The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 041994PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Schneider Residence Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE. Single Family ZONING: PUD, Two Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Michael Schneider has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of a single family residence on Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge. The lot, 1.52 acres in size, slopes to the south at approximately 40%. The single family dwelling will contain two levels and stand approximately 30' high. The single family will consist of the following materials The landscape plan includes Ponderosa Pine 7 2" cal Aspen 10 2" cal. Juniper 15 18" Ground cover is proposed with carpet bugle An irrigation system has not been indicated STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments Site Plan - 1 Finished slopes may not exceed 2 I, 2. Detail needs to be provided on all proposed retaining walls, Materials Colors Roof dimensional fiberglass/shake gray Siding N/A Other stucco tan Fascia redwood taupe Soffits redwood/cedar taupe Window clad black Window Trim stucco tan Door fir/oak tan Door Trim pine tan Hand/Deck Rails stucco/plexiglass Flues/Flashings sheet metal match bldg. Chimney none The landscape plan includes Ponderosa Pine 7 2" cal Aspen 10 2" cal. Juniper 15 18" Ground cover is proposed with carpet bugle An irrigation system has not been indicated STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments Site Plan - 1 Finished slopes may not exceed 2 I, 2. Detail needs to be provided on all proposed retaining walls, MMI A PLANNING AivD ZONING COMMISSION STAFF KEPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Schneider Residence Conceptual Design Review 3. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR, 4 The type of driveway needs to be indicated, 5. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance, all setbacks, and all easements, needs to be submitted for FDR; 6. A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence needs to be placed on site delineating the construction and non -construction zones, 7 Snow storage needs to be addressed, 8. Landscaping may not be placed in areas of snow storage, 9. Landscaping must meet minimum Town standards of 2" caliper deciduous trees, 6' minimum height for coniferous trees and 5 gallon minimum for shrubs, 10 The lot boundary shown on the topographic survey does not match the platted boudary, I I The driveway appears to have an 8% cross slope, and 12 Revegetation must include native bushes. Design I . Exterior building lighting needs to be indicated on the elevations, 2. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations, and 3, The type of fireplace needs to be indicated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING, 44DZONING COMMISSION STAF� .4EPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Schneider Residence Conceptual Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (✓f Date & ' / Sue Railton, Secretary 1 action was taken at this time The Commission discussed the location of the building on the site, the landscaping and the grading of the site. 1 1 H .M \ \ \ \ \ \ \ WATER VK 3k NSTALL DU1.\(iTT ADORE PEC \h \ \ \ \ \ \ ZN \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 JSlptYER \ \ + 1 1 1 1 1 (ry NRC OU&DWG SITE) 0 ED -- I 1 I � I I II I � I I . II I 1 ,I I II I I I I I I 11 I I . I I L. I I I. II 1 II ® II II V II I I II II I II Ij 1I Ll 11 Rr 11 11 II I, II I I I I 11 II, N 1 1:• I I, II 'I 1 n 11 II I 06 No PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 116, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Wertz Single Family Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single Family Residence ZONING: PUD, One unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Michael Sanner, on behalf of Michael and Laurie Wertz, has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of a single family residence on Lot 116, Block I, Wildridge. The lot, .56 acres in size, and slopes to the east at approximately 45%. The single family residence will consist of the following materials Roof Siding Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues Flashings Chimney Garage The landscape plan includes: Colorado Blue Spruce Aspen Serviceberry, Sagebrush, Mountain Mahogany, Snowberry Materials Colors cedarshakes stucco Omega Dutch cream I x6 over 2x 10 SW woodridge fir plywood woodridge clad wood Eagle forest green half log woodridge " woodridge " woodridge log woodridge stucco Dutch cream grip paint metal 1x6 6 16 60 total 6-8' high 1 1/2"-2" cal 5 gallon Dutch cream woodridge Ground cover will include native grasses and wildflowers where ground disturbed. A drip and automatic irrigation is proposed Straw bales are proposed for erosion control STAFF COMMENTS: This lot contains a height restriction of 24' above finishc d road centerline elevation at center of lot frontage. The design of this residence meets the height requirements. ! Ia PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 116, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Wertz Single Family Conceptual Design Review There are different setback requirements specified for the lot and are shown on the plan. Staff has the following comments. Site Plan: I. Finished slopes may not exceed 2:1; 2. The Steep Slope Guidelines should be considered; 3. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR; 4. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance needs to be submitted for FDR; 5. A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence may be needed on site delineating the construction and non -construction zones; 6. Revegetation must include native bushes; 7. The first 20 feet of the driveway, where it ties into the street, may not exceed 4%, and Design: 1. Materials and colors must be called out on the elevations and samples provided for FDR submittal, 2. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated; and 3. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has nc formal recommendation Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 116, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Wertz Single Family Conceptual Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (✓)/ Date / Sue Railton, Secretary However, the general consensus was that this was a very good project and encouraged the applicant to proceed. The majority of the Commission also felt that the use of cultured stone would be appropriate. [• 0 r 0 G 1. G m --- -0'!Y 44' r. m --- -0'!Y 44' m --- -0'!Y .t ILY i \l ry ` 1 N 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 90, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD, Two Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING" YES INTRODUCTION: P.R. Construction, Inc. has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of a duplex on Lot 90, Block 1, Wildridge The lot is .59 acres in size. Slopes and other information can not be determined due to the light copy of the topographic survey submitted. The duplex will contain two levels and stand approximately 28 1/2' in height. The duplex will consist of the following materials: Roof Siding Other Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues Flashings Materials Colors composition not decided cedar channel lap " stucco " cedar " r.s fir ply " clad " cedar or stucco " clad " cedar " redwood " wan vent galv painted A landscape plan has not been submitted STAFF COMMENTS: Staff can not comment on the site plan in much detail until a readable topographic survey with all the required information is submitted. Staff has the following comments: Site Plan I. Utility connec';ons need to be shown on the site plan for FDR, 2. The type of driveway needs to be indicated, 3. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance, all easements, and setbacks, needs to be submitted for FDR; a 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 90, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Conceptual Desi;n Review 4. A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence may be needed on site delineating the construction and non -construction zones, 5. Revegetation of all disturbed areas is required, and must include native bushes, 6. Building overhangs may not extend in the setbacks. 7. The first 20 feet of the driveway, where it ties into the street, may not exceed 4%, and Desiam 1. Colors and materials must be indicated on the elevations and samples provided for FDR submittal, 2. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated, and 3. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation. Respectfully Submitted Ct ( 2 Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( j Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (4 Date�9, Q(�, Sue Railton, Secretary_ XPi With this being a''coonceptual design review, no action was taken. The Commission and applicant discussed the asphalt shingle roof, the garage facade, the roof line varieties which do not seem to fit together, integrating the bay windows better, integrating the roof slopes, and changing the deck strategy. I [] L7 • a • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 20, Block 3. R ildridke Subdivision Vedder Duplex Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE. Duplex ZONING PUD, Two Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING) YES INTRODUCTION: Brian Vedder has submitted a site plan for conceptual design review, which coincides with the variance application. No elevations, floor plans or landscape plans were submitted, however, the materials, colors and plant list have been indicated on the application, which is enclosed. This review is for the design of proposed retaining walls, site layout, and meter location in enclosure at base of driveway STAFF COMMENTS: Site Plan I If the retaining walls are over 4' feet, they should be split, so as not to have one large wall, 2. Finished slopes may not exceed 2 1. 3 The maximum driveway grade for the first 20 feet where it ties into the street is 4%, 4 The radius of the first turn in the driveway is tight, and the applicant should look at widening the turn and creating a steeper drive up hill, 5 Detail needs to be provided on all proposed retaining walls and designed by an engineer if over 4' in height, 6. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR, 7 The type of driveway needs to be indicated; 8 An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance, all setbacks, and all easements, needs to be submitted for FDR, 9 A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence may be needed to be placed on site delineating the construuion and non -construction zones. 10 Landscaping must meet minimum Town standards of 2" caliper deciduous trees, 6' minimum height for coniferous and 5 gallon minimum for shrubs STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation Respectfully Submitted PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF April 19, 1994 Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Conceptual Design Review ')4": i Mary olden, Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as sub nitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (✓j Date / / Sue Railton, Secretary This was a conceptual design review for the site plan, regarding the need for a retaining wall for the driveway. This retaining wall will require a variance as it is a very difficult site. The applicant provided a sample wall, showing the material to be used. The Commission in general stated that they would probably support the wall with the r g t co or; etc., and if some of their other concerns were answered. No action was taken at this time. 04 P -- ---- -. ---- -------------- I -------- `•`•,11 111 \•1�,1 r- /.. ..' ` `��r ., . - - _ 1 , , , , 1 1 . , ..•• 1\ ,. 1 , 1 1 1 r •. \ 11 \\,.. � i ,11:..1, � 1„ `, d ,, 11 1! 1` 1 � \• i . �` '•�. •1 `1\11 , 1, 09 �v Y abs '•+� Vii: ,`•1, v.mn ine � 0b •ns 1..K4 • ` ` warl IaoMY ! .1 ! ! u .',ens •`. \ 1 +, \ . Wo 1 1 11 • f.J. \• . erg e.� MiWII � -�. �y�\\\\\\\\ •� P � I" so PLANNING AND ZONING CON174ISSION STAFk REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Variance - Front and Side Yard Setback PROJECT TYPE Duplex ZONING: PUD- Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING' No, Requires a Variance to Front and Side Yard Setback Requirements This is a Public Hearing for a variance to the front yard and side yard setbacks on Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. INTRODUCTION: Brian Vedder has submitted an application requesting a variance to the front and side yard setback for the construction of retaining walls and an enclosure for meters and entrance light. REQUEST. Two retaining .valls will be located 19' in the front yard setback with the enclosure abutting the front yard setback, and one retaining wall 2.5' into the side yard setback. The height of the retaining wall at the entrance to the driveway will stand approximately 8' high and the other two walls will be approximately 4' high. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The lot is 1.39 acres in size and slopes to the south in excess of 40%. STAFF COMMENTS: Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance. Section 17.36.40, Approval Criteria: A. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Comment The requested variance is in keeping with the surrounding uses and structures in the area B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibly and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. PLANNING ',%4D ZONING COMMISSION STAF� PORT April 19, 1994 Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Variance - Front and Side Yard Setback Comment. The degree of relief being requested is due to the steepness of the site (+40%), which is becoming more prevalent due to the remaining lots being steeper. 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. D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. Comment- Staff has not identified any other factors for the Commission to consider. FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance. A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified ret,ulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAF�EPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Variance - Front and Side Yard Setback STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommendation is for approval of Resolution No. 94-xx for the front yard and side yard setback variance request based on the findings below. Staff feels that the request meets the required criteria necessary for approval. FINDINGS: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. 2. 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 3. 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. 4. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing S. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Variance - Front and Side Yard Setback PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (v) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date / / Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission granted a front yard and side yard setback variance, citing the following findings: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safetv. or welfare, or materiallv injurious to C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons. i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity. iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinty. Planning and Coning Commission Staff Report April 19, 1994 Lot 29A Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Special Review Use, Home Occupation PROJECT TYPE: Special Review Use -Public Hearing ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONINGS YES This is a Public Hearing for an in home occupation for Lot 29A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. INTRODUCTION Ms. Linda Schon, the owner and applicant, is requesting approval for a Special Review Use to operate a home business. The proposed business ig consulting There will be no clients coming to the residence, and there are no employees working for her. 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 code; COMMENT: The 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 the neighborhood; and, does not require or allow employees to work on the property. B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan, COMMENT: The proposed home occupation conforms with the comprehensive plan, Specifically, Goal #A I, which states "Ensure that all land 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, safety, etc. Mi rte. Planning and "Zoning Commission Staff Report April 19, 1994 Lot 29A Block 1, Wildridge 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 Ms. Schorr at her the residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application with the conditions set forth below: 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 I. 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 4oning Commission Staff Report April 19, 1994 Lot 29A Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Special Review Use, Home Occupation PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: i Approved as submitted (✓S Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date rX / 1 Sue Railton, Secretary'6ze The Commission granted aaorcval for the Home Occupation Special Review Use permit as submitted. on PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Building Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Westgate Building Commercial and Office Project ZONING: Proposed PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision received PUD zoning approval from Town Council March 22, 1994. Ordinance NO 94-10 sets forth the development standards and is attached to this report. An application for Final Design review of a 15,000 square foot commercial building has been submitted by Elk Meadow Inc. It will be located on Lot 3, which is 1.02 acres and has a slope of approximately 2-3% The proposed building will stand approximately 30-35 1/2' in height and contain two levels. Following are the building materials Roof Metal Standing Seam Forest Green Siding Stucco Sand and Buff Other Stone Buff Fascia Cedar Natural Soffits Cedar/Aluminum Natural/Cedar Window Aluminum Forest Green Doors Aluminum Forest Green Trash Enclosure Stucco Match building The proposed landscape plant list has been included in your packet. An automatic and drip irrigation system is being proposed Landscape lighting is proposed for areas in fiont of the building The lighting will consist of below grade tree accent lighting with 120 voltage bulbs Below grade building lighting has been proposed with the same voltage as the landscape lighting. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed grading plan indicates grading on State tight -of -way, which the applicant has not received permission from the State Prior to the submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant must provide to the Town, State approval for grading in their right- of-way. If the State does not grant permission, the applicant must receive DRB approval for the revised grading plan prior to the issuance of a building permit Mechanical equipment is shown in the rear yard setback Placement of the equipment in the rear yard setback was not part of the development standards, therefore, the equipment a a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Building Final Design Review must be removed from the setback, or an amendment to the PUD processed and approved. The proposed landscape plan must meet the minimum Town standards, which is 6-8' high for coniferous trees, 2" caliper for deciduous trees and 5 gallons for other planting material. The entry sign location is not the same as the approved PUD development plan location. Any proposed signs must be approved separately from this application, since no information was provided The intersection of W beaver Creek Blvd and Hwy 6 & 24 has b.en identified for secondary intersection improvements in the Comprehensive Plan If the Town determines that future street and intersection improvements are necessary in this location, the applicant has agreed to participate in the cost for such improvements. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the "Town. Comment This proposal is in conformance with Town codes The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines The lot is suitable for commercial due to proximity of entrance to Beaver Creek and frontage along the highway The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment All impacts %%dl be contained on site The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment The proposed improvements are compatible %%ith the site The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF tcEPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Building Final Design Review Comment: This site is prominent from many locations in the area. The Sunridge Homeowners have been working with the applicant to reduce any negative impacts the proposed improvement may produce for Sunridge to the north. The applicant, in conjunction with Sunridge Homeowners, has proposed coniferous landscaping on Sunridge property, just north of the proposed building. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment. The proposal meets the objective of this guideline. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Comment: The proposal is in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application with the following conditions: I . The applicant submit to the Town of Avon permission from the State of Colorado to grade on State property prior to plans being submitted for a building permit. If permission is not granted, a revised grading plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission if the site plan has substantial changes. 2. The mechanical equipment be removed from the rear yard setback or the PUD amended to allow for the encroachment. 3. The landscape plan must meet the minimum standards of the Town of Avon. 4. A Master Sign Program must be submitted and approved by Planning and Zoning 5. The applicant agrees to participate in any future street or intersection improvements should the Town decide the improvements are necessary 6. All meters shall be placed on the building. 7. All flues, flashings and vents shall have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building, RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review M PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF KEPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Building Final Design Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted 441atir 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 / zWcSue Railton, Secretary SEE ATTACHED SHEET PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 3, Biock 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Building Final Design Review The Commission granted final deisgn approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant submit to the Town of Avon permission from the State of Colorado to grade on State property prior to plans being submitted for a building permit. If permission is not granted, a revised grading plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission if the site plan has substantial changes. 2. The mechanical equipment will be allowed in the rear yard setback without the PUD being amended, based on the fact that it would have gone through original approval with the original PUD and it is consistent with the rear overhangs that exists in the PUD. 3. The landscape plan will be returned to show additional screening for those air conditioning units that are to be allowed on the rear. 4. A Master Sign Program must be submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. All meters shall be placed on the building. 6. All flues, flashings and vents shall have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building. 7. The rear elevation design will be returned to show changes in that elevation to increase the interest by whatever means the applicant feels is possible. Io►i ,to ;t• 40 aw \JW#A Vd► • ,Ago 0 m f z 0 a W J W Q W cc .0-.01 dlei A It dib $I 4 A z 0 Q W WW W P661 Vi 005%1 .ay cdf lf-M1319M0\01'J/\J 4- 0 438 DIA — — HOLES MIN. MIN. - 0- 2.1961.250"DIA. TWO" 5,500" O 1.250" DIA 4.250" MOLE DRILLING TEMPLATE FOR SQUARE POLES tE1 (D Pull power supply cable through nut plate hole and secure with strain relief assembly. Q Attach mounting bracket to pole and nut plate. Q Attach mounting bracket to luminaire housing. Pull luminoire leads in- to pole through wire access holes and connect leads according to wiring instructions. Install pole cap. Instoll cover and secure with cover screw. ■:fug:Fc1/:1 1:1---- ''--i9 — — L All light sources are clear unless otherwise indicated. Wattage Light Source Ballast Type Amb. °C SPM -175 L UMINA IRE 2• n. Dr Acrylicop WALL MSU N T s MC31 SCS I SC5 I SC5 SPMM 50 70. 100, 150(55V) HPS HIPS H H SPMM 25 25 8265 8265 i SYMM —Contact Factory 8304 8304 14.500' 9.500" 7.500"y MOUNTING ACCESSORY H A H A il 8271 8271 8308 8308 1 8310 1 8310 8309 8309 WMPDB-SP Wall Mounting Plate NOTE '480 volt is "m" ,4.soo' i m 318"-16x314" t BOLT (2) 2.000"--4 i_-- --� 6.500" 4 -- TOP VIEW BOTTOM VIEW SIDE VIEW WITH DROP LENS m OUICK 1 EASY INSTALLATION (hojs,r j access rOl'egw'ed) II 65001, J 0 438 DIA — — HOLES MIN. MIN. - 0- 2.1961.250"DIA. TWO" 5,500" O 1.250" DIA 4.250" MOLE DRILLING TEMPLATE FOR SQUARE POLES tE1 (D Pull power supply cable through nut plate hole and secure with strain relief assembly. Q Attach mounting bracket to pole and nut plate. Q Attach mounting bracket to luminaire housing. Pull luminoire leads in- to pole through wire access holes and connect leads according to wiring instructions. Install pole cap. Instoll cover and secure with cover screw. ■:fug:Fc1/:1 1:1---- ''--i9 — — L All light sources are clear unless otherwise indicated. Wattage Light Source Ballast Type Amb. °C Photometric Curve Number 35-17.... Flat Glass 2• n. Dr Acrylicop -in. Dro�pp olycarD. Multivolt120-480 MC31 SCS I SC5 I SC5 SPMM 50 70. 100, 150(55V) HPS HIPS H H H H', M 25 25 8265 8265 i 8302 8302 8304 8304 8303 8303 70175, 100 175 MH MH H A H A 25 25 8271 8271 8308 8308 1 8310 1 8310 8309 8309 SYMM—Contact Factory NOTE '480 volt is "m" D.I. ..b^1 ro cnenge w,nnour nonce Page 3 5118 Dec 1990 0 8.000'•-i 318" - 16 x 3/4" BOLT (2) FAP! omate Net Weight (Lbs.) 20 REFERENCES .500"DIA. HOLE (4) N so PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Eubanks/Hubers Duplex Variance - Front Pard Setback PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD- Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING'' No, Requires a Variance to Front Yard Setback Requirements This is a Public Hearing for a variance to the front yard and side yard setbacks on Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision. INTRODUCTION: This residence received Final Design Review approval on April 5, 1994 with a condition that the garage and retaining walls be removed from the front yard setback or a variance applied for and approval given. The applicants, represented by John Railton, have submitted an application requesting a variance from the 25' front yard setback requirement to construct various retaining walls, and a portion of the west garage in the setback. REQUEST: The request is to construct retaining walls 15' into the front yard setback and a portion of the garage 12' into the front yard setback. Approximately 12' of the garage side will be visible. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Lot 42, Block 2 of Wildridge Subdivision is 1.5 acres in size, slopes from north to south at approximately 41%. The lot has a linear configuration with minimal depth. STAFF COMMENTS: The duplex was approved with various conditions, one being all retaining walls be structural and designed by an Engineer This condition applies to the retaining walls in the front yard setback and will be a condition of approval for this request. Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance Section 17.36.40. Approval Criteria A. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Comment. The lot configuration is linear in nature with minimal depth and steep slopes, similar to the lot across the street, which has no improvements at this time. Lot 42 is surrounded by Tract F on the east, west and south and Wildridge Road on the north. The PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19. 1994 Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Eubanks[Hubers Duplex Variance - Front Yard Setback only similar relationship with potential uses or structures would be the lots across the street, which have no conceptual or approved plans B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibly and uniformity of treatment among; sites in the vicinity. Comment. The degree of relief being requested is due to the narrowness and steepness of the site. This request could be compatible with the adjacent property due to the steep nature of those lots in the area, however. no development proposals have been requested 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 D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. Comment Staff has not identified any other factors for the Commission to consider FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Eubanks/Hubers Duplex Variance - Front Pard Setback iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommendation is for approval of the front yard setback variance request based on the findings and conditions below Staff feels that the request meets the required criteria necessary for approval FINDINGS: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. 2 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. 3 The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, CONDITIONS: I The retaining walls in the front yard setback and on the rest of the site be structural and designed by an Engineer RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3 Open Public Hearing 4 Close Public Hearing 5 Commission Review 6 Commission .fiction PI._1NNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Eubanks/Hubers Duplex Variance - Front Yard Setback Respectfully submitted. a 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._ i/JetSue Railton. Secretary A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege incoesis�ent wittl the liinita ons on other properties Fn -the vicinity. B.—That-the granting of the variance will not be detrimentalto the -public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in C. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. CONDITION: The retaining walls be structural and bdesigned by an engineer. a A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 53, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Plavic Duplex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD -2 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING) YES INTRODUCTION: Terramont Building Contractors has submitted phnns for Final Design Review approval of a duplex on lot 53, which is 1.6 acres. The site slopes from east to west at approximately 20-25%. The duplex will consist of the following materials. Materials Color Roof asphalt slate green Siding cedar lap natural Other stucco Spanish white peeled log posts natural Fascia cedar natural Soffits 1/4" plywood Spanish white Window wood with alum. clad white Window Trim stucco Spanish white Door/Trim wood natural Hand/ Deck Rail peeled logs natural Flues/Flashings galvanized alum. natural Chimney stucco Spanish white Garage Door t&g cedar natural The landscape plan consists of 12 aspen at 2" caliper, 6 Russian olives at 2" caliper, 3 blue spruce at 6' high, 5 englemen spruce at 6' high, 6 Potentilla and 20 tam juniper at 5 gallons each. Sod is not shown and revegitation is proposed with native grass and wildflower mix. An irrigation system has not been indicated, but hay or retention cloth will be applied if necessary. The Commission reviewed this application at the March I, 1994 Planning and Zoning meeting and made the following comments: 1. Concern regarding the open arches, 2. A massing model would be helpful in understanding the project, 3. Roof pitches, and 4. West elevation looking like a fourplex PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • April 19, 1994 Lot 53, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Plavic Duplex Final Design Review S ; AFF COMMENTS: Site disturbance is shown up to the north property line. The placement of a construction/erosion control fence is being required prior to any site disturbance to avoid any encroachment onto the north property and mitigate erosion downhill. Access onto the site is proposed by two driveway cuts. The Town Engineer would like the applicant to consider one driveway cut since the access is on a cul-de-sac The grading plan submitted for a building permit must show the grades for the east driveway entrance and how it ties in with existing grades. The proposed landscaping on the northeast portion of the site should be relocated out of the snow storage area The blue spruce located in the right-of-way must be located away from snow storage areas and on private property Exterior building lighting has not been indicated. The applicant must receive approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the exterior lighting Revegetation must include native bt!shes, in addition to native grass and wildflower mix DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project Conformance with the 'Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment This proposal is in conformance with Town codes The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment All impacts will be contained on site �i►t r'"t► PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 53, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Plavic Duplex Final Design Review The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site !opography. Comment The design minimize the impact to the site The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment The visual appearance of the proposed improvements .ill not negatively impact neighboring properties or public ways The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Comment The proposal is in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this final design review with the following conditions 1. The flues, (lashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of iLe 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 The first 20' of the driveway must maintain a maximum 4% slope 6. Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site 7 The blue spruce be placed on private property and out of snow storage areas 8 The grading plan indicate the finished grades for the east driveway entrance RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 53, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Plavic Duplex Final Design Review 3 Commission Review 4 Commission Action Respectfully submitted, -, C� Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( Or Approved with recommended conditions ( pproved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 4 If f# Sue Railton, Secretary iv� -4A� --c SEE ATTACHED SHEET Lot 53, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Plavec Duplex The Commission granted final design review approval with the following conditions: 1. The flues, flashirgs and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 2. The building liqhting be approved by Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Revegetation include naive bushes. 4. Meters be placed on the building. 5. The first 20' of the driveway must maintain a maximum of 4`, slope. 6. Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/erosion fence be placed on site. 7. The blue spruce be p',aced on private property and out of snow storage areas. 8. The grading plan indicate the finished grades for the east driveway entrance. 