Loading...
PZC Packet 0621940 PLANNING AND TONING COMMISSION STAFF REk.oRT June 21, 1994 Lot 44, Block 4, W'ildridge Subdivision Baca Residence Condition of Approval --Color PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WIT_I ZONfNG7 YES INTRODUCTION': Bruce Baca has submitted revised colors, as requested by the Commission, for his residence on Lot 44, Block 4. STAFF COMMENTS A color sample will be provided at the meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a condition of approval, Staff has no recommendation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Rk4 Mary Holde Town Planner PLANNING AND aONtNG COMMISSION STAFF REiORT June 21, 1994 Lot 44, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Baca Residence Condition of Approval --Color PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (-') Approved with re:ommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 2/ Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission granted approval for the proposed colors as submitted PLANNING AW NING COM* IISSION June 21, 1994 Tract AA Mountain Star Sign Final Design Review -Directional Sign PROJECT TYPE: Directional Sign ZONING: PUD COMPLIES %kgTH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Rick Pylman has submitted an application for Final Design Review approval of a directional sign for Mountain Star subdivision at Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads. Following is a description of the sign: ■ Boulder standing approximately 4 1/2' high; ■ Etched arrow and 34" etched letters; ■ Spruce and aspen trees surrounding the sign; and ■ Low level lighting to be hidden by potentilla bushes. STAFF COMMENTS: The sign will be located on Tract AA, which is not owned by Mountain Star. Therefore, Staff is requiring written approval from the owner of Tract AA. "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 --olors 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 r.retal, 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, ar- 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. Al PLANNING AND i3ONING COMMISSION June 21, 1994 Tract AA Mountain Star Sign Final Design Review -Directional Sign 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 fi-ee-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 gr=ater 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 61 ound level. Section 1 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 s;te upon which it is to be located: Conunent: The sign material is consistent with the vicinity theme of Mountain Star. B. The nature of adjaceit and neighboring improvements: Comment: The sign is compatible with adjacent and neighboring improvements. 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. PLANNING AND z ONING COMMISSION June 21, 1994 Tract AA Mountain Star Sign Final Design Review -Directional Sign 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. 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. The size of the letters may make the sign difficult to read. S'T'AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the 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 TONING COMMISSION June 21. 1994 Tract AA Mountain Star Sign Final Design Review -Directional Sign PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (' Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 2 / Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission granted approval for the Mountain Star Entry Sign as submitted. 40m all 011 L_. I K O L_. I a a Z �Y 9 i -aiJ w -v +-4 �9 ]Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report June 21, 1994 Lot 16 Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision Special Review Ilse, Home Occupation PROJECT TYPE: Special Review Use -Public Hearing ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES This is a Public Hearing for an in home occupation for Lot 16, Filing 1, F.aglebend Subdivision. INTROUI'C'TION Mr. Gary Finley, the owner and applicant, is requesting approval for a Special Review Use to operate a home business. The proposed business is interiors design There will be no clients coming to the residence, there are no employees working for him and the delivery and storage of large items take place at Columbine Moving and Storage. STAFF COMMENTS Following are the criteria, as listed in Section 17.48 040, to consider for approval of a special review use: A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning cede; COMMENTThe proposed home occupation complies with the definition of home occupation, which includes: the use is incidental and subordinate to the use of the dwelling unit as residence, does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential character of th,, neighborhood; and, doi:s not require or allow employees to work on the property B Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan, COMMFNT The proposed home occupation conforms with the comprehensive plan Specifically, Goal #Al, which states "Ensure that all lard uses are located in appropriate locations with appropriate controls " and Goal #B2 which states, "Enhance the Town's role as a principal, year-round residential and commercial center in the Vail Valley " The home occupation will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will promote a year round service commercial activity C Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Such compatibility may be expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features, site design, and the control of any adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safetv, etc Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report June 21, 1994 Lot 16 Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision Special Review Use, Home Occupation COMMENT: The proposed use will not generate additional vehicular traffic, the facade of the residence is not changing and no signs are being proposed since clients do not visit Mr. Finley at his residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Resolution 94-11 with amendments as deemed appropriate by the Commission. Following are the findings and conditions in Resolution 94-11. Findings: 1. The proposed use complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code. 2. The proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan. 3. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Conditions: 1. The building retain it's residential character by not installing any business signage on the property or the building. 2. No employees are allowed to work on the property. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report June 21. 1994 Lot 16 Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision Special Review Use, Home Occupation PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (V Approved with modified conditions (\4 Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( j DatSue Railton, Secretary_ The Commission .ranted approval for Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-11, A Resolution Granting A SPecial Review Use to Allow A Home Occupation On Let lb, FiIiFagl b na S,bdivision citing the following findings and with the following conditions. A. The proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code. B. The proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the comprehensive plan. C. The proposed use is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and uses in the area. CONDITIONS 1. No employees are allowed to work on the property. 2. The building retain its residential -haracter by not allowing any business signage on the property or building. 3. This Special Review Use Permit be reviewed in six months. 9_2LILEY INTERIORS, INC. TOWN OF AVON COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT ATTN: MARY HOLDEN AS AN INTERIOR DESIGNER MY WORK HAS TWO MAIN DIRECTIONS. CONSULTATION WITH CLIENTS, AND THE SUPPLING OF HOME FURNISHINGS. MOST OF THE WORK I DO IS RESIDENTAL DESIGN. THE MEETINGS WITH CLIENTS ARE GENERALLY AT THE CLIENTgS RESIDENCE, A LOCAL SUPPLY HOUSE OR AT A PUBLIC RESTURANT. THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE FROM DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, WHEN I BEGAN OFFICING FROM MY HOME IN EDWARDS, COLORADO. AS FURNITURE IS DELIVERED AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY AND REQUIRES A GOOD DEAL OF HANDLING AND STORAGE, I USE COLUMBINE MOVING AND STORAGE AS A RECEIVING DOCK. REGARDING THE IN HOUSE USE FOR MY OCCUPATION, IN THAT I AM A SINGLE PERSON OPERATION, WITH NO EMPLOYEE, MY BOOKKING AND PAPER WORK IS DONE BY MYSELF. WITH THE EVER CHANGING NATURE OF THE BUSINESS I UTILIZE THE SHOWROOMS IN DENVER FOR SAMPLING AND RESOURCES. I DO KEEP ONE BOOKCASE WHERE I STORE CATALOGS AND SOME FABRIC SAMPLES. WITH THE SCOPE OF THE ACTIVITY I HAVE WITH MY BUSINESS, AWAY FROM MY HOME, AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT TAKES PLACE WITH -IN THE HOUSE THERE IS LITTLE IF ANY IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY. RESPECTFULI,Y�SU MITTED, � GAARSR .F _ F VAIL, CO - 303-390-1112 • TULSA, OK - 918-749-9900 • P.O. BOX 750 • AVON. CO 81620 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, Co. 81620 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, Christine M. Morrison P.O. BQ 9 Avon, Co "--- June 1P,.F1 N,,FD JUN 2 ,1 1994 TOWN OF AVON This letter is to file a written statement regarding the request of the property owner Gary Finley of Lot 16, Eaglebend Subdivision, Filing 2, for use of the property to serve as a home office as well as a residence. I am a property owner on Eaglebend drive and have lived there three years. I am writing to protest this request. I feel the use of the property as a business would be a detriment to this residential neighborhood. It will bring mere traffic to an already increased traffic way. There are also quite a few children around and traffic at this time seems to be Soing above the speed limit and a business on this street will onl-j add to the lack of safety for the children and to the increased traffic flow on the already busy street. I have moved into this neighborhood for it to be a quiet res_dential street not a business district. The lot in question, #16, also shares a driveway with 2 other homes and the area already looks like a parking lot as there are many vehicles parked there, I counted seven yes- terday. With a business there and more cars parking there it will be even more unsightly than it is now. I hope the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider very carefully before allowing a home office on Eaglebend Drive in their representation of the taxpayers of Avon. Sincerely Yours, Christine M. Morrison wA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 21. 1994 Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision (Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge) Spiegel/Tracey Duplex Variance - Side Yard Setback PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD -- Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? No, Requires a Variance to Side Yard Setback Requirements 'this is a Public Hearing for a variance to the front yard setback on Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision. INTRODUCTION: Chris Spiegel is requesting a variance to the 10' side yard setback for the allowance of a 2.6' encroachement. The request, based on the application for a variance, is due to improper piq placement by surveyors and continuing construction of the residence based on the placement of the pins. STAFF COMMENTS: One comer of the building, as constructed, encroaches 2.6' into the side yard setback of the northern lot line. Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Section 17.36.40. Appro, .. •ri A. The relationship of i:,: requt=ted variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vici Comment: The requested variance is in keeping with the surrounding uses and structures in the area. B. The degree to which „m 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 2.6' 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. Comment. The effect of the request will have no negative impacts on light, air, population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities or public safety. 0^ ok% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 21. 1994 Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision (Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge) Spiegel/Tracey Duplex Variance - Side Yard Setback ID. 