Loading...
PZC Packet 090694ilIN1 PLANNING AN v ZONTNt ' COMMISSION STAFF ii—PORT September 5, 1994 Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Olson Residence Final Design Review Modification of Color PROJECT TYPE: Single Family Residence ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES _ J INTRODUCTION: Mr. Olson has submitted an additional trim color to be applied on his residence. He received approval for a body and trm color on August 2, 1994. The additional trim color is proposed to be a dark green. The proposed color scheme will be a gray body with white and dark green trim. STAFF COMMCNTS Staff has no comments concerning this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATIV11: Staff recommends approval as presented. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfullv submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner 00's I PLANNING A .j ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ,_.,PORT S%tember 6, 1994 Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Olson Residence Final Design Review Modification of Color 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submitted (- ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date / Sue.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 final design approval for the color change as submitted. d PLANNING AN i ZONING COMMISSION STAFF i,—PORT September 6, 1994 Lot 36, Block 2, Benchmz: k at Beaver Creek Residential Duplex Final Design Review -- Modification of Color PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: RD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Ki: Williams and Gail Dunning have submitted an application for a color change for the duplex they own. Option 1 shows Devoe Captaine as the body, Devoe Brigadoon as the facia, windows, rails, and Devoe Egret as the window trim. STAFF COMMENTS Staff has no comments regarding this application. 'fl,e sample will be provided for your review at the meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no recommended conditions of approval should the Commission approve this application. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, 44V�C' ^ r Mary Holden Town. Planner K7 [4110 I �0 Ift% ,•-N PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF i—PORT September 6, 1994 -ot 36, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Residential Duplex r final Design Review — Modification of Color PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Apptoced as submitted (/) . pproved with recomriiended conditions ( ) Apoiwed with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date/ ue Failton, Secretary__Z; i" The Commission granted final design approval for the #1 color scheme presented. Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report September 6., 1994 Mountain Star/Town of Avon Property Special Review Use Relocation of 115 KV Transmission Line PROJECT TYPE: Special Review Use -Public Hearing ZONING. OLD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Upon Approval of SRU] This is a Public Hearing for a relocation of an existing 115 KV transmission line, located on Town of Avon and Mountain Star property. INTRODUCTION Holy Cross Electric has submitted an application requesting approval for a relocation of an existing 115 KV transmission line. The new location will be approximately 375' south of the existing line, and be approximately 2,600' in length. Attached is a plan of the relocated line. STAFF COMMENTS Certain Harrington Penstemon easeivcnts are located in the area of the relocated line and Holy Cross has surveyed the area for the plant and none were`ound. The existing poles will be reused for the new line location. If any poles are not reused, Staff is recommending the poles be removed. Further, we are recomrr.,;nding the existing easement be vacated. Following are the criteria, as listed in Section 17.48.040, to consider for af,,;roval of a special review use: A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all rewuirements imposed by tt., zoning code; B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan; C. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Such .:ompatibility may be expressed in apptarance, architectural scale and features, site design, and the control of any adverse impacts iseAuding noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Resolution >4-17 with amendmen!s as deemed appropriate by the Commission. 0 W Planning and 1 --ming Commission Staff Report September 6, 1994 Mountain StarfYown of Avon Property Special Review Use Relocation of 115 KV Transmission Line 1. Introduce Applicsrtion 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 5. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted, 14 _ Mary'iulden Town Planner RECOMMENDED ACTION PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (V-� Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn 1 ) Conceptual, No Action 1 ) Date 6 / a Sue Railton, Secretary t- HOLY CROSS TRANSMISSION LINE P & Z Mtg. 9/6/94 The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-17, citing the following findings and conditions: Findings: 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. Any existing poles not used must be removed 2. The existing easement be vacated. ob TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 17 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE TO ALLOW FOR THE RELOCATION OF HOLY CROSS I: KV TRANStAISSION LINE, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT A, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Holy Cross has filed an application with the Town of Avon for approval of a Special Review Use to allow for the relocation of a 115 KV transmission line, location as described in Attachment A, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado; and; WHEREAS, this location is zoned Open Space, Landscaping and Drainage, in which abo•,e ground utilities may be approved as a Special Review Use; and; WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Conunissior, of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which tune the applicant and the public were given an opportuni!y to express their opinions and pros,-nt certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use, and WI IEZEAS, following such public hearing and consideration of such informntion as presented, the F;anning and Zoning Commission finds as follows: A. The proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code; and B. The }proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purFoses of the comprehensive, plan; and C. The p; opoaed use is designed to be compatible with the surroum!ing land uses and i..ies in the arca SER;ES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION GRXNTING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE TO ALLOW FOR THE RELOCATION OF HOLY CROSS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT A, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Holy Cross has filed an application with the Town of Avon for approval of a Special Review Use to allow for the relocation of a 115 KV transmission line, location as described in Attachment A, Tewn of Avon, EaFJn County, Colorado; and; WHEREAS, this location is zoned Open Space, Landscaping and Drainage, in which above ground utilities may be approved as a Special Review Use; 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 applicsat and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use; and WHEREAS, following such public hearing and consideration of such information as presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows: A. The proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, and B. The proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the comprehensive plan, and C. The propos xi use is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and uses in the .rea. 