004 I 1 I�11, � • i I, L• • .I ''IIIA i 1 1 't �� I i gill I ILII I i / I 1 I'II list I 1 k k 7al x 4 A l[ - 4 A M u i Ill�l i ' \F I 3 � v F .ri. I r i l _I li (( I 01% Ltv K Ill�l i ' \F I �z =j v F .ri. I > > l _I 01% It ''1 i I i i 0 wra /r1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 36-A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Storage Shed Placement Final Design Review -Site Modification INTRODUCTION Mr. Gillialand has submitted an application requesting approval for the placement of a metal storage shed on the east side of the existing structure. The shed is 10' by 8' and stands approximately 7', 2" in height. The body of the shed is gray and the roof is brown. STAFF COMMENT The Zoning Code allows accessory buildings in every zone district, provided it is subordinate to the principal building and are not provided with kitchen or bath facilities sufficient to render them suitable for permanent residential occupancy (Chapter 17.50-A). The shed is made of metal, which the Planning and Zoning Commission Procedures, Rules and Regulations, Section 6.25 Building Design: C. Building Materials states "Metal siding, concrete or concrete block will be permitted only with specific approval of the Commission." The shed is located encroaching into the side yard setback. The encroachment is not allowed. The applicant has agreed to locate the shed else where on the site, and Staff would suggest it be removed from the setback and placed in the back, underneath the deck. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Should the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this modification, Staff recommends the following condition: 1. The shed be located out of the side yard setback, and placed behind the structure, underneath the deck. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 36-A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Storage Shed Placement Final Design Review -Site Modification Respectfully submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued (W Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date Sue Railton, Secretary Since there was no representative for this application present, the Commission tabled this item. BE J,ERQ CREEK Bi vu. w 0 . 30.4953.25' A. R ° 510.00 —j— _— I• N S 27°05'23° E I 03° ' • pl TA.A�. .� YP ` �.:.d � (•, - �.QI!>P� of IPO I aN4 "7p?" k .•fin O N N ' N I � I I .n I � I • `\`` � \ moo\ ` \ q1 yT LD I in to \ I I i � I LL •.:. a o l I' `Nil, C o o t. 392 , _✓.' .'�; ,j?„. 53 til 8 .� g 29°55'07II E Enid. t"T UT10TY AND DRAINAGE —2f► _ _ • lb Owner's Manual & Assembly Instructions Model No. C0108 -3B ❑ LX' 08-313 ❑ jdn��. VS108-3B ❑ ARROW World's Leading Maker Y1T 108-3B ❑ of Storage Buildings it 697.68729-313 ❑ � CAUTIONSOME PARTS HAVE SHARP EDGES. CARE MUST BE TAKEN WHEN HANDLING THE VARIOUS PIECES TO AVOID A MISHAP. FOR SAFETY SAKE, PLEASE READ SAFETY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS MANUAL BUILDING DIMENSIONS 'Size rounded off to the nearest foot BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. WEAR GLOVES WHEN HANDLING METAL PARTS. 70258A Exterior Dimensions Interior Dimensions •Approx. Foundation Storage Area (Roof Edge to Roof Edge) (Well to Well) Size Size Sq. Ft. Cu. Ft. Width Depth Height Width Depth Height 10' x 8' 121' x 92 3/4' 74 487 123 1/4• 95 1/4' 877/8- 1181/4- 90' 86 5/8' 1.08-3B LX108-3B VS108-3B YT108-3B 697.68729-3BI PROOF OF r URC4AS'c PROTECTED BY RUST-OLEUM C0108, LX108, YT108, 697.68729 AN EXCLUSIVE QUALITY ENDORSEMENT Rust-Oleum is the recognized leader in rust and moisture protective paints and coatings for home and industry. We've earned this leadership position through an unwavering commitment to quality -- researching, testing and retesting every product that bears the Rust-Oleum name. The PROTECTED BY RUST-OLEUM symbol means thatyour storage building is protected by paints and coating applications which have met Rust-Oleum's stringent testing standards for rust and moisture protection. Donald Fergusson President Rust-Oleum Corporation SOME FACTS ABOUT RUST Rusting is a natural oxidizing process that occurs when bare metal is exposed to moisture. Problem areas include screw holes, un nished edges, or where scrapes and nicks occur in the protective coating through normal assembly, handling and u;.•q. Identifying these natural rusting problem areas and taking some simple rust protection precautions can help to stop rust from developing, Gr stop it quickly as soon as it appears. 1. Avoid nicking or scraping the coating surface, inside and out. 2. Use all the washers supplied. In addition to protecting against weather infiltration, the washers protectthe metal from being scraped bythe screws 3. Keep roof, base perimeter and door tracks free of debris and leaves which mayaccumulate and retain moisture. These can do double damage since they give off acid as they decay. 4. Touch up scrapes or nicks and any area of visible rust as soon as possible. Make sure the surface is free of moisture, oils, dirt or grime and then apply an even film of high quality touch-up paint. 5 YEAR LI^JJTED WARRANTY (10 YEARS ON VS108 ONLY) Arrow Group Industries, Inc. warrants That this outdoor storage building will not fail due to perforation caused by ruslmg through of material for a period of rive years. (10 years on VS only). We will rr-place any part found to be perforated by rust under normal use znd service within that period. For this warranty to be in effect, The building must be maintained as directed in the Owner's Manual; roof and perimeter of base must be kept clear of leaves, grass and otherdebris. Claims under this warranty should he made by sending the part (or clear photograph) with proof of purchase, transportation charges prepaid to: Customer Service Department Arrow Group Industries, Inc. Breese, Illinois 62230 THIS WARRANTY IS LIMITED TO REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE PARTS. LABOR CHARGES AND ALL OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CC+NSEOUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR BREACH OFTHIS WARRANTY OR THE I MFLIED W ARRANIIFS OF MERCI-1NTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXCLUDED. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL DAMAGES SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLU- SION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other rights which vary front state to slate. 7n_'59A `j As!(�Pnibly by Key No. WE Door Chart CO LX VS YT 697.68729 Right Door 9290 8912 9524 7296 8538 Left Door 928+ 0573 I 9523 7297 8539 t • Parts Needed For • ' 6462 Right Roof Panel (one) Ste 1 4 • 5209 Roof Panel (two) 1 R fight Side. Of Roof • 6538 Roof Panel (one) • 8463 Left Roof Panel (one) Installing the roof panels is best done with a step ladder. Begin in- stalling roof panels at the back right corner of the building. Each screw and bolt in the roof require a black washer. NOTE Measure the building diagonally again and make adjustments to make sure the building is square. This will make the roof panels fit bEaer, and holes will align. 1 Locate all the roof panels by their numbers and place them against the building in their c roper posi- tions. NOTE In this procedure, you will install all the roof panels except one. lou will install the last panel when you install the ridge caps. 21"osition a right roof panel at the back right corner and fasten to the gable and roof beams using screws and bolts as shown. Do not fasten the lower end of the panels to the side wall angles at this time. Hirt: Follow the fastener sequence shown, for proper alignment. Install the remaining roof panels and left roof panel for the right side in the positions shown above. 4cut the weather stripping tape into 28 strips, each strip being about 3" long. Press 12 strips firmly over the notched areas of the roof panels on the right side of the roof. Save the V58A otner 16 strips for the left side. �63 B462 5209 Installedilii yiUiiiiiii, 5209Later6538 6538 0 8452 — — — 8463 Front s STEP 0 2®� ca ®m o° ml l Iii l I I I� 3 2 1 L? 4 Nut 5 Ate—Washer e d8462 Rlnht Rnnf Pnr,ol Screws To Roof Beam Fasten At Overlap With 8 Bolt use bolts and nuts thru roof beam overlaps at the top and middle of panel ' Screws At Bottom Attach To Wall Angle Weather Stripping Tape 27 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 1-2, The Lodge at Avon Subdivision Avon Town Square Final Design Review -Sign Program PROJECT TYPE: Commercial -Master Sign Program ZONING Town Center COMPLIES WITH ZONING' Yes INTRODUCTION Avon Town Square was approved in December of 1993 with a condition that the tenant sign program come back for P & Z approval Larry Ast has submitted an application for approval of the tenant sign program. REQUEST: Please refer to the attached summary of the tenant signage. STAFF COMMENTS External lighting is being proposed for the garden level tenants. The 4 square foot sign will have lights attached from above and shine on both sides of the sign. There is no indication of cones around the bulbs in which case, Staff will be requiring the bulbs placed in cones. Lighting for the 16 square foot signs have not been shown. A condition of approval will be the applicant to have lighting approved prior to placement of any 16 square foot sign. The proposed sign area for main level tenants is a total of 60 square feet each in the form of two signs at 30 square feet. There is a provision in the sign program that if a tenant has multiple spaces, they will get 100% sign area for one space and SO% of signage for each additional space and may have ,one sign centered over their multiple spaces This would allow for one sign to be, at a minimum, 45 square feet. Staff recommends that the sign area coincide with each space and if a tenant has more than one space, the tenant have one sign for each space not to exceed 30 square feet. This will maintain a balance on the facade of the building. "Sign Guidelines" and review criteria from the Sign Code Section 15.28 060 Sien 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 1w1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFN REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 1-2, The Lodge at Avon Subdivision Avon Town Square Final Design Review -Sign Program 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 lighiing, 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 pedeutrians 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: A. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to he located Comment: The proposed Sign Program is consistent with the Town's Sign Design Guidelines. 0% 014 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFr REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 1-2, The Lodge at Avon Subdivision Avon Town Square Final Design Review -Sign Program 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: omment: The visual impact of these proposed improvements will be consistent with existing area signs. E. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetrry or aesthetic , will be impaired: Comment: Staff feels that consistent sign locations provide clarity while each sign/lo,,o will provide diversity. 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 signs generally comply 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. omment: These signs are primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning approve this application with the following conditions: 1. The lighting for the garden level signs needs approval prior to placement of the sign. 2. Each tenant space must have a sign of the specified dimensions centered over the space. r�► w PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 1-2, The Lodge at Avon Subdivision Avon Town Square Final Design Review -Sign Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted y►411«t- Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (✓S Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 43 / lei, Sue Railton Secretary The Commission granted approval for the proposed sin program with the following amendment. The square footage of the signs remain the same for one bay, if two bays are added then it would be an additional 50%, and if a third bay was added it would be acaltional COMPREHENSNE TENANT SIGNAGE PROGRAM SLIFER SMITH & FRAMPTON CENTER BENCHMARK RD. AVON,COLORADO APRIL, 1994 SUMMARY OF TENANT SIGNAGE: FIRST FLOOR TENANTS FIRST FLOOR TENANTS ARE PERMITTED TWO SIGNS, ONE ON EACH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. EACH TO HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 30 SQUARE FEET. BUSINESS NAME TO BE REVERSE PAN CHANNEL LETTERS, PMS GREEN #330U, WITH SECONDARY COPY EITHER REVERSE PAN CHA_`,NEL LETTERS OR METAL LETTERS, SAME PMS COLOR, STUD MOUNTED 1/2" OFF THE WALL. GARDEN LEVEL TENANTS GARDEN LEVEL TENANTS MAY HAVE ONE 16 SQUARE FOOT SIGN (2" X 8"), TO BE CENTERED OVER THE DOORWAY TO THE UNIT. MATERIAL TO BE SANDBLASTED 1 1/2" URETHANE SIGN FOAM MOUNTED IN A METAL CHANNEL, OFFSET 6" FROM THE BUILDING. THE COLOR SHALL BE THE SAME TAN AS BUILDING COLOR, SIMILAR TO PMS #4545U. THE LETTERS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1/4" METAL PAINTED PMS GREEN #330U, AND BE STUD MOUNTED WITH A 1/2" OFFSET FROM THE PANEL. GARDEN LEVEL TENANTS WILL ALSO BE PERMITTED A 4 SQUARE FOOT SIGN, 12" X 48", TO BE HUNG PERPENDICULAR TO THE FRONT DOOR. THE SIGN WILL BE MADE OF URETHANE SIGN FOAM OR REDWOOD, AND BE SANDBLASTED OR CARVED WITH THE BUSINESS NAME AND LOGO. COLORS TO BE TAN BACKGROUND, THE BUILDING COLOR PMS #4545U, AND GREEN PMS #330U LETTERS. SEE FOLLOWING FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. HIGHTECHSIGNS P.O. Box 2688 Production Center Aspen & Vail, C0 81658 910 Nottingham Road Glenwood Sprgs. 303.949.4565 Suite S.2 303.945 6695 FAX:949.4670 Avnn.0081670 ,on., A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. ALL TENANTS AND OWNERS WILL SUBMIT TO THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL PROPOSED SIGNAGE. WRITTEN APPROVAL IS NEEDED PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE TOWN OF AVON. 2. ALL IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONDOMINIUM OWNER, AND UPON VACATING BY A TENANT, THE EXISTING SIGNAGE WILL BE REMOVED AND ALL HOLES AND DISCOLORATION WILL BE PROMPTLY AND PROFESSIONALLY REPAIRED, (BY THE CONDOMINIUM OWNER). TINE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCI :TION WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO PERFORM SUCH WORK, IF NOT DONE BY THE CONDOMINIUM OWNER IN A TIMELY OR PROFESSIONAL MANNER, AND LIEN THE PROPERTY FOR ALL COSTS INCURRED. 3. ALL WORKMANSHIP AND SPECIFICATIONS WILL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. 4. THE COST OF OBTAINING PERMITS AND APPROVALS WILL BE THAT OF THE CONDOMINIUM OWNER. 5. ALL FIRST FLOOR OCCUPANTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SIGNAGE, AND THAT 1 SIGNAGE IS TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE APPROVED SIGN PLAN. B. SIGNAGE SPECIFICATION 1. FIRST FLOOR TENANT SIGNAGE TENANT IDENTIFICATION WILL BE IN THE AREAS INDICATED ON EXHIBITS 2 AND 3. THESE SIGNS WILL BE REVERSE PAN CHANNEL LETTERS, GREEN IN COLOR (PMS 330U), AND MAY CONSIST OF TEXT AND LOGOS, WITH THE LOGOS COMPRISING A MAXIMUM OF 35% OF THE ACTUAL SIGNAGE. MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE 26", AND MAXIMUM WIDTH SHALL BE 60% OF THE SPACE FRONTAGE. (SEE EXHIBIT 6). MAXFviUM LETTER HEIGHT FOR A SINGLE LINE OF TYPE SHALL BE 20". A MAXIMUM OF TWO LINES OF COPY SHALI, BE ALLOWED, IN WHICH CASE A MINIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE 8", AND A MAXIMUM SHALL BE 16" PER LINE. THE I OTAL HEIGHT OF THE TWO LINES SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN 26". THE TEXT PORTION MAY CONSIST OF A BUSINESS NAME AND THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. THE BUSINESS NAME SHALL BE A MINIMUM 50% OF THE SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS PORTION MAY BE ILLUMINATED, OR NOT, AT THE OPTION OF THE BUSINESS. IF NOT ILLUMINATED, THE TEXT SHALL BE PAINTED METAL LETTERS, WITH GREEN PMS 330U, STUD MOUNTED, 1/2" OFF THE WALL. A TENANT MAY HAVE TWO SIGNS (ONE ON THE NORTH AND ONE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION) IF THEIR SPACE GOES TO EACH ELEVATION. IF THE SPACE IS SUBDIVIDED THE TENANTS MAY SHARE THE SIGN SPACE. TYPESTYLES AND LOGOS SHALL BE UP TO TENANT SELECTION, BUT WRITTEN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION APPROVAL IS REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPATIBILITY OF SUCH SIGNAGE WITH THE FIRST CLASS IMAGE THAI' THE AVON TOWN SQUARE COMPLEX IS MAINTAINING. IF A FIRST FLOOR BUSINESS OCCUPIES MORE THEN ONE SPACE, THAT TENANT CAN USE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWANCE FOR THE FIRST SPACE, PLUS 50% OF EACH OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWANCE FOR EACH ADDITIONAL SPACE. ALL WINDOW SIGNAGE SHALL CONFORM TO THE THEN CURRENT TOWN OF AVON PERMITTED SIGNAGE. COLORS, SIZE AND PLACEMENT SHALL FIRST REQUIRE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION TO INSURE COMPATIBILITY OF SUCH SIGNAGE WITH THE FIRST CLASS IMAGE THAT THE AVON TOWN SQUARE COMPLEX IS MAINTAINING. 2. GARDEN LEVEL SIGNAGE EACH TENANT ON THE GARDEN LEVEL MAY HAVE A SIGN FACE OF 16 SQ FEET, WITH PLACEMENT AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 3. THESE SIGNS WILL BE EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED. MATERIAL FOR THE SIGN SHALL BE SAND BLASTED URETHXNE SIGNFOAM, l 1/2" THICK, WITH THE BACKGROUND TO BE TAN COLOR SIMILAR TO THE BUILDING, PMS 45450, AND TEXT AND LOGO TO BE GREEN PMS 330U. TENANTS CAN UTILIZE ANY COMBINATION OF LOGO AND TEXT WITH THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. IF A GARDEN LEVEL TENANT OCCUPIES MORE THAN ONE SPACE, THEY SHALL BE ALLOWED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE PRIMARY SPACE PLUS THE SIGN FACE AREA FOR EACH ADDITIONAL UNIT. THE SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED IN THE AREAS INDICATED IN EXHIBIT 3. 3. SECOND LEVEL TENANTS SECOND LEVEL TENANTS ARE NOT PERMITTED EXTERIOR OR WINDOW SIGNAGE 4. TEMPORARY SIGNAGE AFTER APPROVAL OF A PERMANENT SIGN BY THE TOWN OF AVON, THE TENANT CAN UTILIZE A TEMPORARY BANNER. THE COLOR SHALL BE A TAN SIMILAR TO THE BUILDING COLOR, THE COPY WILL BE A GREEN SIMILAR TO PMS 330U COLOR, AND THE COPY SIZE, LAYOUT AND TYPESTYLE SHALL BE SIMILAR TO THAT APPROVED IN THE PERMANENT SIGNAGE. THE TEMPORARY BANNER MAY BE USED FOR A MAXIMUM OF 60 DAYS DURING THE MANUFACTURING OF THE PERMANENT SIGNAGE. NO OTHER TEMPORARY SIGNS MAY BE USED, INCLUDING SALE SIGNS. EXHIBIT 6 TENANT SIGNAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE & SPECIFICATIONS ADDITIONAL SIGN SPECIFICATIONS SQUAREFOOTAGE BASED ON 26" HIGH COPY 25.35 30.00 26.00 26.00 30.00 24.70 23.40 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 26.00 30.00 30.00 I ALL PERMITS FOR SIGNS AND THEIR INSTALLATION SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE TENANT AND COMPLY WITH ALL GOVERNMENTAL ORDINANCES, ALL SIGNS AND THEIR INSTALLATION SHALL COMPLY WITH AL1. LOCAL BUILDING, ZONING, AND ELECTRICAL CODES, 2. CONDOMIMINIUM ASSOCIATION WILL SUPPLY 120V POWER TO AN ELECTICAL JUNCTION BOX IN THE SIGN AREA, A LICENSED ELECTRICIAN WILL NEED TO MAKE THE FINAL ELECTRIC"" CONNECTION AFTER SIGN INSTALLATION. 