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 obj^ctives 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: Staff recommendation is for approval of Resolution No. 94-12 , A Resolution Approving a Variance from the Side Yard Setback Requirements, as Stipulated in Title 17 of the Avon municipal Code for Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. If following the public hearing, the Commission does not concur with the findings, Resolution 94-12 should be amended accordingly prior to adoption. FINDINGS: A fhat the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity G:" PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 21. 1994 Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision (Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge) Spiegel/Tracey Duplex Variance - Side Yard Setback B. That the gra.sing 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: 1. 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. 2. 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 same district. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review G Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 21, 1994 Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision (Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge) Spiegelll racey Dur;',ex Variance - Side Yard Setback PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Apprcved as submitted ( -�) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-12, A Resolution Approving A Variance From The Side Yard Setback Requirements As Stipulated In Title 17 Of The Avon Municipal Code, For 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. 1. 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. 2. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges by the owners of other properties in the same nistrict. W TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 12 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION APPRO VING A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 2, FOXX 4 SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON_ EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Chris Spiegel and Oreg Tracey, owners of Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision have applied for a setb2Ck variance from the "Side Yard Building Setback" requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Aeon, 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 ipformation and reports regarding the proposed Side Yard Building Setback Variance application and has considered: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and the vicinity, 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement's of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, 4. Such other factors and criteria as the 11ontmission deems applicable to the proposed SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 2, FOXX 4 SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Chris Spiegel and Greg Tracey, owners of Lot 2 , Foxx 4 Subdivision have appli,d for a setback variance from the "Side Yard Building Setback" requirements as stipulated in Title 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 regarding the proposed Side Yard Building Setback Variance application and has considered. I . The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and the vicinity, 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement's of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distrihulion of population, I ransportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, 4. Such other factors and .riteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed hT. UM I T614 #"A WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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 same district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a the 2.6' setback variance from the north "Side Yard Building SeL,ack" requirement vi Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County Colorado and further shown on Attachment A. ADOPTED TMS _DAY OF 7Lz�—Z- 1994 Secretary welfare, or materially injurious to pioperties or improvements in the vicinitq C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following ; easons: 1. The strict or litera! interpretation and enforcement of ;he regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title,. 2. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regi lation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a the 2.6' setback variance from the north "Side Yard Building Setback" requirement of Title 17 of th- Avon Municipal Code for Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County Colorado and further shown on Attachment A. ADOPTED TI IIS DAY OF —.— _1994 Secretary Chai an RM 1 M02J?§� OVO& (loom log) IM 1S3M /YZFJVU n / 0 / i N v f� ~s10 H U Q �`OmOpO RO P� X51 C�] June 16, 1994 To whom it may concern: rdl The intent of thie letter in to identify and remedy a problem that involves four parties: Chris Spiegel, owner/builder of Lot 2 Block 5 Wildridge, Frank Kirschner, owner of Lot 3 Block 5 Wildridge, Peter Kyle, potential purchaser of Lot 3 Block 5 Wildridge, and the Town of Avon. Specifically the problem we are discussing was caused by Chris Spiegel's negligence in constructing a duplex building on Lot 2 Block 5 Wildridge since last August, and the Town of Avon's involvement and procedures in allowing him to proceed in a haphazard manner. As a result, Chris Spiegel damaged Frank Kirschner's property, and built his building within a clearly defined setback to the common property boundary running between Lots 2 and 3. Now we are all facing a variance request hearing on Tuesday, June 21Bt. As you will see when you read the enclosed package of memos, Frank Kirschner, Peter Kyle, and Sally Brainerd (the architect hired by Peter Kyle) all tried to notify the Town of Avon that we saw problems and potential problems occurring, but to no avail. Chris Spiagel has acknowledged, through his lawyer, that he did in fact make a mistake and he did, in fact, violate the Town of Avon's building cede. In any event, the damage is done and all parties involved with this problem must come to an agreement as to how to resolve the problem. We feel that making Chris Spiegel relocate his iuplex building to comply with the setback code may be a bit extreme. Also, we would prefer that he did not chop off the required amount of building to meet the code, as this might not be structurally Bound and, certainly, would not be an improvement