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a Special Review Use for the relocation of a 115 KV transmission line, location as described in Attachment A, Town of Avon, Eagle County Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Any existing poles not reused, must be removed. 2. The existing easement be vacated. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1994 Secretary C Any existing poles not reused, must be removed. 2. The existing easement be vacated. ADOPTLO THIS IZ DAY OF �+ 1994 Secretary 1• [ab Iwo w PLANNING ANO ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 36 Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Rich's Auto Body Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Industrial/'Office Building ZONING: IC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Mark Donaldson, on behalf of Richard Cooper, has submitted an application for Final Design Review of a 1547 square foot addition to the existing building This project received approval for expanding a Special Review Use at the August 16, 1994 meeting. The addition would match existing building material and colors and stand 30' high. The plans calls for the addi'ion of 18 redtwig do,3woods, 8 cottonless cottonwoods, and 6 serviceberry bushes. STAFF COMMENTS: ♦ The existing and proposed use calculates to 7 parking spaces for customers and emplovees. There are six standard size parking spaces shown in the front and many substandard spaces in the rear of the building. The applicant must provide one additional space at the standard size o;'9' wide by 18' in length. ♦ The proposed landscaping is called out in height, and deciduous trees must be indicated �n caliper, minimum size being 2" Good placement of the landscaping is indicated. ♦ The applicant is proposing an 8' high screening fence to be placed around their portion of Lot 36. Det-.il has not been provided on the type of fence to be installed DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission : atl consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project I. Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. i his project is in conformance 2. 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 Iwated. This use has received approval from the Commission and is suitable for the site 3. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. 4. The compatibility of the proposed improvements %ith site topography. Ovw PLANNING AN ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 36 Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Rich's Auto Body Final Design Review 5. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neigloboring r.roperties a,jd public ways. Staff would like the Commission to comment on how the building will look with one half upgraded. 6. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. 7. The general conformance of the proposed improvemenis with the adopted 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. Meters be concealed. 4. The applicant address any Engineering concerns. 5. "he landscape meet the minimum size requirements of the Town of Avon. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, -/ l A v r klary Ilolden Tov n Piannor PLANN4NG AN 0 ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 36 Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Rich's Auto Body 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_,zgr�Sue Railton, Secretary /-0k& -, The Commissions granted final design approval 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. Meters be placed on the building. 4. The applicant address any engineering concerns. 7n . 6. A strong recommendation that the street/or west side of the building -- be painted R t tha na;9hhnr;n9 RrnPP—"tY owner. • 40 I& PLANNING ANN ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Rogers Duplex Final Design Re, ?ew PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: An application for Final Design Review of a duplex on Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge has been submitted by Grant Rogers. The !ot, .91 acres in size, slopes down to the south at 43%. The building height is approximately 30 1/2'. The duplexes will consist of the following materials: Roof Siding Other Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues/Flashings Chimney Materials Colors cedar shake Natural stucco Cream NA wood wood clad wood wood wood wood painted metal stucco Natural Stain 1. 1. Forest Green Natural Stain I. match roof cream The landscape plan will consist of I I aspens at 2" caliper, 2 Spruce at 10-12' high, 16 Potentilla at 5 gallons and sod. Irrigation has not be indicated. REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application at the May 3, 1994 meeting as a conceptual and had the following comments: ■ Single car garage door just does not look good; ■ Font door look a little bit like motel doors, with no definition, need attention; ■ Side lights suggested; ■ Drawings do not reflect 44% grade, ■ Handsome structure, ■ Add same kind of banding; ■ Drop pop out on west unit down to match header band ; ■ Lattice work in front of the deck; ■ Window groupings should not have blank stucco space between, -I. PLANNING AN ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Rogers Duplex Final Design Review ■ Consider raising planting area in vicinity where you show lattice, and ■ Concern over maieuvering space for vehicle turn around. STAFF COMMENTS: • Drainage: The proposed drainage plan indicates drainage flow towards the rear of the building. The applicant will want t-) correct the situation. • Slopes: Finished slopes are exceeding the maximum of 2 1 and the applicant must make the grades 2:1 or less. 6 Building Height: The turret stands at 37' high, 2' over the height limit. The turret must be lowered 2' to meet the building height. • Retaining Walls: Any retaining walls over 4' high must be designed by an Engineer i _Wood Burning Devices: The floor plans indicate wood burning devices Tho Code allowed for one wood burning device per unit for duplexe., or single family units, however a fee of $1,` 09 for each device must be paid to the Town of Avon. k _Lighting_ Lighting has not been indicated and must receive approval prior to the installation o.Fany lighting. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: I. Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. 2. 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. 3. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. 4. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. 5. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. 6. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. PLANNING AN ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Rogers Duplex Final Design Review 7. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this fina! 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. P-ior to any site disturbance, a construction'erosion control fence be placed on site. 6. The building height may not exceed 35', including the turret. 7. Retaining walls over 4' high be designed by an Engineer. 8. Slopes may not exceed 2:1. Respectfidly Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (✓f Continued ( ) Denied f ) Withdrawn (/) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date Sue Railton, Secretary""�"�— Lot 59, Blk 4, WR The Commission granted final design approval 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/erosion control fence be placed on site. 6. The building height may not exceed 35', including the turret. 7. Retaining walls over 4' high be designed by an Engineer. 8. Slopes may not exceed 2:1 9. A revised landscape plan be brought back to the Commission, said plan to include site/building lighting and the revised drawing on the turret. 