major changes to the site plan are necessary, Staff has the following comments: Site Plan: I. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR; 2. Driveway entrance must be squared up; 3. The type of driveway needs to be indicated; 4. A grading and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing: true limits of site distu, Bance; all setbacks; all easements; and driveway tie in to street; 5. Address any engineering concerns; 6. A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence may be needed for this site, depending on the slopes and grades; and 7. A landscape plan must be submitted for FDR. Desien PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 1, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Four Plex Conceptual Design Review Desiizm 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 Floor plans with type of fireplaces indicated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation. 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_ ( -�� /y� y- Sue Railton, Secretary As a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. The Commission felt that the proposed connections for the four-plex were a very good solution. The Commission suggested that the applicant cartsyd�P maitl�tg some-�tsalrges tO—MIt- th-e M"or-1ma-gs of-th-e-untts.----- ■+R oil r ul C l e 4 031 I l r 031 I { a G r a G .Nm all MEN 1 I I I 1 I I ---------------- I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 40, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Johnson Residence Final Design Review --Fence PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: Residential Duplex -RD COMPLIES %KITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Tom Johnson has submitted an application to place a fence on the south, east and west portion of his back yard. His lot is at the southwest intersection of Benchmark Road and Beaver Creek Blvd. The fence would be 5' in height with three rails and have field netting to contain his dog. STAFF COMMENTS: The fence must meet the 7.5' side yard setback on the east portion of the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application with the following condition: 1. The fence maintain the 7.5' side yard setback on the east portion of the lot. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted i Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZO NING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 40, Block 2, Benchmark 9t Beaver Creek Subdivision Johnson Residence Final Design Review--Ferce PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: W Appr(�Ved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (✓� Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date� J - J / S� Sue Railton, Secretary �� The Commission granted approval for the proposed fence, with the condition %�ft wo 1 N o ti �i main � %�ft wo 1 N o ti %�ft wo PLANNING All, k) ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 4, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Walkway Enclosure Final Design Review -Site Modification INTRODUCTION Russell and Janet Thrasher have submitted an application requesting approval to build a covered walkway on the north side of their unit. The walkway will match existing material and color. STAFF COMMENT The proposed covered walkway will be on the north side of the unit, which is not a prominent view from any location. Our only comment is that the adjacent owners have agreed to the alteration prior to construction since these are townhome- STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application with the condition as follows: 1. Prior to an application for a building permit, the applicant provide to Staff the adjacent property owners agreement to the covered walkway addition. 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 June 7, 1994 Lot 4, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Walkway Enclosure Final Design Review -Site Modification PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date/� 1 /Si+e Railton, Secretary _ `�—.'zC lv� — The Commission granted approval for the proposed walkway enclosure, with e condition tha priorthe—applicant provide to Staff the adjacent property owners agreement to the covered I r - Y I I I I I I .I I avt4 0,11 i �4 7'11 "'i'I I �i� i'�� i� 9U! Ole e� 103.1 Vr. W4t-ILW��"i O�T-H ��4- G� 4dRaiG� 11 IliL-- _l I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 7, 1994 Mountain Center Sign Program Modification Lot 27/28, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review --Modification PROJECT TYPE: Sion Program Modification ZONING: IC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Larry Ast has submitted an application for a modification to the Sign Program for Mountain Center, which would allow for two garden level tenants to share a 9' 1., 2' sign. The sign would be located as indicated in your packet. STAFF COMMENTS: The existing sign program has no provisions for the garden level tenants to have a sign. This modification would allow for the two garden level tenants to share a sign. Sign 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 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. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 7, 1994 Mountain Center Sign Program Modification Lot 27/28, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review --Modification 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. Refiective 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 refle-t unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be di-ectly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, apd 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 I S 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. The material being used has been utilized for other signs in the 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 acceptable. 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: 1 -*11 A*"'� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 7, 1994 Mountain Center Sign Program Modification Lot 27/28, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review --Modification 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. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application as submitted. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfidly submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner Lv PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 7, 1994 Mountain Center Sign Program Modification Lot 27/28, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review --Modification PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( V� Approved with recommended conditions (o' Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date !Cc e/ �. _ Sue Railton, Secretary le The Commission arante approval for the proposed modification to the s' program to allow two garden level tenants to share a sign, as submitti MAY - 2 6- 9 4 T H U „ik : 3 'c". N. I G E-0 T E C H S I Gb! S DATE: MAY 26, 1994 TO: MARY HOLDEN TOWN OF. AVON PLANNER FROM: LARRY AST X _j .4. . RE: JERRY'S AUTO/MOUNTAI*3 STORAGE P . 0 1 ............................ ................... i................................................................................ ..................................... ........ CONI'MMING OUR DISCUSSION DURING YOUR SITE VISIT THIS MORNING: I. THE REQUESTED SIGN LOCATION WAS INADVERTENTLY OMITTED FROM THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM APPROVED IN 1993, 2. A 2' X 9' (VERSES A 2'X 12') SIGN LOCATION IS BEING REQUESTED- THIS SIZE BEING IN PROPORTION TO THE WINDOWS SHOWN IN TIME PHOTO. 3. THIS IS A NATURAL LOCATION FOR THE SIGN WHEN LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE BUILDING, AND IS IN KEEPING WITH THE OTHER SIGNS AT MOUNTAIN CENTER. 4. THE OTHER AREA WITH LOWER LEVEL TENANT ACCESS, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, DOES NOT HAVE A NATURAL SPOT FOR A LOWER LEVEL SIGN FOR THE LOWER LEVEL TENANT. IF YOU REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE ADVISE. HIGHTECHSIGNS P.O. Box 2688 Production Center Vail, CO 81658 910 Nottingham Road 303.9494565 Suite S.2 FAX: 949-4670 A%vn, CO 81620 Aspen R Glenwood Sprgs. 303 945.6695 MINK, ` 'Q r Y J ." J 9 bil rq �1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 41-43, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Beaver Creek West Final Design Review -Modifications PROJECT TYPE: Multifamily ZONING: RHD --Residential High Density COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Mike Bennet, representing the Beaver Creek West Home Owners Association, has submitted an application for various modifications that include: 1. Replace existing siding with new metal siding on all buildings; 2. Replace railing with steel pipe railing; 3. Stucco the chimneys on phase II; and 4. Repaint facia and trim on all buildings. STAFF COMMENTS: Beaver Creek vilest received approval last year for the steep pipe railing. They are currently completing the work on the decks. The trim and facia color will be changing on the various phases, which are as follows: Phase 1: brown Phase 2: fern leaf green Phase 4: light blue The existing siding on all the buildings is pine, and the applicant wishes to change the siding to metal. The Planning and Zoning Commission Procedures, Rules and Regulations, Section 6.25 Building Design C. Building Materials nates "Metal siding, concrete or concrete block will be permitted only with specific: approval of the Commission." A small sample has been provided of the siding, which indicates the color. The final request is for the chimneys on Phase 2 to be replaced with stucco. Our only concern is with cleaning and maintenance of the stucco since the fireplaces are wood burning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Should the Commission find the metal siding is acceptable, Staff recommends approval of this application as submitted. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I . Introduce application PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 41-43, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Beaver Creek West Final Design Review -Modifications 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Ho den Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (✓S Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action Date 7'6t Sue Railton, SecretaryY�— The Commission granted approval for the proposed modifications to Beaver Creek West, which include: t —Facing 2. Reprailings with steel pipe railing.t�— ? `* eso the chimneyon Phase iL --_ 4. Repaint fascia and teim on all buildings as follows: Phase I brown Phase II Fern Leaf Green :C F-4-4 _,-- _ I fl14 TT Ft,f 1 I 1 1 _ • } I 1 r C -L . y``� 1 1 �1 ♦ I ♦ I i LLQ, r [ J Q 1 T4 W i W J W H Q LL H -_ Q [• 140 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Valley Wide Final Design Review -Modifications PROJECT TYPE: Industrial/Office Building ZONING: IC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Valley Wide Mechanical is requesting approval of different paint color and a change in the form of the canopy over the door. STAFF COMMENTS: The original colors approved were canyon gray with a redrock stucco. The proposed colors are a burgundy -brown and off white. The change to the canopy is enclosed in your packet along with the original approved style. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application as presentee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, tutr� Mary Holden Town Planner 1• • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7. 1994 Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Valley Wide Final Design Review -Modifications PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date ,� 4 /9 .Sue Railton, Secretary,,"�� fe"e _ The Commission tabled, until a later date, this application, due to lack of ,�!pntattum-d , — 0% ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Variance - Front Yard Setback (PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD -- Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? No, Requires a Variance to Front Yard Setback Requirements This is a Public Hearing for a variance to the front yard setback on Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. INTRODUCTION: Brian Vedder received a variance for the front yard setback to encroach 15', keeping out of the 10' slope maintenance, drainage and snow storage easement on July 7, 1992. This request is to allow an 8" encroachment of the existing underground retaining wall into the 10' slope maintenance, drainage, and snow storage easement. REQUEST: The underground retaining wall encroaches 8" due to the an error by placing it on the wrong side of the layout string during construction. STAFF COMMENTS: Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Section 17.36.40, Approval Criteria: A. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Comment: The requested variance is in keeping with the surrounding uses and structures in the area. However, encroachments into the 10' slope maintenance, drainage and snow storage have been minimal. B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibly and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Comment. The degree of relief being sought is minimal Encroachment is 8" and already exists. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. +Nr PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7. 1994 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Variance - Front Yard Setback Comment. The effect of the request will have no negative impacts on light, air, population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities or public safety D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. Comment. Staff has not identified any other factors for the Commission to consider. FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS: ZJ Staff recommendation is for approval of Resolution No 94or the front yard and side yard setback variance request based on the findings below. FINDINGS: I That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 004 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7. 1994 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Variance - Front Yard Setback 2. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of she specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. 