The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 091713Staff Report - Major Design and Development Plan Aa 0 September 17, 2013 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Report date September 13, 2013 Project type Residential Construction - 1 Duplexes Legal description Lot 19, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD) - z Units Address 2145 Saddle Ridge Loop Prepared By Jared Barnes, Planner I I Summary of Requests The Applicant, Jeff Manley, has submitted a Major Design and Development application for a duplex structure on Lot 19, Block 1 of the Wildridge Subdivision, also described as 2145 June Creek Trail (the Property). The units will measure (inclusive of garage area) approximately 3,108 (Unit A) and 3,539 (Unit B) square feet. The structures will utilize stucco, wood siding, stone, and asphalt shingles as the primary exterior finishes. Property Description The Property measures one-half (0.5) of an acre or approximately 21,78o square feet with frontage along Saddle Ridge Loop. The topography of the Property is gentle grades climbing from the northeast to southwest. The Property has standard setbacks for lots in the Wildridge Subdivision, twenty-five foot (25') front yard and ten foot (1o') side and rear yard setbacks. The Property also has standard seven and one-half foot (7.5') easements on the side property lines and a ten foot (1o') easement on the front property lines. Planning Analysis Allowed Use and Density: The Property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a plat note that limits the density to two (z) dwelling units in the form of a duplex. The application complies with the allowed uses and density. Lot Coverage, Setback and Easements: The applicant is proposing that the lot coverage is twenty percent (i0%) which complies with the maximum fifty percent (50%) allowed by zoning. The northern portion of the duplex borders the side setback, but is within the prescribed setbacks. Building Height: The maximum building height permitted for this property is thirty-five feet (35'). The applicant is proposing a maximum building height of twenty-eight feet and eight inches (28'-8"). Due to the building location, an Improvement Locations Certificate (ILC) will be required at foundation to verify compliance with the setbacks. Parking: The parking requirement for each unit is three (3) on-site parking spaces. The Applicant is proposing each unit have at least three (3) parking spaces. Unit A will contain two (z) spaces in the garage and one (1) in front of the garage, while Unit B will have all three (3) spaces within the garage. Outdoor Lighting: The Applicant is proposing to use a recessed can fixture for all exterior lighting (Exhibit B). The recessed cans will be used within the soffits adjacent to all entry doors and the property will contain a maximum of seventeen (17) fixtures. The fixtures meet the Dark Sky Ordinance requirements. August zo, 2013 PZC Meeting — Lot 25 Block z, WR June Creek Corners Snow Storage: The Applicant is proposing 578 SF of snow storage adjacent to the proposed driveway. This area meets the minimum requirement of twenty percent (20%) of the driveway area. Design Standards Analysis Landscaping: The proposed landscape plan includes four (4) Colorado Spruce trees, twenty-three (23) Quaking Aspen trees, and twenty-nine (29) various shrubs. The proposed landscape plan also includes the use of ground cover areas and mulch areas. §7.28.05o(e) requires that the Property provide two - hundred and twenty (220) landscape units based on the proposed landscaped area of lo,996 SF, which excludes undisturbed areas. The applicant is proposing to provide two -hundred and thirty-two and one- half (232.5) landscape units through the various materials discussed above. The applicant is proposing no permanent irrigation, and only utilizing temporary irrigation to establish the native seed and trees. The Application meets the requirements for landscaped area (a minimum twenty percent (20%) of the lot area), irrigated area (a maximum of twenty percent (20%) of the landscaped area), and landscape units. Building Materials and Colors: The primary exterior building materials are horizontal wood siding and stucco. The application is proposing to utilize a stone veneer at the base of the entry columns and select portions of the building. The following colors are proposed: stucco — "Amarillo" (STO 3003); siding — "Light Mocha" (Porter 726); trim — "Dark Oak" (Porter 725); and stone — "Telluride Negril". A color/material board will be provided for review at the PZC meeting (Exhibit C) and colored renderings have been provided as a supplement to Exhibit D for your review. The proposed materials and colors appear to meet the requirements of Title 7 of the Municipal Code. Roof Material and Pitch: The application is proposing to use asphalt shingles for all roofing. The proposed roof form consists of pitched roofs with a predominate pitch of four -to -twelve (4:12). Review Criteria §7.16.o8o(f), Development Plan (1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified in §7.04.030, Purposes; (2) Evidence of substantial compliance with the §7.16.o9o, Design Review. (3) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan; (4) Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable; (5) Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code, including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and (6) That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services. §7.16.o9o(f), Design Review (1) The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or, where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole; (2) The design meets the development and design standards established in this Development Code; and August 20, 2013 PZC Meeting - Lot 25 Block z, WR June Creek Corners 2 (3) The design reflects the long range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents. Staff Recommendation If the PZC is accepting of the proposed colors and design, Staff recommends approving the Major Design and Development application for a duplex structure on Lot ig, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision with the following findings: 1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.o8o(f), Development Plan, and §7.16.090(f), Design Review, and was determined to be compliant with the review criteria. i. The Development can be served by city services including but not limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services. Exhibits A: Vicinity Map B: Light Fixture Cut Sheet C: Color Board D: Reduced Plan Sets August zo, 2013 PZC Meeting — Lot 25 Block z, WR June Creek Corners 3 Vicinity Map - Lot 19, Block 1, WR Exhibit A This map was pmducedby Me Community Development Department. Useo/thismep Feet should be for generalpurposesonly. TownorAvondoes not warrent the Property Boundarie accuracyoithe diy. To tainadharein. Created by Commundy Development Department IS 0 85 170 Lot 19, Wildridge Subdivision Lighting fixtures Recessed Light fixture 6" Deep Cone Baffle Trim Black Aluminum Baffle White Aluminum Trim (paint to match stain color) Maximum installed Wattage: 25 watt bulb Exhibit B .�-�.-_siq •.a ip9�li r s.4 erP.� M.lv 11i L r�errf+.•.Pr xilYP r�i1Y: w9�l�ilvi' '.YII •fir —. - '1. E�.r�lOi ..Pr Yfi ...�.iralrw ta.. vMr•%axl:rwwc sl.s.�-� M wsi�P rt 4��. h.r M, ilii �w� a a u.! i1M•i'�.�i Exhibit C ti N M O N O M Lot 19 DUPLEX RESIDENCES INSULATION VALUES Roof: R-58 Blow -In -Blanket System fiberglass insulation (BIBS) to 14" cavity exterior ceilings. R-58 BIBS to 14" cavity garage exterior ceiling on 3rd car side Exterior walls: R-23 BIBS to 2x6 exterior walls R-23 BIBS to 2x6 garage exterior walls R-23 BIBS to 2x6 garage common walls 6 mil poly to exterior walls MemBrain smart vapor barrier to exterior ceilings R-11 unfaced fiberglass batts to 2x4 furred concrete party wall (R-10 drain and dry insulation board at exterior side of foundation walls) Floors: R-30 unfaced fiberglass batts to 11 7/8" TJI garage ceiling R-19 unfaced fiberglass batts to 11 7/8" TJI mid floors R-21 unfaced fiberglass batts to rim joistt R-58 BIBS to 14" TJI cantilevered areas Interior walls: R-11 unfaced fiberglass batts to 2x4 interior walls R-19 unfaced fiberglass batts to 2x6 interior walls General: Foam all windows, doors and penetrations CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS NOTE: THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS INCLUDING ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN RESPONSE TO THE SPECIFIC BASIC SERVICES REQUESTED BY THE OWNER CONTEMPLATING CONTINUED INVOLVEMENT, SELECTIONS AND DECISION MAKING BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND OWNER THROUGH COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. THESE DOCUMENTS INDICATE THE SCOPE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONCEPTS APPROVED BY THE OWNER AND INCLUDE DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING, THE TYPES OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS AND AN OUTLINE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION. THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROVIDE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES AS OUTLINED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AND THEREFORE DO NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE OR DESCRIBE ALL MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR FULL PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION OF THE WORK. IT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER THAT THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL WORK REQUIRED FOR PROPER COMPLETION OF THE WORK AND THAT THE WORK SHALL BE OF SOUND AND QUALITY CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND ALL MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, SHALL PREPARE FOR OWNER REVIEW A REALISTIC BUDGET WITH A LATITUDE OF PRICES BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS OF SCOPE OF WORK AND OWNER PRODUCT SELECTIONS. CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFYING ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, STRUCTURAL DOCUMENTS, MUNICIPAL AND/OR COUNTY ZONING CODES, PERTINENT IRC 2009 CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, DESIGN, SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND APPROVAL BY OWNER AND ARCHITECT. at Saddle Ridge Loop 002145 Saddle Ridge Loop, Lotl 9, Avon, Colorado 81620 Planning and Zoning Set 09-10-13 CL 3D View 3 PROJECT INFORMATION Residential Duplex Owner: Slopeside Construction Mike Dantas 2121 N. Frontage RD W PMB 