in the architectural style of the building. We would support a variance for Chris Spiegel, if he and the Town of Avon would agree to certain conditions. Here are those conditions: Chris Spiegel agrees to Bet aside, in escrow, sufficient funds to be used to plant trees along the common property boundary between Lots 2 and 3. A total of twenty (20) tees shall be planted, consisting of ten (10) evergreens eight (S) fret or larger, and ten (10) aspens two -and - half inch (2 1/2'') caliper or larger. These trees are to be planted during the landscaping phase of construction of the Big Sky Townhomes (Lot 3 Block 5 Wildridge). The estimated time of landscaping on the project is now Spring of 1995. The enclosed materials contain information in the form of memos from Frank Kirschner, Peter Kyle and Sally Brainerd. They describe meetings and conversations between us and various people at the Town of Avon. a Hopefully the result of all of this will be to prevent anything like this happening to anyone else again. The extra work, cost, and headaches that we have all suffered as a result of Chris Spiegel's construction process could easily have been avoided. We realize that the staff at the Town of Avon has been shorthanded and overwhelmed during this time, and that Chris Spiegel is inexperienced when it comes to general contracting a project, but we have been the innocent victims. `eel that we sincerely tried to make the Town of Avon aware of problems, but were either ignored or told that the Town -'would take care of everything." We are asking now that the Town of Avon and Chris Spiegel take care of the problem by planting trees that will buffer the impact of his building being too close to Lot 3. We think this is in the best interests of Chris Spiegel, the Town of Avon, us, and the general public. With Chris Spiegel's and the Town of Avon's cooperation we believe this situation can be resolved to the satisfaction of e,reryone involved. Thank ou. Si sly , (n Fr nk Kirschner n , Peter Kyle i Sal Braierd r" Big Sky Townhontes Memo Summary of contacts regarding neighboring property. Sally Brainerd, Project Architect October, 1993 - Site visit to the property with Peter Kyle. At this time, we noticed that the excavation of the neighboring property encroached onto the Big Sky property. By lining up the property corners, both pins of which are still intact, it was quite clear that the Big Sky property had been disturbed. November 15, 1993 - 10:00 A.M. Meeting with Mary Holden in a mec:ti.ig to discuss process, submittal requirements, zoning issues, etc. In a follow-up phone conversation with Mary, I brought to her attention the fact that the neighboring property owner seemed to have done some over -excavation onto the Big Sky Townhomes property, (the project was called Valley View Townhomes at that time.) I asked if the Town of Avon would be able to ensure, through a landscap.- deposit or through withholding T.C.O., that the cut onto our property would be restored to its natural state. Mary said that there had been problems with this property already, and that they were watc,iing the project carefully. She mentioned a bond which, because of the previous problems, the property owner had been required to post in order to get a building permit. February 3, 1994 - 2:00 p.m. Meeting with Mary Holden and Steve of the Town of Avon, Peter Kyle and myself. I had some zoning issues to discuss with Mary and Steve, and the purrose for Peter's attendance was to again raise the issue of the neighbor's over -excavation onto the Big Sky property. The planners again mentioned that the neighbor's project had already had several problems, and that they were monitoring it carefully. They told us that they would contact the owner of the property, Chris Spiegel, and inform him of his responsibility to re -vegetate he area of the Big Sky property which had been disturbed. We discussed the fact that we could not be sure where the building wall would be, as it had not been built yet. February, 1994 - Phone conversation with Frank Kirschner. Peter Kyle, as the prospective purchaser of the Big Sky property had contacted the owner, Frank, to inform him of our observation that the neighbor had cut onto his property. Frank told me that he had contacted the town, and that he had been assured by them that the bond posted by the neighbor would be sufficient insurance that his property would be revegetated. .41-% June 15, 1994 Notes about my property, Lot 3 Block 5 Wildridge, 1030 W. Wildridge Rd. Avon Frank Kirschner These notes summarize three conversations I had with people from the Town of Avon. All conversations were regarding my property, and the next door neighbors (Lot 2 Block 5 Wildridge), who began construction during the summer of 1993. 1. July or early August 1993. I talked to Rick Pyleman, Town of Avon planner. I told him that no one had contacted me and that someone, probably the guys building on the next door lot, had dumped a huge pile of dirt on my property. I wanted to know if I owned the dirt. At the time I was selling my property and I did not want a pile of dirt on the property because it would not show well. Rick indicated that the people building there were "do-it-yourselfers" and displayed alot of amatuerism in the whole process. I was concerned that they were damaging my property. Rick said that he would do something about it. I wanted an assurance as a taxpayer that the Town of Avon would take care of the matter. I don't know when they removed the dia, but I think that it was there all the way through the summer, fall, and part of the winter of '93-'94. 2. February 1994. I went to the Town of Avon offices and had a conversation with Charlette. First we talked about our kids and Barb, a mutual friend. I was there to let her and the Town of Avon know that there was still a problem with the neighboring lot. They seemed to have excavated onto my property. I wanted assurances that something would be done. My property was under contract and the purchasers had been coming to me saying that they would not close until they were assured that everything was in order and legal in terms of the problem with the neighboring lot. Charlette told me that the Town of Avon was aware of"what was going on and was in full control". She also told me ''tat there had been alot of problems with this construction amateur. She told me that the Town of Avon had a bond and provisions to make the owners revegatate and restore my property back to its original condition. 3 February 1994. I talked to Joe McGrath at the Town of Avon over the phone at icigth. I wanted to know what the Town of Avon building department was doing to protect my rights as a taxpayer and a landowner in the Town of Avon. I was upset that nothing was being done even though I had already talked to people several times before. We discussed the bond issue and he guaranteed me that the Town of Avon had a bond for the project. He assured me that everything would be corrected. The Town of Avon would remedy any land dispute. He also assured me that he would look personally into the matter. I made several other calls at other times and never received any calls back. Now we have a major problem because the building built on lot 2, next to my property, is too close to the property line. This should never have happened, because I tried to tell people at the Town of Avon that these guys had been dumping dirt and cutting onto my property right from the beginning. Now I'm really upset and it's costing me. Am aft February 3, 1994 Memo Re: Big Sky Townhomes, Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Meeting with Mary Holden and Steve, director of. Planning, along with Sally Brainerd, in the offices in Avon, to clarify the procedure for determining roof heights. After settling on the correct procedures for determining our proper roof heights, we inquired as to the statue of the project next to us (Lot 2, Block 5). Specifically, we asked about rumors we'd heard that they excavated without a permit. Also, we were very concerned that they had dumped dirt and possibly cut onto the propsrty we were to be building on. We were told they had approved plane, permits, and that procedurally at that time they were O.K. We reiterated that we would like the own of Avon to look into our concern about the dirt and possible cut. We also asked if the town h -id some sort of landscape deposit on hand from the owners of Lot 2, Block 5, in the case that they would have to repair any damage they might have done to Lot 3, Block 5. were told by Mary Holden that the Town of Avon had a -'bond'' that required the owners to finish landscaping. We were told by Mary Holden that she would get in touch with the developers/builders to notify them of our concerns and get assurances that they would eventually take care of the dirt. March 1994 Memo Re, Big Sky, Lot 3, Block 5 Visited Lot 3 Block 5 for inspection. Located property corner pine. Eyed property line between Lots 2 and 3. Appears visually that the cut on Lot 2 encroaches over the property line into Lot 3. Talked with Mary Holden. Concerned about neighboring property (Lot 2, Block 5). Appears as if they have cut onto Lot 3, Block 5. Also talked with owner, Frank Kirschner. Plan to go out to the site and string it.. Wanted to make Town of Avon aware that we are very sure neighbors have cut into our property. Mary suggested I contact the guy in charge, Chrib Spiegel. I indicated that I was not the owner, and that I and the owner preferred that the Town of Avon take care of it. Mary said she wou;.d talk to Chris. a March 1994 Memo Re: Big Sky, Lot 3 Block 5 Talked with Mary Holden. She said she'd talked v.ith Chris Spiegel and that he felt that he was O.K. with his cut for the cor:ier of the house. Said that the cut was within the property boundary. (At this point the house was framed, dirt previously on the property was gone). 77 April 1994 Memo Re: Big Sky, Lot 3, Block 5 Met with Frank Kirschner, owner, at Lot 3, Block 5. Located property boundary pine and strung a line between pira bordering Lot 2 and Lut 3. Upor_ visual inspection we both determined that the cut in question was indeed onto Lot 3 (by approximately 5-10 feet). Measured the distance from the property boundary to the house on Lot 2 and determined that the house was approximately six and a half feet from the property boundary. Very concerned that the house built on Lot 2 is inside the 10' setback requiremant. Talked with Mary Holden, addressing our concerns. Decided to set up a meeting wifn Mary, myself, Chris Spiegel and Frank Kirschner on the site so that everyone could see the situation. April 1994 Re: Big Sky, Lot 3, Block 5 Had a meeting at Lots 2 and 3, Block 5. Present were Mary Holden, Peter Ryle, Frank Kirschner, and Chris Spiegel. Although Mary and Chris believed the upper property corner (the southeast adjoining corner by the road) was further over towards Lot 4, Chris and I located the property pin (the pin to which the string was attached). Upon determining that this was most ll.kely the correct point, and being told by Frank that it was, we all came to the conclusion that Chris had cut into Lot 3 while excavating. Further, Frank and I pointed out that the house on Lot 2 was within the setback. We demonstrated this by measu_ing from the property line to the house with a tape measure. Everyone decided that in order to be sure, we would wait to see the updated survey, which would show the exact location of the property in relation to the property line. Then we co..ld proceed from there. Frank and I could not quite understand how the house could have been laid out and actually built where it was, so far into the setback (approximately 3 and one half feet). The situation had gone from some dirt being piled onto Franke property, (which Frank was never notified about or asked permission for), to his property being damaged by a large cut, to his prope-ty being damaged by the fact that the neighboring house had been built within the setback between the common property line. Were told by Mary that it should not be like '_hie; that the Town of Avon had approved plans for the house to be located 10 f,:et from the property line, at the minimum setback requirement. Were told by Chris that they had to stay back from an easement on the other side of the property (the southern part). Chris apologized and indicated that he would help us out. Intended to mitigate the problem by allowing us acceue over his property for construction of our buildings, agreed to regrade the cut, revegetate the disturbed property on Lot 