Loading...
PZC Packet 031693STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 1 Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Page Anderson/Al Connell PUD Amendment/Zone Change WMV1.03 •. Chapter 17.20.110 of the Avon Zoning Code addresses amendments to Planned Unit Developmer;ts. An amendment may be initiated by the owner of the property affected. Page Anderson, representing the owners of Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, is petitioning the Town to change the allowed use on that lot from a 6 unit multifamily designation to a 4 unit, duplex designation. As part of this process, the applicants are pursuing the subdivision of the lot into 2 separate duplex lots. The 2 newly created lots will be further divided after the construction of the two duplexes. The stated purpose of the Planned Unit Development Zone District is: " ..intended to provide for flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use..." The owners of Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridqe recently received Final Design Review approval from this Commission, Anderson/Connell then applied and received a building permit for one of th, duplexes. The finance company involved has refused to provide.• the construction loan unless the lot is divided or the other two owners, Spiegel/Tracey, siqn over their rights to the other half of the lot to Anderson/Connell. Spiegel/Tracey are a couple of months behind in the financing /building permit process. Lot 2 was originally brought before this Commission in September of 1990. In June of 1991 the Town Council passed a verbal resolution which prohibited the subdivision of unimproved multifamily lots within the Wildridqe Subdivision. Lot 2 received Final Desiqn Review approval in Januarof 1993. The owners of Lot to appear..d before the Town Counciy l requesting that they be allowed to proceed through the subdivision and rezoning process because their application proceeded the verbal resolution, that the proposed use is more appropriate than the one allowed and the hardship situation they are in concrrninq financing. The Council told them to proceed. u Qb STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 2 Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Page Anderson/A1 Connell PUD Amendment/Zone Change 1. Conformity with the Avon Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. STAFF RESPONSE: The Avon Comprehensive Plan designates the area in question as residential, the proposed use is residential and is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Plan. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, the sub -area design recommendation and design guidelines adopted by the Town. STAFF RESPONSE: This project has received Final Design Review Approval and as such is in conformance with this criteria. 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. STAFF RESPONSE: This project recently received Final Design Review Approval, during that process the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area relative to design and bulk was addressed. 4. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. STAFF RESPONSE: Impacts relating to this criteria are decreased with this proposal as this is a reduction of intensity of a previously approved use. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD (amendment) is proposed. STAFF RESPONSE: Impacts relating to this criteria are decreased with this proposal as this is a reduction of intensity of a previously approved use in an approved PUD. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 3 Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Page Anderson/A1 Connell PUD Amendment/Zone Change 6. Site plan, building design and location and openspace provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. STAFF RESPONSE: This project recently received Final Design Review Approval, during that process the above concerns were addressed. 7. A circulation system designed for botn vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the town transportation plan. STAFF RESPONSE: Impacts relating to this criteria are decreased with this proposal as this is a reduction of intensity of a previously approved use in an approved PUD. a previously approved PUD. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. STAFF RESPONSE: This criteria was addressed when the Wildridge PUD was original platted. The deceased in density of this proposal should reduce any impacts associated with this criteria. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable , functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases. STAFF RESPONSE: The subdivision accompanying this PUD amendment insures that this proposal can proceed without relying upon the completion of future phases. 