206 Vail, CO 81657 mi kedantas(a)-comcast.net 970-376-5444 Architect: Martin Manley Architects Jeffrey P Manley AIA PO Box 1587 Eagle, CO 81631 970.328.5151 jeff@martinmanleyarchitects.com Location: 002145 Saddle Ridge Loop Block 1, Lot 19 Wildridge Subdivision Avon, Colorado 81620 Parcel #: 1943-353-05-002 Class of Work: New Type of Construction: Type V -N Type of Occupancy -.R3 (two family duplex) Levels: 1 -story + Basement 2 3D View 2 a EXTERIOR FINISHES Roofing: 40 -Year Asphalt shingle Elk-Gaf, Prestique High Def, WEATHERED WOOD Flashing and Gutters: Paint lock aluminum Color: dark bronze Decks: Synthetic decking: color Redwood Terraces and Entry walk: Concrete slab Drive: Asphalt drive Windows: Fiberglass windows and doors Color: Brown Stucco - Cement stucco system Texture: light sand / very light hand texture Field Color: STO AMARILLO 3003 LRV = 42 Timbers, newels, and fascia, knee braces - 2x6 and 2x10 Fascia Trim Rough sawn texture Color: Porter Dark Oak 725 semi -transparent Siding 2x10 Siding Rough sawn texture Color: Porter Light Mocha 726 semi -transparent Railing Pickets wrought iron: natural color (sealed) Stone Veneer #10 Telluride Negril, Dry Stack Stone wall cap to be 3" rubble of same material LOT 19 l Vic Map Z 1/16" = V-0" DRAWING LIST Sheet Number Sheet Name A0.0 COVER A0.1 AREA CALCULATIONS A1.0 SITE PLAN A2.1 LOWER FLOOR PLAN A2.2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN A2.3 ROOF PLAN A3.1 EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS A3.2 NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS A4.1 BUILDING SECTIONS A5.1 DETAILS CM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN W J �E � o W o U Om } � U� U O m L ■ W >, ■ � ca W ■ Z 00 oo E c? Q C x M 0 Q O N CO T_ X 0-00 LLI O O W O O U, J v � o 70Z Z 70 0 (n O C N O p O 00 > Z -0 Co Q �_� }, Z -1—+ O J Z O�o� Q U _O m M r � o Ch r T 0 � O W O O V E U O 0 0- �o 0 O o wwa y � o 0 Z t - co c7 \ 180.00' /* /ENT --- / o➢ 10' UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEM — BUILDING SETBACK TZ �Z 1Z1Z1Z, // ; I 1 TOTAL SITE /' 1 21,780 S.F. / /' //' / j / z m 1 t OHO / ✓ / I M (To w ZZ / I ° m SOT 19 � / 50 AC RES / j/ r M � / I 03 1 / ROOF AREA - / / c - - / r r� IMPERVIOUS 1 / jnL r rnrrn��n / COVERAGE /' I 11 0 TI m l z b 4437 SF _T- n /,' LTLI JrIJ I I-` ` _ii ITT r/ r 1 Ln 1 / , i „i �;-41 �� 1IT DRIVE AREA (NOL 11 / COVERED BY -ROOF) / / -- -- IMPERVIOUS p/ / v o l /1 11 'COVERAGE l CD '' - 2797 SF 1 1 1 1 �,1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 1 = I 1 1 1 1 � i N M 0 N 0 M i f _-- 25'-gui��'� A _- i y 10 00/ -LO E MAINTENANCE DRAINAGE & SNOW STORAGE EASEME Z 0-) O zo / r oOo. �O I I -o C �Nz 876,1 c ,➢O� EDGE OF m o� PAVEMENT 0 _� II II II II I =� II II I I cn-Z II II so °� II O-PNN UTC cAZ0C) w � 00z00� �cz 0 0 0 0 o w N K 00 Joh o ° W N CJS lU1 0 n A'A 3ZQ Qv S .00)C:: o�J CSS CT U3 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE U 3/32" = V-0" UNIT A UNIT B FINISHED 2385 S.F. FINISHED 2385 S.F. GARAGE + 723 S.F. GARAGE + 1154 S.F. TOTAL = 3,108 S.F. TOTAL = 3,539 S.F. BUILDING TOTAL S.F. = 6647 S.F. AREA MATRIX: Lot size = .5 acres X 43,560 s.f. per acre = 21,780 s.f. Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed = 50% of Lot Area = 10,890 s.f. Minimum Landscape Area Allowed = 25% of Lot Area = 5,445 s.f. Proposed Lot coverage by building roof and overhang = 4,437 s.f. (20%) Proposed Impervious area (ROOF AND DRIVE)= 7,234 s.f. total (33%) Proposed Landscape area (Lot area= 21,780 s.f.) - 7,234 s.f. = 14,546 s.f.landscape area (67%) Area Schedule (Livable Area) Name T Area LOWER LVL UNIT A FIN. 790 SF LOWER LVL UNIT B FIN. 790 SF MAIN LVL UNIT A FIN. 1595 SF MAIN LVL UNIT B FIN. 1595 SF 4770 SF Garage and Mech/storage... Name Area UNIT A UNFIN. 723 SF UNIT B UNFIN. 1154 SF 1877 SF W J �E ICY") o Lu o U O0 F � U ■0 O Cu W >, F ■ 7- UJ E I L0 c� ■ Z N 00 E Ix M 7- -E Q x M rn m E Q N Q TM 1 X 0- W LLJ p O � O J 0 (7 U N Z 70 o Z � � U O O p O U > Z -0 Co Q Q C� Z_ -1—+ o J Z O�o� Q U O m 0 O o LU N � o 0 Z M T_ O � O � � M r Z O �J E O N � U � 'o Q M T_ O � O � � M r Z O �J E O N � U � 'o Q c O / 1 1 1 1 PROVIDE z 1 1 PROTECTION co 1 FENCING AT o 1 EXISTING TREE 03 7-7-7-7-7-1 D.V. MALL D.V. MALL D.V. VV/ALL D.V. VV/ALL D.U. VVHLL D.V. VVHLL N M M O N O m 1I 9 92 � L_ I90 SNOW STORAG IN Q0 O a 3550 S.F. OF LOT OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF DISDURBANCE 01 ° 05>- y3' HIGH BOULDER (TYP. -`86 / s LOT 19 50 AC RES ==86-:CATV 86 CATV AND PHONE _ - _ 86 slab at bldg _ 85'-11 " / 86 --- - VI 1 11 / FI_.. III I� I CO r, bldg o IN L1rFI` C%4 �� Main _ I i _ 86- r !-8201' - 7 1/4" o I . U N IT B ��I,� r �I� 8204' - 10 3/4" -- ---- 8197' - v2° HT -22'-8" LOWER LEVEL = 8176'-0" HT=28'-8" SAW MAIN LEVEL = 8186'-1 3/4" UNITA 0 n 8202'- 8 3/4" MAIN LEVEL= 8183'-1 3/4"HT- b LOWER LEVEL = 8173'-0"'I -23 10 1/4 I I r J=75 ER ,� -LIII 17 Lr ' _ IL I lit TER I�� 4 I, ti L10 I ° L1 L1 ° I I r L10 0 0 _ M I L1 r v -- — c0 -° - - -0 Ll Ln I IJ Lo 74.5 -25'-8 1 /2" O 8202'-83/411— I / 1.L1 HT = (28'-8 3/4) 30VE DRIVE V,�2 -6" NEW GRADE N/ I8198' - o" 8174'-0" I �� 71.5 I / 72 I HT = (25'-3") co W NEW GRADE SNS Lu 8172'-0" W i L� I NG s _Tcf) d BACK I '0.5 _ w I 4% co 72 Q� 71 N 5/0--- SNOW STORAGE 178 S.F. MA I NTENANC E DRAINAGE & SNOW STORAGE E�SEME - � - - � 'SEVV � �� z GAS LINE RUNS IN EASEMENT ER � i 68 �� 180.00' 84� 18" ROUND 40' LONG CULVERT WITH FLARED - - -- -ENDS ---- ---------------- 68.25 c,w cs 0 Z O W UA O O O O O O O O O O O a u � � w N o-' M ��QIa An0� PAVEMENT II II 00 N N 00 Z � - LTA O -P . O O 9 0 w J u N N I/xJ /,GAS METER 72 Z., -� �mO 0c m Z r— T.O. WALL NOTE: 1 ALL RETAIN WALLS ARE CONSTRUCTED OF BOULDERS AND ARE 4'-0" OR LESS. WALLS ARE TO HAVE A V-0" LAY BACK. 2 PROVIDE STAKED STRAW ROLLS AND JUTE MAT AT DRAINAGE SWALES TO CONTROL EROSION. PROVIDE STRAW ON STEEPER HILL SIDES TO HOLD REVEGITATION SEEDING AND SOIL IN PLACE. - 1-�� L1 (17) - 5" EXTERIOR RECESSED - CAN DOWNLIGHT 0 Fri ➢Nz � o J)> O cz Jac C z SITE PLAN 1 if = 10'-0" N O / c a W LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE / / ORANGE CONSTRUCTION J FENCING ON THE SOUTH, (/01-: NORTH AND WEST N 0 PROPERTY LINES LLI �E M O CO U 0/ 0-00 T.O. WALL NOTE: 1 ALL RETAIN WALLS ARE CONSTRUCTED OF BOULDERS AND ARE 4'-0" OR LESS. WALLS ARE TO HAVE A V-0" LAY BACK. 2 PROVIDE STAKED STRAW ROLLS AND JUTE MAT AT DRAINAGE SWALES TO CONTROL EROSION. PROVIDE STRAW ON STEEPER HILL SIDES TO HOLD REVEGITATION SEEDING AND SOIL IN PLACE. - 1-�� L1 (17) - 5" EXTERIOR RECESSED - CAN DOWNLIGHT 0 Fri ➢Nz � o J)> O cz Jac C z SITE PLAN 1 if = 10'-0" N M r O 0 W z c:) J a� E x N 0 Q0 T_ LLI �E M O CO U 0-00 W U o0 F LL 0 (3) U z _O O a�� ■0 ■ W F >, W ■ Z CIO N ME O Ix M LO c 7-'E Q CD O) x m m E 0N d � Q O U p O M r O 0 O z c:) N a� E x N 0 Q0 T_ LLI 0-00 O O z _O O 070 v � CIO Z O a O Z 0N O U p O > Z -0 C6 Q Q U) LO Z }, -1—+ O � J w N Q [Ifo U 0 Z M r O � � r O z c:) N a� E x N 0 Q0 T_ LLI 0-00 O O U) _O O 070 v � CIO Z 70 O Z 0N O U p O > Z -0 C6 Q Q U) LO Z }, -1—+ O � J Z OU)o� Q U M r O � � r O z c:) a� E IL H y N 0 U N O W •z W J �E cy") o w o U O F � U ■ O M W >, F ■ w ■ Z N oo C LO M -E Q CD X m 0) m E Q CO O N C0 T- 0-00 LLI O O � O O70 U, J v � o Z Z ��U O N O p O U 0> z -0 Co Q Q LO }, Z -1—+ O J Z O�o� Q U n _O m �o 0 O o W h 0 Z M Lf)TLL - r O M r r o Z o a � O ■ o NJ W v J N � � 0' a_ D a_ W A3.1 m W J �E M O (D U W 00 U O F � U ■ O M W >, F ■ W ■ Z N oo C LO M -E Q CD X m 0) m E Q CO O N C0 T- 0-00 LLI O O � O O70 U, J v � o Z Z ��U O N O p O U 0> z -0 Co Q Q LO }, Z -1—+ O J Z O�o� Q U n _O m �o 0 O o W h 0 Z M � � T O M T T O Z � NL J ■ 'N a)J -0 Z � Q U N Q) � O 0 a_ ROOF PLAN ' 1/411 = 1'-0„ oo Q LV NORTH I I / O / 0- 1� i N M M (. T- M �F M O CO U M 0-00 O 00 N F O O0 U rn ROOF PLAN ' 1/411 = 1'-0„ oo Q LV NORTH I I / O / i / M (. T- LLI �F M O CO U 0-00 i 00 N C F i O0 U C/)O O ROOF PLAN ' 1/411 = 1'-0„ oo Q LV NORTH i / / I / / / / / I I I O / i x M (. T- LLI �F M O CO U 0-00 i 00 N C F i O0 U C/)O O M ■0 ■ W F i ■ Z o N M C M Lo I- -E i Q CD 0) X m m E I' O o i / / I / / / / / I I I O / J x M (. T- LLI �F M O CO U 0-00 W U 00 N C F I O0 U C/)O O M ■0 ■ W F >, W ■ Z o N M C M Lo I- -E Q CD 0) X m m E I' O o O U p O > Z C C. Co Q I I / / Cn Z_ M r O r c0 O W J x M (. T- LLI �F M O CO U 0-00 W U 00 N C F � O0 U C/)O O M ■0 ■ W F >, W ■ Z o N M C M Lo I- -E Q CD 0) X m m E O O o O U p O M r O r c0 O O N x M (. T- LLI N 0-00 N C U N O a_ O O C/)O O70 J U, v � o Z Z �70U O O o O U p O > Z C C. Co Q Cn Z_ }, J Z o� Q W U O Z M r O r � � M T O O N x M (. T- LLI N 0-00 N C U N O a_ O O C/)O O70 J U, v � o Z Z �70U O N O U p O > Z -0 Co Q Cn Z_ }, J Z o� Q U M r O r � � M T O Z M LL a O W N N C U N O a_ -1 rkl 9 AND 8'x18' VERT WOOD CLAD GARAGE POORS, RL�UEVE 61761 - 011UM 4 Ll 0 40, _4 �i Eli lm 5■ 11 00 CV N MASTER BEDROOM 208 A nnnini i P\/Pi � 111 111j /i ■ ,i ,r 17,,,, _ `51t:1145i 51 i 00 0 M M 0 N O m r1 AMAIN LEVEL * —8183'-- 1 3/4" CLEARANCE UNDER STAIR 1/411 = 1'-0" 9'- 0 1/8" 34'- 9 13/16" 1/4" = l' -U" B PLATE 195'- 7 3/4" AIN LEVEL 186'- 1 3/4" Ll A MAIN LEVEL � 8183'- 1 3/4" 1° NORTH -SOUTH SECTION 1/411 = 1'-0" ATE 3/4" .B MAIN LEVEL 8186'- 1 3/4" 3 LOWER LEVEL 8176'- 00" W J �E M O (D U W 00 U O0 F � U ■ 0 O a2) W >, F ■ W ■ Z N oo E Lo Q CD X m rn 0 E Q O N C0 x 0-00 LLI T– O O � O O70 U, J v � o Z Z ��U O N O p O U 0> z -0 Co Q Q � }, Z -1—+ O J Z U) C'4 Q U n _O m �o 0 O o W h 0 Z M � � r O M r T. - CF) O N O Z W ■ C7 � Z U m N � � O 0 a_ UNIT UNIT ROOF CONSTRUCTION: ASPHALT SHINGLES OVER WATERPROOF MEMBRANE OVER SHEATHING OVER INSULATED TRUSS REFER TO BUILDING SECTION FOR WALL PROFILE AND HEIGHT 1 x6 AND 1 x10 FASCIA (1 LAYER) EXTERIOR 5/8"TYPE 'X' GWB WITH THERMAL AND AIR R-61 INSULATION. 