3. ALL REVERSED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS WILL BE 5" DEEP, FABRICATED FROM PAINTLOK SHEET METAL (24 GUAGE), MOUNTED DIRECTLY TO THE BUILDING (NO RACEWAYS PERMITTED), AND REMOTE WIRED. TTIE MINIMUM STROKE SHALL BE 1 3/4" TO PERMIT PK HOUSINGS FOR ALL WALL PENETRATIONS. 4. ALL NON -ILLUMINATED COPY AND LOGO WILL BE STUD MOUNTED WITH A 1/2" TO 1" REVEAL, SIMILAR TO THAT OF REVERSED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS, AND BE FABRICATED FROM CAST OR CUT OUT METAL LETTERS PAINTED. 5. ALL SIGNS ARE TO BE CENTERED HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY IN THE TENANT SIGN AREA, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 6. THE COLORS OF THE LETTERS SHALL BE GREEN, PMS N330U. 7. ALL SIGNS WILL BE ILLUMINATED WITH SUFFICIENT POWER TO INSURE EVEN ILLUMINATION IN COLD WEATHER. 8. NEON WINDOW SIGNS ARE NOT PERMITTED. LINEAR FRONTAGE T-1 19'6" 1\."I' T-2 25' S T-3 20' is T4 20' �a T-5 24' 4 •%4 T-6 19' i1 y T-7 18' �n T-8 25' v5 T-9 24' \ 4 4 T-10 24 y T-11 24'\y u T-12 20' T-13 24'\} T-14 24' IV•'} ADDITIONAL SIGN SPECIFICATIONS SQUAREFOOTAGE BASED ON 26" HIGH COPY 25.35 30.00 26.00 26.00 30.00 24.70 23.40 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 26.00 30.00 30.00 I ALL PERMITS FOR SIGNS AND THEIR INSTALLATION SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE TENANT AND COMPLY WITH ALL GOVERNMENTAL ORDINANCES, ALL SIGNS AND THEIR INSTALLATION SHALL COMPLY WITH AL1. LOCAL BUILDING, ZONING, AND ELECTRICAL CODES, 2. CONDOMIMINIUM ASSOCIATION WILL SUPPLY 120V POWER TO AN ELECTICAL JUNCTION BOX IN THE SIGN AREA, A LICENSED ELECTRICIAN WILL NEED TO MAKE THE FINAL ELECTRIC"" CONNECTION AFTER SIGN INSTALLATION. 3. ALL REVERSED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS WILL BE 5" DEEP, FABRICATED FROM PAINTLOK SHEET METAL (24 GUAGE), MOUNTED DIRECTLY TO THE BUILDING (NO RACEWAYS PERMITTED), AND REMOTE WIRED. TTIE MINIMUM STROKE SHALL BE 1 3/4" TO PERMIT PK HOUSINGS FOR ALL WALL PENETRATIONS. 4. ALL NON -ILLUMINATED COPY AND LOGO WILL BE STUD MOUNTED WITH A 1/2" TO 1" REVEAL, SIMILAR TO THAT OF REVERSED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS, AND BE FABRICATED FROM CAST OR CUT OUT METAL LETTERS PAINTED. 5. ALL SIGNS ARE TO BE CENTERED HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY IN THE TENANT SIGN AREA, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 6. THE COLORS OF THE LETTERS SHALL BE GREEN, PMS N330U. 7. ALL SIGNS WILL BE ILLUMINATED WITH SUFFICIENT POWER TO INSURE EVEN ILLUMINATION IN COLD WEATHER. 8. NEON WINDOW SIGNS ARE NOT PERMITTED. a ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF PORT April 19, 1994 Lot 87, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision MacNeil Single Family Final Design Review -Modifications PROJECT TYPE Final Design Review -Modifications ZONING: PUD -Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Mr. Larry MacNeil has submitted an application for modifications to his FDR approved site plan. The changes include: I. Building height reduced by 3; 2. Building mass reduced, 3. Addition of four deciduous trees to existing landscape plan (condition of approval for original FDR); and 4. Adding 5' to the depth of the structure. Materials, colors, architectural style and window placement are remaining the same APPROVAL HISTORY The MacNeil residence received Final Design Review approval, with conditions, at the July 6, 1993 Planning and Zoning meeting. At that meeting, the Commission commented on: the building height; adding deciduous trees to the south elevation; and moving the house 10' south on the site. The Commission approved the application with the condition that four deciduous trees be added. STAFF COMMENTS: The landscape plan remains the same with the exception of four additional green ash trees at 2" caliper. Three have been added to the south elevation and one was added to the west elevation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application with the following conditions 1. Utility meters be placed on the house. 2. Any retaining walls over 4' in height be disigned by a registered engineer. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAF� PORT April 19, 1994 Lot 87, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision MacNeil Single Family Final Design Review -Modifications RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, J4/AtT— Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommen(led conditions (,'Ol' Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 1 / Sue Railton, Secretary T The Commission granted final design approval with the following conditions: 1. Utility meters be placed on the building. 2. Any retaining walls over 4' in height. bedeeignpd by an enainppr PLANNING * ZONING COMMISSION STAFftPORT April 19, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Elementary School ZONING: GPEH COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Jack Berga, on behalf of Eagle Countv School District, has submitted an application for conceptual design review for the Avon Elementary School on Tract P It will be located just north of the water treatment facility on West Beaver Creek Blvd. The school will contain two levels and stand approximately 36' high The school will consist of the following materials Materials Colors Roof metal/flat EPDM ballasted evergreen Siding stucco/ brick sandstone/tan Fascia metal evergreen Soffits metal evergreen Window hollow metal evergreen Door hollow metal dk bronze Door Trim metal dk bronze Flues/Flashings �lues/Flashings hidden Trash Enclosure brick tan Screen Wall match building The proposed landscape plant list is included in your packet STAFF COMMENTS: The site layout for the school and surrounding yard appears to be encroaching into the detention berm contours on the east side of the site There may be no cuts into the berm or any contour changes to the existing berm This berm and detention area are for holding overflow from the lake A drainage study and plan must be submitted for FDR which addresses treatment of runoff from the parking and drainage coming onto the site from the north Following are sections from the Comprehensive Plan that specifically address this site I Section 4 Land Use Plan: Nottingham Park Area, states that an elementary school is a compatible use for this site ana should be designed to allow and encourage public access to the park. a 01111 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Conceptual Design Review 2. The Transportation/Circulation Plan 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. To -Am Staff has reviewed the application and following are the comments: Site Plan 1. An accurate site plan on a certified topography showing the following: a. all property lines; b. all easements; c. all setbacks; d. limits of site disturbance; e. grading; f. drainage (a drainage study must be prepared and submitted for FDR): and g. existing driveway entrances on the west side of Beaver Creek Blvd. 2. The parking may not meet the ADA requirements for handicapped spaces; Building Design 1 Exterior lighting for the building and site must be submitted for FDR. 2. Materials and colors must be called out on the building elevations and samples provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since this is a conceptual design review, Staff has no recommendation. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner - 1�1 r•. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School Conceptual Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (vY Date / ue Railton, Secretary As a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. The ommission discussed the materials o be used, -off area and parking. They also suggested some sort of gable form to emphasize considerable discussion. The Commission asked the applicant to provide a pt�Ssing model at final design review. :� — G O ® E . 0 a a Q ® C W z ® C ED C C3 as tl a \ El u o o a a j 4tl a E3 ❑ u, — G O W J W it Q i }• W z — a ,a it Q i — Q it Q i }• W z 1 r 1� 1 APR -05-1994 15:24 FROM Lescher 8 Mahuney — PHX TO 130=1024 P.02 EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT AVON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPOSED PLANT LIST BOTANICAL NAME COWON NAME PINUS NIGRA AUSTRIAN BLACK PINE PICEA PUNGENS GLAUCA COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE ACER PLATANOI DES 'CRIMSON KING' CRIMSON KING MAPLE FRAXINUS EXCELSIOR EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN ASIi GLEDITSIA TRIANCANTHOS INERMIS THORNLESS HONEYLOCUST JUNIPERUS SA.BINA TAMARISCIFOLIA TAM JUNIPER SYRINGA VUGARIS COMMON LILAC CORNUS STOLONIFERA REDOISER DOGWOOD SPIREA VANHOUTTEI SPIREA SIZE 6'-8' 6'-8' 1 1/2" C. 1 1/4" C. 1 1/2" 5 GAL.. 5 GA.L. 5 GAL 5 GAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF KEPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczky Duplex Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE Duplex ZONING Residential Duplex -RD COMPLIES WITH ZONING' YES INTRODUCTION: Stephen Richards has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of a duplex on Lot 37, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision The lot is 25 acres in size The duplex will contain two levels and stand approximately 30' high The duplex will consist of the following materials Roof Siding Other Fascia Soffits Window Window "frim Door Flues/Flashings Chimney The landscape plan includes Spruce Aspen Crabapple Cotoneaster Currant Potentilla Rose Materials Colors asphalt shingles weatherwood Ix8 cedar channel 4911 Oly stucco monterey I x6/2x 10 cedar #707 Oly r s plywood cedar 0911 metal clad bronze r s wood cedar insul #91 I G I to match G I match bldg 5 6-8' high 8 1 1/2-2" cal 4 1 1/2-2" cal 3 5 gallon 3 " 2 6 " Tall fesque is proposed for sod and irrigation will be done by hand STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments MIi1 � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczky Duplex Conceptual Design Review Site Plan: 1. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR; 2. The type of driveway needs to be indicated; 3. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance and easements, needs to be submitted for FDR; 4. Snow storage needs to be addressed; 5. Landscaping may not be placed in areas of snow storage; 6. Landscaping must meet minimum Town standards of 2" caliper deciduous trees; 7. Overhangs are not allowed to extend into the setbacks; and 8. Revegetation must include native bushes. Design 1. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations; and 2. The type of fireplace must be gas or certified solid fisel burning device, 3. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations 4. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations and samples provided for FDR submittal; 5 Building may not exceed 35' in height. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczky Duplex Conceptual Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( �)y /? Sue No Action (.4 Date _l�'H+l /9 /0/Sue Railton. Secretary ue ks_a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. consensus or t;he commission was that since this is going to oe the licant's second home, and automatic irrigation system would be needed. asked the applicart to consider using something other than asphalt shingles ' `, S ,l 't' 0;. r d �S'L'r°Ch23 w A500 -- I� S r� IR r ' W ' ca 1 Pe Ji A A�' CA d � 7 2 R �• ^ Ci rat I i 1 -7 LE- 14 uti QV x W , 1(J1J i. VO y (�I N x V Q �- AD As ab II 1 'd an] an ] { i-- F— 1p V Les 4; �Y WxO wr�El. Rusnc cebnq D p c III I I I 11 1. s. PLANNING �ND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex • Conceptual Design Review • PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD, Two Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES ft INTRODUCTION: Jerry Miramonti, on behalf of Callum Construction, has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of a duplex on Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge The lot, .79 acres in size, slopes to the south at approximately 30%. Unit B of the duplex will contain two leve.s and unit A will contain three levels The duplex will stand approximately 35' in height. The single family will consist of the following materials. Roof Siding Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues/Flashings Chimney The landscape plan includes: Materials Colors asphalt by "GAF" weatherwood stucco cream el rey 2x6 r.s. on 2x10 r.s moorwood 1x6 us moorwood clad 2x10 or 2x12 r.s. moorwood clad 2x 10 or 2x 12 r.s. moorwood 2x r.s. moorwood galvo match bldg. stucco cream el rey Colorado Blue Spruce 6 6-10'high Cottonwood 3 2-3" cal. Flowering Crabapple 7 2-3" cal Serviceberry 11 5 gallon Purple Lilac 8 5 gallon The plan indicates that "all 2:1 cut slopes to be raked and seeded with Colorado high altitude, no clover, seed and native wildflower mix. Then cover and stake with erosion control jute blankets and hay to protect seed and trap moisture" Irrigation is proposed by hand. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 19994 Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Conceptual Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: The duplex connection is by a stepped retaining wall, walkway deck and roof. The Planning and Zoning Commission has stated that a strong architectural connection must he present. Site Plan 1. Finished slopes may not exceed 2 1, 2. Staff is requiring a cross section through the timber retaining wall for FDR submittal, and designed by an engineer if over 4' in height, 3. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR, 4. The type of driveway needs to be indicated, 5. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance needs to be submitted for FDR, 6. A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence may be needed on site delineating the construction and non -construction zones, 7 Landscaping may not be placed in areas of snow storage, 8. Revegetation of all disturbed areas is required, and must include native bushes, 9. Building overhangs may not extend in the setbacks, 10. The first 20 feet of the driveway, where it ties into the street, may not exceed 4%, and 11. The building height may not exceed 35'. Desiam I The type of fireplace needs to be indicated, and 2 Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner 0% am PLANNING ,%ND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Conceptual Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (✓f Date144 �Sue Railton, Secretary ms a conceotuat aesign review, no action was taken at this time The general consensus of the Commission was that this was a very nice project. The Commission did urge the applicant to respond to all the staff comments. i W PSL .. a jjIdI'. " 9 y WIN CI --�- C � � �y . I,' �I '_ i � � ,� � r /ry/ � 6' �� ®�i �J -- -. %/ '� /' yr �,V��, ®. ��J ,. _ II¢.., _ >, �' /�� i �� u �l�`�� \,,a ®� `!!.I \, �'si :: IR1 JI f SLM� !` �I , I,�+ w ��I �I ��I 111 m � ''� i� � �1 y j �� r, a p w as PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six -flex Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Two Triplexes ZONING PUD -6 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: J M B Enterprises has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of two triplexes on Lot 78, Block I The lot is 78 acres in size and slopes to the southeast at approximately 20%.. The triplexes will contain three levels and stand approximately 34 1/2' high The triplexes will consist of the following materials The landscape plan includes Cottonwood Materials Colors Roof asphalt shingles weathered wood Siding channel rustic cedar blue/gray semi -stain Fascia 2x 10 cedar heritage blue Soffits r s cedar blue/gray Window Bronze aluminum 5 gallon Window Trim 1x4 heritage blue Door steel heritage blue Flues/Flashings galvanized heritage blue Chimney channel rustic cedar blue/gray The landscape plan includes Cottonwood 6 1 1/2" cal Spruce 6 6-8' high Currant 12 5 gallon Radiant Crab 3 1 1/2" cal Buffalo Juniper 18 5 gallon Potentilla 28 5 gallon Snowberry 26 5 gallon Ground cover will consist of native grass and flower seed mix Erosion control will inc!ude natural vegetation An automatic irrigation system is proposed STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments a 06 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Conceptual Design Review Site Plan. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR; The first 20' of the driveway, where it ties into the street, may not exceed a 4% grade, An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance needs to be submitted for FDR; Snow storage needs to be addressed; 5. Landscaping may not be placed in areas of snow storage; 6. Landscaping must meet minimum Town standards of 2" caliper deciduous trees; 7. Overhangs and buildings are not allowed to encroach into the setbacks, and 8. Revegetation musi include native bushes. Design: I . Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations 2. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations and samples provided for FDR submittal; 3. Detail on the sign must be submitted; 4. The sign may not be located in the sight triangle; and 5. Building may not exceed 35' in height STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner 0% Oft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 19, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Conceptual Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (✓` Date /9/Sue Railton, Secretary No action was taken regarding this application, since it was a conceptual design review:— 1he Commission dia make some suggestions re ar ink differentiating one unit from the other. it was suggested that this be done -pr --eta he Gemmisr"n also had some concern that there would not be enough parking if there wa! a roommate situation. a 1 3 rniwnma�'xn-�za�«r e I � oo: ra 3•fO,K.>i N 9 c IZ "i•n t= I � � 3•fO,K.>i N Lr,cc.rs • v ,W :SII+y 'IOmep .eu. pvp L+ 10Wr .p '�Y.W rww / veal. AI / w3 O/ JInI{YtY/� A I SII " mr-731 31L_JJyI I I U_L liirmrliirn. 'II! IIIIC.:� lc I i i -- - - - - -- — --- 1,a