The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 050394a am PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision 10 Units Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: 10 Units ZONING PUD, 10 Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: ACL Limited Liability has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of five duplexes on Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge. The lot, 2 52 acres in size, slopes down to the west. The building height for the elevation shown is approximately 28'. 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 Trash Enclosure Materials Colors celotex presidential Not Indicated masonite " stucco " masonite. " masonite " bronze aluminum Ix4 r. s. cedar " steel six panel " I x4 r. s. cedar " redwood " galvanized " siding " siding " A landscape plan hams not been indicated. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting 5 duplexes on a lot zoned for 10 units. The Town Council, in Resolution No. 91-17, stated that "two unit lots mean attached duplex buildings and no detached duplex allowed and three units or greater lots would mean multifamily attached buildings of three units or more per building." Therefore, Staff has not done an in depth review of the project due to the non-compliance with Resolution 91-17 Site Plan_ 1. Finished slopes may not exceed 2: I; 2. Retaining walls will be required on this site, and if over 4', designed by an Engineer, 3. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR, 4. The type of driveway needs to be indicated, a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision 10 Units Conceptual Design Review 5 An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing, a. true limits of site disturbance; b. all easements, including the Roadway cut and Fill Slope Easement; c. label property lines and other lines indicated but not identified; d. the rights-of-way; e. tie in to right-of-way; f. setbacks; and g. utility connections. 6. A construction, erosion control and site disturbance fence may be needed on site delineating the construction and non -construction zones, 7 Revegetation of all disturbed areas is required, and must include native bushes, and 8. Steep Slope guidelines will be given to the applicant. Design: 1. If there are variations in the elevations of all duplexes, the varying elevations must be shown. 2. Colors and materials need to be called out on the elevations, 3. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated; and 4. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission direct the applicant to submit a proposal that is in compliance with Resolution 91-17. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision 10 Units Conceptual Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( tl Date 3 / Sue Railton, Secretary_ _ The general consensus of the Commission was that thissro osteal would work very well on the site. However, Resolution 91-17 prohibits any structures containing less than three units per building. Considerable Commission will discuss the matter of Resolution 91-17 at a worksession on 1• a , , , , '1 e4 w P% ,.i m P -WF m M A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 27, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Niederhaus Residence Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single Family ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: RKD Design has submitted an application for conceptual design review of a single family residence on Lot 27, Block 3, which is ..49 acres in size and has a 28% slope. The single family unit will contain two levels and stand approximately 31' high. The single family unit will consist of the following materials: The landscape plan includes 14 aspens ranging from 2-4". STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments: Site Plan: 1. The type of drivewav needs to be indicated; 2. A grading and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance; utility connections; all easements, 3. Building overhangs are not allowed in the setbacks; and 4. Revegetation should include native bushes. Desian 1 Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations, 2. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations and samples provided, and Materials Color Roof asphalt shingles no color indicated Siding stucco " Fascia 2x cedar " Soffits soffit board painted " Window wood alum. clad " Window Trim stucco rap " Door/Trim wood " Chimney stucco " The landscape plan includes 14 aspens ranging from 2-4". STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the proposal and following are the comments: Site Plan: 1. The type of drivewav needs to be indicated; 2. A grading and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance; utility connections; all easements, 3. Building overhangs are not allowed in the setbacks; and 4. Revegetation should include native bushes. Desian 1 Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations, 2. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations and samples provided, and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 27, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Niederhaus Residence Conceptual Design Review 3. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Stall' has no formal recommendation. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( Date_" Sue Railton, Secretary -,04L- As , Discussion on the underside of the deck, the type of fireplace, the possible need for an irrigation system, and the shallow arch elements in the st„cco walls on the top of some of the window groupings followed. It was suggested that the applicant add some interest via windows or using a higher than s to ridd Fd dour fur the 9dragi. 1he generalconsensus of the Commission was that this was a very nice project and the Commission urged the applicant to �'A PhY'1-I1.:7 LFII r�mr 11 8�sli�;. GrrJWz zflou.vnK rte,—.,_ LUJJ IFIL -"-.i L� ror Top 1 u u t (- �Jillu I I I 4ifin 1 / / LGiO/�h bFLr ' Ld°117 pCi�F=S 6tuGG� GI-lu�l-1�T -�\ rr9 K�•-�I�M �FFRV_i �it61�r— �1�\ I�ga= j,- X11 ' � bJorzr A' Plotj.l n 1-'19TF .I ! 0 i_ I^ �4 b'd%V .11 s I ,III EEDI ��. -I ! 0 em 2vro (iEnAIL Fn xr/- � 14 24LI 11Z 11 r�r- W, y.rsGror.rz. rt'� Ir.,•,i � I..I� I,�j �•wr� Gl.ef.� H7U� G� r'• P,A,f,o >I.7 vAwt LE Rocr- 1.4 1-9 N IJH G� l• -I IIJiJ� � Y{1 "(IJCL �. GEvhz ter_ -- obi pI.R -FIr.J fbR- F-I•'- loar o' GS�Io� WN I Zs cif LPA y111--t- 9"HfJ FNIA 7�- tool i:.j TN P -P i -v IV' LURID 2=1J"I Itis [.IVht-.rte j�IL- • hOU H >;�vA IQN tea•= t�� µ7 slda u1e�G e I W«OP 4iXP,&/-jF t�;, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT' May 3, 1994 Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Rogers Duplex Conceptual Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: An application for Conceptua 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: A landscape plan has not been indicated. STAFF COMMENTS: Site Plan: 1. Finished slopes may not exceed 2:1' 2. Retaining walls over 4' must be designed by an Engineer; 3. A variance may be required for the retaining walls in the front yard setback, 4. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR; 5. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing a. true limits of site disturbance, b label property lines and other lines indicated but not identified, c. the rights-of-way; d. all easements; e. setbacks; and f utility connections. Materials Colors Roof cedar shake Not Indicated Siding stucco Other NA Fascia wood Soffits wood Window clad Window Trim wood Door wood Door Trim wood Hand/Deck Rails wood Flues/Flashings copper Chimney stucco A landscape plan has not been indicated. STAFF COMMENTS: Site Plan: 1. Finished slopes may not exceed 2:1' 2. Retaining walls over 4' must be designed by an Engineer; 3. A variance may be required for the retaining walls in the front yard setback, 4. Utility connections need to be shown on the site plan for FDR; 5. An accurate grading plan and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing a. true limits of site disturbance, b label property lines and other lines indicated but not identified, c. the rights-of-way; d. all easements; e. setbacks; and f utility connections. r"1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Rogers Duplex Conceptual Design Review 6. Revegetation of all disturbed areas is required, and must include native bushes, and 7. Steep Slope guidelines will be given to the applicant. Desren: 1. A north elevation is required 2. Colors and materials need to be called out on the elevations; 3. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated. and 4. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a conceptual review, the Staff has no formal recommendation. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holde Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (v)_'�' Date 3/ _Sue Railton, Secretary_rce „a d Lancepr.ud aesign review, no formal action was taken The Commission generally liked the proposed house. They made a few suggestions regarding the front door, some of the window fenestrations, and the deck. They were con cern `ar--itte- rars;--and —thEY- remi,rded—the-app}Yca n t that he needs to consider snow storage. A a N I a S 0 p•� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 1, Riverside PUD 59 Unit Complex Conceptual Design. Review PROJECT TYPE: 59 Units ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? No, Residential Use Not An Allowed Use Of PUD INTRODUCTION: H. Jay Harkins, on behalf of Wintergreen Homes, has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review of 59 units on Lot I of the Riverside PUD The applicant is proposing 5 buildings standing approximately 43' high The lot is 2.50 acres in size and is bounded by the Eagle Rivei on the north and Hwy. 6/24 on the south Please refer to the attached letter, which addresses the project, materials, landscaping and site percentages. STAFF COMMENTS: The Riverside PUD is an existing PUD with specified uses and development standards The applicant's proposal does not comply with the PUD which will require an application for an amendment to the Riverside PUD The applicant has provided Staff with a site plan that has no detail other than the building locations, parking, and the 100 year flood plain line Therefore, Staff was not able to review this application in detail Site Plan 1. An accurate grading and drainage plan, on a certified topography, showing a true limits of site disturbance, b existing and proposed contours, c all easements. d property lines, e utility connections f all setbacks, including the 30' setback from mean annual high water/flood plain, and g existing vegetation and type. 2 This side of the river has been designated for a pathway 3 Public access to the river is not shown 4 Parking will require a variance of amend the PUD to allow parking to be placed at the property line 5 The type of driveway needs to be indicated 6 Building overhangs may not extend in the setbacks O 77 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 1, Riverside PUD 59 Unit Complex Conceptual Design Review 7. Snow storage must be indicated on the site plan 8. The length of the driveway exceeds the 300' maximum for emergency vehicles 9. There are building code requirements for exiting from the units. Design: 1. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR. 2. Elevations of the buildings with covered parking must be submitted. 