1"SPRAY POLY -ISO INFILTRATION BARRIER AND 14" OPTIMA BLOWN-INWOOD SIDING ON EXTERIOR INSULATION (INSUL ------- — 5/8"TYPE'X'GWBWITH IS TO BE AT"JTHERMAL AND AIR UNDERSIDE OF INFILTRATION BARRIER SHEATHING) GAP BETWEEN STUDS a d 4 4 LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GWB a 4 CONTINUOUS FROM FOUNDATION TO al d ROOF SHEATHING (2) HOUR FIRE RATING 4 d I d a a UNIT B MAIN UNIT B LOWER •z 1 Hour Wall and 35-39 STC RATING (each side of property line) Contractor Options: GA FILE NO. WP 3510 GENERIC 1 HOUR FIRE 35 to 39 STC SOUND Thickness: 4 7/8" Approx. Weight: 7 psf Fire Test: UL R3501-47, -48, 9-17-65, Design U309; UL R1319-129,7-22-70, UL Design U314 Sound Test: NGC 2404, 10-14-70 GYPSUM WALLBOARD. WOOD STUDS One layer 5/8" type X gypsum wallboard or gypsum veneer base applied parallel or at right angles to each side of 2 x 4 wood studs 24" o.c. with 6d coated nails, 1 7/8" long, 0.0915" shank, 1/4" heads, 7" o.c. Joints staggered 24" on opposite sides. (LOAD-BEARING) BETWEEN ROOF JOISTS/TRUSSES, ADD (1) LAYER OF $" TYPE "X" GWB GA FILE NO. WP 3514 GENERIC 1 HOUR FIRE AT UNDERSIDE OF ROOF SHEATHING, FOR THE DISTANCE OF 4'-0" TO 35 to 39 STC SOUND PARTY WALL, IF ROOF IS WITHIN 30" Thickness: 4 3/4" IN HEIGHT OF OTHER UNITS ROOF Approx. Weight: 7 psf Fire Test: SWRI 01-4511-619, 8-19-92 Sound Test: See WP 3520 5/8" TYPE "X" GWB (G&H NG-246FT, 7-2-65) GYPSUM WALLBOARD, WOOD STUDS R-23 BLOWN IN INSULATION One layer 5/8" type X gypsum wallboard or gypsum veneer base applied parallel or at right angles to each side of 2 x 4 wood studs 16" o.c. with 1 1/4" Type W drywall screws 12" o.c. Joints 5/8" TYPE "X" GWB staggered 16" on opposite sides. UNIT AMAIN LEVEL (LOAD-BEARING) GA FILE NO. WP 3520 GENERIC 1 HOUR FIRE 35 to 39 STC SOUND Thickness: 4 7/8" Approx. Weight: 7 psf Fire Test: FM WP 90, 8-21-67 Sound Test: G&H NG-246FT, 7-2-65 ISOLATION JOINT. GYPSUM WALLBOARD, WOOD STUDS CONCRETE SLAB One layer 5/8" type X plain or predecorated gypsum wallboard applied parallel to each side of 2 x 4 wood studs 24" o.c. with 6d coated nails, 1 7/8" long, 0.0915" shank, 1/4" heads, 7" o.c. at UNIT A LOWER LEVEL joints and top and bottom plates and 3/8" beads of adhesive at intermediate studs. Joints staggered 24" on opposite sides. (LOAD-BEARING) CONCRETE FOOTING AND FOUNDATION WALL RE: STRUCT. DWGS. 5 PARTYWALL 3/4 - 1 -011 MAIN 8" GWB ON 2X6 EXTERIOR WALL STUDS. R-23 BLOWN -IN OR BATT INSULATION BETWEEN STUDS WOOD CASING PROFILE TBD BACKER ROD AND SEALANT SHIM SPACE uC:An 6x6 RS POST W/ SLOPED TOP 2"x3" TOP RAIL WITH PEAK - �4" ROUND IRON BALLUSTERS - 5"O.C. MAX. 2"X3 1/2" BOTTOM RAIL WITH SLOPED TOP 8" GWB ON 2X6 EXTERIOR -- - - - 2_1 BLOWN -IN NEEN STUDS BACKER ROD) SEALANT 1 1/4" THICK SI PROFILE TBD WOOD APRON PROFILE TBD WATERPROOF MEMBRANE TF OVERLAP AIR INFILTRATION AND EXTEND C ROUGH SILL IARAQ VVA I EKF'KUUF MEMI6KANE VVINUUVV I AF'E + W N 2x6 WOOD TRIM SILL AND JAMBS OHO WINDOW DETAIL U 1 1/2" = V-0" 10 x 10 POST BEYOND VERTICAL CLAD WOOD GARAGE DOOR O U_ U= LU CO U) 4 LU LU Of 12 SPRING POINT/ PLATE HT/ TRUSS BEARING $" GWB CEILING 8" GWB ON VAPOR RETARDER ON 2X6 EXTERIOR WALL STUDS. R-23 BATT INSULATION 0 BETWEEN STUDS m U) O CONCRETE SLAB ON GRANULAR FILL (SLOPED CONCRETE TO DRAINS IN GARAGE) ®�®®oOo 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0°0° a O a REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR FOUNDATION/FOOTING DESIGN AND REINFORCING a a D a a � a N N ORB TT INSULATION Garage dr hdr, deck dtl, and railing 1 1/2" = V-0" SCISSOR TRUSS ROOF CONSTRUCTION: 40 -YEAR ASPHALT SHINGLES OVER WATERPROOF MEMBRANE OVER PLY. SHEATHING OVER 1" OF POLY -ISO SPRAY INSULATION AND 14" OF BLOWN -IN OPTIMA INSULATION (PROVIDE NETTING TO HOLD INSULATION UP TIGHT) TOTAL R -VALUE = 61 12 THERMAL AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER I /TO EXTEND TO ROOF SHEATHING SEE ROOF PI AN ® 'D' FLASHING DRIP FLASHING 2x8 SUB FASCIA 26 I 1x6 T AND G SOFFIT 1x6 AND 1x10 WOOD FASCIA BOARDS HORIZONTAL OR BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING SYSTEM ON THERMAL AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER ON PLYWOOD SHEATHING SEE ELEVATION FOR SIZE/TYPE TYPICAL EAVE U 1 1/2" = V-0" COMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD WITH FILTER FABRIC ON 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10) OVER WATERPROOFING ON CONCRETE WALL (WATER PROOF MEMBRANE TO CONTINUE TO 2'-6" ABOVE FINSHED GRADE, AND DRAINAGE BOARD TO CONTINUE FROM FOOTING TO WITHIN 8" BELOW FINISH GRADE). (2" RIGID INSULATION TO EXTEND FROM 8" BELOW FINISH GRADE TO 4'-8" BELOW FINISH GRADE) ALTERNATE: USE 2"'DRAIN AND DRY' BOARD (R-10) EXTENDING FROM 8" BELOW FINISHED GRADE TO FOOTING AND FOUNDATION DRAIN INSTEAD OF COMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD AND 2" RIGID INSULATION. WATERPROOFING IS TO BE USED AT ALL AREAS WITH HABITABLE SPACE BELOW FINISHED GRADE. GRAVEL FILTER FABRIC a a OIL 0 0 TOP OF CONIC 00 o oOoh 000 000 °00 oOo°o0 °00 o 0OoQ0oO zi 000 0000 o 000 0,0 C)o oO OO O0Oo 90 O O a °0 Oo 00 SLOPED 4" O o °n 00 °� PERFORATED PIPE. RE: SOILS REPORT NOTE:: ALL CONCRETE WALLS AND FOOTINGS ARE TO HAVE A FOUNDATION DRAIN RE: SOILS REPORT O TYPICAL FOOTING 0 CEMENT FIBER LAP SIDING OR CEMENT $" TYPE 'X' GWB ON 2X6 FLASHING LEDGER BOARD, JOIST HANGERS, 2x12 STUCCO SYSTEM ON THERMAL AND AIR EXTERIOR WALL STUDS. INFILTRATION BARRIER ON PLYWOOD R-23 BLOWN IN OR BATT SHEATHING ON 2X6 WOOD STUDS INSULATION BETWEEN C0 T_ � STUDS n - 0-00 LU U 00 4" FLOOR PLYWOOD SHEATHING ON 11 g" TRUSS JOISTS FLOOR JOISTS WITH FLOOR FINISH AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER ON U 8" GWB ON 2X6 EXTERIOR -- - - - 2_1 BLOWN -IN NEEN STUDS BACKER ROD) SEALANT 1 1/4" THICK SI PROFILE TBD WOOD APRON PROFILE TBD WATERPROOF MEMBRANE TF OVERLAP AIR INFILTRATION AND EXTEND C ROUGH SILL IARAQ VVA I EKF'KUUF MEMI6KANE VVINUUVV I AF'E + W N 2x6 WOOD TRIM SILL AND JAMBS OHO WINDOW DETAIL U 1 1/2" = V-0" 10 x 10 POST BEYOND VERTICAL CLAD WOOD GARAGE DOOR O U_ U= LU CO U) 4 LU LU Of 12 SPRING POINT/ PLATE HT/ TRUSS BEARING $" GWB CEILING 8" GWB ON VAPOR RETARDER ON 2X6 EXTERIOR WALL STUDS. R-23 BATT INSULATION 0 BETWEEN STUDS m U) O CONCRETE SLAB ON GRANULAR FILL (SLOPED CONCRETE TO DRAINS IN GARAGE) ®�®®oOo 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0°0° a O a REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR FOUNDATION/FOOTING DESIGN AND REINFORCING a a D a a � a N N ORB TT INSULATION Garage dr hdr, deck dtl, and railing 1 1/2" = V-0" SCISSOR TRUSS ROOF CONSTRUCTION: 40 -YEAR ASPHALT SHINGLES OVER WATERPROOF MEMBRANE OVER PLY. SHEATHING OVER 1" OF POLY -ISO SPRAY INSULATION AND 14" OF BLOWN -IN OPTIMA INSULATION (PROVIDE NETTING TO HOLD INSULATION UP TIGHT) TOTAL R -VALUE = 61 12 THERMAL AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER I /TO EXTEND TO ROOF SHEATHING SEE ROOF PI AN ® 'D' FLASHING DRIP FLASHING 2x8 SUB FASCIA 26 I 1x6 T AND G SOFFIT 1x6 AND 1x10 WOOD FASCIA BOARDS HORIZONTAL OR BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING SYSTEM ON THERMAL AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER ON PLYWOOD SHEATHING SEE ELEVATION FOR SIZE/TYPE TYPICAL EAVE U 1 1/2" = V-0" COMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD WITH FILTER FABRIC ON 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10) OVER WATERPROOFING ON CONCRETE WALL (WATER PROOF MEMBRANE TO CONTINUE TO 2'-6" ABOVE FINSHED GRADE, AND DRAINAGE BOARD TO CONTINUE FROM FOOTING TO WITHIN 8" BELOW FINISH GRADE). (2" RIGID INSULATION TO EXTEND FROM 8" BELOW FINISH GRADE TO 4'-8" BELOW FINISH GRADE) ALTERNATE: USE 2"'DRAIN AND DRY' BOARD (R-10) EXTENDING FROM 8" BELOW FINISHED GRADE TO FOOTING AND FOUNDATION DRAIN INSTEAD OF COMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD AND 2" RIGID INSULATION. WATERPROOFING IS TO BE USED AT ALL AREAS WITH HABITABLE SPACE BELOW FINISHED GRADE. GRAVEL FILTER FABRIC a a OIL 0 0 TOP OF CONIC 00 o oOoh 000 000 °00 oOo°o0 °00 o 0OoQ0oO zi 000 0000 o 000 0,0 C)o oO OO O0Oo 90 O O a °0 Oo 00 SLOPED 4" O o °n 00 °� PERFORATED PIPE. RE: SOILS REPORT NOTE:: ALL CONCRETE WALLS AND FOOTINGS ARE TO HAVE A FOUNDATION DRAIN RE: SOILS REPORT O TYPICAL FOOTING 0 O FLASHING LEDGER BOARD, JOIST HANGERS, 2x12 J C) C0 T_ � DECK JOISTS, AND SYNTHETIC DECKING n - 0-00 LU U 00 WOOD SIDING SYSTEM ON THERMAL CD AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER ON U PLYWOOD SHEATHING 0 FLASHING ----- - WATERPROOF MEMBRANE WINDOW TAPE 6 $" TYPE'X' GYPSUM WALL BOARD ON >, W 2x8 WOOD TRIM HEADER Co TO EXTEND 3" PAST UNDERSIDE OF MAIN LEVEL FLOOR WINDOW THE OPENING ON EACH SIDE AII,15TIM STRUCTURE (FIRE TAPED FOR 1 HOUR ELE = REFER TO ELEVATIONS ZN SEALANT BEHIND SEPARTATION) 8" GWB ON 2X6 EXTERIOR -- - - - 2_1 BLOWN -IN NEEN STUDS BACKER ROD) SEALANT 1 1/4" THICK SI PROFILE TBD WOOD APRON PROFILE TBD WATERPROOF MEMBRANE TF OVERLAP AIR INFILTRATION AND EXTEND C ROUGH SILL IARAQ VVA I EKF'KUUF MEMI6KANE VVINUUVV I AF'E + W N 2x6 WOOD TRIM SILL AND JAMBS OHO WINDOW DETAIL U 1 1/2" = V-0" 10 x 10 POST BEYOND VERTICAL CLAD WOOD GARAGE DOOR O U_ U= LU CO U) 4 LU LU Of 12 SPRING POINT/ PLATE HT/ TRUSS BEARING $" GWB CEILING 8" GWB ON VAPOR RETARDER ON 2X6 EXTERIOR WALL STUDS. R-23 BATT INSULATION 0 BETWEEN STUDS m U) O CONCRETE SLAB ON GRANULAR FILL (SLOPED CONCRETE TO DRAINS IN GARAGE) ®�®®oOo 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0°0° a O a REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR FOUNDATION/FOOTING DESIGN AND REINFORCING a a D a a � a N N ORB TT INSULATION Garage dr hdr, deck dtl, and railing 1 1/2" = V-0" SCISSOR TRUSS ROOF CONSTRUCTION: 40 -YEAR ASPHALT SHINGLES OVER WATERPROOF MEMBRANE OVER PLY. SHEATHING OVER 1" OF POLY -ISO SPRAY INSULATION AND 14" OF BLOWN -IN OPTIMA INSULATION (PROVIDE NETTING TO HOLD INSULATION UP TIGHT) TOTAL R -VALUE = 61 12 THERMAL AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER I /TO EXTEND TO ROOF SHEATHING SEE ROOF PI AN ® 'D' FLASHING DRIP FLASHING 2x8 SUB FASCIA 26 I 1x6 T AND G SOFFIT 1x6 AND 1x10 WOOD FASCIA BOARDS HORIZONTAL OR BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING SYSTEM ON THERMAL AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER ON PLYWOOD SHEATHING SEE ELEVATION FOR SIZE/TYPE TYPICAL EAVE U 1 1/2" = V-0" COMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD WITH FILTER FABRIC ON 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10) OVER WATERPROOFING ON CONCRETE WALL (WATER PROOF MEMBRANE TO CONTINUE TO 2'-6" ABOVE FINSHED GRADE, AND DRAINAGE BOARD TO CONTINUE FROM FOOTING TO WITHIN 8" BELOW FINISH GRADE). (2" RIGID INSULATION TO EXTEND FROM 8" BELOW FINISH GRADE TO 4'-8" BELOW FINISH GRADE) ALTERNATE: USE 2"'DRAIN AND DRY' BOARD (R-10) EXTENDING FROM 8" BELOW FINISHED GRADE TO FOOTING AND FOUNDATION DRAIN INSTEAD OF COMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD AND 2" RIGID INSULATION. WATERPROOFING IS TO BE USED AT ALL AREAS WITH HABITABLE SPACE BELOW FINISHED GRADE. GRAVEL FILTER FABRIC a a OIL 0 0 TOP OF CONIC 00 o oOoh 000 000 °00 oOo°o0 °00 o 0OoQ0oO zi 000 0000 o 000 0,0 C)o oO OO O0Oo 90 O O a °0 Oo 00 SLOPED 4" O o °n 00 °� PERFORATED PIPE. RE: SOILS REPORT NOTE:: ALL CONCRETE WALLS AND FOOTINGS ARE TO HAVE A FOUNDATION DRAIN RE: SOILS REPORT O TYPICAL FOOTING 0 O W J C) C0 T_ I.