10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. STAFF RESPONSE: Impacts relating to this criteria are decreased with this proposal as thio is a reduction of density in a previously approved PUD. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 4 Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Page Anderson/A1 Connell PUD Amendment/Zone Change 11. That existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. STAFF RESPONSE:-mpa.cts decreased with this proposal as this a previously approved PUD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION relating to this criteria are is a reduction of density in Because this project has received Final Design Review Approve! for 2 duplexes, that a reduction in density is appropriate in this location, that the applicant is seeking relief from a situation beyond their control, and the conformance of the proposal to the 11 criteria listed above, Staff believes a recommendation for approval is appropriate. 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 2. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Tom Allender Planner STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 5 Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Page Anderson/Al Connell PUD Amendment/Zone Change PLANNING AND ZONING ACTIO Approved as submitted (-I- Approvoa with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Wi"d Date _ , C -V Patti Dixon, Secretary The Commission approved the PUD Amendment/Zone Change, based on the eleven criteria as required for such an amendment. �.y 8l OCK 4 51 S :T 3 O 6 JUNE PO; ) 5 is 1 .2 61 26 53 50 4 14 6 63 2S ) 7o IS 56 49 a8 47 6 7 20 24 57 4 90 9 10 a 12 i 19 64 27 ) 7 23 29 4 60 16 26 x 29 44... 75 • 65 22 43 66 33 30 ax 89 OVOTE iN BB 14 2x P 34 32 31 4 55 87 86 B5 Z8 36 84 63 92 ,. 36 54 59 70 61 a 57 58 11 72 JS 13 9 36 }7 53 60 52 SI SO .9 4E9NET LANE ]) J6 30 39 48 61 69 68 zo .y 5..• 47 Ii7 i 52 a6 ) 3 6 5 68 69 i, 46 63 64 g 9 2 45 B 1 16 70 4 5 as LITTLEV TO jx 47 lQ,Ni ,y .n � 6 41 a O y x 37 -a 4 BLOCK 5 3; 39 40 45 SHEE T 6 OF 6 38 a6 1 � 32 34 35 56 47 43 33 NO \ s � R 90 21 77 79 i�'� 09 ` 6 51 53 2'_ 54 1 ; !x n `\ ,n 61 93 //\f 19 24 27 49 2 . 94 ;07 11 IB 25 26 95 Oi 10 / 65 96 ) 6 9) r0! ! r JUNE :NEE• N3 _ )9 M 04 6 S I TN.IL _ )s,TV&CT Y 103 i 99 IS 14 60 75 77` ` 100 i2 3 _ 8. 6' }4 .0252 ) 7 D 1 3 )1 9 Id i 4 IS 5E SO N III r 4 ' x 33 37 y95 49 34 10 6 ! 1! K .6 < BLOCK 2 4 , 9-/ SHEET 4 OF 6 X 37 ++ i 46 0 e 6f i5 „ 8 0 Is • t 67 44 40 N 1 tl14► u L .9 f 34 • ��11\ 3 BOCK a ` \\ s STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 1 Lot 29, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Jim Klein Duplex Residence Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Jim Klein is requesting a Final Design Review for a proposed duplex residence on Lot 29, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. This project received conceptual design review on February 16, receiving positive comments with the only concern being the mirror image. The applicant has added dormers to the front elevation in an effort to soften the mirror image. This lot is located on the east side of long Spur Roa.i. It is approximately 0.35 acres in size. The lot slopes to the west at about 15 percent. The zoning is SPA with a duplex designation. The proposed duplex is a two stories high structure with a walk out basement. It has approximately 2100 square feet of habitable space per side, not including 'the attached garages. The structure, as proposed, is within all Town height, lot coverage and setback restrictions. The exterior is predominantly finished in an Antique White stucco and 1 X 8 channel lap natural finish cedar siding. Window trim will be 2 X 8 cedar, door trim will be 2 X 4 cedar, the facia will be 1 X 10 cedar, all with a "Blue Shadow" stain; soffits will be natural 3/8 fir. The roof form is an offset gable, that will be finished with 320 # Tampco's Redwood asphalt shingles. The landscape planting plan appears adequate, it includes planting beds on the street side of the structure and a small sod area in back; the majority of the lot will be left natural. An automatic drip irrigation system is proposed for the planting areas, the small sod area will be watered manually. Snow storage and parking meet town requirements. Site lighting has not been addressed. STAFF COMMENTS The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of the proposed project: 6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: This proposal conforms with the toning Code and all other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 2 Lot 29, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Jim Klein Duplex Residence Final Design Review 6.12 - 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: These improvements, as proposed, are appropriate to the neighborhood; high quality materials are being used throughout. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The project appears to be well designed, and should have little or no adverse site impacts on adjacent properties. 6.14 - The compatibility of the proposed irq�rovement with site topography. COMMENT: Lot 29 is a relatively flat lot, the project appears to fit the topography. It will require minimal site disturbance and regrading. 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENTS: Staff does not see a problem with this criteria. The mirror or near mirror image of the duplex, which is offset, would not be the only one in the area. Neither the design with the dormers or the one without would visually detract from the neighborhood. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. COMMENTS: The project, as submitted, is neither so similar or dissimilar to uthers in the vicinity that it would impair monetary or aesthetic values. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon. COMMENTS: This proposal is in general conformance with the adopted goals, policies and programs of the Town of Avon. PYWAUMIN - YIY i Approval � STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 3 Lot 29, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Jim Klein Duplex Residence Final Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Tom Allender Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) __Wi. wn ( ) Date Patti Dixon, Secreter�jt � e The Commission granted final design approval with the following conditions: 1. Thre more tragic hp added to each end. nlwc comp low chn hc_ A lands app plan, reflecting this be resubmitted to Staff for approval. 2. The dormers be removed. 3_ The civerhangin9 eaypc of the frnnt party wall he prtondaA to match all other overhangs of the building. E \ vOyT -PAMMAgffi es 10 24 2] +9 6] 95 1 91 10T B 23 26 2 95 q I- 63 6 96 JUNE REEK 61 _ 97 TRAIL `]9 9 14 7 ]6 so ]5 6' TD IS SI S2 33 TE 12 SO N 1 ss y s •9 31 6 BLOCK 2 46 is 36 SHEET 4 OF 6 3? BLOCK I SHEET 5 OF 6 BLOCK 4 SHF 3 IF 6 T 66 83 �; Ba 63 B2 ......� 39 ]I 72 73 60 TO 09 vERRET LANE IB 61 69 66 IS BLOCK 5 SHEET 6 OF 6 RIODE 2 M STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Steven Commercial/Industrial Building Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Dough DeChant of Shepherd Construction Resources and Mike Etem of Valley Wide Plumbing on behalf of Thomas S. D'Agostino of Valley Wide Plumbing are requesting final design review for a proposed 18,000 square foot commercial/industrial building on Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. This lot is located on the west side of Metcalf Road between the Warner Building and the Troxel Warehouse. It is approximately .69 acres in size, the lot slopes to the east toward Metcalf Road. The zoning is IC-Industrial/Commercial. The proposed building is a two story, 27 foot high metal, Butler type building. The exterior is finished in canyon gray siding with an 8 foot, redrock colored stucco band around the bottom and on the gables over the doors. A stone white facia band will cap the structure. The roof would be a metal standing seam, also finished in stone white. The building would contain space for offices, dispatcher, warehousing, servicing vehicles, a laundry and restrooms. A security fence is propose=d across the center of the parking area, staff has not seen a design on the fence. A minimum of 20 percent of the lot must be dedicated to landscaping. The applicant has provided approximately 21 percent on site, but intends to landscape a portion of the ROW between Metcalf Road and their lot line. As proposed the project meets all Town setbacks, lot coverage, and height restriction. The parking provided exceeds Town requirements. The original parking plan submitted had parkinq abutting the front property line, which required a variance. A variance was applied for, denied, appealed, and the denial was upheld. The revised parking plan still proposes to pave to the lot line but moves the parking into the lot by 24 feet. Visually this should be acceptable due to the absence of parked vehicles at the property line, the grade separation between the Road and the parking area, and the landscaping adjacent to the property line. Lighting would be from 3 high pressure sodium fixtures placed in the parking area. Signaqe has not been finalized. STAFF COMMENTS The Commission shall consider the following items in roviewinq tho design of the proposed project: 6.11 - The conformance with the Zoninq Coda and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Steven Commercial/Industrial Building Final Design Review COMMENT: This proposal appears to be in conformance with the Zoning Code and all other town of Avon rules and regulations. 