3, and plant native grasses, shrubs, and trees. We all agread that we would wait for the official survey and that anything that might be done (i.e. landscaping along the common boundary) would beet be done when we were ready to wrap up our project in the spring of 1995. April 1994 Re: Big Sky, Lot 3 Block 5 Talked with Chris Spiegel. Chris said that the survey showed that the property line was where we thought it had been and that they had cut into Lot 3 and had also built too close. Did not specify how far into the setback the house was. Admitted he had made a mistake and that they were now working to get a variance for his Lot. Talked with Mary Holden to make sure she was aware of the setback violation. She was, and said that she knew Chris was going to have to go through the variance process. Said that the date of the meeting for variance would be June 21st, 1994. I asked her about the process, and she said that if no neighbors objected, a variance would most likely be granted. Told her our concerns that our property value had been damaged by the setback violation. ''rs April 1994 Re: Big Sky, Lot 3 Block 5 AMN Talked with Chris Williams at Johnson, Kunkel & Associates surveying company. Asked him about Lot 2, Block 5. Kc told me that they had moved the location of the building during .layout. He said that they wsce concerned about an easement on one side of the property, and the, drive area being very close to a steep grade on another side of the property. They decided to move the building over towards Lot 3. He said he was aware that they were close to the setback with Lot 3, and ma• have even been within the setback. area. Apparently they did not thouroughly or accurately survey the corner of the building to the property line. He said that in fact there are no real clear or stringent guidelines for setbacks in the Town of Avon. (I waa very surprised to hear him say this). He said that this kind of thing (building into setbacks) happens all the time in Wildridge. He said that it was an easy process to get a variance and that the Town of Avon would probably approve the variance change that he was in the process of drawing up. t All PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 21, 1994 Lot 96, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final 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 Final Design Review of a duplex on Lot 96, Block I. Wildridge The lot is .46 acres in size. The duplex will contain three levels. The duplex will consist of the following materials: The landscape plan includes the following: ,Aspen 4 1 1/2-2" cal. Cottonles; Cottonwd. 2 2" cal. Spruce 2 6-8' high Potentilla Mix 3 5 gallon Alpine Currant 12 5 gallon Buffalc Juniper 2 5 gallon Sod is being proposed in certain areas and dative grasses and flower seed in the other areas. Irrigation is not being proposed REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at their May 17, 1994 meeting and had the following comments i driveway grades, ■ width of the driveway from the entrance to where it opens up to paved areas, 0 type of roof, and Materials Colors Roof asphalt shingles brown Siding NA Other stucco beige Fascia cedar natural Soffits cedar natural Window clad bronze Window Trim built up I x4 stucco beige Door clad 'ironze Door Trim built up 1 x4 stucco beige The landscape plan includes the following: ,Aspen 4 1 1/2-2" cal. Cottonles; Cottonwd. 2 2" cal. Spruce 2 6-8' high Potentilla Mix 3 5 gallon Alpine Currant 12 5 gallon Buffalc Juniper 2 5 gallon Sod is being proposed in certain areas and dative grasses and flower seed in the other areas. Irrigation is not being proposed REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at their May 17, 1994 meeting and had the following comments i driveway grades, ■ width of the driveway from the entrance to where it opens up to paved areas, 0 type of roof, and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'une 21. 1994 Lot 96, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review A entry ways under deck. STAFF COMMENTS: he first 20' of the driveway may not exceed 4%. A construction fence will be required on site prior to any site disturbance since grading is shown from side property to side property line. This is to avoid any encroachments onto adjacent properties. The landscape plan must meet minimum Town standards which the applicant has agreed to comply with the standards. The formal landscape plan should include native bu,hes for revegetation of the disturbed areas. Slopes in excess of 2.1 are not allowed and there appear to be slopes on the site exceeding this limit. Drainage still appears to be a problem behind the building, which must be resolved pnoi to the application for a building permit The west elevation is indicating the building to ba 35' high, which is the maximum allowed. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The ('ommission 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 up)n which it is to be located. Comment The type and quality of pr)posed building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines and the Wildridge 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. nQ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION S7 AFF REPORT June 21, 1994 Lot 96, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review Comment: All impacts will be contained on site. The compatiWity of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment: The design is compatible with 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 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. Comrnent: 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. I . The first 20' of the driveway may not exceed 4% grade. 2. Finished slopes may not exceed 2: 1. 3. A construction fence be placed on site and the location approved by Staff prior to any site disturbance. 4 The building may not exceed 35' high 5 The drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the application for a building permit. 6 Meters be placed on the building 7 All Flues, tlashings and vents have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building. 