Loading...
PZC Packets 090694PLANNING ANN ZONING COMMISSION STAFF i --PORT September 6, 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 INTRODUCTION: Mr. Olson has submitted an additional trim color to be applied on his residence. He received approval for a body and trim 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 COMMENTS Staff has no comments concerning this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval as presented. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING Ai .J ZONING COMMISSION STAFF,.—PORT September 6, 1994 Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridgte 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as submitted (/ Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn (//) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Dateb� Sue Railton, SecrPtary� The Commission qranted final. desn approval for the color change as___ submitted. PLANNING AN D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF K—PORT September 6, 1994 Lot 36, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Residential Duplex Final Design Review — Modification of Color PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: RD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Kit Williams and Gail Dunning have submitted an application for a color change for the duplex they own. Option I 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. The 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, Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF 1 ---PORT September 6, 1994 Let 36, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Residential Duplex 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 b / ue Railton, Secretary . The Commission granted final design approval for the N1 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 7 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 easements are located in the area of the relocated line and Holy Cross has surveyed the arca for the plant and none were found 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 recommending the existing easement be vacated. Followir g 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; B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan; 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Resolution 94-17 with amendments as deemed appropriate by the Commission. ►-r Planning and 2Aming Commission Staff Report September 6, 1994 Mountain Star/Town of Avon Property Special Review Use Relocation of 115 KV Transmission Line 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 6. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted, yY� Mary Holden Town Planner RECOMMENDED ACTION PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (4 Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) WithdrawCnn( ))' Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date-�d+��Tf w Sue Railton, Secretary _ 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 use.> and uses in the area. COnditi0n5: 1. Any existing poles not used must be removed 2. The existing easement be vacated. O ,10 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 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, Town of Avon, Eagle 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; WI IE REAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed 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 objeAives and purposes of the comprehensive plan, and C The proposed use is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and 6ses in the area SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION GRANTING 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, Town ofAvon, von, Eagle 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 applicant 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 proposed use is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and uses in the area. •I owl a 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: Any existing poles not reused, must be removed. 2. The existing easement be vacated. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1994 Secretary Ch 'rman Any existing poles not reused, must be removed. The existing easement be vacated. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1994 Secretary 4 10 PLANNING AN U 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 addition of 18 redtwig dogwoods, 8 cottonless cottonwoods, and 6 serviceberry bushes. STAFF COMMENTS: • The existing and proposed use calculates to 7 parking spaces for customers and employees. 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 of 9' wide by 18' in length. • The proposed landscaping is called out in height, and deciduous trees must be indicated in 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. Detail has not been providet on the type of fence to be installed. 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. This 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 located. 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 with site topograph,. 00% 11 PLANNING ANO 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 neighboring properties and 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 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. I . 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. The 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, " Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AN 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 ( ) ikpproved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (-11 Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date t; Sue Railton, Secretary_A;4� 4 The Commission granted final design approval with the following conditions: 1. The flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme 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. 5. -Avo-n . 6. A strong recommendation that the street/or west side of he building hQ pai n4nri in testa-l-rYllY13--tt1E-LOO�lEI'of the i nn�ytrpYty owner. • PLANNING A� J ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Rogers Duplex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duple COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES !O)M INTRODUCTION: An application for Finei Design Review of a duplex on Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge has been submitted by Grant Rogers. The lot, .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 Forest Green Natural Stain 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; --. PLANNING ANO 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 s Concern over maneuvering 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 to correct the situation. • Slope : Finished slopes are exceeding the maximum of 2:1 and the applicant must make the grades 2:1 or less. • Building, Heigh : The turret stands at 37' high, 2' over the height limit. The turret must be lowered 2' to meet the building height. 0 Retaining Walls: Any retaining walls over 4' high must be designed by an Engineer. ♦ Wood Buming Devices: The floor plans indicate wood burning devices. The Code allowed for one wood burning device per unit for duplexes or single family units, however a fee of $1,500 for each device must be paid to the Town of Avon. ♦ Li tines Lighting has not been indicated and must receive approval prior to the installation of any lighting. 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. 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 ANI) 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 final design review with the following conditions: 1. The flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 2. The building lighting be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Revegetation include native bushes. 4. Meters be placed on the building. 5. Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/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. Respectfully Submitted r"Wr— Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions Approved with modified conditions (✓f Continued ( ) Denied Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date�r�c�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 fo, approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. • Kn Inter -Mountain Engineering i tri. August. 31, 3994 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 Professional 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 Demser 893-1531 1420 hence Street • Lakewood. Colorado 80215 • Phone: 232-0158 �i PLANNING Alvll ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 19941 Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision JMB Enter prises - 4 -Plea Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: 4 -flex ZONING: PUD, 4 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING' Yes INTRODUCTION: JMB Enterprises has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of a fourpiex. 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 fallowing materials Roof Siding Fascia Soffits Window Window Trim Door Door Trim Hand/Deck Rails Flues/Flashings Chimnev Materials Colors celotex presidential weathered wood hardboard lapped 10" face kwal-chamois SC98 2x 10 cedar kwal-chamois (darker) re cedar kwal-chamois (sand) bronze aluminum 5 gallon 1x4 kwal-chamois (darker) steel I x4 wood 2x2 redwood picket galvanized, painted stucco 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 grass and flower seed mix Automatic drip No sod has been proposed Revegetation will include native bushes (per note on site plan) kwal-chamois (dark) natural kwal-chamois (dark) sand #54 A 5' high treestanding 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 IO I 4 /1t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision .1 NIB 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 ■ Elevations, ■ Roof mass, ■ Addition of skylights and dormers, ■ Large trim around windows; • Colors; and ■ Trash pick up. STAFF COMMENTS: Site Plan Analysis: • 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 and 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 Ai.D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kEPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. JMB Enterprises - 4-Plex 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, iidividual Plexiglas -faced letters, or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials, such as printed plywoort, ielerior-lit box -type plastic, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discoura, .d, 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 v. ith 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 cot 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: :X PLANNING Ai -40 ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision JMB Enterprises - 4-Plex Final Design Review 40 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 Guidelines. 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 consistent with existing area signs. E. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired: Comment: The sign meets the intent of this ctiteria. 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 other applicable regulations of the Town. PLANNING Ai,4D 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 visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacew 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 Av9n. 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 property. 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 easement 8. The drainage in front of the units be adequately addressed prior to the application of a building permit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action PLANNING AP%d ZONING COMMISSION STAFF kePORT September 6, 1994 Lot 94, 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 1 ) Denied 1 Withdrawn yf( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 'G-- t Sue Railton. Secretary—, See- attached-Raqe ecretary_.,See_attached_Page — -- Wildridge Subdivision The Commission granted final design approval condions: Flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of *he building. The building and sign lighting be approved by Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Meters be placed on the bu'ldiag. The grading be limit to the property. The driveway entrance be clarified and approved by Staff prior to application for a building permit. The g -;ages be revised to meet the size requirements for a two car qarage. The applicant provide to the Town, Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation permission to regrade in their easement. The drainaged in front of the units be adequately addressed prior to the application for a building permit. The landscape plan be brought back for approval. The roof forms be modified to add the dutch hip feature on e .h building end. wIlInter-Mountain ngineeringt.td. 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, Wildxidge Project ITO, 94654E Dear Mary: We have completed our review of the site pian received in your office on August 23, 1994, for Lot 84, Block 1, Wildridge. Below are our comments. 1. Site plan Cl shows two driveway entrances. The site topography does not exceed to the cen�arline 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 grade; would help clarify the proposed drainage pattern. If you have any questions or need any additional review assistance for this oioject, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Inter -Mountain Engineering, Ltd. Martha L. Miller, PE Review Engineer mlm cc: D.J. Organ Box No. 978 • Avon. Colorado 81620 • 949-5072 Denver 893-1531 1420 Vance Street • Lakewood, Colorado 80215 9 Phone: 232-0158 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Pelierito Residence Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single 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 portions 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: The landscape plan includes the following: Spruce 4 Materials Color Roof asphalt shingles tan Siding cement stucco dove white Fascia 2x 10 & 2x4 r. s. cedar sage gray Soffits wood sage gray Window clad wood white Window Trim 2x10 and 2x6 sage gray Door clad wood white Door Trim 1 x6 painted nr stained sage gray Hand/Deck Rails wood sage gray Flues/Flashings metal tan Chimney stucco dove gray Garage steel paneled not indicated Other: retaining walls 6x6 treated lumber or concrete w/ stucco finish The landscape plan includes the following: Spruce 4 8' high Aspen 2 4" calipcT Aspen 4 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. REVIEWHISTORY The Commission reviewed this project as a Conceptual at the June 7, 1994 meeting and commented on the following: 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 east property line and Wildridge Road abuts the west property He. 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 chimnev cap extending P above the 35' 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 ? 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 • The 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 is particularly important for this site due to the steepness and building on the top of the site with everything sloping down. Design: • 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 not 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 fcr the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is for tabling the applications 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 4/Vj A4?-- Mary 40Mary Holden Town Planner M PLANNING A„O 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 ( ) Deni, ( ) Withdrawn (/) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 6 Sue Railton, Secretary Due to the many concerns the Commission and Staff had regarding this item, the Commission to ed this application to allwo the applicant time to provide a more complete application. WnterAIr-Mountain ngineeringttd. 