6.12 - 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: These improvements, as proposed, are appropriate to the neighborhood and in some ways will enhance the neighborhood. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The pro)ect appears to have no adverse site impacts on adjacent properties and retains the access necessary to adjacent lots. 6.14 - The compatibility of the proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: As submitted, the project is compatible with the site topography. 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENTS: The proposed improvements appear to be visually compatible with the neighborhood. As proposed the building will improve the appearance of the area. Paving to the property line should be visually acceptable due to the absence of parked vehicles at the property line, the grade separation between the Road and the parking area, and the landscaping adjacent to the property line. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. COMMENTS: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. 6.17 - The general conformance of the pro "ad improvements With the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon. COMMENTS: This proposal is in general conformance with the adopted goals, policies and programs of the Town of Avon. Staff recommendation is for approval. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Steven Commercial/Industrial Building Final Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Tom Allender Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied --Withdr ( ) Date Z Patti Dixon, Secreta - _fhb Commis -inn daniad thic final riaciTn apprnyal — with a fmir to thrPa yntn_ basically because they did not like the design of the building. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 1 Lot 50, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Robert Lundell Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Robert Lundell, architect and owner of Lot 50, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision is requesting final design review approval for a single family residence. This project went through conceptual design review on August 7, 1992 and received comments which indicated that the project would be appropriate, there was some concern with the metal roof. Lot 50 is 0.63 acres in size and slopes toward the south at approximately 27%. The lot is zoned SPA with a duplex designation. The building has 3 levels, with the lower level partially below grade. The main entrance is on the third or street level. The building is a narrow rectangle with flat roofs on the long sides. A small metal gable roof runs down the center of the structure. Stucco covered parapet walls are located at the ends of the gable roof form. The house has approximately 2,800 square feet of habitable space. A large deck is located at the south end of the upper level and is connected to the lower level patio via a metal circular staircase. A small circular lawn is adjacent to the patio. The proposed exterior material is split faced concrete block (buff flagstone) with stucco accents (also buff). The gabled roof form material is a metal, standing seam, finished in forest green. Windows would be white clad casements, doors are two panel left natural, and deck rails are to be metal, painted white or green. There are two driveways proposed, one enters the property from the northeast and terminates at a two car garage located on the second level. The second driveway is short and approaches the house in line with the structure at a right angle to the street, and terminates on top of the garage at the third or street level. This Commission has approved one metal roof in Wildridge, after it established criteria in a work session held on December 1, 1992. The Commission stated that metal roofs could be considered in Wildridqe on a case by caae basis if the following conditions are met: 1. Subtle, low gloss colors are used. 2. Seam spacinq is at a minimum of is inches. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 2 Lot 50, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Robert Lundell Final Design Review 3. The roof material be no lighter than 24 gauge. 4. The applicant supply a large sample. 5. Integrated trim pieces must be utilized. 