—_ Lii �E CID 0 0-00 LU U 00 WOOD SIDING SYSTEM ON THERMAL F AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER ON U PLYWOOD SHEATHING 0 FLASHING ----- - WATERPROOF MEMBRANE WINDOW TAPE 6 >, W 2x8 WOOD TRIM HEADER Co TO EXTEND 3" PAST oo E WINDOW THE OPENING ON EACH SIDE AII,15TIM OF HEADER ELE = REFER TO ELEVATIONS ZN SEALANT BEHIND WINDOW FLANG ON N HEAD AND JAMBS U) Q U z O IH. 1; 0 > 8" GWB ON 2X6 EXTERIOR -- - - - 2_1 BLOWN -IN NEEN STUDS BACKER ROD) SEALANT 1 1/4" THICK SI PROFILE TBD WOOD APRON PROFILE TBD WATERPROOF MEMBRANE TF OVERLAP AIR INFILTRATION AND EXTEND C ROUGH SILL IARAQ VVA I EKF'KUUF MEMI6KANE VVINUUVV I AF'E + W N 2x6 WOOD TRIM SILL AND JAMBS OHO WINDOW DETAIL U 1 1/2" = V-0" 10 x 10 POST BEYOND VERTICAL CLAD WOOD GARAGE DOOR O U_ U= LU CO U) 4 LU LU Of 12 SPRING POINT/ PLATE HT/ TRUSS BEARING $" GWB CEILING 8" GWB ON VAPOR RETARDER ON 2X6 EXTERIOR WALL STUDS. R-23 BATT INSULATION 0 BETWEEN STUDS m U) O CONCRETE SLAB ON GRANULAR FILL (SLOPED CONCRETE TO DRAINS IN GARAGE) ®�®®oOo 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0°0° a O a REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR FOUNDATION/FOOTING DESIGN AND REINFORCING a a D a a � a N N ORB TT INSULATION Garage dr hdr, deck dtl, and railing 1 1/2" = V-0" SCISSOR TRUSS ROOF CONSTRUCTION: 40 -YEAR ASPHALT SHINGLES OVER WATERPROOF MEMBRANE OVER PLY. SHEATHING OVER 1" OF POLY -ISO SPRAY INSULATION AND 14" OF BLOWN -IN OPTIMA INSULATION (PROVIDE NETTING TO HOLD INSULATION UP TIGHT) TOTAL R -VALUE = 61 12 THERMAL AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER I /TO EXTEND TO ROOF SHEATHING SEE ROOF PI AN ® 'D' FLASHING DRIP FLASHING 2x8 SUB FASCIA 26 I 1x6 T AND G SOFFIT 1x6 AND 1x10 WOOD FASCIA BOARDS HORIZONTAL OR BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING SYSTEM ON THERMAL AND AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER ON PLYWOOD SHEATHING SEE ELEVATION FOR SIZE/TYPE TYPICAL EAVE U 1 1/2" = V-0" COMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD WITH FILTER FABRIC ON 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10) OVER WATERPROOFING ON CONCRETE WALL (WATER PROOF MEMBRANE TO CONTINUE TO 2'-6" ABOVE FINSHED GRADE, AND DRAINAGE BOARD TO CONTINUE FROM FOOTING TO WITHIN 8" BELOW FINISH GRADE). (2" RIGID INSULATION TO EXTEND FROM 8" BELOW FINISH GRADE TO 4'-8" BELOW FINISH GRADE) ALTERNATE: USE 2"'DRAIN AND DRY' BOARD (R-10) EXTENDING FROM 8" BELOW FINISHED GRADE TO FOOTING AND FOUNDATION DRAIN INSTEAD OF COMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD AND 2" RIGID INSULATION. WATERPROOFING IS TO BE USED AT ALL AREAS WITH HABITABLE SPACE BELOW FINISHED GRADE. GRAVEL FILTER FABRIC a a OIL 0 0 TOP OF CONIC 00 o oOoh 000 000 °00 oOo°o0 °00 o 0OoQ0oO zi 000 0000 o 000 0,0 C)o oO OO O0Oo 90 O O a °0 Oo 00 SLOPED 4" O o °n 00 °� PERFORATED PIPE. RE: SOILS REPORT NOTE:: ALL CONCRETE WALLS AND FOOTINGS ARE TO HAVE A FOUNDATION DRAIN RE: SOILS REPORT O TYPICAL FOOTING M 7 O 0 M 0 r M T LO Q 0 W J C) C0 T_ I.—_ Lii �E CID 0 0-00 LU U 00 F Q U 0 0 Iii O J ■ ■ W F >, W ■ Z Co N oo E � M LO C , V_ Q x M 000 O Q o Q U Q O M 7 O 0 M 0 r M T LO Q 0 N C) C0 T_ I.—_ Lii 0-00 Q O 0 0070 J v � Co Z � Z ��U O O o Q U Q O 0 > Z 6/5 -0 CIO . a) u7 Z a--, —1—+ Q J Z Q wN U �o 6 Z M 7 O 0 M 0 r M T LO Q N C0 T_ I.—_ Lii 0-00 Q O 0 0070 J v � Co Z � Z ��U O Q U Q O 0 > Z -0 CIO . a) u7 Z a--, —1—+ Q J Z Q U M 7 O 0 M 0 r M T LO Q / PROVIDE PROTECTION FENCING AT EXISTING TREE N 0 N O m r � cc S 01° 1 1 LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE / ORANGE / CONSTRUCTION FENCING IS OFFSET 18'- 1 / OFF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE a O� Nr c CONSTRUCTION FENCE TO RUN / �� / �' �� cn -- ---- / i 1 ALONG THE �1 1 SOUTH 1 1�PROPERTY LINE z' LOT 19 50 ACRES,,-" / i / C, Z 1 1 ' / '/ // / ' ✓�/ /// / i'// I I � 1 --- -- �' '� c MATERIAL STAGING / / AND STORAGE IN UNIT B -'DRIVE AND WITHIN GARAGE UNIT MATERIAL STAGING a 11 1 = AND STORAGE IN w ------- 1 , DRIVE AND WITHINo 11 Z 1 oa �' GARAGE �' a E 11 w - �' �' PROVIDE SILT FENCING ' ------------------ w -- i ALONG THIS PROPOERTY 11 1 ,-' ��„ LINE/FENCING 1 ' 1y, LIMITS OF 0 1 DN ® DISTURBANCE / ORANGE CONSTRUCTION I 1 / FENCING ON THE 1 /NORTH PROPERTY LINES 1 CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER- 25' -BUNG S BA"r_ SOIL STOCKPILE 111 10' LOPE MAINTENANCE DRAINAGE & SNOW STORAGE EASEME - � C)i TOILET _ 1 i 00 i - _ 1 0 ------ _ ---- - _ , _ BOJ �o 0 11 0 X11 o �z E J N 0 ➢D � 11 W C0 T- LLI �E o 0-00 w U o 0 / - O U �� o / cz O70 J �Cc W F lr"- -5 M>, w ■ Z o K� oo E PROVIDE PROTECTION FENCING AT EXISTING TREE N 0 N O m r � cc S 01° 1 1 LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE / ORANGE / CONSTRUCTION FENCING IS OFFSET 18'- 1 / OFF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE a O� Nr c CONSTRUCTION FENCE TO RUN / �� / �' �� cn -- ---- / i 1 ALONG THE �1 1 SOUTH 1 1�PROPERTY LINE z' LOT 19 50 ACRES,,-" / i / C, Z 1 1 ' / '/ // / ' ✓�/ /// / i'// I I � 1 --- -- �' '� c MATERIAL STAGING / / AND STORAGE IN UNIT B -'DRIVE AND WITHIN GARAGE UNIT MATERIAL STAGING a 11 1 = AND STORAGE IN w ------- 1 , DRIVE AND WITHINo 11 Z 1 oa �' GARAGE �' a E 11 w - �' �' PROVIDE SILT FENCING ' ------------------ w -- i ALONG THIS PROPOERTY 11 1 ,-' ��„ LINE/FENCING 1 ' 1y, LIMITS OF 0 1 DN ® DISTURBANCE / ORANGE CONSTRUCTION I 1 / FENCING ON THE 1 /NORTH PROPERTY LINES 1 CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER- 25' -BUNG S BA"r_ SOIL STOCKPILE 111 10' LOPE MAINTENANCE DRAINAGE & SNOW STORAGE EASEME - � C)i TOILET _ 1 i 00 i - _ 1 0 ------ _ ---- - _ , _ BOJ PROVIDE STAKED STRAW-,, o ROLLS AND JUTE MAT ATS w DRAINAGE SWALES TO, O CONTROL EROSION. (o PROVIDE STRAW ON STEEPER HILL SIDES TO HOLD REVEGITATION SEEDING AND SOIL IN PLACE. CONSTRUCTION — - JOB SIGN (4 S.F.) _ Co II II II II 00 p N N 00 z o 0 w.Ul 0 o w J uN aooq w N M Q�S / CONSTRUCTION PARKING ALONG ROAD FOR 200' � nuc � �Nz 8764 n c EDGE OF o PAVEMENT 0 o cz crOc �Cz CONSTRUCTION PARKING ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 to = 10'-0" N �o 0 11 0 X11 o �z E J N 0 ➢D � 11 W C0 T- LLI �E o 0-00 w U o 0 o : - O U �� o c� cz O70 J �Cc W F lr"- -5 M>, w ■ Z o K� oo E PROVIDE STAKED STRAW-,, o ROLLS AND JUTE MAT ATS w DRAINAGE SWALES TO, O CONTROL EROSION. (o PROVIDE STRAW ON STEEPER HILL SIDES TO HOLD REVEGITATION SEEDING AND SOIL IN PLACE. CONSTRUCTION — - JOB SIGN (4 S.F.) _ Co II II II II 00 p N N 00 z o 0 w.Ul 0 o w J uN aooq w N M Q�S / CONSTRUCTION PARKING ALONG ROAD FOR 200' � nuc � �Nz 8764 n c EDGE OF o PAVEMENT 0 o cz crOc �Cz CONSTRUCTION PARKING ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 to = 10'-0" N M o 0 �o 0 W 0 D �z E J N 0 x v W C0 T- LLI �E o 0-00 w U o 0 F � U W c� o O70 J ■ ■ W F lr"- -5 M>, w ■ Z o N oo E O Ix M Lo c 7- -E Q °' X m m E Q o O U p0 M o 0 �o 0 0 D �z E N N 0 x v W C0 T- LLI 0-00 O O W O O70 J (D v � o Z O Z cn o O U p0 > Z (� c. co Q Q c /) 0') �� z -1—+ O J Z U) C'4(=) Q w N U � o 6 z M o 0 r 0 D �z E N N 0 x v C0 T- LLI 0-00 O O W O O70 J (D v � o Z Z cn INO O U p0 > Z -0 co Q Q c /) 0') �� z -1—+ O J Z U) C'4(=) Q U M o 0 r 0 D �z E z U N 0 U � O a_ v Symbol Name Size Count Conifer Trees 4 CS Colorado Spruce 8'-10' tall 4 (Picea pungens) Deciduous Trees 25 QA QUAKING ASPEN 2.5" CAL. 23 (POPULUS TREMULOIDES) MM ROCKY MOUNTAIN MAPLE 1.5" CAL. 2 (ACER GLABRIUM) Deciduous Shrubs 29 PO POTENTILLA 5 GAL. 5 (ALCHEMILLOIDES) LL DWARF KOREAN LILAC 5" GAL. 10 (SYRINGA MEYERI 'PALABIN') RD RED TWIG DOGWOOD 5 GAL. 3 (CORNUS STOLONIFERA) WSC CREEPING WESTERN SANDCHERRY 5" GAL. 7 (PRUNUS BESSEYI "PAWNEE BUTTES') CE COTONEASTER DAMMERI CORAL BEAUTY 5" GAL. 4 (COTONEASTER DAMMERI) Perennial Ground Covers GC BUFFALO GRASS 1000 square feet of cover. GOLDEN CARPET STONECROP ORANGE SEDUM SNOW -IN -SUMMER CARPET BUGLE Shredded Bark (mulch at planting beds) 1000 square feet of cover. LANDSCAPE LEGEND 3/16" = V-0" Landscape and Irrigation Table Lot size = .5 acres X 43,560 s.f. per acre = 21,780 s.f. Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed = 50% of Lot Area = 10,890 s.f. Minimum Landscape Area Allowed = 25% of Lot Area = 5,445 s.f. Proposed Lot coverage by building roof and overhang = 4,437 s.f. (20%) Proposed Impervious area (ROOF AND DRIVE)= 7,234 s.f. total (33%) Proposed area at west side of lot outside of disturbance fence =3,550 s.f. Proposed Landscape area (Lot area= 21,780 s.f.) - 7,234 s.f. (impervious area) = 14,546 s.f. landscape area (67%) Max Irrigarion area = 20% of 14,546 s.f. = 2,909 s.f. Proposed Drip Irrigation area = 290.1 s.f. PROVIDE PROTECTION FENCING AT EXISTING TREE � O a 3Do 3550 S.F. OF LOT AREA OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF DISDURBANCE Proposed Landscape area for calculating landscape units 1'1 QAC (Lot area= 21,780 s.f.) - 7,234 s.f. (impervious area) - 3,550 s.f. (undisturbed) = 10,996 s.f. 11 1 P _--- 25' Bu i L i �- Landscape Units = 10,996 s.f.. / 50 s.f. per unit = 220 units 11 0 0 � I -PO�� / 25 /o Landscape Units to be provided be trees = 25 /o of 220 units = 55 units by trees Landscape Material (trees) New Existing retained Units 11 / Deciduous 2.5" caliper/clump = 7 units per tree X 23 = 161 4 units per tree X 0 = 0 161 units Deciduous 1.5"-2.5" caliper/clump = 4 units per tree X 2 = 8 4 units per tree X 0 = 0 8 units 11 — Evergreen 8'-10' high = 8 units per tree X 4 =32 11 units per tree X 0 = 0 32 units 11 Landscape Material (shrubs) New Existing retained _ Units _ 1— AMM QA Shrubs, 5 gallon = 1 unit per shrub X27 = 29 1.2 units per shrub X 0 = 0 29 units 11 1 'J Perennial Ground Covers Units 11 �- 1 unit per 400 s.f. 1000 s.f. proposed / 400 s.f.