10 A proper drainage plan be brought back to Staff for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. 06 a • Inter-Mountain+, Engineering eta. August 31, 1994 Ms. Mary Holden Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Drainage/Grading/Utility Review Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge Project No. 94722E Dear Mary, We have completed our review of the site plan received in your office on August 23, 1994 for Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge. Below are our comments. 1. The slope into the first garage (east side) is approximately 8 percent. Also, there is not enough space to park a car outside of the garage (approximately 181) and allow vehicle passage to the western unit. 2. The platted bearings and distance for the front property line should be shown. 3. The Town of Avon Design Review Procedures, Rules and Regulations require. retaining walls greater than 4 feet to be structurally designed. The wall north of the driveway is between 5 and 6.5 feet high. 4. Grading and invert elevations around the 18" culvert should be shown on the site plan. 5. The site plan is not stamped by a ?rofessional Engineer or Registered Land Surveyor licensed in the State of Colorado. If you have any questions or need any additional review assistance for this project, please do not hesitate to contact us. mlm Sincerely, Inter-Mountain ''Engineering, Ltd. Martha L. Miller, PE Review Engineer Box No. 978 • Avon, Colorado 81620 • 949-5072 Denver 893-1531 1420 Vance Street • Lakewood, Colorado 80215 • Phone: 232-0158 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kEPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision JMB Enterprises - 4 -flex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: 4-Plex ZONING: PUD, 4 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Yes INTRODUCTION: JMB Enterprises has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of a fourplex on Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge. The lot, 1.16 acres in size, has slopes of 13-32%. The fourplex will be placed on the gentler portion of the lot, which has slopes of 13%. The buildings will contain three levels and stand 27 1/2' high. The duplexes will consist of the following materials: Roof Siding Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues/Flashings Chimney Materials Colors celotex presidential weathered wood hardboard lapped 10" face kwal-chamois SC9F, ?x 10 cedar kwal-chamois (darker) re cedar kwal-chamois (sand) bronze aluminum 5 gallon l x4 kwal-chamois (darker) steel kwal-chamois (dark) I x4 wood " 2x2 redwood picket natural galvanized, painted kwal-chamois (dark) s,.cco sand #54 Landscape plan will include the following: Cottonwood (cottonless) 2 2" caliper Colorado Spruce 5 6' high Colorado Spruce 1 8' high Alpine Current 16 5 gallon Sand Cherry 10 5 gallon Gold Drop Potentilla 12 5 gallon Native Bass and flower seed mix Automatic drip No sod has been proposed. Revegetation will include native bushes (per note on site plan) A 5' high freestanding sign is being proposed. It will contain three attached, 2x8 cedar planks with brass lettering stating the name "Wintergreen". The sign posts will be 6x6 cedar posts. No color has been indicated PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision JMB Enterprises - 4-Plex Final Design Review REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the August 16, 1994 meeting and commented on the following: r Elevations; ■ Roof mass; ■ Addition of skylights and dormers, ■ Large trim around windows, ■ Colors, and ■ Trash pick up. STAFF COMMENTS: Sipe Plan Analvsis: • The grading plan indicates new contours in the sewer easement. The applicant must obtain permission to regrade in the easement from Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District. This permission must be given to the Town of Avon prior to the application for a building permit. ♦ The grading appears to be pushing the property lines end would like to remind the applicant grading must be contained on site and not go off the property. • The location of the proposed freestanding sign meets the Sign Code requirement of being located at least 10' from the front property line. ♦ The drainage in front of the units must be addressed prior to the application of a building permit • The entrance to the site must be clarified due to two entrances being shown. This must be clarified prior to the application of a building permit. Design Analysis: • The lighting has not been indicated for the building or sign and must receive approval prior to installation. • The garages on the end units do not meet the size requirements for two car garages. The end units have interior entry's that are angled, encroaching into one parking space. PLANNING A1oD ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 84, Block 1, VAdridge Subdivision JMB Enterprises - 4 -flex final Design Review 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 Plexiglas -faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however.. if determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission. D. .Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures. E. Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping. F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed. G. Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturbing manner. H. Location. On multi -story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be limited to the ground level. Section 15.28.070 - Sign Design Review Criteria In addition to the sign Design Guidelines listed above, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewing proposed sign designs: OR&% PLANNING AtvD ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision JMB Enterprises - 4-Plex Final Design Review 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 proposed sign is consistent with the Town's Sign Design Guidelipes. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements: Comment The sign materials are consistent with allowed signs on adjacent and neighboring buildings. C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement: Comment: The quality of the proposed sign materials are acceptable. D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property: Comment: The visual impact of these proposed improvements will be cor'sistent with existing area signs. E. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values. monetary or aesthetic , will be impaired: Comment: The sign meets the intent of this 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 generally 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: These signs are primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project. Conformance with the Zoning Code and otaer applicable regulations of the Town. PLANNING Ai q 0 ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kEPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision JMB Enterprises - 4-Plex Final Design Review 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. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. The vistial appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and 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. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted 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 and sign lighting be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Meters be placed on the building. 4. The grading be limited to the p- operty. 5. The driveway entrance be clarified and approved by Staff prior to the application for a building permit. 6. The garages be revised to meet the size requirements for a two car garage. 7. The applicant provide to the Town, Upper Eagle Sanitation permission to regrade in their casement. 