6. A metal roof must be compatible with the architectural design. At the conceptual review concerns were raised about the lack of turnaround space for cars in the drives. This design still requires vehicles to back on to Longsun Lane, granted that Longsun Lane is a cul-de-sac with very little traffic. The area below the long drive and the area below the house are at 66% or a one and one half to one slope. The maximum slope recommended it two to one, a retaining wall may be necessary. The long drive is slightly over the 10% maximum, it appears that this can be easily rectified. Other than the small sod area, dryland planting dominate the landscape plan. The sod area does have an automatic irrigation system. Adequate snow storage has be provided. Site lighting has not been addressed STAFF COMMENTS The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of the proposed project: 6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: This proposal conforms with the Zoning Code and all other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. 6.12 - 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: These improvements, as proposed, appear to be appropriate to the neighborhood; high quality materials are being used throughout. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. STAFF REPORT TO THE P .NING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 3 Lot 50, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Robert Lundell Final Design Review COMMENT: The project appears to be well designed, and should have little or no adverse site impacts on adjacent properties. 6.14 - The compatibility of the proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: The project doe.; not appears to require an unreasonable amount of site disturbance or regrading. 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and piblic ways. COMMENTS: There is not a dominant design theme in this area of Wildridge. This residence will be unique to the area, but should be visually compatible with the neighborhood. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. COMMENTS: Because of the lack of a dominant design theme in the area, staff sees no conflict with this criteria. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon. COMMENTS: This Proposal is in general conformance with the adopted goals, policies and programs of the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, with the condition that: 1. A revised grading plan be presented with the building permit applicati3n to be reviewed by staff. 2. The metal areas of the roof follow these guidelines: Seam spacing be a minimum of IS inches. Material be no lighter than 24 gauge. Integrated trim piezes must be utilized. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Page 4 Lot 50, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Robert Lundell Final Design Review RECOMMENDED 1. ACTION Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully subiaitted, Tom Allender Planner PLANNING AND ZONING AM ON Approved as submitted " Approved with recommended conditions (. ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Contined,( ) Denied ( ) Wi wn ( ) 1 ` Uete t, Patti Dixon, Secretary) The Connission granted final design apnroval with the condition that the roofini material meet the Town specifications and that the applicant Drovide W-Wf-TjTj@73FZ1MjN41T=.• I1 11 - M-1- ..1 • BLOCK 4 sl S T 3OF6 JUNE POI T y I] 21 .2 61 6 28 S yp 6 11 65 25 56•t 70 15 •9 .e 34 57 . 90 e 7 9 10 II q 1 19 O 6• 27 7 17 z! M. so is z 65 22 29 •!•• 99 75 26 ,.0107 66 73 50 +2 TN Be d I. 22 E ZI !. 32 1 •. 55 e7 e6 e• , es z N 56 s9 01 02 s. S7 15 71 ` ! 36 1 ]! •9 60 IO 87 SO ' E.11E7 UNE )6 q •e 61 69 6e 67 ] 46 6! u 66 65 •6 • „6 5 4 6. L.77Lf 2 •�+ 42 ap1N• ) I, TO •n •I � 2 p C15 )' BLOCK S 11 34 is ,O 4$SHEET 6 CF . .6 ]2 ]! U N S6 �/ 35 r „ sr ♦n 2` » ss r rot ► N r b H b 0, .o c ,s ,• 105 , CY a IVI7l ;l11• .! 91 .��.� 7 M 104 9 5 .. » Io] TRACT R 17 - 100 6 'a 102 W � I07 .. 'f to so 54 o 3 s )) O S6 ! y ) 55 54 BLOCK 2 •• / N T s (,It 6 Y �. !' 