= 2.5 units 2.5 units 1 -- - W- - S Total Landscape Units Proposed (220 required) 232.5 units - 11 —O 11 11 --- �c -11 o cLn Landscape units o �]j -i U 1/4" = 1'-0" z z CIJ II II II II cr�� II II w—coo -� - o U' � z i w z o o s z i o C CCD 0 CD o o a w N C) N O M OUND COVERS TH SHREDDED BARK NNTING BED. OUPINGS OF RENNIAL FLOWERS R1= WITWINI PGn o -a aooM ��QIa �ZQQ�s o� 84 _ 180.00' Z / ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE TO BE REVEGITATED WITH NATIVE GRASSES. / AREAS ARE TO HAVE IRRIGATION. ALL / NOXIOUS WEEDS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY BEFORE SPREADING OF NEW/ / D SEED.f / o �I QA c ulli 1 =RD CJA 00 T- C, 0.. � �Nz z \ 8764 n o z EDGE OF j PAVEMENT ➢ O cz U-1 C z �C�:z z -+ LANDSCAPE PLAN �1 " = 10'-0" = 10'-0" N z � r7 W J �E o Lu o� 0 F Iii U ■0 O a�M W >, M ■ 7- W I L0 CM ■ N oo E LO C L� Q CD x M rl- r 6' m E d � a O N C0 X 0-00 LILI T- O O W O O U, J v � o Z � z ��U O C N O p O C� > Z -0 Co Q a 0- a) � }, Z -1—+ O J Z OFo� Z U _O m M r � o r o Z CL a JCl) E z U M O 0 a_ �a 0 O o (� a W y � o 0 Z Staff Report - Minor Design and DevelopmentAVON / Alternative Equivalent Compliance q P September 17, 2013 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Report date September 13, 2013 Project type Minor Design and Development /Alternative Equivalent Compliance Zoning Town Center (TC) Address 182 Avon Road; 82- Benchmark Road; 142 Beaver Creek Place Prepared By Jared Barnes, Planner 11 dG Introduction Steve Sandoval, BW -ANE, and Matt Feuer, Evans Chaffee Construction Group, (collectively the "Applicant") have submitted two separate Minor Design and Development applications and accompanying Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC) applications (collectively "the Application") for three properties (collectively "the Property"): Christy Sports Building (Lot 21, Block i, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision (BMBC) — 182 Avon Road), Benchmark Shopping Center (Tract Q, Block i, BMBC — 82 Benchmark Road), and the Annex building (Lot 65-13, Block i, BMBC — 142 Beaver Creek Place) on behalf of Greg Hoffmann, Benchmark Investors, LLC (the Owner). The Application proposes to add new and replace existing dumpster enclosures. Attached to this report are a vicinity map (Exhibit A), Benchmark Shopping Center Design (Exhibit B), Christy Sports building design (Exhibit C), Annex Enclosure photograph (Exhibit D), AEC request letter from Steve Sandoval (Exhibit E), AEC request letter from Matt Feuer (Exhibit F). Planning Analysis Although two separate applicants have applied for separate applications, each for a Minor Design and Development Plan and accompanying AEC, the similarity in the request and the common ownership has prompted Staff to present these applications together as a single review item before the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). The Application consists of: 1. Replacement and reduction in size of the existing dumpster enclosure for the Benchmark Shopping Center (Request by Steve Sandoval); z. Replacement and enlargement of the existing dumpster enclosure for the Annex building (Request by both parties); 3. Installation of a new fence and dumpster enclosure for the Christy Sports building (Request by Matt Feuer). The Benchmark Shopping Center request (Exhibit B) plans to replace the existing enclosure and reduce its size by approximately three -hundred and ninety (390) SF for a new total size of approximately nine -hundred (goo) SF. The existing was designed as a wood fence, while the proposed structure will utilize a stone veneer base and wood fence top. The stone base will be two (2) feet tall, while the fence will extend another eight (8) feet above the base for a total height of ten (1o) feet tall. In addition, the proposed design includes stone columns that will extend one (1) foot above the fence and are used sporadically throughout the enclosure to break up the massing. The proposed stone will match that used on the building entrances and the fence will match the "Mexicana" (red) base color of the building. The Christy Sports building (Exhibit C) requests to install a new fence along the southern property line as well as a new dumpster enclosure to the southeast of the existing building. The new fence will be six (6) feet tall September 17, 2013, PZC Meeting — Dumpster Enclosures and will have eight (8) foot tall highlight posts every fifty (50) feet to break up the solid mass of the fence. The fence will transition into the proposed dumpster enclosure which will consist of an eight (8) foot tall fence with a minimum one (1) foot gap to a standing seem metal roof with a pitch of four -to -twelve (4:12). The minimum roof gap is proposed for the rear of the enclosure, while the front of the enclosure will have a gap of approximately four (4) feet. The total size of the enclosure is nine and one-half feet by twenty feet (9.5'X 20'). The fence and dumpster enclosure will match the "Olive Green" (green) base color of the building while the metal roof will match the "Branchport Brown" metal roof color on the building. The Annex building proposes to replace and slightly enlarge the existing dumpster enclosure (Exhibit D). The dumpster enclosure will be extended approximately ten (1o) feet to the north (site plan location provided in Exhibit B) to allow for the inclusion of an additional dumpster. The design will match the proposed design for the Christy Sports building, but the colors will match the Annex building. Staff has reviewed the design of the fence on the Christy Sports building and find that it complies with the code requirements outlined in §7.28.o8o, Fences. In addition, Staff reviewed the dumpster enclosures and found that they do not meet the standards outlined in Section 7.28.o6o(h), Refuse Facility/ Dumpsters. This subsection requires the following: (2) Screening shall be achieved by a six (6) foot masonry wall or wooden fence. A gate opening to the facility shall be situated so that the container is not visible from adjacent properties or public ROW. Chain-link gates are not permitted. Gates must have tie backs to secure in the open position. The proposed designs for each dumpster enclosure exceed the requirement for a six (6) foot tall fence. As such, the Applicants have applied for accompanying AEC requests. Steve Sandoval's letter (Exhibit E) is for the Benchmark Shopping Center and Annex building, while Matt Feuer's letter (Exhibit F) is for the Christy Sports building. Both applications contend that the taller enclosures will better screen the entirety of the dumpsters therefore improving compliance with the intent of this code section. In addition, each enclosure's use of materials and colors match those found on the building subsequently lessening the visual impacts of the enclosure on adjacent properties and creating a more harmonious design on the property. Upon further review of the AEC requests, Staff agrees with the Applicants and is of the opinion that the proposed designs do comply with the mandatory review criteria, listed below, specifically that the proposed designs achieve the intent of the standards to a greater degree than the specific standards would allow. Staff recommends approval of the Minor Design and Development Plan applications as well as the accompanying AEC requests. Review Criteria The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for recommendations on the Application: §7.16.o8o(f), Development Plan (1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified in §7.04.030, Purposes; (2) Evidence of substantial compliance with the §7.16.ogo, Design Review. (3) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan; (4) Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable; (5) Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code, including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and September 17, 2013, PZC Meeting — Dumpster Enclosures (6) That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services. §7.16.ogo(f), Design Review (1) The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or, where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole; (2) The design meets the development and design standards established in this Development Code; and (3) The design reflects the long range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents. §7.16.12o(d), Alternative Equivalent Compliance (1) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard; (2) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard; (3) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard; and (4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this ordinance. Staff Recommendation If the PZC agrees with the Staff recommendation and is accepting of the AEC requests, then they should approve the Minor Design and Development and Alternative Equivalent Compliance applications for Lots 21 and 65-A and Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision as proposed and with the following findings: 1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.o8o(f), Development Plan, §7.16.ogo(f), Design Review, and §7.16.12o(d), Alternative Equivalent Compliance, and was determined to be compliant with the review criteria. 2. The proposed eight (8) and ten (1o) foot tall dumpster enclosures achieve the intent of the screening standards to a better degree than the subject standard by providing a higher degree of screening and reduced impacts on adjacent properties and the public Right -of -Ways. Exhibits A: Vicinity Map B: Benchmark Shopping Center Design C: Christy Sports Building Design D: Annex Enclosure photograph E: AEC request letter from Steve Sandoval F: AEC request letter from Matt Feuer September 17, 2013, PZC Meeting — Dumpster Enclosures Vicinity Map - East Avon Properties Exhibit A r _ B B� f' di � Q� � si i�11 �V9G r 'A� 100, OP t � ! ' �l 7 C) Z This map was produced by Me Community Development Department. Use of this map should be for general purposes only. Town ofAvon does not warrent the accuracy of the data contained herein. Created by Commundy Development Department A CProperty Boundaries e Feet 0 85 170 m X O3 `NOAV W dAlS N33HO M3"38'3 Z8 13S lIWN3d £60Z'60ld3S 9180 ZUU£ jegwnN Sof Is E X W Q- K In W, 3 W Q- OO 'Nond aAlEl M33NO N3AV39 '3 Z8 13S 11Wa3d� £60Z'60ld3S WO Zoo£ � jagwnN qof „o-zz 4 dKW F cj �QdU WiD'OR �Niv iU NCO w3� 1 Go OO 'Nona aAlEl M33NO N3AV39 '3 Z8 13SIINN3d Eloa'so �C zoos jagwnN qof X W Z } W J W All ,' Z H } W J W Go a-0 -� Oa `NO" LU 13S 11WM3d MZ '601d3S mea ZOOS � iGgwnN qof Exhibit C Project Summary: The proposed site fence and dumpster enclosure project is located at the rear of the Christy Sports Building property in the Town of Avon. The property is owned by the Hoffman Group and Managed by NAI Mountain Commercial. The proposed plan is to install a 6' tall solid dog-ear cedar fence along the edge of the parking lot, running parallel to the train tracks. Towards the Southeast corner of the property, a dumpster enclosure is planned to screen two wildlife -resistant containers from neighboring properties. The 6' tall fence will transition to an 8' tall fence and there will be a 20' wide by 9.5' deep enclosure, maximum size. The reason for the higher fence/enclosure is for operational reasons, as well as screening purposes since the adjacent property has a driveway behind the proposed location which is located approximately 4 feet higher than the primary property. Additionally, a sloped roof will be installed to enhance the screening of the dumpsters from adjacent properties. Material and color selection is planned to match the existing building as closely as possible. The building has painted wood siding and the cedar fence will have two coats of solid stain to match the recently approved and