8. The drainage in front of the units be adequately addressed prior to the application of a building permit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action PLANNING ANN ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kiPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision JMB Enterprises - 4-Plex Final Design Review Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (✓) Continued ( ) Denied ( 1 Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date f4c"--Sue Railton, Secretary_ x -- Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision The Commission granted final design approval with the following condions: I. Flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 2. The building and sign lighting be approved by Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Meters be placed on the building. 4. The grading be limited to the property. 5. .The driveway entrance be clarified and approved by Staff prior to application for a building permit. 6. The garages be revised to meet the size requirements for a two car garage. 7. The applicant provide to the Town, Upper Eagle Valley Sanitiation permission to regrade in their easement. 8. The drainaged in front of the units be adequately addressed prior to the application for a building permit. 9. The landscape plan be brought back for approval. 10 The roof forms be modified to add the dutch hip feature on each building end. ®Inter-mountain Engineering Ltd. August 31, 1994 Ms. Mary Holden Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Drainage/Grading/Utility Review Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Project No. 94654E Dear Mary: We have completed our review of the site plan received in your office on August 23, 1994, for Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge. P.elow are our comments. 1. Site plan C1 shows two driveway entrances. The site topography does not exceed to the centerline of Draw Spur. The grading and culvert inverts in this area needs to be clarified. 2. Low point elevations in front of each home have not been shown but a note has been added showing drainage off of the asphalt. Spot grades would help clarify the proposed drainage pattern. If you have any questions or need any additional review assistance for this project, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Inter --Mountain Engineering, Ltd. Martha L. Miller, PE Review Engineer m 11., cc: D.J. Organ Box No. 978 - Avon, Colorado 81620 - 949-5072 Denver 893-1531 1420 Vance Street - L.akewood, Colorado 80215 - Phone: 232-0158 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Snbdivision Pellerito Residence Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Sinele Family ZONING: PUD, One Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Sam Sterling has submitted an application for Final 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 potions of the lot with slopes in excess of 40%. The single family unit will contain three levels and height varies from 31' to 39'. The single family unit will consist of the following materials: _ _ Materials Color Roof aspha!t shingles tan Siding cement stucco dove white Fascia 2x10 & 2x4 r.s. cedar sage gray Soffits wood sage gray Window clad wood white Window Trim 2x10 and 20 sage gray clad wood white Trim I x6 painted or stained sage gray Hand/Deck Rails wood sage gray Flues/Flashings metal tan Chimney stucco dove gray Garage steel paneled not indicated Other r.;raining walls 6x6 treated lumber or concrete w/ stucco finish The landscape plan includes the following Spruce 4 E' high A;^en 2 4 caliper Aspen d 2 1/2-3" caliper Juniper 12 5 gallon Sod 600 s f bluegrass/mountain hybrid Seed 5000 s.f high mountain mix Drip and 2-3 sprinkler heads for sod area. REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this projec, as a Conceptual at the lune 7, 1994 meeting and commented on the following OMS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Pellerito Residence Final Design Review ■ Driveway grade, ■ Driveway turnaround; ■ Stucco with no second material; ■ Minimize mass of garage, ■ Variance for retaining walls in setback, ■ Height; ■ Color samples, ■ Brightness of stucco; and ■ Siding and roof color. STAFF COMMENTS: Site Plan Analysis • North Point Road abuts the cast property line and Wildridge Road abuts the west 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 grading plan indicates cutting in the 10' Slope Maintenance. Drainage easement This will not be permitted since the integrity of the road may be in jeopardy and it has not been allowed in the past • This site is steep and on the south (side) elevation the chimney cap exceeds the 35' height limit by approximately 6" The west (rear) elevation is at 39' high The north (side) elevation has the chimney cap extending I' above the 3 i' height limit • Retaining walls are shown in the front setback. The retaining walls will require a front yard setback • The finished grades indicate slopes greater than 2 I, which exceeds the maximum allowed by the Town of Avon. This was brought to the applicant's attention at the conceptual review and the revised grading plan still reflects these slopes • The drainage plan shows water running into the house The applicant needs to address drainage prior to a building permit • Tli: topography of the site is not certified by a surveyor Staff is not comfortable with recommending approval since the site is steep, the grades are not in compliance with Codes, the drainage shown does not appear to work, and there is cut in the 10' Slope Maintenance easement PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Pellerito Residence Final Design Review • Utility connections have not been indicated on the site plan. Staff would like to see where the utilities are coming on to the site The applicant will need to revegetate the cuts with native bushes. • Staff is recommending a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site prior to any site disturbance. It iN particularly important for this site due to the steepness and building on the top of the site with everything sloping down. Design: e The proposed siding is all stucco with no second material proposed. The Commission questioned whether there would be a second material and the applicant stated yes. This application does not indicate or specify a second material. Staff would like the Commission to comment on the use of one siding material. ♦ Lighting has not been indicated or specified. Lighting must be approved prior to the installation. • The type of fireplace has riot been indicated on the floor plans. This must be resolved and indicated on the building permit plans. 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. 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. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and 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. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Pellerito Residence Final Design Review The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is for tabling the application until the applicant addresses the concerns listed above in the Staff report. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted N--�'j Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING A,,D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Pellerito Residence 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 b !O!_/_Sue Railton Secretary+t Gue to the many -concerns the Commission and Staff had regarding this item, the Commission tabled this application to allwo the app ica�-- time to provide a more complete application. Inter-Mountain Engineering ll.td. September 1, 1994 Ms. Mary Holden Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Drainage/Grading/Utility Review Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Project No. 94723E Dear Mary: We have completed our review of the site plan received in your office on August 23, 1994 forLot 55, Block 3, Wildridge. Below are our comments. 