3• The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner "N ,-., PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7. 1994 Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Variance - Front Yard Setback PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) i Date -L5/ Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-10.1,E A Resolution Approving A Variance From The Front Yard Setback Requiremeu For Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge. ; e 01 1, TOWN OF AVON M PLA'4NING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 10 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 45, BLOCK 1, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Brian Vedder, owner of Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision has applied for a setback variance from the "Front Yard Building Setback" requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Pianning and "Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notice:; required by law, at which time the applicant and the pub!;- were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Front Yard and Building SQtback Variance application and has determined: I. The variance is necessary t-) achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. 2. Approval of the variance will not constitufr a grand of special privilege: and 3. The requested variance will have no detrimental effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, and public facilities and utilities, and public safety; and WHEREAS, the Planning and 'Zoning Commission finds: A. T'ie strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would 40 ti R6SOLU 1101NI NO 94 - I(, SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTiON APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CO `E, FOR LOT 45, BLOCK 3, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Brian Vedder, owner of Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision has applied for a setback variance from t:.e "Front Yard Building Setback" requirements as stipulated in Tide 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express Their opinions and present certain information and reports regi ng the proposed Front Yard and Building Setback Variance application and has determined: I . The variance is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatm ri± among sits in the vicinity. 2. Approval of the variance will not constitute a grand of special privilege and 3. The requested variance will have no detrimental effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, and public facilities and utilities, and public safety; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds: A. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or ,A', h welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation woulu resuit in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, applicable to the site of the variance that uo not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a setback variance from the "Front Yard Building Setback" requirement of Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision., Town of Avon, Eagle County Colorado, ADOPTED THIS DAY OF'^R' 1994 Secretary 1• inconsistent with the objectives of this title; applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity, NOW, TFIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a setback variance from the "Front Yard Building Setback" requirement of Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County Colorado. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1994 Secretary QD 0 P. I I0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 24, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Sanner/Klein Duplex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD -2 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Michael Sanner has submitted plans for Final Design Review approval of a duplex on lot 24, which is .52 acres. The site slopes frorn east to west at approximately 24%. The duplex will be two stories in height and stand 31' in height. The duplex will consist of the following materials: The landscape plan consists of 15 aspen at 11/2" to 21/2" caliper, 3 blue spruce at 6-8' high, and 20-25 shrubs of 5 gallons each consisting of winterfat, serviceberry, sagebrush, mountain mahogany, Utah juniper, and snowberry. 1000 square feet of drought resistant sod or seed mix is proposed. Revegitation is proposed with native grass and wildflower mix. A drip an automatic irrigation system has been indicated. REVIEW HISTORY The Commission has not review this design for lot 24, however, the Commission reviewed an application for this lot which consisted of two separate buildings. Materials Color Roof asphalt weathered wood Siding r. s. cedar w/1x2 cedar batten chamois Other stucco Tripoli tan Fascia 1x8 over 1x6 rs cedar chamois Soffits fir plywood chamois Window clad taupe Window Trim 2x8 rs cedar chamois Door wood chamois Door Trim 2x8 rs cedar chamois Hand/ Deck Rail 4" peeled logs rails/21/2" pkts. chamois Flues/Flashings metal Tripoli tan Chimney stucco Tripoli tan The landscape plan consists of 15 aspen at 11/2" to 21/2" caliper, 3 blue spruce at 6-8' high, and 20-25 shrubs of 5 gallons each consisting of winterfat, serviceberry, sagebrush, mountain mahogany, Utah juniper, and snowberry. 1000 square feet of drought resistant sod or seed mix is proposed. Revegitation is proposed with native grass and wildflower mix. A drip an automatic irrigation system has been indicated. REVIEW HISTORY The Commission has not review this design for lot 24, however, the Commission reviewed an application for this lot which consisted of two separate buildings. eoo PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 24, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Sanner/Klein Duplex Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: Exterior building lighting has not been indicated. The applicant must receive approval from Staff for the exterior lighting. Landscaping must meet the minimum Town standards, which is 2" minimum for deciduous trees. Revegetation of the utility cuts and site disturbance rnu,, include native bushes, in addition to native grass and wildflower mix. This may be done through the landscape plan, which includes native bushes. The applicant will have !o work out Engineering concerns, should they arise. 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. 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 design minimize the impact to the site. The visual appearance „ f 4ny proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 24, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Sanner/Klein Duplex Final Design Review Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed improvements will not negatively impact neighboring properties or public ways. 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 approval of this final design review with the following conditions' 1. The flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 2. The building lighting be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Revegetation include native bushes. 4. Meters be placed on the building. 