applied building color, Benjamin Moore — Olive Grove. The roof of the proposed dumpster enclosure will utilize the same materials and color as the new roofing material for the sloped roof portions of the building, a standing seam metal roof. The 4:12 roof slope ratio will allow rain and snow to exit off the back of the structure away from the pedestrian space. There will be approximately a 1' gap between the top of the fence and the roof in the rear, and approximately a 4' 2" gap between the front fence and the roof. This added height will allow the trash container lids to open and be functional while inside the enclosure. Thank you for taking the time to review this Minor Design & Development Plan for the Site Fence and Dumpster Enclosure at the Christy Sports Building in Avon. All required documents are attached in this proposal. Please don't hesitate to contact me directly if you need any additional information or have questions about the proposed project. Sincerely, Matt Feuer Evans Chaffee Construction Group PO Box 2866, Avon, CO 81620 970.331.4028 mfeuer@evanschaffee.com Exhibit C Project Summary (Revised): The proposed site fence project is located at the rear of the Christy Sports Building property in the Town of Avon; it is owned by the Hoffman Group and Managed by NAI Mountain Commercial. This summary describes how the project will align with the Town of Avon's municipal codes regarding fences, described in section 7.28.080. The plan is to install a 6' tall solid dog-ear cedar fence along the edge of the parking lot, running parallel to the train tracks. Every third 8' section will have an 8' tall 4"x6" highlight post to break up the solid fence that visually breaks up the front of the fence. This is designed to satisfy the Town of Avon municipal code requirement stating that a solid fence cannot consist of a solid, unbroken expanse length of more than fifty (50) feet. Additionally, about 1/4 distance from the Western edge of the fence, there will be an overlapped opening to accommodate pedestrian access, identified in the Site Plan below. Material and color selection is planned to match the existing building as closely as possible. The building has painted wood siding and the cedar fence will have two coats of solid stain to match the recently approved and applied building color, Benjamin Moore - Olive Grove. Thank you for taking the time to review this Minor Design & Development Plan for the Site Fence at the Christy Sports Building in Avon. All required documents are attached in this proposal. Please don't hesitate to contact me directly if you need any additional information or have questions about the proposed project. Sincerely, Matt Feuer Evans Chaffee Construction Group PO Box 2866, Avon, CO 81620 970.331.4028 mfeuer@evanschaffee.com Exhibit C Site Plan: The 6' cedar fence to run along back of asphalt parking lot, parallel to train tracks (approx. 230 Inft): ♦ A o ('i Exhibit C Site Plan: The 6' cedar fence to run along back of asphalt parking lot, parallel to train tracks (approx. 238 Inft.) ; rt ..4rt M4 •,MAP Ir -sem v: Exhibit C Sample Highlight Posts: r " .�tLAd Exhibit C Color: Two coats of solid stain to match existing building color. Picture below shows existing building color as well as location for fence. Paint color to match newly approved and applied color (Benjamin Moore — Olive Grove). :A Exhibit C Proposed Dumpster Enclosure Design: The dumpster enclosure will be 20' x 9.5' at the largest, and the walls will be 8' tall cedar fence with a standing seam metal roof to match existing building. The dumpsters will be wildlife -resistant containers. I 0 �1 t k I 1 0 �1 t k September 09, 2013 Town of Avon P&Z Commission One Lake St P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 VIA Email: jbarnes avon.org Exhibit E RE: Alternative Equivalent Compliance Letter Refuse Enclosure -Benchmark Building To Whom It May Concern, Please allow this letter to answer the four (4) review criteria basis questions posed on page 7-75 of the TOA Development Code. 1) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the development standard to the same or better degree by removing old, dilapidated material and installing new materials and hiding all compacting dumpsters at this location from public view. 2) The proposed alternative achieves the goals & policies of the TOA Plan to the same or better degree by making a better looking enclosure, with materials that match the building, and by actually enclosing the refuse containers. 3) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community by hiding all equipment needed within the enclosure and moving the access out of site from the main parking area/road to the alleyway. 4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties because the enclosure is using newer materials and it actually has a smaller footprint than the old enclosure. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. I look forward to our meeting on September 17, 2013. Sincerely, Steve Sandoval Construction Manager BW -ANE, INC. P.O. Box 1140 Eagle, CO 81631 (720) 428-0691/ssandoval@allnuenergy.com Page 1 EExhibit F 13 vans CONSTRUCTION GROUP +Chaffee September 10, 2013 Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Alternate Equivalent Compliance Letter - Christy Sports Building Dumpster Enclosure Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, The proposed project is to construct a dumpster enclosure at the back of the Christy Sports Building, located at 182 Avon Road, Avon, CO 81620. The enclosure will include an eight (8) foot tall solid cedar fence with a sloped standing seam metal shed roof. Responses to the four (4) review criteria for the Alternate Equivalent Compliance Application are below: (a) The proposed alternate achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard by utilizing new materials and colors to match the existing building exactly, or as closely as possible. Additionally, the adjusted design is required to shield the dumpsters from view since the adjacent property has an elevated driveway located directly behind the proposed location. (b) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or better design than the subject standard by constructing an attractive dumpster enclosure that will visually shield the contents stored within view from the adjacent property, and mimic the existing building through materials and colors. (c) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard by visually shielding the dumpster enclosure contents from the public, including the adjacent property, which would otherwise be an eyesore. (d) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this ordinance because the adjacent property's driveway is higher than the dumpster enclosure location and an elevated sloped roof will be constructed above the enclosure. Constructing an eight (8) foot fence will better shield the dumpsters from view. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions that arise or if additional information is required. Regards, Matt Feuer Evans Chaffee Construction Group PO Box 2866, Avon CO 81620 C: 970.331.4028 F: 970.845.0465 mfeuer@evanschaffee.com Staff Report — Minor Design and Development Plan September 17, 2013 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting AV 0, Report date September 13, 2013 Project type Residential Construction — Multi -family Legal description Lot 6, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Zoning Residential Low Density (RLD) Address 211 Nottingham Road, Unit D Prepared By Jared Barnes, Planner II Summary of Requests The Applicant and Owner of Unit D, Adrienne Perer, has submitted a Minor Design and Development application to convert an existing solarium into an enclosed structure on the south side of the building on Lot 6, Block 1 of the Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, also described as 211 Nottingham Road (the Property). The modification will utilize the same footprint as the previous solarium, but will replace the existing glass with a roof, siding, and windows to match the existing structure. In summary the requested determinations are as follows: 1. Solarium conversion from glass to wood siding with windows and doors installed as illustrated in Exhibit B; 2. Entry door modifications; and, 3. Entry deck and fencing extension and modifications. Background and Process In the Fall of 2012, Staff received a complaint that construction was occurring on the subject unit and Property without proper approvals. Upon further investigation, Staff did determine that the Owner had begun a project to remove an existing solarium and replace it with an enclosed structure. Town Staff informed the owner of the illegal construction and the required steps to approve the modifications and receive a building permit. In addition, the Chief Building Official placed a "Red Tag", or Stop Work Order on the Unit to ensure that no additional work would be completed without first receiving a Building Permit. The "Red Tag" is still in place today. The Owner of Unit D submitted both a Minor Design and Development application and a Building permit application, to initiate the approval process. Staff worked with the property owner to receive proposed plans (Exhibit B). Staff also informed the property owner that Home Owner's Association (HOA) approval would be required for Town approval as the improvements affected common element, specifically the exterior of the building. In January of 2013, Town Staff received approval separately from each property owner for the proposed improvements, but some of these individual owners added "conditions" to their approvals to address other construction projects this property owner has undertaken over the years that affected common element, also without Town or HOA approval. Town Staff informed both the HOA and the Applicant that this item will be brought forth to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) to determine compliance of the proposed improvement with the Review Criteria as outlined at the end of this Report. At the February 5, 2013 meeting, the PZC reviewed the requested modification. Ultimately the PZC continued the application until the applicant and HOA could agree on the modifications and a single HOA approval would be granted. September 17, 2013 PZC Meeting — Lot 6, Block 1, BMBC — Balas Unit D Recently, Staff received an approval letter from Tracey Schmiedt, Balas Townhouse Condominium Association President, along with a document with signatures of approval from a majority of the property owner. In addition, Tracy