1. Existing utilities and proposed service lines need to be shown. 2. The platted property line bearing and distances are not shown. All the easements and setbacks should also be labeled. 3. Site grading exceeds 2:1 on the west side of the lawn area and occasionally on the west side of the driveway. 4. The centerline driveway grade is 10% from the intersection with North Point Road. The grades along the inside of the curve are as steep as 14%. The Town of Avon requires a 4% grade from at least the edge of road to the property line. Currently, the north side of the driveway entrance has a proposed 66 contour line on top of an existing 68 contour line. This conflict occurs at the edge of North Point Road. The Town of Avon Design Procedures, Rules, and Regulations require the site topography to extend to the centerline of all adjacent streets. Additional topography may clarify the grading in this area. 5. The grading along the east side of the house directs runoff toward the house. Box No. 978 - Avon, Colorado 81620 - 949-5072 Denver 893-1531 1420 Vance Street - Lakewood, Colorado 80215 - Phone: 232-0158 A Page 2 If you have any questions or need any additional review assistance for this project, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Inter -Mountain Engineering, Ltd. Martha L. Miller, PE Review Engineer mlm cc: Sterling Homes Inc. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Elementary School ZONING: GPEH COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: This project was tabled at the August 16, 1994 Commission meeting for architectural and site plan concerns. The applicant has resubmitted the plans for Commission review and approval. The Staff report presented to the Commission at the August 16, 1994 meeting has been attached to this report. REVIEW HISTORY Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the April 19, 1994 meeting and as Final Design at the August 16, 1994 meeting and commented on the following: April 19, 1994 ■ Color of brick; ■ Not a friendly looking building; ■ Not so many sharp, linear quality; • Design not appropriate for middle Avon, ■ Industrial design; • Very flat elevations that don't give relief, ■ Build a scale model; ■ Good landscaping scheme can soften the design; • Sun screen for windows facing south, ■ Tight budget does not mean a cheap looking building; and ■ Gabled form over entrance to help attract people to there. August 16. 1994 ■ Screening of trash, • Sloped roof and height, ■ Blank wall on the east elevation, ■ Colors and not so much pink, ■ Sodium lig`-ts, e Landscape plan beefed up, • Flat roof being river rock ballast, ■ Lighting directed toward building, not away from building, • Architecture not fitting with Town, • Primarily boxes connected and roofs seem to be out of character with building, and ■ Lack of interest in the total building was discussed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: Site Plan Analysis: e Streetscape Improvements: This site has been identified as a secondary streetscape improvement, which includes a 4' detached concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter and street lights. The developer is showing a sidewalk, however, no street lights or curb and gutters are shown. The curb and gutter must be a Type 11 Barrier per C'DOT specifications. TheFe are a part of the streetscape improvements and must be installed. !k Joint Parking: The applicant has added parking spaces to the common parcel, for a total of 71 parking spaces. 6 Landscape Plan: The landscape plan has been revised in the following manner: Eliminated 2 Marshall Ash Added 3 Chokeberry_ Added 6 Spruce Eliminated 1 dogwood Eliminated 8 Spireria Changed Rhododendums to Chokeberry • Natural'zed Meadow. The plan is calling for a naturalized meadow on the slope north of the building and south of the bike path. Staff is recommending this area to match the character of the surrounding material found, which is a formal lawn. n Slime Northeast of Building: Staff is requesting this area blend more naturally into the cxisting grades and not the way shown, which is ends sharply. Irrigation. The developer has asked to tie into the Town of Avon's irrigation system. Upon discussion, it has been determined they may not and must provide their own means of irrigation. 6 _Bike Path: There is a note on the site plan that indicates the bike path will be removed and relocated The applicant has not spoken to Town Staff regarding the relocation and therefore, is not approved The bike path must remain undisturbed Sign: The sign detail and location are not approved as a part of this application. Drainage Analysis: Drainage Report. The drainage plan and report has been given to the Town Engineer for his review, which must address all concerns identified in the Staff report dated August 16, 1994. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review Desien Analysis: Retaining Walls and Fences. The applicant has provided detail on the fences and retaining walls, which are attached to this Staff report. The sections provided, including the fence and retaining wall, are for Design Review and do not constitute construction or building approval. • East Elevation. The east elevation of the building has been added to by the use of windows and different coloring. Staff would like the Commission to comment on this change. ♦ Roof Form. The north and south elevations indicate the roof forms inclined toward each other. With the inclination towards the middle, there will be a strong potential for snow build up in the valley of the roof. Further, this form does not comply with the Design Guidelines. Staff would like the Commission to comment on whether this is an acceptable roof form. _ Overall Design Theme The Commission should comment on the overall dr^,sign of the building in relation to the Design Guidelines established by the Town. The Design Guidelines state "The architectural styles of the existing buildings vary greatly. However, most of them can be described as contemporary, having in common, pitched roof, stepped facades, recessed windows, balconies, and subtle colors." Commission should answer the question of whether or not this is in keeping the established design theme in the Town Center. Miscellaneous Items: • The building must contain fire alarms and a sprinkler system. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project 1. Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. 2. '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. 3. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. 4. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review 5. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. 6. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. 7. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Should the Commission approve this application, Staff recommends the following conditions: I. The streetscape improvements be installed by the developer prior to the occupancy of the building. 2 The finished slope north of the school may not exceed 3:1. 3. A drainage report and plan be submitted to the Town and approved by the Town Engineer addressing all concerns. 4. The naturalized meadow be removed from the slope to the north of the building and existing material be used to tie in with the park. 5 The developer replace any existing trees that are removed. 6. The flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 7. Meters be concealed. 