2, t9 2 / } N ,s ]q , r r0 q _ ~ .. .o n ' » •, TMCi � r 7• f BLOCK I SHEET S OF 6 r II! u STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING ANC ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Lot 10, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Van and Marion Black Single-family Residence, with lockoff Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION Russel Gies, representing the Blacks, is requesting Conceptual Design Review for a proposed single-family residence, with a lockoff apartment on Lot 10, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. This lot is located on thc- north side of Wildridge Road East, at the top of Wildridge. It is approximately 1.49 acres in size. The lot slopes to the south at about 29 percent. The zoning is SPA with a duplex designation. The proposed structure has three levels with the primary dwelling unit on the upper two levels and the lockoff on the lower level. The lower level also contains the two car garaqe. The residence contains approximately 3400 square feet of habitable space, 2850 in the main unit and 550 in the lockoff. The structure, as proposed, appears to be within all Town height, lot coverage and setback restrictions. The exterior is finished in a beige stucco. Doors And windows will be metal clad, in green or white. The structure has a flat roof. The site plan shows a long driveway with a constant grade of 10 percent with boulder retaining wall used extensively. The majority of the lot is to be left in a natural landscape. The planting materials proposed are dominated by dryland species. Exterior lighting has not been discussed. STAFF COMMENTS Since this is a Conceptual Desiqn Review, recommendation will be provided. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully submitted Tom Allender Planner no forual staff BLOCK 4 SHEF 3OF' 63 7 6 14 23 24 7 !] 90 ° 2 64 2 + 9 10 " I2 7 ' 19 20 t 2e 29 + T 7 zz 4. °O ie 2s • !! 43 :: 99 75 26 JO +2 21 !4 TN 66 8t 74 27 '.� 'Or OiE RIDGE 31 !2 4, 55 e7 86 95 2° r 3e 56 ea e3 B2 _ 54 59 55 57 3° 71 72 9 36 37 53 60 10 73 36 37 30 52 SI 50 41e FERRET LANE J9 61 69 60 204T ''::._. 62 66 67 69 3 6 ! 46 63 65 19 9 2 -. �. 64 9 1 16 1 45 ' LITTLE 3 DINT O 15 TO 42 44 42 1 4 !ti 0 4 O t p U 3! 1- 4. 4 31 40 47 --< BLOCK 5 1° 3Y SHEET 6 OF 6 _ !2 46 J4 33 j4 33 56 4T 43 01 5z 4e 90 51 7 79 SS 21 lP 51 53 '09 � ^ SI 9297 9 �.. n 24 49 2326 2 -4 94 10T II 95 06 65 0 96 O JUNE :PEE• e3 ° 97 IO! 9 p t TA411 - \79 . 9e 104 8 4 ' eo re 76 99 10216 TRACT R qt 7. n'- ,00 e' 1 To �! SI 32 102 3 u 1 TE 9 10, - O 4 72 50 54 0 4 5 s •9 35 32 y 53 ss \ ! — S • s. 17 6 BUCK 2 \4e !S 36 _ / SHEET a OF 6 v 47 Jr! 2f ' / \ T TR4,CT I Sf X19 I I sf 16 45 J9 _ 10 If ' 66 M IS MCI 67 44 10 26 I • •' 2! 4! 22 5e !: \ 47 24 23 TM*4-r I1 % BLOCK I ` SHEET S OF 6 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Ken Harkias for James Robinson Single Family Residence Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION Ken Harkias of Trends West, on behalf of James Robinson has requested a Conceptual Design Review for a proposed single family residence on Lot 6, Filing 1; Eaglebend Subdivision. This lot is locatel between Eaglebend Drive and the Eagle River, toward :he east end of the Eaglebend Subdivision. The lot is .37 acres in size and slopes toward the Eagle River. The zoning is PUD with a duplex designation. The proposed structure is a two story log home, with approximately 4000 square feet of habitable space, not including the attached 550 square foot garage. The roof form is a series of gables with a shed roof over the front porch, medium cedar shakes will be utilized. The structure, as proposed, complies with all Town zoning regulations. The exterior is to be constructed of full diameter logs with a natural wood tone stain. A stone veneer is to be utilized on the chimneys and to cover the foundation. Fascia will be 2X cedar, soffits 1X6 spruce tongue and groove, windows are clad casements, window trim will be 1X4 cedar. The rear door is a french clad patio door, the front door is wood, trimmed in cedar. The applicant has been informed that the wood burning fireplace will have to be converted to a certified gas appliance. The applicant is currently working with a Landscape Architect on a design that will be presented at final design review. Site lighting has not been addressed. STAFF COMMENTS Since this is a Conceptual Design Review, recommendation will be provided. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully submitted Tom Allender Planner no formal staff STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16. 1993 Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Ridgeline Condos Material Change Request John Dunham, rep_esenting Richard Wahl is making a material change request for the Ridgeline Condos. The Group wishes to substitute a ashpalt shingle, with a 30 year guarantee, for the previously approved wooden shake shingles. The product is a 300 lb. Shadow Line in a weathered wood color. Ridgeline Condos received final design approval. in August of 1990, a building permit was acquired in August of 1992. Construction has not begun, however, an extension of the Building Permit was granted in December of 1992 until June of 1993. Ry i i e W a3la6' This appears to be a good product which retains the appearance of shakes, while improving on fire resistance and longevity; staff recommends approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Tom Allender Planner Approved as submitted (,.)' Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Date t Patti Denied ( ) itithdrawn ( Dixon, Secretary__� I K8111m . •. O STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Lot 26, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Timothy Gallagher Single-family Residence Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION Kathy Langenwalter, representing the Gallaghers, is requesting Conceptual Design Review for a proposed single-family residence on Lot 26, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. This lot is located on the southeast side of Coyote Ridge. It is approximately 1.00 acres in size. The lot slopes to :.he southeast at about 37 percent. The zoning is SPA with a duplex designation. The proposed structure has three levels with the main living area on the middle level. It has approximately 3100 square feet of habitable space, not including the garage. The structure, as proposed, appears to be within all Town height, lot coverage and setback restrictions. The exterior is finished in stucco. Doors and windows will be metal clad. Fascia and soffits will be of wood. Color samples will be presented at the hearing. The roof form is gabled, finished with concrete tile. The site plan shows a driveway with a maximum grade of 8 percent, site drainage is directed away from the structure and overall the finished grades do not exceed 50% or 2:1. The majority of the lot is to be left in a natural landscape. The planting materials proposed are dominated by dryland species. Providing an irrigation system will be left to the owners. Exterior lighting has not been discussed. STAFF COMMENTS Since this is a Conceptual Design Review, no formal staff recommendation will be provided. RECOMMENDED ACTION Introduce Application Applicant Presentation Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully submitted 57 -d Tom Al n er Planner STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Lot 26, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Timothy Gallagher Single-family Residence Conceptual Design Review PLANNING AND 'ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date Patti Dixon, Secretary Although this was submitted as a conceptual design review, the Commission granted final design approval, since the applicant presented a complete presentation_ with the fnllnwing rarnmmandatinn• 1 An aUtnmA tir irrigation • BLOCK 4 sl - so SHEET 3 OF 6 s s5 25 6 4 24 56 ]1 49 4e 47:: 90 7 e 70 IS 2' g 7 20 27 4 .. 10 II 12 I 19 2 3 ze . 7 n - 29 4... e0 75 Le 26 ZS 43 B9 33 30 42 .TM_" � 27 OV OrE RIDGE 31 Be ]4 =2 . SS 97 86 BS 94 92 ze 3e56 ]B 59 e / a S4 S7 71 e2 �� 73 9 36 37 53 CB 60 7p J7 32 L SO 'FERRET LANE _ 36 39 IB 61 69 6' 47 67 20 I 52 66 3 46 6 53 65 5 _; 19 9 2 64 JS IB I i6 I 4 7 4J / )INT V 5 7G 42 44 42 3 4n •2 4 0 / I 35 4I ' 7 4, 4 40 BLOCK 5 3e 39 45 SHEET 6 OF 6 46 4 32 33 43 34 56 47 - 0 ., 33 4e 90 ss 9 09 1]I 53 e 34 j 92 ._ a49-� / el 93 1 94 .07 26 z _ 4 / _- \ 96 106 ' O 85 9 7 p )NE CREEK e3 97 ; TRAIL \79 99 iO4 e 7B _ 5 SO IS 99 103 , TRACT R e2 74 77 i00 6 of 7 3 102 4 ., To 51 52 S33 - J c la g TE 72 50 54 49 33 1 5556 '° 34 BLOCK 2 35 34 SHEET 4 OF 6 J7 2f 47 T38 g` 1 69 45 39 x 20 I IS i 66 41 3 I, 42 24 x) •,�� TMC{ 7 r♦ 17 St: t BLOCK I SHEET 5 OF 6 4• Ili F30STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 16, 1993 Lot 33, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Tony Scharpf Material Change Request INTRODUCTION Tony Scharpf is making a material change request for the duplex structure being built on Lot 33, Block 3, Wildridge. He wishes to substitute a masonite siding for the previously approved wood siding and change the color from off white to light beige. He also wishes to change the color of the clad windows from white to a light. taupe. The soffit and facia would also be changed to match the windc..ts, the i approved color was beige. This Commission granted this project final approval with conditions on October 20, 1992. One of those conditions was that the siding be wood as opposed to masonite. STAFF RECOMMENDATION This siding appears to be a reasonable product, and the color change should be fine; staff recommends approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Tom Allender Planner Approved as submitted (_-)-I- Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date 1, Patti Dixon, Secretary 1•.--t --_ =, ___ The Commission api)rnved a color rhange-A;l_rh�ge in tha sidinu mat,, ial from wood siding to a masonite siding.