Kinsella, Attorney for Balas, provided an interpretation of the Balas Declarations and Covenants and determined that a majority approval from the homeowners would suffice as HOA approval. Property Description The Property slopes downhill from north to south with relatively consistent grades throughout the site. The Property has been developed with an 8-plex Townhome structure that stretches east to west across the property. To the north of the structure is a common driveway and parking lot and to the south of the structure is a rear yard. The Property is bordered to: the north by Nottingham Road; the east by Tract V, an open space and drainage parcel; the south by a multi -use path and the 1-70 Right -of -Way; and, the west by the Balas West residential complex. Planning Analysis Staff is requesting that the PZC provide development plan and design review determination on the above-mentioned modification after reviewing their compliance with the review criteria listed below and code section §7.28.090(c)(6), below. (6) Duplex, Townhome, and Multi -family Design. Duplex, townhome and multi -family developments shall be designed in a manner that creates a single unified structure and site plan. Unified design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, massing, detail, roof forms and landscaping. While "mirror image" units are not supported, the design intent should be one that creates a unified structure with enough variety and architectural interest to distinguish a duplex, townhome, or multi -family structure from a single-family home. The Application has two (2) main aspects of review. The main aspect of the Application is the modification from the solarium to the enclosed structure. As seen in the attached photographs 1-3 (Exhibit C), the Application has partially completed the modifications. The Application proposes the final design to appear as represented in Exhibit B. Photographs 1-3 also represent the pre - construction conditions by illustrating adjacent solariums. Although the removal of the solarium will create a different design, the proposed design is compatible with the remainder of the building and helps promote the single -unified structure design as required in the Design Standards. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed design will comply with the design standards as set forth in section 7.28.090, Design Standards. The second aspect of this Application is the Property's compliance with the development code and design standards as is required in subsections 7.16.080(f)(5) and 7.16.090(f)(2). Over the years, the Property Owner has modified the subject unit without first receiving design approval from the Town of Avon. The major improvements include: (1) the entry door remodel; and, (2) the front deck and fencing extension and remodel. Evidence of these improvements are illustrated in photographs 5 and 6 (Exhibit C). Photographs 4 and 7 (Exhibit C) show the entry ways of the other units within the Batas Townhomes complex. As seen in these photographs, the entry door has been modified for Unit D to include a red door with glass blocks to the right. The other units' entry doors are all different styles, but each one is painted the same hue of brown. The areas adjacent to the doors also contain different situations with some containing windows and others having no windows. Staff recommends that the Red should be repainted to match the brown hue of the other doors, so that it further creates a single unified structure, while not creating mirror image units as is required in Design Standards (§7.28.090(c)(6), see below). September 17, 2013 PZC Meeting — Lot 6, Block 1, BMBC — Balas Unit D The deck and fencing modification includes an extension of both items beyond the unit's property line and into common element and is illustrated in photographs 5 and 6 (Exhibit C). With regard to design, the front deck was modified from a painted and stained wood to a Trex material. In addition, the fencing material was modified from painted wood to black metal. The attached plat map (Exhibit D) indicates that each unit only owns their individual unit and two (2) small decks to the north and one (1) small deck to the south. As is illustrated in photographs 5 and 6 (Exhibit C), the deck and fencing for Unit D were extended beyond the property line into common element. The Property Manager and HOA have indicated that these improvements were placed over areas of existing irrigation lines and these improvements could impact the property's ability to repair and maintain the lines in the future. As is illustrated by all of the attached photographs, many of the decks on both sides of the building have been extended into common element. The Town and Balas HOA have approved deck extensions into common element throughout the life of the building for various units, therefore Staff is not recommending this item be removed from common element. Review Criteria §7.16.080(f), Development Plan (1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified in §7.04.030, Purposes; (2) Evidence of substantial compliance with the §7.16.090, Design Review. (3) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan; (4) Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable; (5) Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code, including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and (6) That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services. §7.16.090(f), Design Review (1) The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or, where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole; (2) The design meets the development and design standards established in this Development Code; and (3) The design reflects the long range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approving the Minor Design and Development application for Unit D of the Balas Townhome structure on Lot 6, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the red entry door will be repainted to a brown hue that is identical to the other units in the complex in order to fully comply with section 7.28.090(c)(6); And with the following finding: 1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.080(f), Development Plan, and §7.16.090(f), Design Review, and was determined to be compliant with the review criteria. September 17, 2013 PZC Meeting — Lot 6, Block 1, BMBC — Balas Unit D Exhibits A: Vicinity Map B: Proposed Design C: Existing Condition and Site Photographs D: Recorded Plat E: Letter from Kristen McKnight Davis, Attorney representing the Owner of Unit D September 17, 2013 PZC Meeting — Lot 6, Block 1, BMBC — Balas Unit D EXHIBIT B Jared Barnes From: adrienne perer <ennep73@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 6:38 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Side height Attachments: Screen shot 2012-11-10 at 4.07.05 PM.png; Perer Exterior Wall W Exisiting — jpg floi• 1 e �� k_ Hi Jared, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. As per your request here are the missing measurements. Regards, Adrienne I °%- - � .5�- k �%\WN.2 ) ,� z/ �j • . - a. �•.� �(� , ' - - �\��\' (,: w I Exhi �� " ! % ! �} � i \� � / �} \ ƒ � 2! � ! � \ \\� _ , \; � - m�®\ �� , \ ; ,\\} , \� �� \ \ \� ' ƒ ��j�� \\� � � \ \ ` j \} : _ - � � ` . : 2 \� § /f ! _ � � \ �� , k°� �$ �$ Ito i. Z) 0 F � §\ � �.�./�.� / > /f2� lie . } ~�. � . |�� |§ / � -� ® ^ �/ ` A \§� 1'E , �~� -� � ��^` f �/ }i \ } : / � | �� k At D 9. PLAN HOLD T— iF x - b k t. p= � t O = 3 O O u u J .I EXHIBIT E MOUNTAIN LEGAL PROFESSIONALS, PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW KRISTIN MCKNIGHT DAVIS ATTORNEY OFFICE (970) 926-3477 FACSIMILE (866) 672-5653 KRISTIN(a1MOUNTAINLEGALPROS. COM 175 MAIN ST., SUITE C-104, EDWARDS, CO 81632 January 31, 2013 Town of Avon ATTN: Planning & Zoning Commission PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 Via Hand Delivery & Email to ibarnes a,avon.org RE: Unit D, Balas Townhouse Condominiums, Notice of Violation dated November 4, 2012 and PZC Meeting to be held on February 5, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Dear Commission: Please be advised that this law firm represents Ms. Adrienne Perer and Mr. Sean Phillips, the owners of Unit D at the Balas Townhouse Condominiums with respect to the Notice of Violation dated November 4, 2012. I will refer to my clients as the Perer family for ease of reference. The purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with the Perer family's position on the three (3) alleged violations of the Town Code as well as the conditional approvals submitted to the Town of Avon by the neighboring owners in the Balas Townhouse Condominiums. Ms. Perer, her contractor and I will attend the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 5, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Phillips works full time in Thailand and will not be able to attend. The Perer family pledges to participate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution with the Town of Avon and to further its purposes of health, safety, efficiency and economy. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Alleged Violation #1: Removal of Solarium, Framing of New Wall, Siding and Interior Work related to Wall We believe the removal of the solarium glass wall and replacement with a stick -built wall on the exterior of Unit D to be the most important issue for the Town at this time. I will first summarize the background of the structure and next will address the dire situation that necessitated its removal. The Balas Townhouses were completed in 1981, over 30 years ago, and consist of 8 Units. The original building included solariums on the South side for only 3 out of 8 Units. Solariums are known to have curved glass corners and glass roofs. In the late summer of 2012, the Perer family experienced multiple leakages from the solarium due to snowmelt and rain and extensive interior water damage in their Unit. The Perer family includes 2 young sons. As stated above, Mr. Phillips works out of the country. At the time the leaks were at their worst, the Perer family had plans for Ms. Perer to take their sons to Thailand for 2 months as it had been quite some time since they had seen their father. She was in a state of panic about the imminent degradation of the solarium and contacted Rys Olsen, a local contractor. Mr. Olsen agreed with Ms. Perer that she had to act immediately to prevent further structural and interior damage to her home as well as to prevent damage to neighboring units. Ms. Perer understands now and regrets not contacting the Town of Avon prior to the commencement of work by Mr. Olsen but she was distraught about the condition and continuous water puddles in her home and believed that he would only frame the wall and then obtain a framing inspection and then permit approval. After receiving the Notice of Violation, Ms. Perer presented pre -construction pictures to the building inspector for the Town, Mr. Gray, and he commented that he would have condemned the unit due to the condition. There was rotting wood, weakening glass panes which may have fallen and shattered, and later it was revealed that the entire project had been infiltrated with carpenter ants. We acknowledge that the Municipal Code does not have a provision for action based on an emergency for its citizens (although there is a code section for emergency enforcement by the Town). It was with a true belief that her home was in a state of emergency that she authorized Mr. Olsen to start work to demolish the solarium and frame a new wall in the exact same dimensions as the solarium. We propose to the Commission that the actual, pre -construction condition and Ms. Perer's worry for the safety and well-being of her home and family should mitigate the alleged violation. Additionally, the design of the replacement wall is truly compatible with the building and design review guidelines. Please see enclosed photos showing the effects of leaking solarium windows, structural damage, and the replacement wall. Conditions From Neighbors to Solarium Removal Approval As stated above, there are 8 units. Please find enclosed approvals in writing from Units A & B (we also believe the owner of Unit G will be providing her approval). I am in receipt of the emails from 4 owners in Balas Townhomes placing unrelated conditions on their approval of the removal of the glass solarium. I would like to address the legal reasons why the Town should not be concerned with these unrelated conditions. First, it appears that each owner is acting independently and not as an association due to the separate and different responses. It is noteworthy that all owners have stated their approval to the removal of the solarium's glass wall but also attempt to impose conditions that are unrelated to the solarium. These emails should be taken as HOA approval of the material change to the existing wall. The conditions should be dealt with by the association in a legally proper manner and without using this Town proceeding to accomplish individual owner desires on matters not relevant to this proceeding. Second, several of the matters raised by the other owners are outside the one-year statute of limitations to associations found in C.R.S. §38-33.3-123(2) and, as such, are improper and irrelevant to these proceedings. Because the owners would be barred from bringing these matters up in a court of law, they should be precluded from raising them in this proceeding. Finally, the Town Code provides that "[i]n no case shall the Town be obligated to enforce the provisions of any easement, covenants or agreements between private parties." The matters raised by the other homeowners that do not implicate the Town's jurisdiction should not be the subject of these proceedings. As such, the issue of fencing the deck, items on front deck, and other immaterial conditions are for these private parties to resolve. We will present testimony from Mr. Olsen at the meeting that Tracey Schmiedt, owner of Unit E, said that she liked the plans for Unit D's solarium and was interested in doing it herself. Ms. Schmidt also made a defamatory statement to Mr. Olsen regarding Ms. Perer that inferred that Ms. Perer may not pay Mr. Olsen for his work. She had absolutely no basis to make such a false statement. We do not want to get the Town involved in this civil matter of defamation of character but point this out for credibility of Ms. Schmidt and inconsistency in her position about the solarium. This association has a history of lack of structure and improper meeting practices. In fact, the association is non-compliant with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) as it has failed to adopt the governance policies, which include a required policy for alternative dispute resolution which could have been helpful in this case. At this point, we request that the PZC consider the other owners' approvals of the solarium plans and issue a building permit to complete the project. Further, we advise the Commission that another owner is interested in the replacement of her solarium because she has had decay issues with her solariums, although not as pressing as the Perer family. See attached letter from Margaret Parker, Owner of Unit B. Her intention is to also to eventually replace the solarium and do so in harmony with the structure and similar to Unit D's plans. Alleged Violation #2: Mechanical Work not inspected or permitted I believe this matter has been resolved in that the Perer family will absolutely agree to inspection of the mechanical work within the unit. Mr. Barnes has been made aware of this consent. Alleged Violation #3: Matter of South -Facing Rear Deck "Extension" In regard to the matter of the deck extension, first, there was no extension, only a replacement of an existing deck. I was advised by Mr. Barnes that he has a signed planner approval of this matter as well as an approval by the Balas Townhouse Association in the Town's file. The allegation that the extension is across common areas under a neighbor's window is simply untrue. The window above the section in controversy is the Perer family's window. Most importantly, no storage or other items are present under the window and, thus, there is no impact to ingress or egress from this window. For any other unit owner at Balas to attempt to raise this issue again is in bad faith and an attempt to place the Perer family in a bad light. The email dated January 8, 2013 from George and Dyann Linger contains untrue and libelous statements alleging the Perer family "was deceptive in getting the judgment passed." The matter was resolved by a lawsuit in Eagle County Small Claims Court in 2007 and the Association was represented by an attorney. In a mediation which occurred on July 18, 2007, the HOA agreed to dismiss the lawsuit. A Joint Motion to Dismiss was filed signed by the attorney for the Balas Townhouse Association and Ms. Perer and Judge Sullivan approved the Stipulation by Order dated August 20, 2007. Please see attached Order. Proposal for Resolution In good faith and with respect to the Town of Avon and its design standards, the Perer family proposes the following resolution: (1) Town will authorize retroactively the removal of solarium wall and replacement with a stick -built wall conditional upon passing necessary framing and other required inspections. (2) Town will allow completion of construction of wall, including windows, according to submitted plans. (3) If approved, the Perer family will share design plans with other 2 solarium owners. (4) If approved, Town will perform mechanical work inspection. (S) The Perer family will be authorized to complete painting of North -side siding and South- side trim. (6) The Perer family will complete gutter repair to South -side wall of Unit D and at Perer family's expense. Please let me know if you need any additional information or documentation in advance of the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting to be held on February 5, 2013. My email address to Kristin'frMountainLegalPros.com Thank you. Yours sincerely, MO TAIN LEGAL PROFESSIONALS, PC 1�sti�nM=ni ht Davis KMD:kmd Encls. cc: Adrienne Perer & Sean Phillips Jared Barnes (via email) i r4 4 t � 1. ' l F� � 1. ' l i B i Ilk F;.j El �. .. � ,�y � Y` , 1 {� � f y �, ..� _� �.` - H , y � �. ti�i - b � . , . J - i9: ... �6 ` .�_ �. '�� r fiN' � � � - � i� >. , ✓ �. .� c t r_. �) �d� �s s� � :y� n - ,,F �� p� a i~ � � -� 4 � �� J} ��- - �'�� i^ �� r - `- � `�_• Y n�C ' �i �.." ' � ,;� * - 4 - a... fib M i 1°. 1, arrow law Alm OF -dew Ap 4f Ilk -M 7_7 p• r,. � I� � t r k# �,►. L.aMa '10. 'lf-M A IF i b- . rx�r� --' rr�tra�: APPROVAL OF UNIT D'S SOLARIUM REMOVAL AND RECONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH EXTERIOR WALLS Owner of Unit A, Balas Townhouse Condominiums To: Town of Avon • I currently own Unit A at the Balas Townhouse Condominiums. • I approve the exterior construction to Unit D. • I believe the removal of the solarium on Unit D and completion of the construction with windows in accordance with Unit D's plans will enhance the entire property when Unit D is allowed to complete construction. • To require Unit D to tear it down would be an economic waste and I believe she should be allowed to complete the construction in accordance with her plans. _1/30/13 ,-/�doseph Jacks¢ Date Unit A Phone: 949 290 6510 APPROVAL OF UNIT D'S SOLARIUM REMOVAL AND RECONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH EXTERIOR WALLS Owner of Unit B, Balas Townhouse Condominiums To: Town of Avon • I currently own Unit B at the Balas Townhouse Condominiums. • I approve the exterior construction to Unit D. • I believe the removal of the solarium on Unit D and completion of the construction with windows in accordance with Unit D's plans will enhance the entire property when Unit D is allowed to complete construction. • To require Unit D to tear it down would be an economic waste and I believe she should be allowed to complete the construction in accordance with her plans. • My unit has a solarium and I do not have the pressing deterioration issues but I believe the deterioration of the solarium is inevitable and will likely apply to the Town to remove it and replace it in a similar way to Unit D upon it becoming necessary. 1 4 Margaret Parker Unit B Phone: a10 q 0 4 1 S0 , ' 30 3 Date FROM :BRIAN E W REILLY PC FAX NO. :970 949 9044 Aug. 17 2007 02:31PM P2 SMALL CLAIMS COURT/COUNTY COURT EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 0885 Chambers Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970/32&6373 Pladintif0 BALAS TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, a aon-profit corporation v Case No.06 S 144 Div. S Defendant: ADRIENNE PERER ORDER THIS MATTER having came on to be heard ex parte upon the Joint Motion of the Plaintiff and Defendant, and the Court being fully adviec in the premises: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be vacated, and that this matter be dismissed with prejudice, each party to pay her or jN oven attorney's fees and costs. DONE at Eag1c, Colorado, this.v day of 12007. ITHE COURT: UMC JUDGE/ MAGISTRATE