3 Proposed materials for the building are not indicated in Rules, Regulations and Procedures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the applicant make application for a PUD amendment Respectfully Submitted - "l&At'— Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONIN.; ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) .Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action (✓) Date 3 / Sue Railton, Secretaryf As_sa_conceotual design review. no action was taken at this time_ The__ommission had concerns regarding the character of the south elevation; what would be seen from Hiway 6 and what the applicant could do to block the parking lot from Hi ay the massive root line; aan scaping; a nee or a playground and a barbecue area; and the possibility of a shortage of parking spaces. Also disussed was the bl aee-essl attd pathwa3-. HARKINS #frlfeptff,11�4, HARKINS a ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS April 19, 1994 Mary Holden, Planner 9 Town of Avon P.O.Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 , RE: Eaglebend III - Concentual Review Dear FTs. Holden; Attached for your review and comments are four (4) conies of our proposed mext phase Of the Eaalebend Apartment Project, We are r.ronosinq to develop the site along Colorado State Highwav r between the existing bridqe entrance to Eaglebend and the Town of Avon bridge to Reaver Creek entry. The nroperty is owned by the Kriz family ani? presently under contract by Jeff Spanel and Art KleinEtein. The project will consist of five (2) structures with two floors of units plus a garIen level. There are to be two (2) huildings with twelve units, two (2) buildings with ten units and one building with fifteen units for a total of fifty-nine (59) units. Ole mix Of units will he; one bedroom 17 two bedrooln 26 three bedroom 16 total 59 units The buildings are to he constructed as Type V - 1 hour construction. Exterior materials will be durable and easily maintained. The siding w4-11 be a cement sheet material (texture and color similar to wood) while t'.�e roof is to be 0 composite shingle similar to a "timberline" product with a deep shadow line and with "mottled" wood colors. The general character of the Project will be consistent with the texture and tones of the structures built in Beaver Creek. (wood and shake shingle3), Landscar.ing as proposed will be sodding and irrigation in the front and sides of the buildings, with heavy screen planting on and along Highway 6 R.O.W.. The existing fir and spruce trees on the site will be protected and maintained while the river bank riparian growth will be protected during the construction. The project site is approximately 2.5 acres with an additional dedicated open space of 6.4 acres (by prior action). The building footprint equals _43 acres (17%), parking and roadways .90 acres (39%), and open space within the 2.5 acres equals 1.17 acres (47%). 2784 WHEELING WAY AURORA, COLORADO 303-755-4718 Eaglebend III April 19, 1994 Page 2 We have supplied parking for 123 cars (114 surface Parked and 14 garage parked). The units require 109.5 cars and with visitor parking the required parking would ne 119.5 cars. Site development items: dumpsters, lighting, mailboxes, signage and fire -protection will be added to our preliminary submission. We wish to start construction in late summer and ask that the Town provide us ASAP any issues or comments to be used in the development of the prcject. We are looking forward to continuing our relationship with the Housing Authority and the Town of A•✓%. , Respectfi.illy submitted, tjH ntergrecn Hones C� ..y O f I I 1 y � � �° , �� 4 ' r A c w 0 I go a Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report May 3, 1994 Lot 18 Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Special Review Use, Home Occupation PROJECT TYPE: Special Review Use -Public Hearing ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES This is a Public Hearing for an in home occupation for Lot 18, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision. INTRODUCTION John and Suzanne Railton, the owner and applicants, are requesting approval for a Special Review Use to operate a home business. The proposed business is an architects office. There will be no clients coming to the residence, and there are no employees working for them STAFF COMMENTS Following are the criteria, as listed in Section 17.48.040, to consider for approval of a special review use A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, COMMENT The proposed home occupation complies with the definition of home occupation, which includes the use is incidental and subordinate to the use of the dwelling unit as residence; does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential character of the neighborhood, and, does not require or allow employees to work on the property B Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan, COMMENT The proposed home occupation conforms with the comprehe;is :,e plan Specifically, Goal #Al, which states "Ensure that all land uses are located in appropriate locations with appropriate controls " and Goal #132 which states, "Enhance the. Town's role as a principal, year-round residential and commercial center in the Vail Valley " The home occupation will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will promote a year round service commercial activity C Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses Such compatibility may be expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features, site design, and the control of any adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc 04 Al Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report May 3, 1994 Lot IS Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Special Review Use, Home Occupation COMMENT: The proposed use will not generate additional vehicular traffic, and the facade of the residence is not changing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this application with the findings and conditions set forth below: FINDINGS A. The proposed use other wise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code; B. The proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the zoning code and the applicable zoning district, and C. The proposed use is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and uses in the area. CONDITIONS 1. No employees are allowed to work on the property. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applican. Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action UJ Planning and 'Zoning Commission Staff Report May 3, 1994 Lot IS Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Special Review Use, Home Occupation Respectfully Submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date - 3 / Sue Railton, Secretary/,yr t -e— „ The Commission approve Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-8, which grants approval for the requeste ome occupation. W 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Smith Residence Variance - Front Yard Setback PROJECT TYPE: Single Family Residence ZON➢VG: PUD --One Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? No, Requires a Variance to Front Yard Setback Requirements This is a Public Hearing for a variance to the front yard setbacks on Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. INTRODUCTION: Mike Perkin, on behalf of Garrett and Betty Jean Smith, has submitted an application iA requesting permission to encroach 15' into the front yard setback with a garage that is partially underground. REQUEST: There will be approximately 1' of the garage facade showing, with the roof being most visible. The roof material is natural river rock. The garage will not extend into the 10' Utility/Drainage/Slope Maintenance easement SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The lot, 1.7 i acres in size. slopes to the south at approximately 401,'a STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan shows a cut in the 10' Slope maintenance, drainage, snow storage easement, which is not allowed. Prior to the application for a building permit, a revised site p;an showing no cut in the easement must be submitted and approved by Staff Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the follov.ing factors with respect to the requested variance Section_ 1' 3640 Approval Criteria; A. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Comment. The requested variance is in keeping with the surroundinu uses and structures in the area B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specifed regulation is necessary to achieve compatihly and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. w PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 47, Blocl.:i, Wildridge Subdivision Smith Residence Variance - Front Yard Setback Comment. The degree of relief being requested is due to the steepness of the site (+40%), which is becoming more prevalent due to the remaining lots being steeper. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Comment. The effect of the request will have no negative impacts on light, air, population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities or public safety D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. Comment Staff has not identified any other factors for the Commission to consider FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not he detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one er more of 16e following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS: a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Smith Residence Variance - Front Yard Setback Staff recommendation is for approval of Resolution No 94-xx for the front yard st :back variance request based on the findings and condition below Staff feels that the request meets the required criteria necessary for approval. FINDINGS: I. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity 3. The strict or li. Zral interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the: vicinity. 4. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent the objectives of this title CONDITION: I No cut may take place in the 10' Slope maintenance, drainage, snow storage easement RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4 Close Public Hearing 5 Commission Review 6 Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Holden A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Smith Residence Variance - Front Yard Setback Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( V/) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date_ -3 / sue Railton, Secretary The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-9 granting the variance witht e condition that the applicant satisfy the Town Engineer with regard to structural stability of the road prior to ion— — as PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Smith Residence Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE Single Family ZONING: PUD, One Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING' YES INTRODUCTION: Michael Perkin has submitted an application for Final Design Review of a single family residence on Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge. The lot, 1.71 acres in size, slopes to the south at approximately 40%. The single family dwelling will contain two levels and stand approximately 24-27' high An underground, three car garage is being proposed. The single family will consist of the following materials. The landscape plan includes. Pinion Pine 1 6' high 1 8' high Aspen i 5 2" cal_ Juniper Tree I 6' hi rh U I 8' high Ground cover, annuals and perennials are proposed around the patio Revegetation will take place with native bushes and grasses- An automatic drip system is being proposed to all trees and formal bedding areas An erosion control fence is being shown, and erosion control will occur with straw and plastic netting at all seeded, disturbed areas Materials Colors Roof single -ply membrane, river rock ballast natural river rock Siding N/A Other synthetic stucco Moonlit sand Fascia N/A Soffits Ix6, t&g, fir Seagul! gray Window Trim N/A Door metal clad wood Bronze (front entry door to be custom carved wood) Courtyard/Patio Walls stucco match bldg. Flues/Flashings sheet metal match bldg. Chimney stucco match bldg. Exterior Beams/Columns smooth fir Seagull gray Garage Doors Ix6, t&g, fir Not indicated Entry Gate Custom wrought iron Black The landscape plan includes. Pinion Pine 1 6' high 1 8' high Aspen i 5 2" cal_ Juniper Tree I 6' hi rh U I 8' high Ground cover, annuals and perennials are proposed around the patio Revegetation will take place with native bushes and grasses- An automatic drip system is being proposed to all trees and formal bedding areas An erosion control fence is being shown, and erosion control will occur with straw and plastic netting at all seeded, disturbed areas M a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Smith Residence Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has applied for a variance to the front yard setback to allow for the garage roof to daylight about 2' from the surface. The majority of the garage is underground The grading plan is showing a cut in the 10' Slope maintenance, drainage, snow storage easement, which is not allowed Further, retaining walls are not indicated on the site plan where slopes exceed 2:1 and they need to be shown A revised grading plan, showing no cut in the easement, and the retaining walls must be approved by Town Staff prior to the application of a building permit_ The minimum driveway width for residential is approximately 16', which this drive does not reflect. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shill consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment: This proposal is in conformance with Town codes The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment: The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines and the Wildridge Subdivision The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment All impacts will be contained on site. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment. The proposed improvements on the site are consistent with others in the area The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment. The proposed visual appearance is consistent with others in he area J l (a 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Smith Residence Final Design Review The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment: The proposal meets the objective of this guideline The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Comment. The proposal is in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application with the following conditions All meters be placed on the building. Flues, flashings and vents must have a finished surface, matching the color scheme of the structure A revised site plan, showing no cuts in the 10' Slope maintenance, drainage, snow storage easement, all retaining walls, and a minimum driveway width of 16', be approved by Town Staff prior to a building permit application. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (el)' Continued 1 ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual_ No Action ( ) Date / Sue Railton, Secretary F 6 �jLa The Commission granted final design approval with the following conditions: 001 A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 M Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridgc Subdivision Smith Residence Final Design Review • L The main chimney stack be r dPgigned to a battered on the Pact and west sides and he brought back to staff for approval. 2. The spark arrestor be concealed by a terra cotta tile chimney flue. 3- 71iC—meters e p ace on a ui ing 4. Flues, flashings and vents must have a finished surface matching the —ee4o.aete---- 5. The driveway can be less than 15 feet if approved by Town Staff and the Fire Department. 5. Additional shrubbery be added to the project. — --- AON April 7, 1994 Ms. Mary P. Holden, Town Planner Town of Avon P.O.Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Final Design Review Submittal Smith Residence Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Avon, Colorado Dear Mary: a- P.O. Box 1351 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 827-4146 Attached you will find four sets of documents submitted for Final Design Review on the above -referenced project. As you are aware, this project passed through the Conceptual Review process at the illanning Ccxnmission meeting held April 5. Please note, your offir..e has in its possession colored elevations and material color samples for the project submitted at the time of Conceptual Review and I ask that you include those in this submittal. For your assistance in reviewing this submittal, I would like to take the opportunity of this letter to address the "Staff Comments" you prepared for the Conceptual Review, and some comments made by various Commission members during the meeting: Staff Comment #1 (Site Plan): The final working drawings for the project will show no final grades exceeding a slope of 2 feet (vert.) and 1 foot (horn ). Staff Comment #2 (Site Plan): The final working drawings will shown all retaining walls to be designed by a licensed engineer. Staff Comment #3 (Site Plan): Utility connections are now shown on the Site Plan, dated 4/6/94. Staff Comment #4 (Site Plan): An asphalt paved driveway is now shown on the Site Plan, dated 4/6/94. Staff Comment #5 (Site Plan): The Grading Plan submitted for Conceptual Review is accurate, shows the true limits of site disturbance, and is based exactly upon the certified survey you have in your possession. Staff Comment #6 (Site Plan): The commitment to install a construction fence is now shown on the Site Plan, dated 4/6/94. Staff Comment #7 (Site Plan): Snow will be plowed over the downhill edge of the driveway and parking area. The site lends itself to more than adequate snow storage. Staff Comment #8 (Site Plan): The Landscape Plan, dated 4/6/94 now shows landscaping will not be installed in snow storage areas. Staff Comment #9 (Site Plan): The Landscape Plan, dated 4/6/94 now shows trees meeting the minimum standard of 2 inch caliper. -•. ANN Page Two Letter to Mary Holden April 7, 1994 Staff Comment #1 (Design): The Site Plan, dated 4/6/94 and the Building Elevations, dated 4/6/94 now show elevations so finished grade elevations can be tied to bui'ding elevations. Staff Comment #2 (Design): See Design Comment #1. Staff Comment #3 (Design): The Building Elevations, dat^d 4/6/94 now show colors and materials. Staff Comment #4 (Design): The exact fireplace model will not be selected until the project is approved by the Town of Avon and the working drawings for the project are prepared. The Owner will, hereby, commit to the submission of the exact fireplace model to the Town of Avon for approval prior to any installation of the fireplace. Planning Commission Member Conment #1 Planning Commission Member Comment #2 Because Wildridge Road is not lighted, the Owner questions the advisability of lighting the driveway. However, if the Town of Avon insists upon a lighted drive, or if the Owner desires a lighted drive, the Owner, hereby, makes the commitment to submitted the lighting plan and light fixture selection to the Town of Avon for approval. The Owner desires to not install a formal walkway from the house up to Wildridge Road. This would encourage on -street parking. Rather the owner would like to propose widening the driveway for some distance to provide guest parking if this is acceptable to the Town of Avon. Planning Commission Member Comment #3: The Landscape Plan, dated 4/6/94 now reflects the Commision's directive to plant trees only near the house and in a position so they are visible from the north side and road. Planning Commission Member Comment #4 Several Commiss.o,i members encouraged the Owner to apply for a front setback variance to allow the underground portion of the building to be raised so that the roof is above ground. The Owner will apply for such a variance at the proper time. Thank you for your help with this project and please call if you have questions or I need to submit further information. (Please note, I am a fast learner and now know to pick up your staff comments at the back of the meeting room!) Sincerely, 1"CUL'. Michael G. Perkin cc: r.ArrPtr and AI Cmi!h so �-1 J p r1 -1_ _q V, V All L 3 d v3 M O -d � S 3 y v -ta ° da- ' E2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 9, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Dwyer Residence Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single Family, with future lockoff unit ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Heuring Construction & Design has submitted an application for Final Design review of a single family residence with a fitture lock off apartment on Lot 9, Filing 1. The lot, .37 acres in size, slopes to the south at approximately 14.5% The single family residence will contain three levels and stand approximately 35' high. The structure will consist of the following materials. The conceptual landscape plan consist of the following: Pinion Pine 6 3" cal Aspen 10 3" cal. Sandcherry 6-15 5 gal Sod is proposed and all disturbed areas will be hdyro seeded with a grass and wildflower mix. STAFF COMMENTS: This lot abuts the Eagle River and has a 30' Metcalf Ditch easement and 30' mean annual high water mark setback on the south portion to the lot Grading is shown in the easement and 30' mean annual high water setback, which is not allowed Further, the grading ui: n is not accurate, which complicates an accurate review of the proposal Materials Colors Roof 3 tab, asphalt shingle weathered gray Siding rough cedar lap sausilito gray Other N/A Fascia ?x Dimensional blue -gray Soffits rough cedar ply sausilito gray Window eagle casements white Window Trim oak stain Door F panel Hand/deck Rails red wood Flues/Flashings galy. Chimney wood sided The conceptual landscape plan consist of the following: Pinion Pine 6 3" cal Aspen 10 3" cal. Sandcherry 6-15 5 gal Sod is proposed and all disturbed areas will be hdyro seeded with a grass and wildflower mix. STAFF COMMENTS: This lot abuts the Eagle River and has a 30' Metcalf Ditch easement and 30' mean annual high water mark setback on the south portion to the lot Grading is shown in the easement and 30' mean annual high water setback, which is not allowed Further, the grading ui: n is not accurate, which complicates an accurate review of the proposal a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 9, Filing 1, IEaglebend Subdivision Dwyer Residence Final Design Review There are mature cottonwoods on site that are not shown it the buildng footprint The applicant can preserve the cottonwoods by fencing them during construction. Revegetation must include native bushes found in the area along with native grasses and wildflowers. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment This proposal is not in conformance with Town codes since grading is shown in the Metcalf Ditch easment and the 30' setback mean annual high water mark The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment: The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment: All impacts will be contained on site. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment. The proposed improvement is not compatible with the site due to the encroachment into the 30' Metcalf Ditch Easement and the 30' setback from the mean annual high water mark The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment. The visual appearance of the improvement is consistent with others in the vicinity. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicin.iy that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment. The proposal meets the objective of this guideline The general conformance o+ the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. 0 • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 9, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Dryer Residence Final Design Review Comment: The proposal is in confornr;nce with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application with the following conditions: 1. Meters be placed on the buildng 2. Retaining walls over 4' in height must be designed by an Engineer. 3. Revegetation must include native bushes 4 Grading may not take place in the 30' Metcalf Ditch easement or in the 30' mean annual high water mark setback. 5 The existing cottonwoods must be fenced and protected during construction. 6. All flues, flashing and vents must have a finished surface matching the color scheme of the residence. 7. The existing cottonwoods must be fenced prior to any site disturbance. 8. A revised site plan indicating correct contours and no encroachments in the Metcalf Ditch easement or 30' setback from the mean annual high water mark must be submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to a building permit application. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued (✓) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 4 3 / Sue Railton, Secretary �u e- p� j A a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 9, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Dwyer Residence Final Design Review ThP rnmmiccinn tahlPd this application until the next meeting due to concerns regarding the following items: 1. aan scape pan neee ski n i d. 2. The colors, and the substitution of white is acceptable. 3. e# windeai trim. 4. The window fenestrations on the west elevation. 5. The lights to be no more than 40 to 60 watts. 6. Bring an actual roofing material sample. 7. The shedding of the garage on to the driveway and the shedding of the deck. �E 5 BA�AIA 1. YD9 u� ffE �Jo.l• iNa . EAGL EBEND DR/ V ) 61,_ 41 R }2 E V loo Jot DNN i N A00 VIA� �A? If c°L°M °ECD 41 zA� if rfm \ \ �.ro+"OOD� \ / t-•rAI�EIE%t,t5,,.. .n' xc2av-ar�i tnurrxr I _ \ \ DCOWJOO s a'EE = w�s716i8^nvav f a x. — —704 sf urur. seBiJA of E n 11104' SDs – TRACT to 'r tAGLE Rrv. 1 t 13 El � M W h�I— I :w l� 4) y I F Z 0 SII PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 44, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Baca Single Family Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE Single Family ZONING: PUD, Two Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: An application for Final Design Review of a single family has been submitted by Bruce and Susan Baca. The single family will be located on lot 44, ,which is approximately 1 15 arses and has a slope of approximately 30%. The proposed single family will have three levels and stand approximately 35' in height. The duplex will consist of the following materials The landscape plan consists of 18 aspens at 2" caliper, .i spruce at 6" caliper and 5 Potentilla at 5 gallons Reseeding with native grasses and straw cover is proposed for revegetation. The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the December 21, 1994, meeting At that meeting, the Commission commented on the following I appearance of the underside of the deck, 2 site disturbance, 3 log home fitting on this site, and 4, general appearance of log home nice STAFF COMMENTS: The drainage plan shows water draining into the garage and Staff suggests the applicant raise the garage floor elevation Material Color Roof asphalt shingles green Siding log 9" swedish cope unweathered on cedar Devoe Other stucco tortoise shell Fascia r s. plywood forest green Soffits fir plywood unweathered on cedar Windows clad forest green Window Trim r s 2x forest green Door wood unweathered cedar Door Trim r.s 2x forest green Hand/ Deck Rail 2x2 pickets/2x6 rails unweathered cedar/forest grn Flashings match roof Chimney metal to match The landscape plan consists of 18 aspens at 2" caliper, .i spruce at 6" caliper and 5 Potentilla at 5 gallons Reseeding with native grasses and straw cover is proposed for revegetation. The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the December 21, 1994, meeting At that meeting, the Commission commented on the following I appearance of the underside of the deck, 2 site disturbance, 3 log home fitting on this site, and 4, general appearance of log home nice STAFF COMMENTS: The drainage plan shows water draining into the garage and Staff suggests the applicant raise the garage floor elevation PLANNING AND ZONING COMM1aSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 44, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Baca Single Family Final Design Review The elevations show boulder retaining walls that do not match up with the grading plan. The final grading plan must coincide with the grading plan DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment: This proposal is in conformance with Town codes The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment: The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are consistent with Town, guidelines and the Wildridge Subdivision The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment: All impacts will be contained on site. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment The proposed improvements are compatible with the site and slopes. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment The proposed visual appearance is consistent with others in he area The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Comment The proposal is in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 44, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Baca Single Family Final Design Review STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application with the following conditions' I. Revegetation include native bushes, in addition to the native grasses. 2. All flues, flashing, and vents have a finished surface to match the color theme of the residence. 3. 1 ne meters be placed on the building 4. An erosion control/construction fence be instalk i site prior to any site disturbance. Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (✓) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date l% 3/qQ� Sue Railton, Secretaryi� �t The Commission granted final design approval with the following conditions: 1. The chimney element be brought back prior to building permit being issued. -2-.- oor samples -be - 3. Revegetation include native bushes, in addition to the native grasses. -4— All flues, flashings and vets havp a f' d surface to match the color scheme of the residence. �. The meters be placed on the building. 6. An erosion control/construction ence a ins a e on st zr--to any site disturbance. Al i II 4`1 r I 4w v A I u c J t Q� 'k1 11 u w 'S "A `n7 V � S- -d 3 � 6 d' �p J n t; c�. �`1 � J -d a '-'O 1 V � 3 � C � 0 � � S N i v _ o nL \` ��v �� fi � -, � c Q a � �r � -� -� � �' I I I I I I If I VA I I I I I I I I � 4- P P 1 —CI s V I ion 1— I f f_ 44 a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 46, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision buck Springs Project Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Buck Springs Residentia: Project ZONING: RHD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: The applicants have submitted pians for final design review for a 12 unit proiect located on Lot 46, (853 of an acre). This lot has slopes of approximately 2%. T he configuration of the units will be duplexes, with six buildings located on the site. The buildings will contain three levels and stand approximately 41';n height Following are the proposed building materials: The landscape plan consists of the following: Deciduous shrubs Material Color Roof cedar shingles natural Other stucco dk. beige/Igt. beige Fascia cedar plantain Soffits plywood plaintain Window metal clad white Window Trim 1x8/1x6 dk. beige Door solid core wood natural Door Trim metal clad white Hand/ Deck Rail lx3/6x6/2x4 pickets/post dk. beige Flues galvanized metallic Flashings copper copoel Chimney stucco autumn acorn Garage Door Not indicated white Chimney Caps stucco autumn acorn The landscape plan consists of the following: Deciduous shrubs 25 5 gallon Evergreen shrubs 24 5 gallon Deciduous trees 46 2" cal. Evergreen trees 17 8-10' tall All non -paved areas to be sodded with high altitude grass mix, which will include blue grass/rye/fescue. There will be sod between the buildings and adjacent to the parking. An automatic irrigation system is being proposed. REVIEW HISTORY L-1 E:7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 46, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Buck Springs Project Final Design Review The Commission reviewed this application as a conceptual at the February 15, 1994 meeting and had the following comments: snow storage location; siting being tight; closeness of the buildings; massing model; exterior color; type of material for railings, bottom portion of building being bland, varying window height; mirror images; roof angles being bland; windows being trimmed out; belly band help on north elevation; same windows make buildings a bit boring; needs good la ndscapi.ng; consider triplex configuration for more space between buildings; read as project with same materials, :ut slight variation in trim/accent privacy; and defining entry doors with small gable roof form. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is proposing a retaining wall along the southern portion of the property, and will be visible from the adjacei.t properties, which includes the new recreation center site. Staff will be requiring the applicant to finish the surface of the wall with rock. The design of the retaining wall must slope to match the contours. The work being proposed to Buck Creek, by the applicant, needs to tie in with the work being done by the Town, and needs to be reflected on the gradin3 and drainage plan submitted for a building permit. The RHD zoning district allows townhomes, condominiums and apartments at a density not to exceed 20 units/acre. Proposed density is 14 units/acre. Required parking for a 12 unit development is 24 spaces, plus 4 guest spaces. The site plan shows the parking and driveway encroaching into the 10' for parking and driveways. The parking and driveway must be removed or a variance applied for and approval given. Further, there does not appear to be adequate back out space for a few of the units. a do The applicant is proposing a silt fence for the south portion of the site. Staff will be requesting the applicant to wrap the fence around to the east of the site to protect Buck Creek. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment. This proposal is not in conformance with Town codes. A variance is required to locate the parking and driveway within the 10' setback. The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment. The type -nd quality of proposed Lidding and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent Properties. CommentAll impacts will be contained on site -he compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. Comment The proposed improvements are compatible with the site The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment. The visual appearance of the proposed improvNments are consistent with others in the vicinity. The objective that no improvement be so Amilai or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Comment. The proposal is in ccnformanre with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 0 a Staff recommends the Commission approve the application with the following conditions: I The required guest parking be provided and the revised site plan approved by Staff 2. All meters oe placed on the structures 3. All flues, flashing and vents have a finished surface to match the colir scheme of the building. 4. The proposed silt fence be extended around to the east portion of the site to protect Buck Creek and the fence be installed prior to any site disturbance. 5 The applicant provide to the Town of Avon, prior to a building permit application, permission from the owners of the access easement to utilize the casement 6. The parking and driveway must be removed from the front yard setback or a variance applied for and approval given. 7 The retaining wall have a finished surface of rock and slope to match the contours & Submission of revised Drainage Report corresponding with site plan prior to submittal of a building permit application Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner r2 n] PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 46, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Buck Springs Project Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (./) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 4X3 Sue Railton, Secretary M• .ou .. .. RMBE .. .� 1. The colors be brought back. 2. 1he rcquired guest parking be provided and the revised site plan approved by Staff. 3— 4. All flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface to match the cQlor scheme of the building-_ _ 5. The proposed silt fence be extended around to the east portion of the site to protect Buck Creek and the fence be installed prior to any site disturbance. 6. The applicant provide to the Town of Avon, prior to a building permit appliGation, permission from the avners of the access easement to utilize the easement. 7. The parking and driveway must be removed from the front yard setback or a variance applied for and approval given. 8. The retaining wall have a finished surface of rock and slope to match contours. 9. Submission of revised drainage report corresponding with site plan prior to submittal of a building permit application I• _ 1—y _ ----,-- -------------- Y 6V£O/A1L[N! f.ACQS A�aR�jYG4ipII EP2 Cr PAM/Nl OR OR DR MANADI AO Ull/IY 0 0 e W m I. V \nf tMAMAQ AIy'.YIiVIY.� A GmIN. —Y _9\6.00 NJ7 "SJ4I W y I�I o� I-------[ --� IU �X I s I X0_-46 _ i 141 , a awia — 1 — — 0 0 e W m �z ii00111- ion SQNIUdS *no E ,:o W W F9 7'V �IF I'm ' . ' :V. , I • , .kms ! \ l n- M•' MENNEN NOW A a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Two Triplexes ZONING: PUD -6 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: J.M.B. Enterprises has submitted an application for Final Design Review of two triplexes on Lot 78, Block 1. The lot is .78 acres in size and slopes to the southeast at approximately 20%.. The triplexes will contain three levels and stand approximately 34 1/2' high. Building lighting has been indicated on the elevations. The triplexes will consist of the following materials: The landscape plan includes Cottonwood Materials Colors Roof asphalt shingles weathered wood Siding channel rustic cedar blue/gray semi -stain Fascia 2x10 cedar heritage blue Soffits r.s. cedar blue/gray Window Bronze aluminum 5 gallon Window Trim 1x4 heritage blue Door steel. heritage blue Flues/Flashings galvanized heritage blue Chimney channel rustic cedar blue/gray The landscape plan includes Cottonwood 6 2" cal. Aspen 12 2" cal. Spruce 6 6-8' high Currant 12 5 gallon Radiant Crab 3 2" cal. Buffalo Juniper 18 5 gallon Potentilla 28 5 gallon Snowberry 26 5 gallon Sage Brush 14 5 gallon Ground cover will consist of native grass and flower seed mix. Erosion control will include natural vegetation. An automatic drip irrigation system :s proposed. STAFF COMMENTS: a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review The northern most unit and southern most unit do not have adequate back out space in front of the garage. A 24' back out area is needed The applicant must reflect this on the site plan and approved by Town Staff prior to the application for a building permit. The sign location may not be located within 10' of any property line. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project. Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment: This proposal will be in conformance with Town codes once the site plan is revised to show back out space for the north and south units. The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment: The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guide!mes. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment. All impacts will be contained on site. The compatibility of the pi oposed improvements with site topography. Comment The proposed improvement is compatible The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment. The visual appearance of the improvement is consistent with others in the vicinity. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Ccmment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. a a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Sia -Plea Final Design Review Comment: The proposal is in conforinance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. "Sign Guidelines" and review criteria from the Sign Code The proposed sign complies with the provisions set out in the Sign Code, however, lighting has not been indicated. Listed below are the guidelines and review criteria. Section 15 28 060 Sign Desian Guidelines A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood, and with the townscape. B. Harmonious with Building Scale. The sign should be harmonious with the building scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself. C. Materials. Quality sign materials, including anodized metal, routed or sandblasted wood. such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass - faced letters, or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission. D Architectural Harmony The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, acid in harmony in color with the surrounding structures E Landscaping Landscaping is required for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping F Reflective Surfaces Reflective surfaces are not allowed. G Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly v'sible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and should be. concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturoing manner H Loc tion. On multi -story buildings, individual business igns shall generally be limited to the ground level 0 a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review Section 15 28 070 - Sign Design Review Criteria In addition to the sign Design Guidelines listed above, the Planning aid Zoning Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewing propoaed sign designs: A. The suitability of the improvement, including materials, with which the sign is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located Comment: The sign is consistent with others approved in this area B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements Comment: The sign is similar to others in the area. C. fhe quality of the ma:;:rials to be utilized in any proposed improvement. Comment. The quality of the proposed sign material is acceptable D The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property Comment: The visual impact of the proposed sign will be consistent with existing area signs E The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic , will be impaired Comment The proposed sign mce:c this design criteria F Whether the type, hei,,ht, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code and appear to be appropriate for the project Comment The type, size and location of the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code. however, the location of the sign must be 10' from the front property line G Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation Comment: The sign is primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic FLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve the application with the following conditions I All meters be placed on the structures 2. Flue, flashings and vents have a finished surface 3 Sign lighting has not been approved, should the applicant wish to have lighting for the sign. the lighting be approved by Staff prior to installation 4 The location of the sign must be 10' from the front property line 5 A revised Fite plan, showing adequate back out space for the north and south garages, must be approved by Town Staff, prior to the application for building permit Respectfully Submitted Mary Hoiden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued (Z Denied Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No .Action ( Date_ 3� / 4 Sue Railton, Secretary_ The Commission tabled this item because of concerns regarding the lack of interest on tie �ronf and re��eleti3tfonramt-tfte need-to-chenge-the -roof line and also changing some of the window fenestrations from unit to unit. J.M.B. ENTERPRISES, INC. PO BOX 122 EDWARDS, CO 81632 April 20, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six Mex, response to Staff concerns Site Plan 1. Utilities connections are shown on site plan. 2. Entire driveway is well under a 48 grade. 3. Grading plan on certified topo is provided. 4. Snow storage has been addressed. 5. Plan shows no landscaping in snow storage areas. 6. All cal "i.p.=_r. of trees are a minimum of 2". 7. Building overhangs and buildings do not encroach into setbacks. 8. Lz:nuscaping plan includes native bushes, etc.. 9. Asphalt has been increased at each end of the Project. lesion 1. Exterior lighting is shown on plan elevations. — Colors and materials are indicated on the elevations. Samples available upon request or FDR meeting. 3. Sign detail on site plan. 4. Sign is well beyond site triangle. 5. Building is under 35' in height. 6. There are 2 windows per bedroom which are placed at the most advantageous spots at East elevation for furniture and egress. 7. Landscaping between Units would add to the parking problem, hinder snow removal, and be unappealing do to the narrowness of the project caused by set backs with site being at the corner of two roads. We have extensive landscaping between buildings and at west elevation of property. Sincerely, Mike Eruen/Vice-President cni�i u�u ittCLJ IU i o i /10' E...' ,W +EV, E4• ., ws ww +ro..w r� n' a J •sr lY A" D cc •u!u' I 111 � 1 \ e ,D Ag (jf I qn•, L/n 111, u t(ur111w1 W i t'LL. 6 r ,1 h '•• ' ,, 1 \ • u .' sv,_s �' ✓ 4 ISA .I \\ 'I h..K ..a+,e..f. tl�+x`"..Rtt�..xo .t•/'.j�'.�y�\, ' 1� F' �S� I •s C�f h1,twIlkJ %twe.Mh IruwN Ila fT C^Zq,I,M./.IM) T.... K c •' � y. � ''• 1 ' 1`i1 PC 0 \ e. \ r •e �\ % 0 \b \ O t° I I illll II �� Y1 11 1 I! I �`/ �I �� ,III I I�i.. ..