5. Prior to any site disturbance, a construction fence be placed on site. 6. The applicant work out Engineering concerns prior to the issuance of a building permit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, -)-71 C"< r Mary Holden Town Planner �N rt PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 24, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Sanwer/Klein Duplex Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (✓j Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date,A�Z IM4 Sue Railton, Secretary � )"�" The Commission granted final design review approval with the following conditions: 1. The flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of 2. The building lighting be approved by Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. J. evege a ion inc u e native bushes. 4. Meters be placed on the building. te. 6. The applicant work out Engineering concerns prior to the issuance of a 7. The dec trees be a minimum of 2 inch caliper. h . tA1.7+ Cl' �1 b �ti. .. • >� 3 �•' r� 1 ti NNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 7.1994 Lot 27, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Niederhaus Residence Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single Family ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: RKD Design has submitted an application for final design review of a single family residence on Lot 27, Block 3, which is ..49 acres in size and has : 28% slope. The single family unit will contain two levels and stand approximately 31' high. The single family unit will consist of the following matenals: The landscape plan includes 14 aspens ranging fPom 2-3", and 8 juniper at 5 gallons. Irrigation has not been indicated and revegetation will include native bushed and grasses. REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the May 3, 1994 meeting and had the following comments - I . grade of driveway, 2 posts for the deck, 3. gutter system, 4 deck rails, 5. shedding on the deck' 6. landscaping beefed up around the house, 7. underside of the deck finish, 8. driveway finish, 9. type of fireplace, 10. add some interest by windows or higher standard c,00r for the garage, and 11. hallow arch elements in the stucco walls on ,he top of some window groupings. Materials _ Color Roof asphalt shingles brown Siding stucco white Fascia 2x cedar brown Soffits soffit board painted brown Window wood alum. clad white Window Trim stucco rap white Door/Trim wood not indicated Chimney stucco " Hand/Deck Rails wood/cedar brown The landscape plan includes 14 aspens ranging fPom 2-3", and 8 juniper at 5 gallons. Irrigation has not been indicated and revegetation will include native bushed and grasses. REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the May 3, 1994 meeting and had the following comments - I . grade of driveway, 2 posts for the deck, 3. gutter system, 4 deck rails, 5. shedding on the deck' 6. landscaping beefed up around the house, 7. underside of the deck finish, 8. driveway finish, 9. type of fireplace, 10. add some interest by windows or higher standard c,00r for the garage, and 11. hallow arch elements in the stucco walls on ,he top of some window groupings. W L2 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 27, Block 3, W ildridge Subdivision Niederhaus Residence Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: The turnaround area for the garage is located closer than 10' from the front property line. Off street parking and related turnaround areas must be a minimum of 10' from the front property line. Detail will must be provided on the boulders shown at and on the front property line. These may impede with Town of Avon street maintenance and snow plowing/storage functions. The driveway grade may not exceed 10% and the first 20' of the drivewa,: may not exceed A%. The api;hcant has not provided utility connections on the site plan, not ,erification that the site plan is on a certified topography, which ,was requested at the conr.eptual review. 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 rfgulations of the Town. Comment: This proposal is not in conformance with Town cod,:s since the turnaround area is closet than 10' to the front property line. 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. Comme.tt: The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are consistent with Wildridge 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 improvements are compatible with site The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Ell PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7. 1994 Lot 27, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Niederhaus Residence Final Design Review Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed improvements will not negatively impact neighboring properties or public ways. we The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in !. e vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. 4a 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. Continent: The proposal is not in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon for the reason described above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this final design rl — --w with the following conditions: 1. The driveway grade may not exceed 10% and the first 20' of the driveway may not exceed 4%. 2. Detail must be provided to Staff on the boulders abutting the Wildridge Road West right-of-way to determine if the boulders may be placed there. 3. A site plan, certified by a licensed surveyor, showing utility connections and all other requirements, be avbrnitted to and ipproved by Staff prior to a building permit 4. The first 20' of the driveway must maintain a maximum 4% slope 5. The flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color s; heme of the building 6. Meters be placed on the building. 7. The driveway turnaround be removed and placed a minimum of 10' from the front property line. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted 29 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7. 1994 Lot 27, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Niederhaus Residence Final Design Review Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) App oved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (✓S Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Datet/ Z?q Sue Railton,Se;retary ✓ F� The Commission gr/anted final design approval with the following conditions: 1. The flues flas`,ings and vents be painted to match the color scheme 2. The driveway grade may not exceed 10% and the forst 20 feet of the driveway may not exceed air - - 3. Detail must be provided to Staff on the bnulders abutting Wildridge Road West right-of-way to determine if the boulders ,iay be placed there. 4. Meters be placed on the building. 5. A site plan certified by a licensed surveyor, shoving utility connections by Std Ff- prior tr. a building permit. 6 1he�Y..j.yp-ie{a�t_ tiirnarniind ha ramnvari and nalrari a minimum of 10 feet rom the front property line. 7. The ,applicant bring back the landscape plan with a variety of materials for Staff to approve. 8. The applicant bring back a paint sample for the stucco for Staff's approval OR Ill 0 to f" 1 PMA Uto ALL1115 N.dDO 1 x'3, oadxoao Nor a7DaI2iQZI1V1 E x0o,ri 4el NT.� CT T r Ul.T u rr c-, I , L N F� ��l ol No M �I 1 Sn 1 M �I rim E2 10 F PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 42, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD, Duple;: COMPLIES WITH ZONING^ YES W-� INTRODUCTION: Tony and Debbie Scharph have submitted an application for Final Design Review approval of a duplex 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: Roof Siding Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues/Flashings Chimney Materials Color asphalt shingles brownish red stucco white painted wood brown painted wood brown alum. clad wood white stucco white wood not indicated aimed d 1. F woo cedar brown painted metal match walls The landscape plan includes two, 5-T spruce, eighteen, 2-3" caliper aspens, 14, 5 gallon spirea and 8, 5 gallon currant. All distu!.hed areas will be replanted with native grasses and brush. Irrigation has not beep, indicated. REVIEW HISTORV The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the may 17, 1994 meeting and had the following comments: I . all stucco, 2. rooting material; 3. posts down the middle of the east unit elevation, 4. entry elements being awkward, 5. single garage door; 6. garave doors being Ereay prominent, and 7. 8x8 square posts going up. f�4 ^ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 42, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: An erosion control/construction fence must be installed on the east portion of the site at the limits of site disturbance due to the easements and the steeper nature of the site in this location. There is a light fixture indicated at the entrance to the drip eway, which is on the right-of- way, and must be moved back onto the property. The applicant may wish to locate the light a few feet off the front property line due to snow storage and maintenance of the area. The floor elevati.,ns show a large area not identified and it is the owner's wish is to have this area as a hobby shop. Staff would like to remind the applicant that lock off units are not allowed in Wildridge. The applicant has removed the caretakers unit from the floor --levation, however, the note on the site plan indicates one caretakers unit, which must be removed. The utility connections have not been indicated and must be shown. Type of fireplaces, also, must be indicated. The applicant must address any engineering concerns prior to the issuance of a building permit should they arise. 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 ]'own. 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 The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment All impac's will be contained on site. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 42, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment: The design minimize the impact to the site. The vistutl appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed improvements will not negatively impact neighboring properties or public ways. 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 Coals, 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 approval of this final design review with the following conditions: I . The flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 2. Revegetation ol'disturbed areas on site must include native bushes. 3. Meters be placed on the building. 4. The applicant address any engineering concerns prior to the issuance of a buildng permit. 5. The light fixture indicated on Town right-of-wa be located on the property 6. Prior to any site di:,turbance, a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7. 1994 Lot 42, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review Respectfully Submitted ,4-9�'1t(r Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved w;th modified conditions ( ✓f Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date / Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission gr?nted final design review a con3iti ons : of the buildii wal with the followi 3. Meters be placer,. on the buildings. 4. The applicant address any engineering concerns prior to the issuance of 5ui i n i e'mmi -. ----- — --- 5. The light fixture indicated on Town right-of-way, be located on the property. 6-�—Rr�ar—te �w3=-s i4z-3 i-s-t�trka nEe,—a - son stt�uc-t-i an�mi ^v., -fe :��--Played on site. 7. The stucco color be resubmitted to Staff for approval and it be not so glaring white. 8. Additional landscape material in the form of trees be added to the western facade in front of the blank porticn. 9. A strong recommendation that the vertical entrance be redesigned to bring some hori9.ontal features int, it. AX 1i of �� •�� \•� .�� w i u CL O AX 1i of �� •�� \•� .�� w I d. z ft 0 \ I Il,llllllll \ ' I I I � �r. ❑ � Q 1 :II f4. lii� is �I� [• �• 0 !moi PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 24, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Final 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. The lot, .50 acres in size, slopes down to the west at 16%. The two buildings height for the elevation shown is approximately 30 1/2'. The units will consist of the following materials: A landscape plan list has been included in your packet REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application at the May 17, 1994 meeting and discussed the following 1. the architectural connection, 2. large area of asphalt, 3. landscape plan inadequate, 4. exact same units being boring, 5. consider raising one unit, and 6. linear look in roof not there with the off sets STAFF COMMENTS: Materials Colors Roof GAF 320# burnt sienna Siding cedar Moorwood, 08164 Other stucco Pure ivory Fascia 2x 10 Moorwood Softs wood Moorwood Window eagle clad casement Forest green Window Trim 3x wood lintel Moorwood Door wood plank Moorwood Door Trim wood lintel/stucco Moorwood or pure Hand/Deck Rails cedar ivory Flues/Flashings metal same match adjacent wall Chimney stucco pure ivory A landscape plan list has been included in your packet REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application at the May 17, 1994 meeting and discussed the following 1. the architectural connection, 2. large area of asphalt, 3. landscape plan inadequate, 4. exact same units being boring, 5. consider raising one unit, and 6. linear look in roof not there with the off sets STAFF COMMENTS: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 24, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Final Design Review 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." The Commission has defined a duplex connection of having a strong architectural connection. Further, the Wildridge Restrictive Covenants define a duplex residential lot as "A lot which can be used solely for residential purposes and upon which not more than one building, containing no more than two dwelling units attached by at least one common wall or floor, together with not more than one garage outbuilding, maybe constructed." The grading plan, which is not certified, does not show the tie in with June Creek Trail Road. The grading plan, also shows, site disturbance taking place from lot line to lot line. To ensure no encroachments take place on adjacent properties, a construction fence must be placed on site to delineate property lines. The applicant should be aware that engineering concerns if any arise must be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. There is still a potential for snow shedding in front of the garage on the northwest elevation. Overhangs are not allowed to extend into the setbacks. 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. 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. 2 k'9AW4 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 24, Flock 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Final Design Review Comment: The design of the proposed improvements will create more impact to the site than the conventional duplex design. The visual -ippearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighborint properties and public ways. Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed improvements will not negatively impact neighbo ing properties or public ways. 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 denial of this application due to this project not meeting the definition of a duplex, which tnis lot is zoned. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted ---%'y� R,c{ Mary Holde� Town Planner 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 24, Flock 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ray 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 Sue Railton, Secretary After considerable discussion regarding the proposed duplex connection and the massing, a ommission a e is app ica ion to a later date. 0 Lrx�..Np LiHt. op FXGAV GPAP IJ � N � W 'JC r r I�. �I�1' 1r•i 0% 'll II l II a l II , IL" _ II — 1 a F" 69mbi a a J 1 i Landscaping / Revegetatlon Notes 1 1. The contractor shall prevent the relesse'p1 aedlmer4 tedin wile, from the oonstRsction site and may be require,, to Install additional control tortillas at the dirucibn of an inspector. 2. Contactor will provide topsoil, seed, straw mulch in all distutbed areas plus Jule Erosion mnlrol Mal or approved equal, in areas of 2:1 elope or greater for soil stabilization. 0. Any existing shrubs to remain shall be protected with �l haybaia Anda rapa of snow fence per shrub. z 1. 41- M r rC+1b! /. Native Gress Mixture lobe spread at a rale of Cpound per 10o0e.t. 5. Ground Cove! to be planled 12' o.c. and soil shall be amended with compost prior to I Installation of 2lants (2 yd. per 1000 s.l.). Contractor to provide mulch after Installation. It fertilizer is used It shall const! of a balanced 10-10-10 and appliod at a rate of 5 you di tI per 1000 s.f. ..» i,�:i: _1 .... .. f r":.: r... '.P�•; lst. _i.r! �s).. i:�JaJ..r ti3: Plant List my agla0lcal Name Common Nemo Siza Ouan_W�v JH Junipems Horizontalis BluatChip Junipor 1SKgw. /O . 'Blue Chip' �• '' lZoLldggflS Shrubs AM Amelanchier Service Rainy 6 1. 7 AT A!temisia Tridentala Tall Western Sage 5�. /0 MM Mountain Mahogany *gal. 6 Gjggnd Coyer AR AntennariaRosea Pussy Toes 2114"pots /IAM CT Cerastium Tomantosum Snow -in -Summer 4 Sx. Sedum Acre Goldnwss Slonecrop ,t SD Sedum *Dragons Blood' Dragons Blood aPLA 71; Naltye Gr isSS ad. {'cpulr� Tr�mulotA�', au&lcias A-WeA a -V0 C a I.. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczky Duplex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: Residential Duplex -RD COMPLIES W?TH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Stephen Richards has submitted an application for Final Design Review of a duplex on Lot 37, Block 2, Benchwark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The lot is .25 acres in size. The duplex will contain two levels and stand approximately 30' high. The duplex will consist of the following materials: The landscape plan includes Spruce Materials Colors Roof asphalt shingles weatherwood Siding 1x8 cedar channel #911 Oly Other stucco monterey Fascia 1x6/2x10 cedar #707 Oly Soffits r.s. plywood cedar #911 Window metal clad bronze W"dow Trim I r.s wood cedar insul. #911 riues/Flashing- G.1. to match Chimney G.1. match bldg. The landscape plan includes Spruce 6 6-8' high Aspen 12 2" cal. Crabapple 4 2" cal. Cotoneaster 3 5 gallon Currant 3 Pctentilla 2 Rose 6 Tall fesque is proposed for sod and irrigation will be drip and spriniker. REVIEW HISTORY: The Commission reviewed this as a conceptual at the April 19, 1994 meeting and had the following comments: setting of house on site and overhangs. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczky Duplex Final Design Review snow shedding, hand watering of landscape a concern, identification of the front door on the side; south elevation having miror image; addition of landscaping on east and west sides; add a bit of screening between neighbors; chimney stack being stucco and maintenance, balconies on the south side; concrete patio on the back;flagstone pavers; and type of roof. STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan for final desgin review does not contain any contour lines, whcih is required to assess the drainage and grading plan. Further, the plan does not reflect the utility connections or that the survey was done by a certified surveyor. These items were requested at the conceptual reivew. he proposed driveway is concrete, in which case, an asphalt apron will be required where the driveway ties into West Beaver Creek Blvd. There is potential snow shedding in front of the east garage unit. The landscape plan indicates plant materila adjacent to West Beaver Creek Blvd. This area, in the winter, contains snow stack and the applicant should move the material further onto the property. We would like to remind the applicant that overhangs are not allowed to extend in setbacks. 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 zonformance 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. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczky Duplex Final Design Review 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 design minimizes the impact to the site. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed improvements vile not negatively impact neighboring properties or public ways. 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 1. All construction staging take place on the property, including the parking of worker vehicles, and storage of materials as indicated in Note 3 on the site plan dated 5-4-94. 2. A site plan indicating the grading, drainage, and certification, be submitted to Staff for their approval, prior to a building permit application. Should there be substancial changes, Planning and Zoning Commission must review and approve the changes. 3. An asphalt apron be provided where the driveway ties into West Beaver Creek Blvd. 4. All flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface. 5. Meters be placed on the buildng. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczky Duplex Final Design Review 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_Sue Railton, Secretary Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczky Duplex, Final Design Review ,lune 7, 1994 The Commission granted final design review approval with the following conditions: 1. All construction staging take place on the property, including parking of worker vehicles and storage of materials as indicated in Note 3 on the site plan dated 5/4!94 2. A site plan indicating the grading, drainage, and certification, be submitted to Staff for their approval prior to permit application. Should there be substantial changes, Planning and Zoning Commission must review and approv the changes. 