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 for Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge. Below are our comments. 1. Existing utilities and proposed service lines need to be shown. 2. The platted pr.3perty 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 driv>way entrance has a proposed 66 contour line on top of at existing 68 contour line. This conflict occurs at the <!dge 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 streeta. 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 Page 2 If you have any queLtions or need any additional review assistance for this project, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Inter -Mountain Engineering, Ltd. m,z�O� mjskt-, Martha L. Miller, PE Review Engineer mlm cc: Sterling Homes Inc. E2 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 Aueu�L-16 1994 ■ Screening of trash, • Sloped roof'and height, ■ Blank wall on the east elevation, ■ Colors and not so much pink, ■ Sodium lights, • 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 ASI► '` PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Tract P, Benchmark at Beaver Creels Subdivision Avon Elementary School Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: Site Plan Analysis: ok 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 CDOT specifications. These are a part of the streetscape improvements and must be installed. a Joint Parkin: The applicant has added parking spaces to the common parcel, for a total of 71 parking spaces. • Landscape Plan: The landscape plan has been revised in the following manner Eliminated 2 Marshall Ash Added 3 Chokeberry Added 6 Spruce Eliminated I dogwood Eliminated 8 Spireria Changed Rhododendums to Chokeberry ♦ 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. Slope Northeast of B iy Idin¢: Staff is requesting this area blend more naturally into the existing grades and not the way shown, which is ends sharply. o 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. * 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 applicati')n. Drainage Analysis: 6 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 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. 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. "ON i►•% PLANNING AND TONING 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 disturbaice, a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site. 9. The bike path remain undisturbed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2 Applizant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted MaryNolde� h 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 TONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied () Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) ////�� Date / Sue Railton, Secretary_ 9e, 14,-C�t�--� Due to the concerns of the Commission -egarding the suitability off proposed architecture for the Town of Avon, the Commission denied final design approval for this project. ,.ti a* 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 Center COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Yes INTRODUCTION Lot 55, Ltd. has submitted an application for approval ofthe sign program for the Century 21 building. An existing sign program was approved on June 15, 1993. REQUEST: Please refer to the attached summary of the tenant signage. STAFF COMMENTS ♦ Second Level Signage: 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 6_ Freestanding SiLnS. The program indicates 4 monumeni 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. o Sinl Area The awnings, on which the tenant signs were proposed, have been eliminated and the signs will be applied directly to the building 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 appro; ed by either the Commission or Staff prior to any installation of signs TeMP_0r4!Y_Sisns: 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 Design Guidelines A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be ha-monious with the existing signs on the struc�ure, 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 Harmonv. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures. F. 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: PLANNING ArwD ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, BIt., k 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. Sei:ond Floor tenant signage is not allowed. RECOMMENDED ACl ION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner -p, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 6, 1994 Lot 55, Block 2, Benchmark Century 21 Final Design Review -Sign Program PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (./j Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date b /Q4t6: Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission granted approval for the monument sign, the 2 directional signs, tnE K10SK ana the second tioor signs, wnlcn will be 9 inch non -illuminated three dimensional block letters suspended below the lentils and ffi-ecessed and the color to be eithe- green to match the m 1 or brushed brass to match the Century 21 sign. The Commission instructed the applicant to bring back the signage for the first floor after further investigation into canopies. C i 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 (l.ot 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: 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 i guide for all 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 frontage on Avon Road and West Beaver Creek Boulevard. On the First Floor: Tenant signage will be mounted on a painted Architectural Metal Frame- work of 3" square stock and 1" 16 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), -t 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 metal 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 Landlord) as indicated in Exhibit A and approved on June 25, 1993. First floor tenants, at each glass grouping between building columns, may have 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 thr,:e 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 slightly contrast o 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 information 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 as 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 tenant, 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 n )t to exceed 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 he allowed at the discretion of the landlord. B. 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 p•miss 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 landlord 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 C7 40 "y h PLANNING ANN ZONING COMMISSION STAFF "PORT September 6, 1994 Lot 11, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Wildwood Townhomes Final Design Review -Modifications PROJECT TYPE: Townhomes ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES I(\'_ ;tODUCTION: Mr. Bill Kaufman, owner of Wildwood Townhome, I4-3, has submitted an application requesting Design Review Approva! to maintain an existing chain 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. I Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3 Commission Review 4 Commission Action Respectfully submitted. :tr Town Planner RECOMMENDED ACTION: PLANNING Al ZONING COMMISSION STAFF I, ?ORT September o, 1994 Lot 11, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Wildwood Townhomes Final Design RPvie..-Modifications PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date Sue Railton, Secretary The COmmiccinn granted apprgval with the c.nditien that the ehain liftk— fence be completely clad in a vertical wood siding painted to match vtl the color of the building, to be,L3pproy d by Staff- with ro 3 showing from the exterior of the unit.