♦. - I I - � � u hill - - � I .IJ INTI j ' � � ,� ill l • � ,=- _ ,, 1� 'I �.. II ,' y I II IIIIII II IIII ` I 1 i l I,{� ' li ' ISI•. Il1111C1 r II 1111,1.1•: II Ir! ji,ll it II' 111�iijli; �jlil •II�.��/ ; I i � I ; I � ILL I � I ; -- J I'll�'I,jliljl,i�7/A�I :c=:t ,I I 1 1111, 1 rIJ 1'.I 1—I I _ �,( I.111i1111! Ij; �yTI i i = -� fll•,� IIII' ill'I � I I�u �� '+ , � 5 ,� �lip I11 I'I „III ii II' 1 1,� IMill 1, I;'I Illl'1 I � - r I I II FLU II Fill[ [EIIA _ 1 r' (, ri�i nr ' 'i ► II I I lilal �l .il I�: lii� �Ik 1 hIT I !I llj i 11m i 'I:,I;,I��,I !li 1I liiiill I�lil - ��I�I�III� II L, III; .il ilil IIi r_ i i � - - ,i;I �iIIII rl 'Illi _I III ,_ � - 11 Ifllrllll�ll6�l�l � .--._ , . t I ;it. 1 '+i, I!�•II !''� !!I�Illi�l !I it 1l;il _-� , 111 � M w PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot IN, Foxx 4 Subdivision (Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision) Anderson/Connel Duplex Condition of Approval --Color PROJECT TYPE Duplex ZONING: PUD COMPLIES W11f, ZONING' 'YF -.S INTRODUCTION: Page Anderson has submitted revised colors, as requested by the Commission, for the duplex on Lot IN, Foxx 4 Subdivision STAFF COMMENTS The main body color. green, has been darkened from the last review by the Commission. The original color proposed and the current color proposed will be presented at the meeting STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a condition of approval, Staff has no recommendation RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Holcd �ni' Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot IN, Foxx 4 Subdivision (Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision) Anderson/Connel Duplex Condition of Approval—Color PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (✓� Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Apprcved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission Commission apprnved the colors for the AndersonlConnell duplex as submitted. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Big Sky Townhomes Condition of Approval PROJECT TYPE: Five Plex ZONING: PUD, Five Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Big Sky Townhomes were approved on March 15, 1994 with conditions. The conditions being addresses) by this submittal are: 1. a roofing material sample, and 2. a revised landscaping plan. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted the above for Commission review and approval STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a condition of approval, Staff has no recommendation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfilly Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner rMl PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Big Sky Townhemes Condition of Approval PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 3 / Sue Railton, Secretary/eu At the applicant's request, this application was withdrawn until further notice. 0" a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 2, Foss 4 Subdivision (Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision) Spiegel/Tracey Duplex Final Design Review -Modification PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION Chris Spiegel has submitted an application for a modification to his approved project. The modification is to the color of the roofing material The applicant received approval for a slate blend color The new color is that of his neighbors, which is the dark gray, but appears black. A roof sample has been submitted. STAFF COMMENTS At the March I, 1994 Planning and Zoning meeting, the Commission approved the slate blend color, but commented on the possibility of the roof being the same as their neighbors. The applicant is before the Commission with a different roof color because the manufacture sent the wrong shingle , and while out of town, half the shingles were placed on the building STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application as presented RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner so A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 2, Foxx 4 Subdivision (Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision) Spiegel/Tracey Duplex Final Design Review -Modification PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (,) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date / 3 O Sue Railton, Secretaryf e_ The Commission granted approval to the roof color change. El PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Building Final Design Review—Condition of Approval PROJECT TYPE: Westgate Building Commercial and Office Project ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision received PUD zoning approval from Town Council March 22, 1994, and Final Design Review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 19, 1994 with conditions. One of the conditions of approval was the rear elevation be brought back for Commission review and approval STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has returned with a revised rear elevation and is included in your packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As a condition of approval, Staff has no recommendation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted !Ho den Town Planner w PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 3. Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Building Final Design Review—Condition of Approval PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions () Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date_4u73 / Sue Railton, Secretary�� The Commission granted approval for the proposed rear elevation with the following condition; U" -caJ iPe'=-coktonwiwd-#.reel-be -added-and--be p laced--nea r the Sunridge lct line. 01% MAI W� tJ pWi 5n � I I W �I t 9 02 e41 MAI W� tJ pWi a a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Olson Residence Remodel Final Design Review -Modification to Condition of Approval PROJECT TYPE: Single Family ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING) YES INTRODUCTION: Larry and Judy Olson submitted an application for modifications to their existing residence at the March 15, 1994 Commission meeting. The Commission approved the application with the condition that a full arched window, or two quarter round windows be installed over the two south facing double doors. Larry and Judy Olson have made application to delete the condition of approval and replace the windows as submitted at the March 15, 1994 meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicants are making this request for the following reasons. 1. The windows specified in the condition of approval will not structurally fit with the building; and 2. To make the windows fit structurally, they would be much smaller than the others and appear out of balance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve the proposed modifications as submitted. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, V-Iold� Town Planner a ft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Olson Residence Remodel Final Design Review -Modification to Condition of Approval PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (/� Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date OAi 3 / Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission granted approval of the request to remove the condition for a different window which was placed on the March 18, 1994 final design aDDrovalo LLI w go PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Bristol Pines Lot 70A, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Identification Sign ZONING: RLD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Michael Waste has submitted an application for Final Design approval of an identification sign for Bristol Pines. The sign will be 13.5 square feet, be mounted on 4" x 4" posts and be located on the east side of the entrance to Bristol Pines. The colors will match the existing color scheme of the complex. Lighting has not been indicated. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposal does not indicate height of the freestanding sign, which may not exceed 8' high. The sign complies with the size requirements specified in the Sign Code. "Sign Guidelines" and review criteria from the Sign Code Section 15.28.060 Sign Design Guidelines A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood, and with the townscape. B. Harmonious with Building Scale. The sign should be harmonious with the building scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself C. Materials. Quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass - 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. ,4 me PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Bristol Pines Lot 70A, Block I, BMBC Final Design Review D Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures. E Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping. F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed G. Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturbing manner. H. Location On multi -story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be limited to the ground level. Section 15.28.070 - Sign Design Review Criteria In addition to the sign Design Guidelines listed above the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewing proposed sign designs: 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 sign is consistent with others approved in this area. The material being used has been utilized for other signs in the area. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements Comp nt. The sign is similar to others in the area C The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement Comment The quality of the proposed sign material is acceptable. D The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property Comment: The visual impact of the proposed sign will be consistent with existing area signs. a OM1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Bristol Pines Lot 70A, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review E. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic , will bo; impaired: Comment: The proposed sign meets this design criteria. F. Wixther the type, height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code and appear to be appropriate for the project. Comment: The type, size and location of the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. Comment: The sign is primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application with the following condition: 1. Prior to placement of the signs, lighting be approved by Staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Comtnission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary olTdn Town Planner If l PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Bristol Pines Lot 70A, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: n Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (✓� Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 44-j, 3 /�Ja Sue Railton, Secretary �� zo —� � 7`J77`— y The Commission granted approval for the sign for Bristol Pines Mfith the recommendation that the lighting program for the sign be brought bac and be approved by Staff. �==_ =SIGNS -�. Molm SIGN DRAWING P.O. BOX 2688. VA1L. CO 81 658 . 303.949.4565 . FAX: 303.949.4670 I'�u1111 Elul i11:Il��L�1�1 l) ��U . JOB # DATE_ - BY-- /VL CLIENT m0✓.