8 Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site. 9 The bike path remain undisturbed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission .Action Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review 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__ Due to the concerns of the Commission regarding the suitability of the proposed architecture for the Town of Avon, the Commission denied fines design approval for this project. D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 16, i 994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Elementary School ZONING: GPEH COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Jack Berga, on behalf of Eagle County School District, has submitted an app'ication ;or final design review for the .Avon Elementan School on Tract P. It will be located Just north of the water treatment facility on West Beavet Creek Blvd. The school will contain two levels and stand approximately 36' high. The school will consist of the following materials: The proposed landscape plant list is incl,:ded in your packet. REVIEW HISTORY Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the April 19, 1994 meeting and commented on the following: ■ Color of brick, ■ Not a friendly looking building, ■ Not so many sharp, linear quality, ■ Design not appropriate for middle Avon; ■ Industf ial design, ■ Very flat elevations that don't give relief, ■ Build a scale model, ■ Good landscaping scheme can soften the design, ■ San screen for windows facing south; ■ Tight budget does not mean a cheap looking building, and ■ Gabled form over entrance to help attract people to there. Ma4erials Colors Roof ballasted EPDb4/fiberglass shingle gray/brown Siding stucco/ stone beige/tan Fascia metal beige Soffits stucco (EIFS) beige Window aluminum dk. bronze Door hollo.v metal dk. brown Door Trim metal dk. brown Flues/Flashings hidden Trash Enclosure stucco tan Screen Wall match building The proposed landscape plant list is incl,:ded in your packet. REVIEW HISTORY Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the April 19, 1994 meeting and commented on the following: ■ Color of brick, ■ Not a friendly looking building, ■ Not so many sharp, linear quality, ■ Design not appropriate for middle Avon; ■ Industf ial design, ■ Very flat elevations that don't give relief, ■ Build a scale model, ■ Good landscaping scheme can soften the design, ■ San screen for windows facing south; ■ Tight budget does not mean a cheap looking building, and ■ Gabled form over entrance to help attract people to there. 0% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 16, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design review STAFF COMMENTS: This site is identified in the following plans for the Town of Avon: 1. Section 4: Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan: Nottingham Park Area, states that an elementary school is a compatible use for this site and should be designed to - allow and encourage public access to the park. 2. The Transportation/Circulation Flan of the Comprehensive Plan designates West Beaver Creek Blvd, as having a 4' detached concrete sidewalk and on -street bicycle lanes on both sides of the street. 3. Section 5: Urban Design Plan: Town Core Urban Design Plan: identifies W. Beaver Creek Blvd. at this site as having secondary streetscape improvements. Further, this area is in Subarea 9: Nottingham Park and Municipal Center Site Plan Analysis: Streetscaoe Improvements: This site has been identified as a secondary streetscape improvement. which includes a 4' detached concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter and street lights. The developer must provide all the specified improvements, including the curb and gutter. The curb .and gutter will provide a ph,�,sical and visual barrier between the street and sidew.,Jk which will be a safer situation for the children using the sidewalk. 6 Entrance to Site: The middle entrance to the school site is off set from the existing entrance across the street. As with other developments in the Town of Avon, Staff is recommending the middle entrance to line up the existing entrance across the street. • Finished Grades: The finished grades on the north side of the school and souti- of the bike path are at 2:1. The existing character and grades found in the area are at 3:1. Staff is recommending the finished grades in this area to be compatible with the existing grades. In order to lessen the 2:1 slopes, the developer may have a limited encroachment onto Town property 1br achievement of 3:1 slopes. • Joint Parking Area: The site plan indicates 60 parking spaces on the land held in common with the Town of Avon. This land is for joint parking use, however, the site plan indicates the northwest portion of this site in sidewalk and drop off area. This use needs to located on the school site and parking placed in that area. With the removal of the sidewalk area the possibility of additional 20 spaces could oe reflected. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 16, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review Drainaee Analysis: • Drainage Report. The develope- has not provided Staff with a drainage report to coincide with the proposed d ainage plan. This must be given to the Town and approved by the Town Engineer prior to any application for building permit. • Drainage Flow. Based on the submitted drainage plan, our main concern is with the drainage outlet on the southwest corner of the property. 'This drainage headwall is shown dumping onto the south property, causing the potential of flooding, with the water not being directed to any inlet. This is not allowed and drainage must be directed to flow to the existing inlet on the southeast corner of the property to the south. • Treatment. Another concern deals with type of treatment for the runoff from the parking area. Some type of filtration gallery or trap must be provided to filter the runoff. Land care Plan Analysis: • Material Sizes. The proposed landscape plan must meet the Town of AN on minimum standards of 2" caliper minimum for deciduous trees, 6' high for coniferous trees and 5 gallons for shrubs. • Naturalized Meadow. The plan is calling for a naturalized meadow on the slope north of the building and south of the bike path. Staff is recommending this area to match the character of the surrounding material found, which is a formal lawn. • Existing Trees. The site plan indicates existing trees, which are in an area of regrading. The developer must provide information as to what will happen to the existing trees, and if removed, how and where they trees will be replaced. • Irrigation. The developer has asked to tie into the Town of Avon'F irrigation system. Upon discussion, it has been determined they may not and must provide their own means of irrigation. Desien Analysis: Retaining Walls and Fences. The site plan indicates retaining walls and fences around the play area. These details have not been pro,6ded. Staff will be requesting this information for approval prior to an application for a building permit. *1 PLANNING AN ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 16, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review • East Elevation. The east elevation of the building contains a large blank stucco wall. This is the elevation facing the park and Staff would like the Commission to determine if this is the type of image they would like facing the park. • Roof Form. The north and south elevations indicate the roof forms inclined toward each other. With the inclination towards the middle, there will be a strong potential for snow build up in the valley of the roof. Staff would like the Commission to comment on whether this is an acceptable roof form. A Overall Design Theme The Commission should comment on the overall design of the building in relation to the Design Guidelines established by the Town. The Design Guidelines state "The architectural styles of the existing buildings vary greatly. However, most of them can be described as contemporary, having in common, pitched roof, stepped facades, recessed windows, balconies, and subtle colors." Commission should answer the question of whether or not this is in keeping the established design theme in the Town Center. Portions of the Design Guidelines are attached to this report. SiM. The sign and location are not a part of this approval process since no detail has been provided. Miscellaneous Items: • The building must contain fire alarms and a sprinkler system. • The type of material used for the driving surfaces must be indicated. If concrete is used, an asphalt apron must be used to tie into Beaver Creek Blvd. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: 1. Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of th. Town. 2. 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. 3. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. 4. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. PL4NNING ANO ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 16, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review 5. The visual appearance of any proposed irtp:ovement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. 6. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. 7. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Should the Commission approve this application, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The streetscape improvements be installed by the developer prior to the occupancy of the building. 2. The middle entrance to the school be lined up with the existing entrance across West Beaver Creek Blvd. 3. The finished slope north of the school may not exceed 3:1. 4. The shared parking lot may only contain parking, and the sidewalks must be removed and additional parking placed there. 5. A drainage report and plan be submitted to the Town and approved by the Town Engineer addressing all concerns. 6. The landscape plan meet the minimum Town of Avon size requirements. 7. The naturalized meadow be removed from the slope to the north of the building and existing material be used to tie in with the park. 8. The developer replace any existing trees that are removed. 9. The developer provide detail for the Planning and Zoning Commission approval on the retaining walls and fences. 10. The Flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 11. Meters be concealed. 12. Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action PLANNING AviD ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 16, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review 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 PLANNING A,.D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, Block 2, Benchmark Century 21 Final Design Review -Sign Program PROJECT TYPE: Commercial -Master Sign Program ZONING: Town Cert,!r COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Yes INTRODUCTION Lot 55, Ltd. has submitted an application for approval of the sign program for the Century 21 building. An a cisting sign program was approved on June 15, 1993. REQUEST: Please refer to the attached summary of the tenant signage. STAFF COMMENTS Second Level Signaee: The sign program indicates signage for the second level tenants. The Sign Code states that signage should be limited to the ground level tenants. Second level signage has not been approved on other recent commercial buildings. Freestandin Si ns: The program indicates 4 monument signs and I kiosk The Sign Code states that only one freestanding sign is allowed per lot. The proposal would allow for 5 freestanding signs. Further, the details and locations of the monument signs has not been indicated. • Sin Atea The awnings, on which the tenant signs were proposed, have been eliminated and the signs will be applied directly to the bu;lding. The sign area has increased from 7.5 s.f to 12 s f and an additional 10 s.f neon sign to be located behind the glass The maximum allowed sign area for one tenant would be 22 s f No specific size has been called out for the second Floor tenants other then to allow for 9" letters to be spaced between the columns Lighting. There is reference to internally and externally lighting certain signs, such as the monument signs and kiosk However, no detail has been provided on location of light source, type of lighting or wattage. Staff is recommending the lighting be approved by either the Commission or Staff prior to any installation of signs • TemporSiens: Temporary signs will be allowed during the construction of the permanent sign. Allowable size will be the size of the permanent sign. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, Block 2, Benchmark Century 21 Final Design Review -Sign Program GUIDELINES AND REVIEW CRITERIA Section 15.28.060 Sign Desmon Guidelines A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the sructure, with the neighborhood, and with the townscape. B. Harmonious with Building Scale. the sign should be harmonious with t ,e 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 Plexiglas -faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission D Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure :should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures. E. Landscaping_ Landscaping is required for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping. F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed. G Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that dire.;t 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 15.28.070 - Sign Design Review Criteria In addition to the sign Design Guidelines listed above, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewinr� proposed sign designs. PLANNING Ai -40 ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, Block 2, Benchmark Century 21 Final Design Review -Sign Program 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: B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements: C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement. D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property: 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: 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. G Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning approve this application with the following conditions: 1. The lighting receives approval prior to placement of the sign. 2 One freestanding sign allowed for the lot. 3 Second floor tenant signage is not allowed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING APID ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot SS, Block 2, Benchmark Century 21 Final Design Review -Sign Program PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (./1" Approved with modified conditions ( ) r ontinued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date � /pq Sue Railton, Secretary %G« /__4� The Commission granted approval for the monument sign, the 2 directional signs, Klosk and the second t>oor-signs�iCh W1 1 be 9 inc — non -illuminated three dimensional block letters suspended below the or brushed brass to match the Century 21 sign. The Commission instructed the applicant to bring back the signage f2r the first floor after further investigation into canopies. SIGN PLAN Approved June 25,1993 Revised August 16,1994 CENTURY 21 BUILDING LOT 55 - BLOCK 2 BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK AVON, CO 81620 DEVELOPER: Lot 55, Ltd. Shapiro Development Co., General Partner P. 0. Box 5640, Avon, CO 81620 Introduction: It is the purpose of this sign plan to serve the communications needs of the landlord (Lot 55, Ltd.) and the present and future tenants while creating an upscale, effective sign program commensurate with the building and surrounding area. The plan addresses the following criteria: k 1. Identify the project and its tenants to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 2. Identify site circulation, including traffic and building entrances, parking and tenant locations. 3. Restrict other signage that doesn't meet these objectives. A. Purpose The purpose of this sign program is to serve as a guide for ail initial and future exterior building identification and tenant signage. All signage shall be of superior quality and image and shall be compatible with the architecture and design of the Century 21 Building. B. General 1. TENANT SIGNAGE The building consists of commercial tenant space on two floors, being equally divided between from -age on Avon Road and West Seaver Creek Boulevard. On the First Floor: Tenant signage will be mounted on a painted Architectural Metal Frame- work of 3" square stock and 1 " 15 flat lattice. Each section of Frame -work will run between the columns, just below the lintel. It will allow for a "internally illuminated type sign (ie; pan -channel letters) with maximum display area of 12 square feet: Allocation of these signage areas could occur between any pair of columns (less than or in addition to, what is presently shown on exhibit A), at the Landlord's discretion. In addition, a "button" sign, approximately 12.5 square feet, will be located on the South Elevation as shown on Exhibit B & C. On the Second Floor: Tenant signage will consist of 9" non -illuminated three dimensional block letters ("Dropped Letters") suspended below the lintels and recessed. Allocation of these signage areas could occur between any pair of columns (in addition to what is presently shown on exhibit A), at the landlord's discretion. In addition, the "Anchor Tenant" identification sign will be located just behind the meta! arch, on the northeast elevation, and mounted to the aluminum storefront system. The letters will be constructed of brushed or polished, three dimensional, metal letters any may be backed by a semitransparent metal lattice as shown on exhibit A. A similar or identical sign shall be permitted on the exterior of the building at the southwest elevation facing the plaza as shown in Exhibit B. See Exhibit "A" for typical placement of tenant signage for each level, details of Architectural Metal Frame -work, and specifications. 2. TENANT DISPLAY SIGNAGE Space is reserved at each tenant location, between building columns, for a neon or other illuminated sign to be placed behind the center glass panel (as approved by the Land!ord) as indicated in Exhibit A and approved on June 25, 1993. First floor tenants, at each glass grouping between building columns, may iiave up to '10 square feet of such illuminated signage. In the event the Landlord elects not to install second floor "Dropped Letters", neon or other illuminated signage may be substituted per window grouping. A maximum of three neon signs on each side of the building will be allowed on the second level. Each tenant with direct doorway access to the outside of the building may place name, street address, and business identification signage directly upon, or adjacent to the glass doors. Additionally, business hours may also be displayed. 3. BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN A non -illuminated debossed copy, which may be painted to siigrtly contrast with the building and shall be permitted on the Lintel above the metal arch as shown in Exhibits A. 4. FREE-STANDING MONUMENT SIGNS Up to four, free-standing monument signs shall be allowed (see Exhibit D). Signs at the primary entrance areas will display building name plus name of adjacent building (Avon Center Building). Two, smaller signs shall be for directional irformation only. Each may be internally or externally illuminated. As approved June 25, 1993. Specific designs shall be forthcoming. A four-sided kiosk may be constructed and located as approved on June 25, 1993. This fixture may be illuminated internally and externally. Display area will be allocated by the Landlord for use by the commercial tenants. 5. PARKING LOT SIGNS The landlord reserves the right to place individual signs, not to exceed 12" x 18" in each size and conforming to standard parking information configurations, for each parking space for the purpose of regulating usage of parking facilities es approved June 25, 1993. These signs will include required "handicapped" zoning. 6. COLORS, LOGOS AND TYPOGRAPHY Architectural Metal Frame -work shall be consistent throughout and Forest Green in color (to match the metal roof, storefront,...) as shown in Exhibit A. Second floor signage will be Forest Green in color as shown in Exhibit A. First Floor signage will be illuminated and may contain logos and/or text within prescribed areas. Copy and logo colors shall be compatible with Frame -work, surrounding colors and shall be used at the discretion of the Landlord. 7. TEMPORARY SIGNAGE Temporary signage, identifying a new tPnant, in the absence of, or during production of permanent signage, or a nature and size acceptable to the landlord, shall be allowable for a period not to exce;id 30 days from the date of permanent signage application. Temporary signs may not exceed the total square footage allowable as permanent signage as approved June 25, 1993. Placement shall be allowed at the discretion of the landlord. 8. MISCELLANEOUS All the following shall be applicable to meet the general sign requirements of the Century 21 Building: 1. Tenants shall be responsible for obtaining all proper permits prior to installation of temporary or permanent signs. 2. All mounting components, fasteners and electric service and equipment shall be in complete compliance with all applicable codes and regulations. 3. The landiord shall have the right to approve all contractors used by the tenant under this sign program. 4. Landlord shall have approved tenant signage prior to obtaining a permit. Exhibits Included: A. North / Northeast / East building elevations and details B. Plaza elevation C. South elevation and details D. Site Plan LOT55\SIGN.DOC PLANNING AN J ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kcPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 11, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Wildwood Townhomes Final Design Review -Modifications PROJECT TYPE: Townhomes ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Mr. Bill Kaufman, owner of Wildwood Townhome, B-3, has submitted an application requesting Design Review Approval to maintain an existing char, link fence with wood slates. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning and Zoning Commission Rules, Regulations and Procedures states "Wood fences are generally more acceptable than metal. Limited use offences is encouraged." Generally, fences should be architecturally compatible with the structure. This particular fence does not seem to fit with the structure or the surrounding character. The chain link fence placed by the Town serves as a practical function relating to the use of a play ground and basketball court. The chain link fence proposed by Mr. Kaufman is in a residential setting and not a play ground. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is for denial of this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3 Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Nvt-, Mary Holden - Town Planner s� PLANNING Al ZONING COMMISSION STAFF 1. 'ORT September 6, 1994 Lot 11, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Wildwood Townhomes Final Design Review -Modifications PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as subnu'tted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Sue Rail+on, Secretary. Tha Cmmicciop qgnptnj apprnuial with thp eandition that «_ e. airy iink fence be completely clad in a vertical wood siding painted to match exactly the color of the building, to be approved by Staff, with no m� showing from the exterior, of the unit.