8. Colors be called out on the plans submitted for a building permit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 21, 1994 Lot 96, Block 1, Wiidridge Subdivision Duplex Final DrAgn Review 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING ANY) ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (4 Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date L`` ` �1 / Sue Railton, Secretary �- Ll The Commission granted final design review approval with the followi TI. 1. The first 20' of the driveway may not exceed 4'Y grade. 2. Finished slopes may not exceed 2:1. 3. A construction fence be placed on site and the location approved by Staff prior to any site disturbance. 4. The building height may not exceed 35'. 5. The drainage plan be approved by Town Engineer prior to the appli- cation for a building permit. 6. Meters be placed on the building. 7. 411 flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building. 8. Colors be called out on the pains for a building permit. 9. An alternative lower level, below the belly band, treatment be brought back for approval and it be put on the consent agenda. over PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Mr Kevin Cooke Lot 96, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Page 2 10. A strong recommendation that an automatic system be added. F • •1 J.. e i �"" O F • •1 N � tl a �. � p�, • -� �. � a i / 1 � �. � p�, • -� s e 04 New Horizon Con6troctloo Z Development, Inc. 2077 North Frontage Road West a Suite 103B a Vail, CO 81657 a FAX 303.476.3889 6 Tel 303.476.2056 0 Town of Avon Design Review Board Re: Lot 96, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Cooke Duplex Exterior Finishes Roofing - Timberline, Slate Blend Stucco - La Habra Stucco, X-86, Sandstone Lighting - Islander, K-9246, Architectural Bronze ISLANDER Contemporary outdoor lighting with a budget in mind. raalaar FNM , 1ar54 oYwuom �� ..n K-6266 MNNCWnI&ava t -R-00. 7Sw. Mo. IMI Hot r, Wxan 4%'. E~o,nr 3' • K-6244 Elam 1.8.38. 75-W. Mo. (M) Hot r, Wtltn 4'f', Ev8r r 3' K-6224 WhN 1-R-30. 75 W Max. IMl Hirt. r, Wialn 4%'. Ene n r 3' K-6226 N 110 Wral lif u 1 -R -a8. 156W. Max. IMI Hot 9., Wgtn 6-. E uin B%' TV • K-6226 Bt" 1.940, 1W -W. Mv. (MI Hot. 9'. Wxhn W. Ext n n B9' 3'R K-11=6 Wh1M 1-R-46, IS W Mo IMI Hot. 9-, WIa F, U& -von 814' 314' -OK-02" MMilatlmal Bmnza 2 -R -W1. 75-W. Mo. IMI Hirt 12'. Width AT, Exiomon r 6' ♦K-6244 Main 2-R-30, 7SW. Max. (M) Hot 12, Width 4%-. EN6r6an r 6' 4K-6244 wh96 2-R-30. 75-W. Max. IMI Mg 1T. Wd1h 4'.C. Exiro r 6' •69.6244 ArVIiMWaM en=9 2 -R -40.150-W. Mw. (M) Hot. 15'. WAR!, F. En. B%' 76' Y K-9244 616rk 2 -RSO, I WK Mo. (M) Hot is% WE1h 6'. Enanvon all' rf' aK-2266 lMN 241J. 1%W. Max. IMI Hot. 1 S. WNN T. Extemmn 8V rV K46a4 11181* Haat r 'l olao 016 AV. HO V For. aM K-924 all MM 9-6626 Blas Hon rnwa- gi. Dia. 6'. Hot%' Far uaa r K -92x6 all an6haa 9.9644 Bloc% Row oro paha Dia 4%-. Hg1.:' Far w 440119234 aM K-924 atl INIr:l4! 9.6666 &6rk FiasY irroavM aatA6 Ola W. Hot. 2K' Far w rM K-3238. K-9246 Y finana6 aK-4426 Who R-30. 7SW. Mo. (M) Ole, 4W. V. 6K' O U A K N I N E & S O N I N C Vail Horizon Associates 6 Wildridge Horizon Associates a Cordillera Horizon Associates .-, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 21. 1994 Lot 24, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Avon Plaza Final Design Review PROJECT'iYPE: RetaiLOffice ZONING: SC, Shopping Center COMPLIES WITH ZONING) YES INTRODUCTION: Jerry Dokken, on behalf of Tim Garton and Kim Peterson, has submitted an application for final design review for 19,529 gross square feet of retail and office space The project will consist of two buildings on Lot 24. A portion of both buildings will contain a second level. This second levels will have a total of 4,998 square feet of office. 1 -he highest building point is approximately 36'. The site plan indicates 76 parking spaces, which meets the requirement for this project Building lighting will be down lights under canopy at sidewalks and Avon standard lights in the parking area. The proposed buildings will consist of the following materials. Sod is proposed in sidewalk areas and native grass seed elsewhere A drip irrigation system is proposed REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application at the .April 5, 1994 Planning and Zoning meeting and had the following r�mments Material Color Roof metal terra cotta Siding synthetic stucco deep beige #I Other stucco deep beige #2 Fascia synthetic stucco deep beige #I Soffits MA Windot; store front glass bronze Window Trim " Doors store front -lass bronze Flashings metal terra cotta Trash Enclosures wood/metal stain to match stucco The landscape plan consists of the following Aspen S4 1 1/2-2" caliper- Spruce/Lodgepole 7 6 Potentilla ° I gallon Sod is proposed in sidewalk areas and native grass seed elsewhere A drip irrigation system is proposed REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application at the .April 5, 1994 Planning and Zoning meeting and had the following r�mments _\ COO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 21, 1994 Lot 24, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Avon Plaza Final Design Review ■ alignment with Christie Lodge makes sense; • think about honoring pedestrian mall concept; ■ favorable review of towers; ■ site drainage toward liquor store; ■ snow storage, ■ size of sidewalk along buildings; Y dumpster location being prominent; ■ loading space prominent; ■ treatment of all sides of building; ■ too much building; ■ colors stand out, and ■ restaurant use and parking. STAFF COMMENTS: Lot 24, Block 2 is located in the: 1. Shopp;ng Center Zone District; 2. Comprehensive Plan Subarea 15, 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. The plans reflect primary streetscape development, with the exception that the sidewalk needs to be 6' minimum width. The site plan shows the western entrance into the site off set from Christie Lodge. Staff is requesting the entrance to line up with the existing entrance across the street. Further, Staff is suggesting one entrance for the site, tha! is widened to include three lanes, one of them being a left turn lane out of the site. The landscape material must meet the minimum Town stand^rds, which is 2" caliper for deciduous trees and 5 gallons f -r shrubs. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consie er 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. r PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 21, 1994 Lot 24, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Avon Piaza Final Design Review The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to bt 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 imp to adjacent properties. Comment: All impacts will be contained on site. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment. The design is compatible with 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 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 conforinance 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. TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application with the following conditions: I. The entrance align with the existing Christie Lodge entrance across E. Beaver Creek Blvd. 2. The landscape plant material meet the minimum Town of Avon standards. 3. The meters be placed on the buildings. 4. Flues, flashing and vents have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the buildings. 5. The sidewalk be a minimum of G in width. �'1 l PLANNING AND —ONING COMMISSION STAFF RE. )RT June 21, 1994 Lot 24, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Avon Plaza Final Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted 11/q eA- I 1-r 1'IeAI1-r Mary Bolden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (!iJ Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ; Conceptual, No Action Date G.� 2� ,yESue Railton, Secretary Mail f3Ad1 t''.:�gn ravia�_ conditions: 1. The entrance align. wihri th the existing Cstie Lodge entrance acrosc eaver Creek Blvd. 2. The landscape plant material meet the minimum Town of Avon standards. e me ens e p ace on t o buildings. 4. Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building. 5_ Tho cirlawali, K. o ..c r, 6. The landscape plan be brought back when the road access is established 7. The drainage on the property be cleared up prior to the issuance of a building permit. Ki I i NV -1d 1N3WdO13A30 lVNM - VZVld NOAV ' � I r � a BUILDING "B" - SOUTH B4EVATION ZING "B" - SOUT i EVAT'ION M ��2 z 0 a LU LU a w m 0 -4 5-e m� f r r f �n f M J y i 0 i 1- �...�, •�. Z. fi .. •. W. r 'O v i Q .� �� t � Q M� i W � m @ ` 1- �...�, •�. Z. fi .. •. W. r 'O v i Q .� �� t � Q M� i W � m I L w Imin I L w op LLI mi W 1 • s z 0 �o D I_ cf) LSI C) z ..J E0 39ad S950L9zEOE 9E:51 V) ter P661/LT/90 PLANNING AN, LONING COMMISSION STAFF RL: ORT June 21, 1994 Lot 23, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Miller Residence Final Design Review -Modifications PROJECT TYPE: Single Family Residence ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Todd and Linda Miller have submitted an application for modifications to their site plan, which consist of the following: 1. The addition of a dog house on the west side of the residence_. which matches the existing material of the : esidence; 2. The addition of lattice extending from the bottom of their deck to the ground, 3 The elimination of the second drive area, 4. Driveway width totaling 1 T, with I Y of concrete and 2' rock shoulders on each side; 5. 15' x 18' hammerhear, on the east portion of the site to be left with road base, and 6. Revised landscape ohm (the origin and proposed list have been attached). STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has been working with Staff concerning all the issues surrounding the property. Currently, the applicant has removed all dead plant material, except for one, which the landscaper will be replacing; various construction material has been removed from the lot., the northern portion of the driveway, except foi the hammerhead, h-, been paved, and ;he second drive area has been revegetated with native seed mix and block so it mry not be used 'I he applicant would like a zeroscape landscape plan, which would consist of native plant ma:erral, however, 'here is e•-isting plant material, which reflect the revised plan. Fo:iciwing are the revisions to the plan The sod area is remaining tl:e same, which is sod seed and not rolied sod. Original Proposed Pinion Pine (4-6) 9 1 Ser. iceberry (5 gal y 9 4 Blue Spruce (5-T) ? 6 Aspen (8-10') 7 3 Pinion rine (3') 4 0 Narrow Leaf Cottonwood 3 3 (8-i0) Cedar (24) 0 2 Potentiila (3 gal ` 0 7 The sod area is remaining tl:e same, which is sod seed and not rolied sod. PLANNING ANL ,6ONING COMMISSION STAFF RL- JRT June 21, 1994 Lot 23, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Miller Residence Final Design Review -Modifications The applicant does not wish to provide an irrigation system at this time and therefore, is not proposing a system. The applicant wishes to place lattice from the bottom of the deck to the ground which would screen the underneath of the deck. The applicant will provide a rendering at the meeting. The 15' x 18' area to be left with road base will be snow storage area. There is adequate turnaround without this area being paved. G1 IOU 2 a,,] 311113d IU U31la 17:T Fromm Should the Planning and Zoning Commission feel the requested modificat'ons are appropriate, Staff recommend the approval as presented. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Holden I own Planner PLANNING ANL GONIING COMMISSION STAFF RL. ORT June 21. 1994 Lot 23, Block 1, W'ildridge Subdivision Miller Residence Final Design Review -Modifications PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approv_d as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (✓} Approved with modified conditions ( ) Contin,ted ( ) D:nied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date -2! ! _Sue Railton, Secretary_ TheCommission granted final design review approval as—fnllnwc• 1. The dog house either be remodeled or removed. 2. The addition of lattice extending from the buttum of the deck to the ground. 3. Tne eliminat'on of the second drive area. 4. riveway wt t totaling 17 with 1 o concrete and 2' rock shoulders on each gide. S. 15' X 13' hammerhead on the east portion of the site to be left vith road base. 6. In the revised landscape plan, an addition that some flat stones be placed at the end of the hammerhead and be seeded to stop erosion an! make it look presentable. c W 7 w W ' yam, u '•4 S_ j 1 ui p�p�1111 1Y h W - D it I I ahl'��f }lu W _'i t �� `v � ✓L. �' r %� JI 1����� I I ...��1�' i 111Y1���11�' �r � � - - �� I 11 I 3 is do �� �I �� .- I � -I i•� '� n� til �,� � J q � I, �r