3. An asphalt apron be provided where the driveway ties into West Beaver creek Blvd. 4. All flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface. 5. Meters be placed on the building. 6. Additional siding with the belly band be added to the top story of the building on the north and west elevations. 7. Three trees be moved from the snow storage area to the west garage wall. K• c� LEST fbE AV PSK ��4 b wcoo 'dal 911 ti.y 9 it 4ZL R' 0 - � _ . n J _ � I O .. ' � � _ � - � i L O'. � �r r ,�i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 36-A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Storage Shed Placement Final Design Review -Site Modification INTRODUCTION Mr. Gillialand has submitted an application requesting approval for the placement of a metal storage shed on the east side of the existing structure. The shed is 10' by 8' and stands approximately T, 2" in height. The body of the shed is gray and the roof is brown. STAFF COMM ENT The Zoning Code allows accessory buildings in every zone district, provided it is subordinate to the principal building and are not provided with kitchen or bath facilities sufficient to render them suitable for permanent residential occupancy (Chapter 17.50-A). The shed is made of metal, which the Planning and Zoning Commission Procedures, Rules and Regulations, Section 6.25 Building Design: C. Building Materials states "Metal siding, concrete or concrete block will be permitted only with specific approval of the Commission." The Planning and Zoning Commission Procedures, Rules and Regulations, Section 6.24, Miscellaneous Items: A. Temporary Structures states "temporary structures including excavated basements, construction storage and office trailer, and tenets shall not be allowed except as may be determined to be necessary during construction,". The shed is located encroaching into the side yard setback The encroachment is not alloo,,ed. The applicant has agreed to locate the shed else where on the site, and Staff would suggest it be removed from the setback and placed in the back, underneath the deck. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Should the Planning and Zoning Commission determine the metal shed appropriate and approve this request, the following condition should be attached: I. The shed be located out of the side yard setback, and placed behind the structure underneath the deck. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. .Applicant Presentation PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 36-A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Storage Shed Placement Final Design Review -Site Modification 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 Gam— / Sue Railton, Secretary/4"� The Commission grrantd approval for the storage shed to he allowed until November 1, 1994, however, it must be removed out of the side yard setback. BRa CREEK Bl..�'�. �a� ► w i W 0 `L" 30 491 1 a S 27-05-23!'E 53.251— �. 4 1000 led Ui -� �•09•��?_ ' *•�'�, ism I py�rin ��'�� Pr •�.in • i • �1 ��^t"••jf^ �W ��+;' fir. � � m m� � •`.1`� Y�(�.3 S r Bj ` 1 � rk � t�6)t.,... r, �i•. m 1' %V E7 t z o I •N \.\ \ O o ' R •�`.\..• \ '\ 'fes M \ •G M h tD r M \. \ •ems In r H jI k- ,C LL 53 51 B3B2r y _ S 29-550T" E ��'r •• �•'�AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT �--2tf UTILITY 0 70258A A. r- Model No. C0108 -3B ❑ LX108-3B ❑ V5108 -3B ❑ YT108-3B ❑ 697.68729-3B ❑ ARROW World's Leading Maher of Storage Buildings. CAUTION: SOME PARTS HAVE SHARP EDGES. CARE MUST BE TAKEN WHEN HANDLING THE VARIOUS PIECES TO AVOID A MISHAP. FOR SAFETY SAKE, PLEASE READ SAFETY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS MANUAL BUILDING DIMENSIONS •Size rounded off to the nearest foot BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. W6W GLOVES . WHEN HANDI.INC METAL PARTS. Exterlor D;menslons •Approx. Foundatlor: Storage Area (Roof Edge to Roof Edge) Size Size Sq. Ft. Cu. Ft. Width Depth Height 10 X8, 121' x 92 3/4' 7-1. 487 123 1/4' 95 1/4' 877/8' Interior Dimensions (Wail to Wall) Width Depth Height 118 1/4' 90' 86 5/8' PROTECTED BY RUST-OLEUM C0108, LX108, YT108, 697.68729 AN EXCLUSIVE QUALITY ENDORSEMENT Rust-Oleum is the recognized leader in rust and moisture protective paints and coatings nr home and industry. We've earned this leadership position through an unwavering commitment to quality -- researching, testing and retesting every product that bears the Rust-Oleum name. The PROTECTED BY RUST-OLEUM symbol means that your storage building is protected by paints and coating applications which have met Rust-Oleum's stringent testing standards for rust and moisture protection. Donald Fergusson President Rust-OlP�lm Corporation SOME FACTS ABOUT RUST Rusting is a natural oxidizing process that occurs when bare metal is exposed to moisture. Problem areas include screw holes, unfinished edges, or where scrapes and nicks occur in the protective coating through normal assembly, handling and use. Identifying these natural rusting problem areas and taking some simple rust protection precautions can help to stop rust from developing, or stop it quickly as soon as it appears. 1. Avoid nicking or scraping the coating inside and out. surface, 2. Use all the washers supplied. In addition to protecting against weather infiltration, the washers protect ;he metal from being scraped by the screws. 3. Keep roof, base perimeter and door tracks free of debris and leaves which may accumulate and retain moisture. These can do double damage since they give off acid as they decay. 4. Touch up scrapes or nicks and any area of visible rust as soon as possible. Make sure the surface is free of moisture, oils, dirt or grime and then apply an even film of high qu0ity touch-up paint. 5 YEAR LIMITED WARRANTY (10 YEARS ON VS108 ONLY) Arrow Group Industries, Inc. warrants that this outdoor storage building will not fail due to perforation caused by rusting through of material for a period of rive years. (10 years on VS only). We will replace any part found to be perforated by rust under normal use and service within that period. For this warranty to be in effect, the b•tilding must be maintained as directed in the Owner's Manual; roof and perimeter of base must be kept clearof leaves, grass and other debris. Claims under this warranty should be made by sending the part (or clear photograph) with proof of purchase, transportation charges prepaid to: Customer Service Department Arnow Group Industries, Inc. Breese, Illinois 62230 THIS R ARRANTY IS LIMITED TO REPLACEMENT OF DEFECRVE PARTS. LABOR CHARGES AND ALL OTHER iNCIDENfAL OP. CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF THIS WARRANTY OR THE I MF LI ED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXCLUDED. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL DAMAGES SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLU- SION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state. 70258 t I 0258A Auk Door Chart CO LX VS YT 697.68729 Right Duor 9290 8912 9524 7296 8538 Left Door 9289 8913 9523 7297 8539 13 i Step 14 Installing the roof panels is best done with a step ladder. Begin in- stalling roof panels at the back right corner of the building. Each screw and bolt in the roof require a black washer. NOTE Measure the building diagonally again and make adjustments to make sure the building is square. This will make the roof panels fit better, and holes will align. 1 LOCA a all the roof panels by their numbers and place them against the building in their proper posi- tions. NOTE In this procedure, you will install all the roof panels except one. You will install the last panel when you install the ridge caps. 2POSition a right roof panel at the back right corner and fasten to the gable and roof beams using screws and bolts as shown. Do not fasten the lower end of the panels to the side wall angles at this time. Hint: Follow the fastener sequence shown, for proper alignment. 31nstall the remaining roof panels and left roof panel forthe right side in the positions shown above. i 4cut the weather stripping tape into 28 strips, each strip being about 3" long. Press 12 strips firmly over the notched areas of the roof panels on the right side of the roof. Save the %2sm other 16 strips for the left side. • Parts Needed For - Right Side of Roof ' 8462 Right Roof Panel (one) ' 5209 Roof Panel (two) ' 6536 Roof Panel (one) • 8463 Len Roof Panel (one) _ •I 9 8 SAP 8462 Right Roof Panel L see! ei m' 0 1 9��V Use bons and nuts thru roof beam overlaps at the top and middle of panel ' Screws At BottoT Attach To Wall Angle Weather Stripping Tape 27 OW March 29, 1999 Mary Holden, Town Planner Town of Avon App P.O. Box 975 1 1994 Avon, Colorado 81620 TO�V Dear Ms. Holden: I am returning the application for design review approval for the temporary storage shed which I erected at the East side of the duplex located at 0238 West Beaver Creek Blvd. As I told you at our meeting, I was unaware that the city needed to approve of my shed. I chose the metal shed by Arrow for several reasons. Since the construction does not use wood, it seemed ecologically a good choice. Since aluminum is lighter than wood, it should be easier to move to my property when our home is built. That project is scheduled for this summer. I am hoping that the town can give me permission to leave the shed where it is until I can move it to our property. In order to follow procedures and be cooperative, I am enclosing my design review application and selected information about the shed that came with the assembly instructions. I am also enclosing a plot plan with the shed's location drawn to scale. I hope this will be helpful in making your decisions. If an alternative site on the present property would make it possible for you to grant me temporary permission to have the shed here, I am willing to move it to a different location. Thank you for your help and consultation in this matter. Sincerely, 1'� e / Edward W. "Ted" Gilliland PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF IMPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 38, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Klein Duplex Final Design Review --Landscape Plan PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD, Two Units COMPLIES WITH ZONINGl YES INTRODUCTION: This residence received Final Design approval at the March 15, 1994 Commission meeting with the condition that the landscape plan and colors be brought back for approval. STAFF COMMENTS: Included in your packet is the revised landscape plan, which reflects a berm on the south portion of the property that includes four aspen, three spruce and various shrubs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a condition of approval, Staff has no recommendation. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden 1 Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (✓) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date e Jj Sue Railton, Secretary The Com ion granted approval For the landscape plan with the following d---€�i�id+�te�k+e—hammer was to allow maneuvering. 2. Install the berm and additional plant material as proposed. T I WWI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 55, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Century 21 Bldg. Final Design Review -Modifications PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Building ZONING: TC - Town Center COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Bob Kaufmann, on behalf of Shapiro Development, has submitted an application for a site modification that would extend the patio area on the south end of the building. STAFF COMMENTS: The new patio will match the existing patio in materials and style. Setbacks are not a concern since the patio is at grade and will be 1 P from the front property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application as presented. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 1994 Lot 55, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Century 21 Bldg. Final Design Review -Modifications 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�� The Commission granted approval for the patio expansion as submitted. MATO 0BTbVVENT C() M E M O DATE: Monday May 23, 1994 TO: Mary Holden Planner FROM: Robert Kaufmann, AIA RE: Lot 55, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Century 21 Building Proposed Patio Expansion cc: Lary LyBarger Jerry Landeck Dan Finger Eric Criswell Ed Smith Charlie Johnson Mary, Shapiro Development Company would like to revise the DRB approved design for Lot 55. One of our tenants, Quizno's, wishes to expand the walkway / patio area, located at the south and east side of the building, by 377.013 SF. The landscape areas currently is 24.02 % of the total lot square footage. The expansion would take the landscape percentage to 22.72 %, still within the 20% minimum required. All effected trees will be shifted slightly to the south and east respectively. I will contact you after you have had a chance to review this change. Please give me a call if I can answer any questions or if there is any fee associated with this change. We still plan on working with Dean Koll of Zehren and Associates to formalize the link between Lot 56 and Lot 55. 100 W.BeaverfnrkNMI I'uaOfflceN9y;1„r Avon Center, SLI ilr'ill Avon, ColoraJuH What follows is a take -off of the landscaped areas in square feet. Attached is a drawings, showing both; areas included in the take -off and proposed expansion. AREA S.F. 1 66.29 2 109.37 3,4 222.95 5 47.62 6,8,10, 12,14. 3,389.09 7 15.75 9 15.75 11 15.75 13 15.75 15 5.38 16 14.63 17 18.05 18 2,501.45 19 521.16 TOTAL 6,958.99 These areas were calculated to the inside face of sidewalks, curbs, planters etc. on our CADD software. LANDSCAPE %: PROPOSED PATIO EXPANSION: NEW LANDSCAPE %: memo21 291- RZ-0 SF f S? An;`'z c= (TK -5) - '!0 A .�� S:• 6,958.99128,967.80 = 24.02% 377.08 SF (6,958.99 - 377.08) / 28,967.80 = 22.72% 6' I i I litz m U Q1 6' I i I