✓iA,v Qja- ry- /mill CONTACT____ SCALE_ PHONE _-____ FAX: Fj Mi r F r o p J 'CJ Ir W •�� W w'N W I h1-«Nn '• JA ,00.6£. lo i/ �tl31H)J 01160 9L .SR^-ix 166•L9 3f•¢ e W r s f ---f4.f • NI•• � ° 1 N W ~ JV 1 r TI ,n , N.9 iJ I r •.. � 1` I.400 Hf1 I .Ofi I p ,I W i G •ry I t o "I '„ s e a I W I N , 0 M •QI i I rI�1•.99 , •00 a :� I 11, r ,t �• z R�$ N y�J • Iw Oa I�Q � � Y.iV r A N I LO N I 1= OJ I iC n f t C JI Lr p ° r 8 a ^ Wlt n � P b r o • «, I. Q O Q .rl i n P O • P a o I WI m Z rA i, z a N Iobi , a Iy Z z w Z a , I.. m n i •� "W = °N 1 N � I sa•��= �- r'p � 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Mountain Center Sign Program Modification Lot 27/28, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review—Modification PROJECT TYPE: Sign Program Modification ZONING IC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Larry Ast has submitted an application for a modification to the Sign Program for Mountain Center, which would allow for a garden level tenant to share a sign with a main level tenant Sign area would not increase and the existing sign program restrictions would apply STAFF COMMENTS: The existing sign program has no provisions for the garden level tenants to have a sign. This modification would allow for a garden level tenant to share the sign area with a main level tenant. "Sign Guidelines" and review criteria from the Sign Code Section 15 28 060 Sign Design Guidelines A Harmonious wife, 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 woad, such as rough cedar or redwood, interior -lit, individual plexiglass - faced letters, or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission D. Architectural Harmony The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures do A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Mountain Center Sign Program Modification Lot 27/28, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review—Modification E- Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping. F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed. G. Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturbing manner, H. Location. On multi -story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be limited to the ground level Section 1.5.28 070 - Sign Desien Review Criteria In addition to the sign Design Guidelines listed above, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewing proposed sign designs. A. The suitability of the improvement, including materials, with which the sign is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located Comment: The sign is consistent with others approved in this area. The material being used has been utilized for other signs in the area. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements Comment The sign is similar to others in the area C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement Comment: The quality of the proposed sign material is acceptable D The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property: Comment: The visual impact of the proposed sign will be consistent with existing area signs. A ft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Mountain Center Sign Program Modification Lot 27/28, Block I, BMBC Final Design Review --Modification E. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired. Comment: The proposed sign meets this design criteria. F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code and appear to be appropriate for the project. Comment: The type, size and location of the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation, mment: The sign is primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application as submitted. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, 10_ Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Mo un j►. Center Sign Program Modification Lot , Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review—Modification PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn (✓S Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 0 3 / Sue Railton, Secretary This application was withdrawn by the applicant until further notice, DATE: APRIL 11, 1994 TO: MARY HOLDEN TOWN OF AVON PLANNER FROM: LARRY ASTC%4��/ RE: MOUNTAIN CENTER PLEASE SEE ELEVATION OF LOWER LEVEL BETWEEN PRASE 1 AND PHASE 2 OF THE MOUNTAIN CENTER CONDOMINIUMS, AND PHOTOS OF SAME. LOCATION A, ABOVE THE FOUR WINDOWS OF UNIT S-6, IS VISIBLE FROM ALL LOCATIONS. THE MOUNTAIN CENTER CONDOMINIUMS WOULD LIKE TO UTILIZE_ THIS SPACE FOR THE TWO LOWER LEVEL BUSINESS'S: JERRY'S AUTO REPAIR AND MOUNTAIN CENTER STORAGE. THE PRECEDENT FOR THIS ON THE MOUNTAIN CENTER BUILDING HAS BEEN SET ON THE EAST END OF BUILDING WHERE FOODS OF VAIL AND PLATH CONSTRUCTION SHARE A SIGNFACE. OTHER EXAMPLES OF SIGNAGE IN AVON THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY ON THE TENANT'S SPACE INCLUDE: THE ANNEX AT AVON WHERE THE GOLDSMITH JEWELER SHARES SPACE ON THE OVERLAND AND EXPREZS STORE FRONT, THE AVON CENTER BUILDING WHERE THE CENTURY 21 SIGN IS NOT ADJACENT TO THEIR LOCATION; AND THE SLIFER DESIGNS NORTH SIGN. THE ALTERNATIVE LOCATION B, HAS SERIOUS SHORTCOMINGS. FROM THE EAST THE LOCATION IS TOTALLY BLOCKED BY THE EXTERIOR STAIRS TO UNIT S-6. FROM THE WEST, THE RETAINING WALL AND RAILING BLOCK THE VIEW OF THE SIGN. THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN IS TOO LOW, AND WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR THE INTERSTATE IF ANY CARS ARE PARKED IN THE LOT. LAST, THIS LOCATION IS OUT OF BALANCE WITH THE REST OF THE SIGNS ON THE BUILDING. HIGHTECHSIGNS PO. Box 2688 Production Center Aspen 6 Vad,CO81658 910 Nottingham Road ClenwoodSprgs. 303.949.4565 Suite S.2 303.9456695 FAX' 949.4670 Avon, C081620 in 1. r I, in I x� rJs G Q Q W WW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Golden Eagle Service Center Identification Sign Lot 4, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Identification Sign ZONING: NC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Larry Ast has submitted an application for Final Design approval of two identification signs for Golden Eagle Service Center. Each sign will be 21 square feet, consist of yellow and white, 8" and 12" metal letters. One sign will be mounted on the front elevation and one on the rear elevation. Lighting has not been indicated. STAFF COMMENTS: The signs comply with the size requirements specified in the Sign Code. "Sian Guidelines" -and review criteria from the Sign Code. Section 15 28.060 Sign Design Guidelines A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood, and with the townscape. B. Harmonious with Building Scale- The sign should be harmonious with the building scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself. C Materials. Quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass - faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission D Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures. A w PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Golden Eagle Service Center Identification Sign Lot 4, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review E. Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping. F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed. G. Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturbing manner. H. Location. On multi -story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be limited to the ground level. Section 15 28.070 - Sign Design Review Criteria In addition to the sign Design Guidelines listed above, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewing proposed sign designs 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 sign is consistent with others approved in this area. The material being used has been utilized for other signs in the area. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements: Comment. The sign is similar to others in the area. C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement: Cgmment: The quality of the proposed sign material is acceptable. D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property: Cgimnen The visual impact of the proposed sign 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: ON M PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Golden Eagle Service Center Identification Sign Lot 4, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review Comment: The proposed sign meets this design criteria. F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code jnd appear to be appropriate for the project: Comment: The type, size and location of the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. Comment: The sign is primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application with the following condition: 1. Prior to placement of the signs, lighting be approved by Staff RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, I " L� Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Golden Eagle Service Center Identification Sign Lot 4, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (`�) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date 3 got. Sue Railton, Secretary "�' r The Commission granted approval for the Golden Eagle Sign as submitted, =SIGNS i • i • DATE: APRIL 11, 1994 TO: MARY HOLDEN TOWN OF AVON PLANNER FROM: LARRY AST RE: GOLDEN EA . SERVICE C NTER THE ATTACHED PROPOSED LAYOUTS FOR THE NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS OF THE CENTER ARE TO BE UNLIGHTED AT THIS TIME. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE POLE SIGN ON THE GOODYEAR DRAWINGS IS NOT BEING PRPOSED. PLEASE CALL WITH ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY ARISE. HIGHTECHSIGNS P.O. Box 2688 Aspen b Glenwood Sprgs. 303.945.6695 Production Center Vail, 0081658 910 Nottingham Road 303.949.4565 StuteS2 FAX: 949.4670 Avon.CO81620 R 50. _3� � E O 7 )J� JO u cn w H H J O FJ • J N ; yr N f H W J h M1 U Z H C U Q > T U U) H H U O O Q Q Z W z r u u m Z m H 0�I0I hZ <dO r w H z O W < H 1 [� o 0 � 2 z O O F— m Q > W ^< �J 4J � Q h M1 U Z H C U Q > T U U) H H U O O Q Q Z W z r u u m Z m H 0�I0I hZ <dO r w H z O W < H 1 [� o 0 � 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Eaglebend Apartments Identification Sign Eaglebend Subdivision Final Design Review - PROJECT TYPE. Identification Sign ZONING. PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Larry Ast has submitted an application for Final Design approval of an additional two signs at Eaglebend Apartments. The sign would be located on the Clubhouse by the entrance and would identify the office and the corporation managing the complex The new signs will match the existing signs in materials and color. Lighting has not been indicated. STAFF COMMENTS: The sign size complies with Sign Code. However, the small sign indicating the company managing the complex does not comply with the Sign Code. Section 1528.030 Prohibited aims. F. "Any sign not pertinent and clearly incidental to the permitted use on the property where located ", therefore, Staff is not approving or reviewing the sign advertising the company managing the complex. "Sign Guidelines" and review criteria from the Sign Code. Section 15.28.060 Sign Design Gu,,delines A Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood, and with the townscape. B. Harmonious with Building Scale The sign should be harmonious with the building scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself. C. Materials Quality sign materials, including anodized metal, routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood, interior -lit, individual plexiglass - faced letters, or three dimensional individual letters with or without inditect 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 r-, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION m May 3, 1994 Eaglebend Apartments Identification Sign Eaglebend Subdivision Final Design Review - D Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures E. Landscaping Landscaping is required for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping. F Reflective Surfaces Reflective surfaces are not allowed G Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturbing manner H Location On multi -story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be limited to the ground level Section 15 28 070 - Sign Design Review Criteria In addition to the sign Design Guidelines listed above, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewing proposed sign designs 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 sign is consistent with others approved in this area The material being used has been utilized for other signs in the area B The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements Comment The sign is similar to others in the area C The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement Comment The quality of the proposed sign material is acceptable D The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property Comment The visual impact of the proposed sign will be consistent with existing area signs A A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Eaglebend Apartments Identification Sign Eaglebend Subdivision Final Design Review - E. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, wiil be impaired: Comment: The proposed sign meets ,,,his design criteria. F. Whether the type, height, size, and/cr quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code and appear to be appropriate for thy- project: Comment The type, size and location of the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code. The location, was shown on the approved Final Design. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. Comment: The sign is primarily oriented toward vehicular ;traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application with the following condition: 1. Prior to placement of the sign, lighting be approved by Staff. 2. The small sign advertising the company managing the project is not approved RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3 Commission Review 4 Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Mary HollIen Town Planner in PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Eaglebend Apartments Identification Sign Eaglebend Subdivision Final Design Review - PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: M Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (✓j Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date /fi Sue Railton, Secretary "J�� The Gertm49n granted approval 'or th� requested main idantificatirin sign, but denied approval of the small business sign being requested. m vo I 140 mawV1, w -- `3 w. a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Kamen Supply Sign Modification Lot 29, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE. Identification Sign Modification ZONING IC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Larry Ast has submitted an application for a modification to an existing identification sign for Kamen Supply Company. The modification consists of adding the word "Fox" and will match the existing sign in material and color. STAFF COMMENTS: The signs comply with the size requirements specified in the Sign Code. "Sinn Guidelines" and review criteria from the Sign Code. Section 15.28.060 Sin Design f}uidelines A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood, and with the townscape. B. Harmonious with Building Scale. The sign should be harmonious with the building scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself. C Materials Quality sign materials, including anodized metal, routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood, interior -lit, individual plexiglass - faced letters, or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission. D, Architectural Harmony The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures E Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping It a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Kamen Supply Sign Modification Lot 29, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review 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: 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: omment: The sign is consistent with others approved in this area The material being used has been utilized for other signs in the area. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements: Comment: The sign is similar to others in the area C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement ommen The quality of the proposed sign material is acceptable D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property. Comment: The visual impact of the proposed sign will be consistent with existing area signs. 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 mment: The proposed sign meets this design criteria. A 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Kamen Supply Sign Modification Lot 29, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code and appear to be appropriate for the project: Comment: The type, size and location of the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. Comment: The sign is primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application as submitted. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, 4- . Mary Holden Town Planner A A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, 1994 Kamen Supply Sign Modification Lot 29, Block 1, BMBC Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( --r Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) pp Date 3 / Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission granted approval for the sign at Kamen Supply ac suhm4tted, DATE: APRIL 12, 1994 TO: MARY HOLDEN TOWN OF AVON PLANNER FROM: LARRY AST .6 i , „ _ RE: KAMEN SUPP CURRENT SIGNAGE READS: KAMEN SUPPLY CO SIZE IS 7.25' WIDE BY 32" H, INCLUDING SPACING BETWEEN LINES. NEW SIGNAGE TO READ: K"EN FOX SUPPLY CO SIZE TO BE APPROXIMATELY 13' X 32". BUILDING FRONTAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 250'. PLEASE CALL WITH ANY QUESTIONS. HIGHTEGHSIGNS P.O. Box 26078 Production Center Aspen S Vail, CO 8165tH 910 Nottingham Road Glenwood Sprgs 3039494565 SOuteS.2 303,945 6695 FAX: 949 4670 .Avon. CO 81620 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Two Triplexes ZONING PUD -6 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING' YES INTRODUCTION: J.M.B. Enterprises has submitted an application for Final Design Review of two triplexes on Lot 78, Block I The lot is 78 acres in size and slopes to the southeast at approximately 20% The triplexes will contain three levels and stand approximately 34 1/2' high Building lighting has been indicated on the elevations The triplexes will consist of the following materials The landscape plan includes Cottonwood Materials Colors Roof asphalt shingles weathered wood Siding channel rustic cedar blue/gray semi -stain Fascia 2x 10 cedar heritage blue Softs r s cedar blue/gray Window Bronze aluminum 5 gallon Window Trm I x4 heritage blue Door steel heritage blue Flues/Flashings galvanized heritage blue Chimney channel rustic cedar blue/gray The landscape plan includes Cottonwood 6 2" cal Aspen 12 2" cal Spruce 6 6-8' high Currant 12 5 gallon Radiant Crab 3 2" cal Buffalo Juniper 18 5 gallon Potentilla 28 5 gallon Snowberry 26 5 gallon Sage Brush 14 5 gallon Ground cover will consist of native grass and flower seed mix Erosion co .ol will include natural vegetation An automatic drip irrigation system is proposed STAFF COMMENTS: By PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 79, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review The northern most unit and southern most unit do not have adequate back out space in front of the garage. A 24' back out area is needed The applicant must reflect this on the site plan and approved by Town Staff prior to the application for a building permit. The sign located may not be located within 10' of any property line DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. Comment. This proposal will be in conformance with Town codes once the site plan is revised to show back out space for the north and south units. The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. Comment The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are consistent with Town guidelines. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. Comment All impacts will be contained on site. The compatibility of the F.. r _..ed improvements with site topography. Comment The proposed improvement is compatible The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Comment The visual appearance of the improvement is consistent with others in the vicinity The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the objective of this guideline The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. ON 00 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Final Design Review Comment: The proposal is in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon, "Sign Guidelines" and review criteria from the Sign Code. The proposed sign complies with the provisions set out in the Sign Code, however, lighting has not been indicated Listed below are the 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 harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood, and with the townscape. B. Harmonious with Building Scale The sign should be harmonious with the building scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself C. Materials. Quality sign materials, including anodized metal, routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood, interior -lit, individual plexiglass - faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission D. Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures. E. Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed G. Lighting. Lighting shoved 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. 04 01�% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 1994 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six -Plea Final Design Review Section 15.28.070 - Sign Design Review Criteria In addition to the sign Design Guidelines listed above, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewing proposed sign designs: A. The suitability of the improvement, including materials, with which the sign is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located: Comment: The sign is consistent with others approved in this area. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements: Comment. The sign is similar to others in the area C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement: Comment: The quality of the proposed sign material is acceptable. D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property: Comment: The visual impact of the proposed sign will be consistent with existing area signs. E. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired: Comment: The proposed sign meets this design criteria. F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code and appear to be appropriate for the project Comment: The type, size and location of the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code, however, the location of the sign must be 10' from the front property line. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. omm nt: The sign is primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic.