The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 030105i, Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission AVON Meeting March 1St, 2005 a^po Meetings Held At: Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road 5:00 pm Commission Work Session (Discussion of Items on Agenda) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - (Please note that all times provided are estimates only) I. Call to Order at 5:30 pm II. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda: Approval of the February 151", 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes VI. Discussion with Mayor Wolfe: Follow up discussion of P&Z and Council work session. VII. Minor Project — Windows/Addition (5:50pm — 6:05pm) Property Location: Lot 38, Block 32, Wildridge Subdivision/4560 Flat Point Applicants/Owners: Susan & James Dreisbach Description: Susan and James Dreisbach have submitted a Minor Project application to change the roof pitch on a portion of a roof at their duplex. This change in roof pitch would facilitate the addition of additional windows and may enhance their views facing south. The roof pitch would change from a 6:12 pitch to a 2:12 pitch for an area measuring approximately 275 square feet. The Residential Design Guidelines do not support 2:12 pitch roofs. VIII. Sketch Design — (6:05pm — 6:15pm) Property Location: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540 Beaver Creek Blvd. Applicant/Owner: Davis Partnership Architects/Daniel Ritsch Description: The applicant, Davis Partnership Architects, is proposing a multi -family project on this lot. Two options have been submitted for review. Option 1 is proposing 19 units (13 dwelling units and 6 accommodation units). Option 2 is proposing 13 dwelling units. The applicant would like feedback on the concept plan prior to initiating a zoning application for either option. VIX. Sketch Design — Duplex (6:15pm — 6:30pm) Property Location: Lot 68, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/4223 Wildridge Road West Applicant/Owner Stephen Turner Description: The applicant is proposing a duplex on this 5.24 -acre property. The lot is a steep downhill lot on Wildridge Road West and faces the June Creek Drainage on the western border of the Wildridge PUD. As proposed, the property would be accessed through an access easement on the developed property to the south (Lot 69). Building materials include stone, timber, and stucco. Posted on February 25` , 2005 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main entrance bulletin board • On the Internet at http://www.avon.org / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions X. Sign Design — City Market (6:30pm — 6:45pm) Property Location: Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/72 B.C. Place Applicant Dave Betts, Store Manager Description: The applicant, Dave Betts — Store Manager, is proposing an advertisement sign near the main entrance to the City Market grocery store. The sign measures 30 square feet (5' x 6') and consists of wood, metal, and glass. This sign is strictly for advertisement and includes an area for current sales at King Soopers/City Market stores. XI. Final Design — Single -Family (6:45pm — 7:OOpm) Property Location: Lot 76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5651 Wildridge Road East Applicant/Owner: AJA Studio PC/Ray Verlinde Description: The applicant is proposing a single-family residence on this duplex -zoned .55 -acre lot. The sketch design was reviewed by the Commission at their December 7,2004 meeting. The proposed residence has a maximum building height of 32.5'. The proposed materials include stucco finish, wood siding, asphalt shingles and corrugated metal roofing, and stone veneer. XII. Other Business - (7:00pm — 7:15pm) Property Location: Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2520 Old Trail Applicant/Owner Bob Mach Description: Bob Mach submitted a Minor Project to eliminate the wrap around portion of a deck and to reduce the size of the deck on the house (currently unifier construction) by approximately 126 square feet. This application was denied at the Commission's February 15, 2005 meeting and was appealed to the Town Council. The Council remanded the decision back to the Commission for further review in order for the applicant to explore alternative design solutions. Mr. Mach has resubmitted with another design option for the west elevation of the structure. XIII. Adjourn (7:15pm) Posted on February 25", 2005 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main entrance bulletin board • On the Internet at http://www.avon.oro / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions r Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2005 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Smith. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. V. Consent Agenda Commissioner Karow motioned for the approval of the Minutes from the February 1st, 2005, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; Commissioner Didier seconded and the motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Savage abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.. VI. Special Review Use — Drive through Bank — PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lot 22-13, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/245 Chapel Place (Chapel Square, Building C) — Resolution 05-02 Applicant/Owner's Representative: Greg Gastineau Description: Greg Gastineau is requesting a Special Review Use (SRU) Permit to .allow for the use of a drive -up teller window for the future site of a Wells Fargo Bank. The drive -up teller would gain access just south of the Outback Steakhouse Monument sign at the access road behind City Market. Drive -up teller windows are not specifically allowed in the Chapel Square PUD, therefore a SRU permit is required. This agenda item is a Public Hearing. Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report to the Commission and asked for an additional condition be added to the Staff Report that the Applicant should apply for a Minor Subdivision to remove easements along the property line. Commissioner Didier questioned the property line issue and the driveway width. Greg Gastineau approached the podium as representative for the Applicant. He commented that he has read the Staff Report and can adequately address the CADocuments and SettingsUatieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK2\021505.D0C Page I of 7 A issues including the property line. He continued with the length of the driveway as an issue of entrance and exit and not stacking. No public response. Public Hearing Opened Public Hearing Closed Commissioner review was positive to the project. Commissioner Struve questioned the commercial and public lanes and expressed the public convenience was a good factor. Commissioner Evans commented that the project meets the criteria for Special Review Use, it meets the Town's zoning codes, and the use is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan and it was compatible with adjacent uses. Commissioner Savage motioned for approval of Item VI, Special Review Use — Drive through Bank, Property Location: Lot 22-B, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/245 Chapel Place (Chapel Square, Building C) — Resolution 05-02, with staff's recommendations 1-3, plus the addition of the property line condition. Commissioner Trueblood seconded and the motioned passed unanimously. VII. Sketch Design — Commercial Building Addition Property Location: Lot 22-B, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/245 Chapel Place (Chapel Square, Building C) Applicant/Owner's Representative: Greg Gastineau Description: In conjunction with a Special Review Use (SRU) application, the applicant is proposing a sketch design plan to add a canopy and associated drive through lanes for a drive up banking facility. The proposed drive through would be located on the former "chapel" site, behind the City Market grocery store. All materials and colors of the canopy would match the existing building to the south (Lot 22-A), and the bank would occupy the entire first floor of the building. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Evans questioned the parking code and its relation to the drive up situation. Eric Heidemann commented that if the parking spaces from the Chapel Square were in surplus and it granted through a mixed-use clause when Chapel Square was created. Commissioner Struve questioned the type of classification of the structure and it was voiced that it classified as B occupancy - Business. Greg Gastineau approached the podium as representative of the Applicant. He mentioned that he saw no issues with Staff Report or the recommendations but questioned Recommendation No. 5 of the staff report regarding the signage. Matt Pielsticker responded that signage should be presented at Final Design. CADocuments and SettingsUatiebV-ocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\0LK2\021505.D0C Page 2 of 7 Mr. Gastineau continued with the easement and transformer were property of Holy Cross Energy and his meetings with them concluded that a 6 -foot increased width, 3 feet on both sides, of the canopy would straddle the transformer. Holy Cross Energy would vacate the transformer, turned over to a private splice vault for the electrical underground and accessible by manhole, move the easement over to the north and place the transformer in the landscape area. Mr. Gastineau was consulting with his architects to provide at Final Design the concerns of Holy Cross Energy for Commission approval. Mr. Gastineau continued that trees, which would be removed, would be relocated within the property perhaps on the island created by the drive thru lanes. Commissioner Didier commented that the flat roof was a concern and felt that arches may enhance the project. Mr. Gastineau replied that most roofs in Chapel Square were flat and the square design was for vehicle clearance. Commissioner Evans mentioned that the arch could not be created in this location. Commissioner Evans continued that the roof color could be more appealing with the black removed and replaced with an earth tone and he continued that the lighting was a concern and recommended recess fixtures. Commissioner Trueblood commented that signage redundancy might be an issued. Mr. Gastineau presented to the Commission the proposed signage that still required Wells Fargo Corporate approval. VIII. Minor Modification Property Location: Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2520 Old Trail Road, Applicant/Owner: Bob Mach Description: Bob Mach has submitted a Minor Project for a design change to his single-family project that is currently under construction in Wildridge. The application proposes to eliminate the wrap around portion of the deck and to reduce the size of the deck on the house by approximately 126 square feet. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Didier asked what the reasoning for the deck elimination. The applicant was not presented and the application was opened up for commissioner review. Commissioner Savage began the discussion by commenting that this issue had previously addressed by the Commission and voiced that Mr. Mach is looking for this modification since he changed the design feature without Commission approval and now is seeking approval for another design feature. In other words, Mr. Mach put a fireplace where it didn't belong and now he needed to wrap a deck around that elevation and it presents a fire hazard from the exhaust of the fireplace. Commissioner Evans commented that commissioner rationale should focus on design guideline standards. Commissioner Struve voiced that the visual of the CADocuments and SettingsUatieb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\021505.DOC Page 3 of 7 fireplace bump out required the deck. Commissioner Karow commented that the firebox bump out and the wrap around deck help the code by adding additional materials and satisfies design review considerations. Commissioner Trueblood asked to abstain from this project due to previous conversation with the applicant. Commissioner Evans agreed with Commissioner Struve and his recollection of the original submittal. West elevation approval at previous design review and does not believe that it is in conformance. Commissioner Evans continued that the fireplace bump out is approximately 24 to 30 inches off the wall and with the deletion of the deck, there is no bump out grounding, its an appendage stuck on the wall and makes no sense architecturally. At the time of the last review of this project, the Commission approved the two new fireplace bump outs, one on the west elevation and one on the east elevation that came out on the ground and granted approval on the west elevation with the condition that the deck remain in place and wrap around the project. Commissioner Savage motioned for denial of Item VII, Minor Modification, Lot 45C Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2520 Old Trail Road, Applicant/Owner: Bob Mach, with Commissioner Struve seconding the motion. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Karow opposing and Commissioner Trueblood abstaining due to exparte contact with the applicant. XI. Comprehensive Plan Update Description: Distribution of the February 9th Public Review Draft of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff will provide the Commission with a summary of proposed changes to the content, organization, and format of the Draft Comprehensive Plan.' Staff will also update the Commission on the scheduled open house and upcoming public hearing dates. No action required. Eric Heikemann presented his memo to the Commission. Dominic Mauriello, representing Vail Resorts, approached the podium to address his comments that were distributed in letterform to the Commission. Mr. Mauriello commented that the "Red House" be eliminated as a historical structure from the Comprehensive Plan as it does not lie within the Town of Avon boundaries and his clients are concerned with the "gateway" image and may be prone to deed this building to the Town of Avon at some point. Commissioner Evans voiced that the "Red House" did not present any cultural or historical relevancy to the Town of Avon. However, Commissioner Evans pointed out that the Town via the Comprehensive Plans has the right to give guidance and recommendations regarding parcels of land that are not within the boundaries of the Town. Other Business: Eric Heidemann voiced to the Planning and Zoning Commission the concerns of the Town Council concerns regarding fencing in the Design Guidelines. Tambi C Documents and SettingsUatieb\Local Settings\Tetnporary Internet Files\OLK2\021505.DOC Page 4 of 7 Katieb commented that in a Joint Session between Town Council and Planning and Zoning Commission, the subject of fences was opened. Mr. Xatieb mentioned that the guidelines needed to be strengthened with regard to fences and wanted commissioner input prior to proceeding. Commissioner Evans questioned the goal of Town'Council in this area. Commissioner Karow voiced that clarity was the issue in the fencing guidelines and continued with the his recollection of the background that was in the original Wildridge PUD to allow the deer to roam to per the desires of the National Forest Service. Commissioner Didier commented that there would need to be areas that would conform to fencing such as Eaglebend due to the railroad in its backyard. Commissioner Evans reiterated the need for clarification and direction from Town Council on the issue of fencing. Commissioner Struve mentioned to the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan include a comment on the 420 acres, West Avon Parcel, to be clear to the Forest Service that it be developed as a recreational parcel. Commissioner Karow voiced that other adjacent parcels be reviewed and documented in the Plan. Mrs. Bob Mach approached the podium, apologizing that her day-care parents were late in picking up, to understand the denial of Mr. Mach's Modification Application and to voice her opposition to the wrap around deck as a privacy issue for the duplex next door. Bob Mach approached the podium with apologies for arriving late due to a "crack-up" on Nottingham Road and asked for understanding of the denial of his application. Commissioner Evans explained to the Machs that it would take a motion to re -open the decision of the Commission regarding this application. Commissioner Evans continued that the application was denied with a 4 to 1 vote; Commissioner Trueblood abstained due to an exparte contact that he felt would exclude him from voting on the application. The consensus of the four commissioners that voted on denial that, at the time of the last review of this project, there were numerous items re -approached for approvals after the fact and after things had been changed. At that point in time, the Planning and Zoning Commission had made a number of concessions with regard to the design features of the home. Commissioner Evans continued that specifically two items that were approved at the last project review, 2 new firebox bump outs with one on the west elevation and one on the east elevation, and the denial of the deck wrap around on the west elevation, which was to show support for the bump out that was added by the builder without prior approval from the Commission. It only made sense to have this bump out there if there is something to support it. Right now, this bump out is hanging in mid air with no grounding and no support and that is not supported by the Design Guidelines. The maintaining of the deck as it wraps around as originally proposed and approved by in the Final Design Review for this project adds that base and grounding to make it look as if something is supporting that bump out. Based on previous criteria, the anchoring and base of the bump out was again discussed and decided by four members of the commission that the deck was needed there 00ocuments and Settings\tkatieb\Local Setlingffemporary Internet Files\OLK2\021505.DOC Page 5 of 7 0 to have the design make sense and look like it is actually grounded and supported by something. Mr. Mach voiced that if a buyer shows up; this buyer should have the ultimate say in this issue and not an appointed board. Mr. Mach continued by saying that it was his property and no one else can see it. The Machs argued the decision of the Commission. Commissioner Evans again repeated the format and foundation of this denial and mentioned a recourse would be to appeal to Town Council the Planning and Zoning Commission decision. Commissioner Trueblood questioned Lot 61 and the changes that were proposed by the owner, and asked why the Commission was not informed of the condemnation earlier or a Commission person was not invited to sit in on the Executive Session by the Council. Tambi Katieb responded that it was not within his authorization to advise the Commission on the matter until it an offer was made to the Owner of the subject property, also noting the frustration of the applicant for Lot 61 with the timing. Mr. Trueblood was requested to discuss Commissioner presence at Executive Session with the elected policy body. Commissioner Trueblood voiced a failure of communication between Town Council to P&Z, stating that the physical arrangement of the joint work session was not conducive to a meaningful dialogue since he felt Council had to speak down to the Commissioners. Commissioner Karow questioned the condemnation criteria and process, and the proposed use. Commissioner Evans mentioned that Al Williams was offered compensation for the acquisition and has until 3/8 to respond. Commissioner Evans noted that rationale behind the acquisition appeared to be a logical location for transit, adjacent to the railroad. Commissioner Struve wanted on record to show appreciation to Commissioner Evans for his professional approach to a difficult situation regarding the developer presentation at the joint work session meeting. Commissioner Didier acknowledged the value of the joint work session and thought it still represented a value to the developers to hear the concerns. Commissioner Evans appreciated the session to better understand the Council vision and viewpoints on Main Street and Lot 61. Commissioner Trueblood mentioned the ease with which the Gates project approval had occurred, and the new difficulty for Lot 61 regarding the timeline of the project that has been pushed out. Mr. Katieb mentioned that a sketch plan application could be on the table within the month since the Lot 61 project does have entitlements at this time, and that it was up to the owner and developers to determine whether a better project for the Town and themselves would cause a PUD amendment. Commissioner Trueblood questioned the vision of Main Street and whether it is reflected in the new Comp Plan. Tambi Katieb commented that the Town Center plan considers the project and the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the public improvements required. CADocuments and Settings\tkatieb\Local SettingsUempotary Internet Files\OLK2\021505.DOC Page 6 of 7 Mr. Katieb continued with an update on anticipated Lot C PUD applications and the forthcoming Confluence submission. IX. Adjourn Commissioner Evans made the motion to adjourn. Commissioner Trueblood seconded and the motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Andrew Karow Vice Chairman CADocuments and SettingsUatieb\Local SettingMemporary Internet Files\OLK2\021505.130C Page 7 of 7 4 Staff Report MINOR MODIFICATION V� C O L O R A D O March 1, 2005 Planning& Zoning Commission meeting Report date February 24, 2005 Project type Modification to Final Design — Roof Change Legal description Lot 38, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning PUD — 2 Units Address 4560 Flat Point Introduction Susan and James Dreisbach have submitted a Minor Project application to change the roof pitch on a portion of a roof at their duplex. This change in roof pitch would facilitate the addition of additional windows and may enhance their views facing south: The roof pitch would change from a 6:12 pitch to a 2:12 pitch for a roof portion measuring approximately 275 square feet. The Residential Design Guidelines do not support 2:12 pitch roofs. Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design Review Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with provisions of the Town of Avon Zoning Code. This application conforms to all Zoning Code requirements. The maximum building height remains unchanged. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project appears to generally comply with the goals and policies of the Town. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed Improvements. The project complies with existing development rights as approved in the PUD. 4. The design plan Is in compliance with all design plan submittal requirements. Residential Site Development: No changes to the site design are proposed with this application. e Residential Building Design: o Design Character. The Guidelines state that building design should take advantage of solar gain and view corridors. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 38, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — Roof Design Modifications March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3 If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Att: Exterior Elevations & Building Cross Section Letter from applicants, dated February 7'h, 2005 Letter from duplex neighbor (east side of building), dated February 7'h, 2005 Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 s 0 z O ¢ w w � C/) LU � ) �o )§ { / } e\� A ®- � ` ~ C « LLI � d:) )e § \j ]§ ] LUG �x §§� §§ \/$ )2\ A2E< z O ¢ w w � C/) LU � lw ■ q \\ §§ \@ ) %$\ (\ \� °E 2 j( \ 466J U} /� 2/ } $ moi $§ §\ ))/ a3 ] ` §) § /� �2= #• � <X! dee ;LI o S f»� fm f/ 2(7 6 §§§ ))0 $ �~ �� °] 3\ §@k r§ �qb 322 a§ )2 }22 )n f /! \ RECEIVED F E B 0 7 2005 February 7, 2005 immunity Development Dear Community Development Board, We are submitting plans and a minor project application for a modest update of our duplex in Wildridge at 4560 Flat Point, West Unit. Attached is a letter of support from our duplex neighbor. There is a vacant lot adjacent to our property to the west, which is owned by a person in England, Consequently, we have not been able to discuss this modification with them. It does not appear that any other neighbors would potentially be impacted by the proposed remodel. Please contact us, the architect, or the structural engineers if you have additional questions. Thank you for helping our community develop in a thoughtful way. Sincerely, Jim and Susan Dreisbach February 7, 2005 Dear Community Development Board, I am writing in regard to the remodel plans submitted by my duplex neighbors, Jim and Susan Dreisbach, at 4560 Flat Point Road, West Unit, in Wildridge. I have seen their plans, dated February 4, 2005, which document that their proposed changes will not negatively impact my property or views. I support their changing the line of their roof to accommodate additional windows to the south in order to extend their view of the valley. Sincerely, Charles Sawyer 4560 Flat Point - EastUnit RECEIVED FEB 0 7 2005 Community Development Staff Report Sketch Desi 7vi �n COLORADO March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date February 23, 2005 Project type Duplex Legal description Lot 68, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning PUD — 2 Dwelling Units (Duplex) Address 4235 Wildridge Road West Introduction The applicant is proposing a duplex on this 5.24 -acre property. The lot is a steep downhill lot on Wildridge Road West and faces west to the June Creek Drainage on the border of the Wildridge PUD and Forest Service. As proposed, the property would be accessed through an access easement on the developed property to the south (Lot 69). This access easement was platted on the Wildridge Final Subdivision Plat, Replat Number 2. The property is divided in half by a 30' Utility Easement. Additionally, a significant portion of the lot underneath the Utility Easement contains a platted non -developable area. This application proposes to keep all development on the top portion of the lot, above the 30' Utility Easement. Building materials for this duplex include: stone, timber, and stucco. Numerous retaining walls are required to gain access to this difficult lot. There is approximately 300 feet of driveway required to access the north unit (Unit B) of the structure. Staff Comments The design of the proposed duplex appears generally conform to the Town of Avon Residential Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines. The site design recognizes the steep existing grades (ranging from 35% - 70%) and the building is cited in a linear fashion to work with these extreme grades. Site disturbance appears to be minimized with the proposed layout. Site access is through an access easement on the neighboring property to the South. The driveway grades are consistent with the Design Guidelines. Grades equal 4% for the initial descent off Wildridge Road and quickly reach 100/6 slope for the main portion of the driveway. Driveway grades diminish when approaching the structure to allow for vehicle turnarounds. The building height appears to exceed the maximum allowable height requirement of thirty-five (35') feet. This is of particular concern on some of the large west facing ridgelines and this must be confirmed at the time of final design submittal. The massing of the building and proposed building materials is generally consistent with the Guidelines. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 68, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Sketch Design March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3 Existing and proposed grading must be clarified at final design. All existing grades must be dashed lines extending through the building, while all proposed grade lines must be solid lines. Additionally, the ridge heights for all roof ridges must be indicated on the final design submittal. This duplex development appears to be designed in a manner that creates an integrated structure on the site, with enough variety and architectural interest to distinguish itself from a single family home. The design appears to conform to this duplex guideline. As stated above, various retaining walls are required to gain access to the site. All retaining walls appear to conform to the definition of "non-structural,' ranging in height from The sketch plan as presented generally conforms to the Town's residential design guidelines. However, staff has identified issues that need further clarification prior to submittal of the final design plan. These issues include: 1) Existing (dashed lines) & proposed (solid lines) grading, 2) retaining wall cross sections provided for multi -tier walls, 3) driveway drainage details, 4) Design Review Considerations The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria: A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning Code. B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines. The Commission will take no formal action on the sketch plan application. Rather, direction on the design will be given to the applicant from Staff and the Commission to incorporate in the final design application. Full size plan sets will be available for you to provide written comments and guidance to the applicant at your March 1 st meeting. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticke Planner Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 • • 0 • Lot 68, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Sketch Design March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3 Standing on Access Easement looking at Approximate Driveway entrance On Wildridge Road looking south towards entrance and Lot 69 Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax(970)949-5749 7 VwvPn 04--?- r' -:a U9 LB °P-9-D'.PI "W3 O Q O W N a — v a • W BY9t'9Z6'W 1 •-9'0'd F p Y Q W C A....ne..... y C ~ Olf�' jo^ N 3 P f� $ p g L37 4 p e jul! O 0 = / `� / / (}'':Jai'' I C3 O U -j Y � rl,j• _ _ ?r;�Y li 3 / J GO W 4 �?,: l ltif,�'A rir(I n: / \ ` Iri of 11�''t rr• v`t; � '^ � +yr. ; �}•t I I � I 1: x ±,"� ;i`,,(•"Ij'n.4 ,h. r'+ d!.3— i t• f••.`; I � ui7L"i 8� I (!','?!:s.. A�`'i�.�'s'r'1'�' I�'� ' a' Y•�t+, I I I I I I I .: t%'"•' r iS•i f,r. q; a K',;'v' 7 I I I T�.)�.h�. h'(;1.'�:�rf� ,; �YI'i,4'✓,..,y —1 I I 1 t I I II 22 vi YZ• r Tlr: �i ��:l:�r'��:.}• .� i��. I I � 1 I 1 I �"?H .N Y/•�r pf.%Y'L?; 'i•I � _ I I \� � _ I � I I 1 d+'�fyl'j(f'•!'� t":yj„+�, • <' ' I —'F1 M� 1 I\ 1 I I I y„. tit'.•%Y,. I T��I f �:S Cs�,l•I,t�ll fi!�y I \ , \ , \ =t{'C�s'i:.5>rti'"'i, iti?i �k�rr'i''{:: •$ I 1 / � �\ 1 \ \ 1 I I 'Snh, f'luv:'y� �(.'•dr4•!yii�� 'hy 1 �/ 1 \ � � \1 '1 \\ I \, II I I`.�:ri'r}•,{! j.'";:zi4�:'I,��,�y.,.,,��yyy,}�. � \ �\ \\ y1 11 \ , i I �'j�+�`,•Ss:tP'{^�v{'%'sh°3:” ;�:; 1'i;�,;t�.. \ 1, \ \ 1 1 � 1 1 I yi;•:�a f>y V:: Ii; u1. 1 4.. \ 1 \ \ I I 1 0 uiu ui 4• I ;'i:".r'•.r'sl i�„*'�i:!';?;ly�,5:�%`t�jr, ;rri,',i.�:j>: \\' \ \ 11\ \ T 'r"'y;;}�r?:.9i1',..� �,r, .y i.r.l I•i,�,:. s��.%.; .a+`i". \' — .l- —r'\— I \ r. , j,l nr.�• r�'•', �'��ii 54' rtir� r; 1 1 1 I i'�.,� .t� f�' ♦+, r,,,55 a's�'til'•'• li f.t 1 1 '^ I Q I I ;i' ('r.�F��{S<^r y �,:.• .: ''`+y�,� A,, 1 , 1 1 1� ',,0"V:.j!>i:k�;,,ri'f:�/Ll'J.F�'ti4•Flti ��r)�'1�,.: \ , 1 I I 'a G,�rr j,� aFy,. 1; r 1'•r:95 I I I '<�:,, •';7.�:, k',. iii r :t $,� �„ i.C; t,�si; � I I II 1 1 I ,,'�. vT ✓r ,� ' 1t �:% 2" t,4'; �+M1 I': ,:V �; ,' I 1 1 1 1 ,,',(( 4.N,?(�h`L:i:+: {it I Y1u� 1 1 r•'r'`'^,;�'9�yS't,. � ' T � •o '.� . II\ / j I 1 ' r I �y�i ;ti+s�.:,'•��';.4i.,�'.n... pI. I , I �� 1 I I I coI 'IV 11 ('1�\ II'L 11J/'I I 'll 1 11 11 II �I II �1 � I� I— JI I Q— I I I I 11 IF— 1.11 I 1 1 \ 111 1 I W p Q t I I N I I I I 1 I C }1 • j {~d BM9Z'OZ6 4d Lf9lB opaSOB[-'°0d W BrrV'9Z6'OL6—ouoyR SOB[ -"IL Y tl _ iA�•,O �n� �.i. An�.eeiR. n.ni.n�,,:V ~ OII" �� N W ` Lu = V O C � N U C O — U Q W of IL /I To g / I / / I / S4tn ONO O / :a,•`�i(' qv } we 0 A'..% k It fl AK.Y. o 4 II II �^�jj:v J I •rr �, v � co I� x �Air''a'r... ♦rti;i}' a .?tiii•N`: 8 I �' I i ,��%/,3�r•.�.;y,4 Js;rr a' ".rn''"aA� I I II � I I "r{ /'V S.Y. 1•Y:l7f"�..�• ��,,�� a I I �i5: �•'�. .�e;T.e:y l.y,Y' M11 I�fj�t i. I t 4�is I •� �yw r°•''� I � �I— I t I I ��?'`k�I�?�•�' h ;� I ld� I 1 j I I I O I ;y,� 'r�kr 1%'r 'n• iy/I 01 I II I� 11 I ,:��„car'/•?” Y�J c.(��, '� 1•. I �� — _ — � I R i>4•'.,.;I�.��;;'�}{n:': I I \ �\— 11 II � I I I I I I I .,{i•F�`;Yy�yf' ;f�i x;�1'?J�'r�'%1��r I / \ 1\ \\ \may � \ \ 1 I I I 11�."%5�:�•}:1: :';e.� �'F>i•,i�ttr'I'rlJ.': �!.,!:. . \ 1 , , '. '� \ 1 I I � W wv�wO4vnry.l�ow:° ZC918 opwoio�vp,wp3 F dW 3 N SY) ` T a 9"r 9Z6'016 - —W x*1 *O d Q = CCCY O } _V 0 cL W` 9 '� O LO F a p V F� 6P R O Delr ,; < J e C p� t 3 LL s C V 0 C V N Y— C w F_ Lt_ Q O d. c i 00 p a 1 p w � N guj uj� w J LL i5 LLJJ Q w w w 00 goo Do 3 0000 N Fim a ®I �I 1 1 1 1 1 1 __J •9,[ 111111 --- ____LLL111 O E _ ❑ .Ed 3 a� �o .a 4 0 _ o NOILtltlVddS 11Nf1 —_— _—_—_—_—__ Mz a a ~ i°"'g°^O'I"°W'luw:a LC9l8 olmxge�'ep,wp3 W"9L6'OC6 —W 5081 x^8'O'd O Q W M 3� N � � i 1 �6��a0 i x�.l.!• o�A. fel x>�V Q ~ W� ��]'. y hW Am O 7 � ~7 u4 � .�C0 L a s = ~ gEE < 0 Q o u_- ! C V c Illi aO N I 2 V c H �U= I 9 I I I I I I I N P I � y r N O` --------- ; I , 8 Q I W LL. Q ZCie _ o�aQ _ ---------1 � I I I I I I 1 1 I _ V y, LjS .s•.i 3 4 !r b v I o a (D00 o a FFr .f•,( r---- I J p_ _ _ V 1 2 I I I O e e ----Nouvavdas�n - -------- .P,SZ 0 . [•,fl dl b 0 ❑ 01 r Vw'!°"O4—P' pow:• ZC91B °P—n "PJ—P3 O C W N 3 m C Br" 9Z6'M "" 4d SIDBI "^B'O'd �' Co v F p 'V SR = N ` < J 8 3 k P y N g< -1 1 1 rl i All Z cu o ..= LV oO� LL- Q-------------------- 11S-I 11S—Il --- --- �z� � m ILoser,el YI b I•,Y ----_ 00 4 � I I � I Qo g .P.6 O oq� ,Zl N ,O N O _ ce V W I CG W W I °0 w33 I I I _ I Vwpnpyucp W v -Now:• ZC918 °P°JOI°�'+W""P3 P"9Zd'OZ6 `-.,w SOOI *°B'O'd .n0 .r. � O F = r d aR ` �• ( Q H = W W �^ N °EtE� C �` 6 MM _a W (L�. X � k g ! 7,1 PJul {C t d 3 LL Vt < .o 4 V C o_ Ir--------------------- 1" o J 1" agz� A6i "Et ,tl a ❑ ❑ � b L— — — — — — — — — — — J ----- - - - - -- 001 I EDI I I I o0 r----, I I I I z1 v 1 � I I O I — Q— 1 I I I I I LU Z �S CUM Lm:o�no .a91 4 8 ll CC ce LU LU a N � a Bvt4'9ZE'OL6 "-Nd SOPI �.9'O'd � � W �. � �y Y F • t 7,1, Y N 8 < n �^ 4 8 ll CC ce LU LU a N � a Yw'po.p4"DN' _ SM 9L6 W `—w 1081 •°9'O'd % p W a m02 wiz 3 a4- a ; z d s N� 1 J Q O P. isr� _ v N < d 3 �- v � C a . � � .P.Z z�� N W V Z L. W o -' I IL �z"1 d. 11 I'll I'll 11 il IIITII Hill n� 11 11 Hill I III ft I LIJU --------------------------- ----- - ------- - b 11-1 Hill 11 1111 Q till b .P.Z c V o � c H V = LL. cgQ W of cgz� 0. s 0 z m .� 0 0 7-1 Wz 0 Z � � I � I I I LU 8�� I g�Q$ � �� i G, 8 �1 H�5 6 uj W 0 © © .(•,8 I V k°^O'P'DW `Row:a Lf918 °P°i1°:�"P10^`P3 0 O W BvtV'9id'O(6`w°yd SOBI �°B'O'd H da v D-Mli s O V s 0 z m .� 0 0 7-1 Wz 0 Z � � I � I I I LU 8�� I g�Q$ � �� i G, 8 �1 H�5 6 uj W 0 © © .(•,8 I r .Y,B V W Bt1V'9Z6'OC6 ^ wayd SOBI *oB'O'd SM 9Z6+mp�. -4d LC9lB °P°wlo� XoG'O'3 I.i..�,•, i •A.,,.re�,,•n,.�nnl ,. n,y O H e d H p 1� j6� i z d Q N o W N W M 3 _ y .21 < L C O O W V x V W A� C4 a ee o AulN $ W W e o r a II 3 `^ V N < n ion I= V C 0 C z 2 �- � c V = `_Q 0 W o -' �z;� IL t,s All 31I! ;SII LL, w 4 a .Y,B a � N z 'n • LO a 4 a Ir Staff Report Sketch Desi f /7 AVON nCOLD RASO March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date February 24, 2005 Project type Multi -family Legal description Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Zoning Residential High Density - RHD Address 540 Beaver Creek Blvd. Introduction The applicant, Davis Partnership Architects, is proposing a multi -family project on this lot. Two options have been submitted for review and general comments. Option 1 is proposing 19 units (13 dwelling units plus 6 accommodation units). This option would require a rezoning, which is discussed later in the report. Option 2 is proposing 13 "whole ownership" units, which is based on the current entitlements of the property (RHD). Each option is proposing two building footprints. Staff will first address Option 2 in this report as we feel this option generally meets the requirements of the RHD zone district. Option 1 will be discussed second. Background Previous owners of Lot 12 obtained final design approval from the Town of Avon in 1998, but the final design approval has since lapsed and the property is under new ownership. In May 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a final design application for Lot 12 based upon the following finding: (1) the project's massing, height and architecture are incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The applicant revised the final design plans and the project was approved in July 1998. The revisions include the following: Reduction of massing and height. The number of stories has been reduced frorr five (six including the garden level) to three (four including the garden level). Vertical steps in the south elevation further reduce the project's massing. Reduction of building footprint area by 3,000 square feet. Increased compatibility with adjacent projects in terms of materials and a reduced amount of glazing on the south elevation. Staff mentioned the 1998 final design application because there may be similar issues the Commission may want to address with this application as with the 1998 application (see attached 1998 Staff reports). It appears that massing, height and architecture were the major issues with the 1998 plans. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 12, Block 2, BMBC Sketch Design Beaver Creek Vista March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 4 Staff Comments The design of the proposed multi -family residence (Option 2) appears to generally conform to the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial. and Industrial Design Review Guidelines. The proposed building height appears to be consistent with the residential design guidelines. The maximum building height of the structure measures 54 feet, which is less than the maximum allowable of 60 feet. The maximum lot coverage of 50% has been adhered to. The applicants are proposing 12, 641 square feet (42%) of lot coverage. Option 2 Staff Comments The building materials proposed with the current application appear to be of high quality and the building design would blend in well with the neighborhood's "alpine" character. Staff does not have any issues with the building materials or architecture. The RHD zone district allows a maximum of 50 percent site coverage and this project is proposing 42 percent site coverage. On the Summary Sheet, the applicant states there will be 64 percent site coverage. This percentage was calculated including asphalt surfaces in addition to the building footprint. Section 17.08.750 of the Municipal Codes states that 'site coverage means the portion of a site covered by buildings, excluding roof or balcony overhangs, measured at the exterior walls or supporting members of the building at ground level.' Asphalt surfaces are not included as part of site coverage. The site coverage for this proposal is 42 percent, with the two buildings encompassing 12,641 square feet of Lot 12 (site coverage for the main building is 8,515 square feet and the duplex unit is 4,126 square feet). The issue Staff has with Option 2 is whether the unattached duplex building is necessary and if the two units could be incorporated into the main building. Removing the duplex building footprint would decrease the amount of site disturbance (from 42 percent site coverage to 28 percent site coverage) and may preserve a larger view corridor for adjacent properties. Although the site coverage for the proposed two buildings is under the maximum allowable of 50 percent, Staff would prefer only one building footprint on this site. The massing of this project as proposed is excessive for this site. The zoning for Lot 12 allows for a maximum of 13 dwelling units and 13 are proposed. The zoning allows for a maximum height of 60 feet and it appears the maximum height proposed is 54 feet. The final design plans denied in 1998 proposed a 13 unit - 6 stories high building. The applicant revised the plans and was approved for a 13 unit - 4 story high building. Option 2 in the current application is proposing two buildings, one that is 4 stories high with 11 units and a duplex unit that is 2 stories high. The adjacent properties vary from 2 to 3 stories high. The landscaping requirements in the RHD zone district require a minimum of 25 percent of the site to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing to landscape 36 percent of the lot. On the Site/Landscaping Plan (Sheet L1.0) it appears landscaping is proposed outside of the Lot 12 property boundary and within the Beaver Creek Blvd. right-of-way. Landscaping in the Town right-of-way is prohibited. Removing the landscaping from the right-of-way will decrease the proposed 36 percent, but it appears landscaping will still be above the required 25 percent. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 12, Block 2, BMBC Sketch Design Beaver Creek Vista March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 4 On the Site/Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.0) it appears parking is proposed within the 25' building setback. A variance will be required prior to or along with the Final Design application in order for parking to be allowed within the 25' building setback along Beaver Creek Blvd. Staff does not believe a hardship exists on this lot for a variance to be approved and thus would not recommend approval to the Commission for a parking variance request. On Sheet A1.0 (parking floor plan) stacked parking is proposed for spaces 1-8, with no aisle. The Town does not permit a parking design of this type. The applicant is proposing 37 parking spaces for this project. It appears that with the two spaces removed from the 25' building setback and the 4 spaces removed from the parking floor plan (spaces 5-8), the required number of spaces for this project will be deficient by one parking space. 32 total parking spaces would be required for Option 2 and only 31 will be provided. Minimum driveway curb cuts for multi -family projects require a minimum of 20' and maximum of 24'. The applicant is proposing two 22' wide driveway curb cuts. One driveway curb cut is permitted and two are proposed. The Commission must specifically approve additional points of access. Option 1 Staff Comments It does not appear Option 1 meets the Residential High Density (RHD) zoning district requirements. Lot 12 is .69 acres and the RHD zoning district allows a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre. Staff believes this entitles the owner to a maximum of 13 dwelling units to be developed and 19 dwelling units are proposed with Option 1. Also, the owner is proposing "hot beds" for Option 1 and this type of use is neither an 'allowed use' or 'special review use' in the RHD zone district. As submitted, Staff does not support the concept for Option 1 due to the proposed use of "hot beds" and the 19 dwelling units not meeting the RHD zone district requirements. It appears the massing and density of the two buildings would not be compatible with the adjacent properties. If the Option 1 concept were to be pursued, the owners would be required to apply for a rezoning of the property. The Town of Avon does not currently have a zone district to match the density proposed for Option 1 on a lot less than 1 acre. Staff would require the applicant to rezone the property as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and apply for specific development rights. The PUD would be reviewed with the same criteria as this application. Staff believes the massing and density of this option is not compatible with the adjacent properties. Issues to Resolve Prior to Final Design Submittal The sketch plan as presented for Option 2 generally conforms to the Town's residential design guidelines. However, staff has identified several issues that need further clarification prior to submittal of the final design plan. These issues include: (1) the massing of the two buildings appears to be incompatible with the site; (2) the parking floor plan shall be revised with no stacked parking for spaces 1-8; (3) no parking spaces are permitted within the 25' building setback along Beaver Creek Blvd.; (4) landscaping is not permitted in the Town right-of-way; (5) specific approval from the Commission is required for a second curb cut; and (6) it appears the required number of parking spaces is deficient by one space. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12, Block 2, BMBC Sketch Design Beaver Creek Vista March 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 4 Design Review Considerations The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria: A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning Code. B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of the Town of Avon Residential Commercial and Industrial Design Review Guidelines. Staff will prepare a memo to the Commission highlighting anticipated areas of discussion for the submittal materials. The Commission will take no formal action on the sketch plan application. Rather, direction on the design will be given to the applicant from Staff and the Commission to incorporate in the final design application. Staff will provide full plan sets for you to provide written comments and guidance to the applicant at your March 1, 2005 meeting. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4017, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, gi?4-4e<( Kenneth Kovalchik Planner I Att: May 5, 1998 Final Design Staff Report July 7, 1998 Final Design Staff Report Town of Avon Municipal Code Section 17.20.090 — Residential High Density (RHD) Letter dated February 14, 2005 from Davis Partnership Architects Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 14 February 2005 Town of Avon To the Planning and Zoning Commission: Dear Board Members, The Owner of Lot 12 would like to develop the site zoned RHD (Residential High Density). The purpose of this cursory review is to get the best direction for the owner to proceed, given the information put before you today. The previous approved development on this property was planned with surface parking on the northern half of the site and a 6 -story structure facing the lake, on the southern half. (Those plans are included in the back of this package for reference.) In contrast, our plans for Lot 12 place a multi -family structure on the northern half of the site and a "triplex" building on the southern half, whereby minimizing the building mass facing the park and holding back the west edge for the benefit of neighboring sight lines to Beaver Creek. In addition, proposed underground parking and perimeter landscaping will have virtually no impact on the neighboring properties. The zoning regulations call for a minimum lot size of one acre. Lot 12 is 0.689 acres. This lot was however rezoned after the lot size was set and we believe this removes the requirement for the minimum lot size. With 20 dwelling units per acre allowed, we believe that entitles 13 units on the lot. These drawings show two options: "Option 1" includes 19 units, of which 6 are "accommodation" rentals, with the balance being "for sale" residential condos. Option 2 includes 13 "for sale" units, meeting the zoned density requirement. Both options show the same proposed building envelope, site coverage, and landscaping. The previous approved plans had approximately 60% site coverage. Our proposal calculates 64% site coverage. Landscaping, parking, and building heights shown will all meet the Town of Avon zoning regulations. Sincerely, Davis Partnership, PC RECEIVED c E B 1 8 2005 Community Development Scott Nevin, AIA Associate Principal Attachments: Drawings Dated February 15, 2005 Davis Partnership PC., Architects Denver Office: 2301 Blake Street- Suite 100 Denver Colorado 80205-2108 303.861.8555 Fax 303.861.3027' Vail Office: 0225 Main Street - Unit C 101 Edwards Colorado 81632 970.926.8960 Fan 970.926.8961 'Zoning — Zone District Regulations SAME AS ORIGINAL (b) Allowed uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the RMD District: (1) Multiple -family dwellings, including townhouses, condominiums, apartments. (c) Special review uses. (1) Home occupations; (2) Residential bed and breakfasts; (3) Aboveground public utility installa- tions; (4) Churches. (d) Development standards. (1) . Minimum lot sizes: one-half (.5) acre; (2) Maximum building height: forty-eight (48) feet; (3) Minimum building setbacks: Front: twenty-five (25) feet; Side: seven and one-half (7.5) feet; Rear: ten (10) feet; (4) Maximum site coverage: fifty percent (50%); (5) Minimum landscaped area: twenty- five percent (25%); (6) Maximum density: fifteen (15) dwell- ing units per acre of buildable area. (Ord. 91-10 §1(part)) 17.20.090 Residential High Density – RHD. (a) Intention. The Residential High Density District is intended to provide sites for multiple - family dwellings at a density not to exceed twenty (20) dwelling units per acre. til Supp. 3 Section 17.20.080 (b) Allowed uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the RHD District. 17-23 (1) Multiple -family dwellings, including townhouses, condominiums, apartments. (c) Special review uses. (1) Home occupations; (2) Bed and breakfast lodges; (3) On-site rental offices; (4) Aboveground public utility installa- tions; (5) Churches. (d) Development standards. (1) Minimum lot size: one (1) acre; (2) Maximum building height: sixty (60) feet; (3) Minimum building setbacks: Front: twenty-five (25) feet; Side: seven and one-half (7.5) feet; Rear: ten (10) feet; (4) Maximum site coverage: fifty percent (50%); (5) Minimum landscaped area: twenty- five percent (25%); (6) Maximum density: twenty (20) dwell- ing units per acre of buildable area. (Ord. 91-10 § I (per)) G Town of Avon Final Design Staff Report May 5, 1998 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date May 1, 1998 Project type 13 Unit Multi -family Residential Building Legal description Lot 12, Block 2, Benclunark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Zoning Residential High Density (RHD) Address 0540 West Beaver Creek Boulevard Introduction The applicant is proposing a 13 -unit apartment building with two levels of structured parking, and direct access into the building from both parking levels. The proposed building is six stories tall. The project features a large reception lounge, a hot tub area, substantial tenant storage, and two rental offices. Materials include a combination of cedar, stone veneer and stucco siding. The lot is the last remaining undeveloped RHD parcel along West Beaver Creek Boulevard (on the north side of Nottingham Park). The majority of the site gently slopes down to the park, though access from West Beaver Creek Blvd is fairly steep. On February 3, 1998, the Commission conducted a concept review of this project. The Commission commented on the following items: • The project's massing and height compared to neighboring projects. • Inclusion of the manager's apartment into the project's overall density. • The south elevation's compatibility with the rest of the building. • The amount of architectural detailing on the side elevations. • Snow shedding onto the parking structure's driveway. • The amount of viable snow storage area. • The potential for the project to operate as a "condo hotel". Design Review Considerations According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4. 10, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 j:1p&z\staff reports119981050598112b2bcfd2.doc 1 Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, page 2 May 5, 1998, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning Code. Allowed use: The project conforms to the allowed residential use. In response to concern that the project might be operated as a "condo hotel," the project's owners have provided a letter stating this is not their intent (please see attached letter dated April 8, 1998). Density: The Town of Avon Zoning Code specifically indicates that accessory apartments count toward a parcel's maximum allowable density. Therefore, the elimination of the manager's apartment brings the project into conformance with the parcel's allowable density. Lot Coverage: The proposed 38% of building coverage conforms to the 50% maximum. Setbacks: The structure's roof overhangs extend right to both side yard setback lines. Extreme care would be required during construction to ensure the project does not encroach into the setbacks. Easements: No proposed encroachments. Building Height: The largest determined height of 60 feet on the south elevation conforms to the 60 -foot maximum limit. Extreme care would be required during construction to ensure the building does not exceed the maximum allowable height. Grading: All proposed slopes conform with the maximum of 2:1 slope guideline and the proposed driveway grades conform to Town standards. Parking: The 16 surface parking spaces and 15 structured parking spaces exceed the required 30 spaces (2 spaces per unit plus 4 guest spaces). Snow Storage: Staff has determined the effective snow storage equals approximately 1,359 square feet, 40% short of the required 2,983 square feet based upon a total impermeable surface area of 14,914 square feet. Landscaping: Staff recommends additional landscaping to better screen both the parking structure's west elevation and the trash enclosure. The Sign Code also specifies a minimum of landscaping associated with the project identification sign. 2. The conformance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. 3. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed. The proposed types of materials are appropriate for the project and the neighborhood. However, staff has concerns with the application of these materials (see Design Review Consideration #6) 4. The design of site grading and drainage to minimize impacts to adjacent sites, rights-of-way and easements. Staff is concerned that snow storage areas would drain onto neighboring properties. Additionally, engineering review indicates that the proposed detention pond is not required, since the project's impermeable surface area does not exceed 25,000 square feet. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. The parking structure and residential building combine effectively in response to the site's topography. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. Town of Avon Community Development j:\p&z\staff reports\1998\050598\12b2bcfd2.doc (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 /4, Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, page 3 May 5, 1998, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Staff believes the project's massing, height and architecture are not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed structure is significantly more massive than any other project along this portion of the Nottingham Park Residential District. The existing pattern and scale of low, highly articulated buildings allow views both into and out of Nottingham Park. The scale of this project conflicts with this pattern. The perceived six -story height would be twice that of any of the two- to three-story neighboring projects. Staff also believes that the southern elevation should better reflect the immediate neighborhood's "alpine" architecture. The established pattern of low, highly articulated buildings with steeply pitched roofs and dark wood siding interfaces comfortably with the park and creates the immediate neighborhood's "alpine" feel. The dominant windows and application of stucco on the upper portions of the building conflict with the neighborhood's architectural pattern. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. Staff believes the disproportionate mass and height, plus the contrasting architecture conflict with the neighborhood's existing scale and pattern of development. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Staff Recommendation Though the project presents many positive attributes (preservation of a neighboring project's views, structured parking, quality construction and interior amenities) staff believes the overall mass, height and architecture are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this final design. Recommended Motion "I move to deny the final design for the residential project on Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, as depicted on the plan set dated April 29, 1998, based upon the following finding: 1. The project's massing, height and architecture are incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood." If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department. Town of Avon C (970) 748-4030 ppaixstart repores� 1an0wou1oo1 N Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, page 4 May 5, 1998, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Planning & Zoning Commission Action ❑ Approved as submitted XDenied ❑ Approved with conditions (noted below) ❑ Tabled ❑ Withdrawn by applicant Conditions of approval, reasons for tabling or withdrawal of application, or basis for denial (refer to code or guidelines by number): Commissioner Dantas moved to deny Final Design approval for the multifamily residential building proposed for Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek — Subdivision --Beaver Creek Vista, as depicted on the plan set dated April 29, 1998, based upon the following finding: — 1. The project's massing; height and architecture are incompatible with the — surrounding residential neighborhood. Commissioner Klein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. AttgfQ s / CSG Date % 9 "'Sue Railton, Secretary Town of Avon Community Development J:\p8z+staff reports11998\050598\12b2bcfd2.doe (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 41 ,# Town of Avon Final Design Staff Report July 7, 1998 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date July 2, 1998 Project type 13 Unit Multi -family Residential Building Legal description Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Zoning Residential High Density (RHD) Address 0540 West Beaver Creek Boulevard Introduction The applicant has submitted a design for a 13 -unit apartment building. The Commission denied an earlier application for this site, finding that the "project's massing, height, and architecture (were) incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood." The applicant has revised the design in attempt to address the Commission's previous concerns. The revision include the following: • Reduction of massing and height. The number of stories has been reduced from five with a ground level basement to a three with a garden level basement. • Vertical steps in the south elevation further reduce the project's massing. • Reduction of building footprint area by 3,000 square feet. a • Increased compatibility with adjacent projects in terms of materials and a reduced amount of glazing on the southern elevation. Design Review Considerations According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4. 10, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning Code. Allowed use: The project conforms to the allowed residential use. Density: The project conforms to the parcel's allowable density of 13 dwelling units. Lot Coverage: The proposed 38% of building coverage conforms to the 50% maximum. Setbacks: The structure's roof overhangs extend right to both side yard setback lines. Extreme care would be required during construction to ensure the project does not encroach into the setbacks. Easements: No proposed encroachments. Town of Avon Community n•VI (970) 7484030 fax (970) Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, page 2 July 7, 1998, planning & Zoning Commission meeting Building Height: The largest determined height of 48 -feet on the south elevation conforms to the 60 -foot maximum limit. Grading: It appears some graded areas exceed the maximum of 2:1 slope guideline and that some grading extends beyond the property lines. Staff believes these details can be revised at the time of building permit submittal. The proposed driveway grades conform to Town standards. Parking: The 16 surface parking spaces and 14 structured parking spaces conform to the required 30 spaces (2 spaces per unit plus 4 guest spaces). Snow Storage: It appears the project is 322.4 square feet short of the required snow storage area. Staff believes that this relatively small area of required snow storage can be included at the time of building permit submittal. Landscaping: The landscape plan appears sufficient and in conformance with Town guidelines. 2. The conformance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. 3. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed. The proposed materials are appropriate for the project and the neighborhood. 4. The design of site grading and drainage to minimize impacts to adjacent sites, rights-of-way and easements. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. The parking structure and residential building respond effectively to the site's topography. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. Staff believes the project's massing, height and architecture are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others In the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends final design approval with conditions. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the final design for the 13 unit multifamily residential project on Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, as depicted on the plan set dated June 29, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the required snow storage area be provided. 2. That all disturbed slopes do not exceed the maximum 2:1 slope guideline. 3. That all grading be confined to within the property boundaries." Town at Avon Community Development Ppsztstan (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 9495749 Ile Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, page 3 July 7, 1998, Planning &Zoning Commission meetin If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respecffully su ttte Town of Avon community x (9708 lopment (970)748-4030 ) 949.5749 Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 (970) 949-4280 July 14, 1998 Robert Borg Robert Borg Associates PO Box 7626 Avon, Co 81620 Re: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Final Design Dear Mr. Borg, This letter is to follow up on your application for Final Design at the July 7, 1998, Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. The Commission approved your project with the following conditions: 1. That the required snow storage area be provided. 2. That all disturbed slopes do not exceed the maximum 2:1 slope guideline. 3. That all grading be confined to within the property boundaries. 4. The exterior lighting on the decks and parking lights be approved by staff. 5. Colors to be approved by staff. 6. Landscaping on the south side to be clumped together and additional landscaping to be added to the western elevation and the aspen trees to be clustered together. Enclosed is a copy of the approved project's plans. As a reminder, these plans will form the basis of your construction plans. Before submitting for your building permit, please revise your plans to meet the above conditions of approval. I strongly encourage you to call George Harrison at 748-4020 for a pre - application meeting to help insure a complete building permit application. Sincerely, Beth Salter Administrative Assistant Enclosure: Design Review Plans Building Permit Application Checklist Building Permit Application Right -of -Way Application cc: Michael Matzko, Director of Community Development 1:\P&Z Meeting Letters\199810707981Lot12,blk2BMBCBorg.doc 11 o O0 coNLO z O O wa O O 00 N (� w N Z a O Z p O Z p aJ. aa O Z O p p p Z a wZaz 0 z z 0 z z U) L6 Z a z a a z a a 0 x UaO� O O O CL O O j w mWJp p O O O O to to w w 0 F- LL p J J O J J Z Z Z J Z zU)OJ W p 0 O LL LL Op W W O O D w F- g-IZLL Z 0 LL 0 H Z LL.F3F- w~~~ w O W W Q Y F-0 000 0005 w0 0000 0 00 �C, J>>> J ry .J = F - W Q ofm W mm(n �mmU) Ummm aPmm 0m a W w w a W W W O fn Q a ll -N fn NNN HNNN ON Cn --NF- — � - In 04 Lu04 CO V M LL O O N MItN M to O N M UJJQQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q co Z W 0 U. W N o 0 `'j sun - 00 O � O ix �+ - J o v Wcr W Qw Y W Y o L w = a a w w 75 �;M M;N 1n N � � n M n(10 Cl)MI M 7 C C C C) CV 3 a 0 c 'osff� m � � m (o�pp C CL C N N O y 3 g � O w � w U ca t y t 7 C C C O = C .� 0 d o 0 M •- � u>ZZZZZZZCn � N N O � O j U 7 � > > > W ' �aan.aU � 33 cnv�tnm0cn0 WQa m o o C p�T e- N M � � v �,,v yi y N� 7 C O N �(.r N (6 �N i f0 f0 IC f6 � Q _ Of C � c O -C II � o m O t ca i U 0 Q U O (00 Q7 � z O i Vi �N CL N i I ' Qi M; d� p� ' W � W` Oj V� y�(m CnEN ml.m NSM m N m Cl) m � � > >i M�� V N N II 001 W w zi O' y � �I O 75 N to O 7 C C C C) CV 3 a 0 c 'osff� m � � m (o�pp C CL C N N O y 3 � O w � w U ca t y t 7 C C C O = C .� 0 d o 0 M •- � � N N O � O U � >> C 0 0 @ •` o o o o C c a a 0 v CO C C G C. c c O II � o m b t ca �`p 0 U 0 7 � (00 Q7 � N O N N i I ' M; d� p� I` C N L M�� V N N II � O' y � n�O W � D% O � � h�s6 ey ts: 6g/ 1N3Y165y\ 3JtlrvNtlG ONr llriLn 6 G I 1 j m ►Wi=n ��.`"_�— — —'` — _� `-�c,<_ \ � 'lt••�, `-, ; ; ,'o q� a .fb'ICZ Ai d. yr HhM nLLn rb ,BI,f4.y0 N � P6 j j `s t'J JH ^910tl d) .]06l W,�� dH'lW SZ 1001 MMk'v Iti'nrP OJDle9lea':Fryrpp1401 r\ v V � O O 0 L� Q 7 G R.2b _iol E -O €E5£ EL Sn q e�o'o U o - _ � o E � � h�s6 ey ts: 6g/ 1N3Y165y\ 3JtlrvNtlG ONr llriLn 6 G I 1 j m ►Wi=n ��.`"_�— — —'` — _� `-�c,<_ \ � 'lt••�, `-, ; ; ,'o q� a .fb'ICZ Ai d. yr HhM nLLn rb ,BI,f4.y0 N � P6 j j `s t'J JH ^910tl d) .]06l W,�� dH'lW SZ 1001 MMk'v Iti'nrP OJDle9lea':Fryrpp1401 F ... R.2b _iol €E5£ EL Sn q e�o'o - _ s7�h -e'sao � � h�s6 ey ts: 6g/ 1N3Y165y\ 3JtlrvNtlG ONr llriLn 6 G I 1 j m ►Wi=n ��.`"_�— — —'` — _� `-�c,<_ \ � 'lt••�, `-, ; ; ,'o q� a .fb'ICZ Ai d. yr HhM nLLn rb ,BI,f4.y0 N � P6 j j `s t'J JH ^910tl d) .]06l W,�� dH'lW SZ 1001 MMk'v Iti'nrP OJDle9lea':Fryrpp1401 HOS1Ri -131NVO NOAV U 10l S31ibOdO2ld NldiNnOW 341SN3MJ0 z a w a U co 0 z VJ 8 8 0 wj A HaSII2l �DIMda NOAV Z � iM SDU1 ]Dd02id NIt/1NnoA �iaisNl iD2ja z a W � a i a�� E 3�W D U N 0 i E JNx �Ce t � ? 0*4 N E>. a z x { � v e S 3 Asa � 3� ii � wY FMMi d � #� 3 s dAW 3 e � i," 8 . �� nc . & .y . ;x e€.,e. ..�. ? ; . � �1 ��fi pY'�ia� T f� � .,., ��jj �x •y�.a ? ,� r �-- i IEIIIIII I—,' DT +a" a t x 0 4 c # t a d i e � e i �g HOSllld 131NV(l NOAV Z1 10-1 S3W:J3dObd NI`d1NnOW 341SN33W z a of 0 0 J U - CD z Y a mmmAAAAmmAA iii�iii�iii�ii� - ��! a HOSiN 131NVO NOAV Z � 101 S3W:J3dO:Id NI` iNnOVI 341SN33bO z a ce O 0 U- N� LL U - I 8 0 HOSllb -131Md(l NOnd U 10l S31ild3dMid NIViNnOIN 3GISN331:10 A Z e 4 , I �1 m 8 ga o 0 N o o LL 81 Z r Q \ o � f�/1 m < F � W O r G U) O = a Z e 4 , I �1 m HOSllb 131NVO NOnd Z � iol S31i2GdObd NlbiNnoIN 3aIS>133210 z O O z a 0 0 J L- 0 l No HOS1R1 -131Mdd NOnd Z 6 10-i S311213d0l-ld NIViNnoN MIS)I33210 z O O 8 a I I I ill g! 0 �} o 0 J P, a �� LL z � n � � a Q Z Yc I a LL 0 0 O U � b J HOSlIb 131NVG NOAV Z I 101 S311b3dO2ld NI` iNnOIN 301SN33210 N z O I..L O z a of 0 0 J LL 0 z 0 U w U) I J Z e J 81 HOSlll:l 131 NV(l Z o ga. NOnd z IIx J M z � 101 O_ o 0 • CL s m a Q W S31ibGdO2id a NI` iNnOIN 3a1SN33210 o a HOS11b -131NV(l NOAV Z 610-1 S311l13dObd NIVINnOVI 3a1SN33210 N z O a 0 z CL lyO O J LL O L- HOSiRA 131NVa NOnd U iol S311213dM:Jd NI` iNnOVI 30ISN331:10 U) z 0 o LL w m 0 r ` LL 6 O U 1=/I Z -------cl � r•--- I I ° o I o I I I I e B 7-1 I I I I I m I I � I , KO= a®H iofa0 O O O O J-� LL LL 0 0 Z z O§ p§ U� � � e Oe 0 0 DOC 01 1 0 0 0 1 EB, � I I I I I � I m ---- o °®� I o 0 0 ®❑ O ®® oo of I I � I o j 4 0 I I I � o ;L Z Z I •. g � CL p O O LL -1 0 ILLZ O§ 0. n I I Y GJ I I I HOSIRJ 131N` G I I I I I I I I I I I I I j Z k I I I i I I 1 W I I I I I J W W I W IF— w l > I I >> J I II w W I I I JIB I I I Y GJ I I I I HOSIRJ 131N` G I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z k I I I i I I 1 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I � g NOAV o I I wi wi wi ti U lol a o WI JI a N w o m a /� W S311l:l3dMJd w s a NId1NnoW 3GISN3MJ0 w 3 0 r a c a I I Y GJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I I I I i I I 1 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I J I I I I wi wi wi ti O: Z @ WI JI WI JI WI JI HOSlIb 131NVO NOAV o r— Z6101 a Z 9 N S3MJ3d0id w 2 Q a NIViNnoIN 341SN3M10 o a t i Illi I,I1 Illi — 1 41 ➢� fi• i ➢P �0■ �� ■ ��_ ■ � �d'�17j�1f&,P717j�,fR�dj III 'r.-� lr_a 9!I ➢,ali i9'E 9f R JIE�I lllllllllllli— - �■ f u�i Cl`= ■ Ci=3 ■ C 9''Tf11919JIjIfl Q. � 1= � ryrl,ai9la�i�!��Isyi lig _ I ■_ g1E�� f , r9 E E . CC B o ; � i➢1• o I�l,� oJ.jf�� +i, �,� —!c e,zi . �IC1= I� I•I I•I I■I 916➢IE \�irl'1�,4,,r!�d i 111111111=_1!r'rn tl,' � IjOlf' (1j'`a �. J111 ■ �■ C I_I � ''I➢+E t 9a,ojl;j (ijna 9ljl t I—� —I■ CI— ..I� ' \,11!&,r`II� P lil [i 'IPIr3117I!yIR71rD'�IAif➢lii t+ali7�fPll'', 6�J�'IE�{I7ajs;9`fl I■� �) II_momfifli ■ �� { IIIIIIIIIIIII " miiiuiiii�a=� � ■ C'-1 � ■ C'-1 � ■ C�= '', ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ +a;' - - —L---1 — -I -=-I , 1 111 ■ / ,IIIIIIIIIII :_.IIIIIIIIIIIII?� I �_ � � s1E�° .; III��a,�ien rtv,P,.ii ' ffffl��ll= f��l�iff�flfilo ffE�f�fIIIIIEIE�— �+' _ I IIIIII_ : iil 0 ,til C■_ C�_ I� C;- � =ii ■ ''ll ICI.ICI_ _ICS= 9 �■ i- =�I-1 _h 1fff�fffl!S_= �ffffflfffflfll!=I f111111ffffffffl i61,.a1l,ilgi`avg Fowl '1 _l 41 C�— I■I — — — �I�if(�'ha�l'' I—� r'� — Ic � . ®' �` ■ �r`da., +�;9bE' 1717"`mr 1= y�srR,fl. ➢ 9 ■ ➢ 911,1 ■ �_ � C 1= C] �il �� il &I�!a,l�j? �I�.��jlr�E�IJ!I ri 9 6 dE ➢ a rE CIg1i19{t7tS1'I lfi{�yl'i _ rr Sm ■ -� � I ➢ � - ' - •, �'' 7u➢iQas lj "f 71 ^ ;rvSf ➢rl UE ON I � �r ■ , lip; R, —��' ,, r, ,r,� _ � ,r 7,,,� — � ��I;�,f,�a9,�;�111r,;J,➢,IPQ,1,d • 1 . �111�,➢di,{ dUAfilfi,IRilrh7iC,o!14d1!71M{➢titRi!!�f➢t I + E, �➢(I i f �,mQ I f ➢ / -..... _S 7Pli�li7{.; l7j ➢rftlJ?flljo,pP{iJ,1117j1,1 Rr , r7j1�i I t �r Ifll, �� \ IgfE flhal - � J C �R=a ■ C �" a.1r,�ta:.n�d1JI,,Ia:,Rr;o.1.i III■■■ Fm— ■ Cr. i F v1: X111`;' a� a� HOS1RJ 131Mda g NOAV _o N Z� 10-I ~ ' O O S3112:J3dObd W c NIb1NnOVI 341SN33210 3 0 a O U h J HOSiR:1131NVO s 16 O g NOAV a C� Z � iol w N 0 �� w 0 � x o m�= QW SAU1 OdObd NId1NnON 341S)13MIO 3 o W a ooraooa tvonv U06 -6-M (OZO uw000 37gv3 oz91e eavaoicc 'ea�.v 'srs� xoa-ae R - _ Ni_JHJ t1aM z 1 76 'Zi 101 lN3W]9VNV4Y N01100ffiSN00 'h'DIS�Q SISAItlVtl - '- L NJO'IE Zt LO'! \ S31d100S5b 9808 183808 t/1SIA X3380 .83hd38 n a ` L Wo IH3M135F3 /Jf1Ul1 9 "WMNyy�- �-_ - m u µa Y -_ �a Z0 — _- _ __ - <___ ____ ____ 00 0� --_ Q u u� ' m I o0 w Ct --------------- �- — b - - - ! I _ 1� nW Irl m .I 1 Y-1 II IGS f I - ; 1 swr,irmaQ�no��'•. FIN; r i I I ooraooa tvonv U06 -6-M (OZO uw000 37gv3 oz91e eavaoicc 'ea�.v 'srs� xoa-ae R - _ Ni_JHJ t1aM z 1 76 'Zi 101 lN3W]9VNV4Y N01100ffiSN00 'h'DIS�Q SISAItlVtl - '- L NJO'IE Zt LO'! \ S31d100S5b 9808 183808 t/1SIA X3380 .83hd38 n a ` 13 IH3M135F3 /Jf1Ul1 9 "WMNyy�- �-_ - m u µa Y -_ �a - - _- _ __ - <___ ____ ____ 00 0� --_ Q u 3 2 m I o0 13 IH3M135F3 /Jf1Ul1 9 "WMNyy�- �-_ - -_ �a - - _- _ __ - <___ ____ ____ 00 0� --_ Q _ ---- o0 w Ct --------------- 13 IH3M135F3 /Jf1Ul1 9 "WMNyy�- �-_ - -_ �a - - _- _ __ - <___ ____ ____ 00 0� --_ Q _ ---- o0 w _ �- — b - - _ - f I - ; _ I I __ I 1- / � I 1 _ _ I v. , a - -4\fit/ i� ■ -a ' � ,swntNlwoQnm9 "$ a mss+- -- --------- `.✓------- - 'I 17'n d 1 ddl S❑l"JN3 i ------ 0111. <rtn next xuwi I v ` 1 CS , ill ___. - 1[j _ -� - _ — 'qn if; N.-Ud- 83np7a 'M J LidW J z Q J cr- O O J Lj F— Ln II 1 111 I I' I (I 111 II III II fil II III II fiI II III II %11 'f III II / II II III I! // II II III I' / II II III I / II II I II I AI I I 1 I I I I I • 1 I _ I 1 � I I ; I 1 I 1 I I I I I I ' I I I t I OVON JNIISIX3 30 3003 --------------------------------------------------- 'GALS >13380 83A V38 'M anll' IK.bt L: "1 Pt F: b -N 6-D p t•ap, r 1901-96Z U'00 OM070J 'NOAV !� IZ108 OJ 'N01371111 '3AI80 33N1BY2O 99ZZ 'AiNnoJ 370Y3 N33210 83AY39 lY Nl1YWNJN38 t - I c 1N3W30YNYN N0110nM1SN00 'NOIS30 'SISAIYNY Z )(1018 'ZI 101 o S31VI00SSV 02108 183808 d1SlA >13380 83AV38 0 n N J LidW J z Q J cr- O O J Lj F— Ln II 1 111 I I' I (I 111 II III II fil II III II fiI II III II %11 'f III II / II II III I! // II II III I' / II II III I / II II I II I AI I I 1 I I I I I • 1 I _ I 1 � I I ; I 1 I 1 I I I I I I ' I I I t I OVON JNIISIX3 30 3003 --------------------------------------------------- 'GALS >13380 83A V38 'M anll' IK.bt L: "1 Pt F: b -N 6-D p t•ap, r i 1 1 1 IV 1 I II I 1 1 I i 1 I i t I 1 SML4yr� 'u "57J?y I I !` I L-1 I ------ — ----- -- -- --- — -- - —+ i I r' .fin u , �I tl 1 !i i1 II ^k! Agra ILL - I (� X3437 tl3ddit II I I i i I 1 'OA18 :43383 83Ad38 'M O O LL O Z N :a:e dr5'- ..- N:H C; '.n •.ol CvY 'NOAV N 40 —SV / (COI V L 1901-96Z 00rd010? a1Ni IOO T9V3 1 I Z I OP 0.) :.40131.1111 '3/1!80 33811MO 99Z. 433Y l 8-IAV3t3 LV MNYWI ONM 'rl o co r N01n1/1SN09 'NOiS30 'SISANW 11131t39rNYl10 L H:lt)1B 101 VAn r w e d I f S31d100SSY 0808 12138021 d1Sl/1 >133210 83AV38 a i 1 1 1 IV 1 I II I 1 1 I i 1 I i t I 1 SML4yr� 'u "57J?y I I !` I L-1 I ------ — ----- -- -- --- — -- - —+ i I r' .fin u , �I tl 1 !i i1 II ^k! Agra ILL - I (� X3437 tl3ddit II I I i i I 1 'OA18 :43383 83Ad38 'M O O LL O Z N :a:e dr5'- ..- N:H C; '.n •.ol CvY �P"�i'�, c >13380 83AV36 'M 'NOW 1901 -961- (f 00 (XJV80103 Ld 'AINOT) 319y3 lZiog 0.,) 'nopilln '11#90 3381.1M) 99V SYV39 IV 4)lv'kv")N39 0 o I.,42R39VNM E X1018 '?1 191 150 S31V100SSY 0808 183808 VISIA )13380 83AV39 >13380 83AV36 'M LO Ld LLJ 0 LL- C-) >13380 83AV36 'M 1- N LO K DO J LaJ LLI J O O J to C6 J LA.J 4! J O LLO J 'NOAV (COO 90 —�6L (L OL) OOVNOI00 .UN/)00 310V3 b 1Z108 OJ 'N01311117 '3N?/0 33Y.18b?10 99it 433?/0 83AF39 lY M2/Vi1HON319 i u 1N3W39Wly r N0110naiSNOO 'NOIS30 'SISAIVNV Z )DO IU 'i 1 101 S31VI00SSY 02106 1838021 b1SIA )133210 213AY39 1- N LO K DO J LaJ LLI J O O J to C6 J LA.J 4! J O LLO J r 11 I II II I I 11 I I II —� --- — — ----TTI 1� j• \ l N O Z O Q. LLJ Oc D rn J W W JOL W O F -- Z W 'NOAd �` C� /^O �� 190 —961- OOdMO !03 lcl J 73 1Z109 00 'NO1311117 '3A/80 33816783 990E N3Nff03 N lN3 8.1A739 tVId .YM1'WNOfd36 - 0 m3W3o7N7W Nou:)nM1SNOJ 'NOIS70 'SISll7Nd Z Y301(I 'el 101 S31 dI00SSY 0808 183808 d1SIA )133210 83A Y38 r 11 I II II I I 11 I I II —� --- — — ----TTI 1� j• \ l N O Z O Q. LLJ Oc D rn J W W JOL W O F -- Z W d I im L Q Q W L , I I I I I I I I 1 i f r i 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 , 1 I 1 1 1 M f I u 1 I 'I O II � !! N li V i C7 I 'NO+Y a JC I O h F= h p O 11 1901—S6L (!C0f') Olt 0703 W w W 3 0 'AINIIOJ 319Y3 I f Zf UB OJ 'NO1311111 '.3n1110 33819YaJ 99ZZ )133bJ Y3AY38 1Y Hb'MI4JN3S m 1N3W30YNYW NOI1JnM15NOJ 'N9f530 'SISIIYNY L )13018 'Z f 101 n n S31d100SSY 02108 1213908 VlSlA >13380 83AV30 0 o N •° a � y� c , I I I I I I I I 1 i f r i 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 , 1 I 1 1 1 M f I u 1 I 'I O II � !! N li V i C7 I m a JC I O h F= h p O 11 W w W 3 0 awlP gl7d r� SZ rt I,t ..:Ir mw Ira �r-r+� r ra Staff Report7vi SIGN DESIGN C O L O R A D O March let, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date Sign type Legal description Zoning Address Introduction February 22, 2005 Advertisement Sign Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision (City Market) Shopping Center (SC) 72 Beaver Creek Place The applicant, Dave Betts — Store Manager, is proposing an advertisement sign near the main entrance to the City Market grocery store. The sign measures 30 square feet (5' x 6') and consists of wood, metal, and glass construction. This sign is strictly for advertisement purposes and includes an area for the current sales at King Sooper/City Market stores. Background The City Market store underwent a major renovation and addition in 1990. In conjunction with the renovation a Master Sign Program (MSP) was approved for the property. The only record on file for this MSP is a staff report written to the Planning and Zoning Commission (dated June 19, 1990) and the 'Planning Commission Action.' Additional signage on the building was approved by staff for Starbucks in August of 2004. The two signs were approved administratively under the premise that there was surplus available square footage for signage, and the proposed two signs were consistent and of the same construction quality (i.e. internally illuminated with pan channel lettering) as all existing signage on the building. The new proposed sign was installed without a sign permit. The applicant removed the sign and submitted an application once notified by the Town that design approval and permit are required. As proposed, the sign would be located on a support column at the main entrance to the store on the west elevation. Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Sign Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing proposed designs: 1. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be constructed and the site upon it is to be located. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, City Market Sign Design March 1", 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3 The Municipal Code encourages "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." It appears that the proposed sign construction (wood, metal, glass) is consistent with the Sign Code, however, staff is uncertain whether the sign quality and location on the outside of the building is appropriate. This type of advertisement may be more appropriate inside the building. 2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements. The Shopping Center district is a mixed-use neighborhood with predominately one and two story commercial land -uses. Sign construction varies in the area, but the signs in the area are generally interior lit box type cabinet construction. 3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement. As mentioned above, the quality of the materials are consistent with the Sign Code. 4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property. The proposed sign should not have any significant impact to adjacent properties. The sign would be visible from Beaver Creek Place and would be highly visible when entering the building or driving by the main entrance to the store. 5. 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. It is Staff's opinion that there will be no monetary values impaired with this sign. Aesthetic values may be affected with the sign in the proposed location and the sign may be more appropriate if located inside the building. 6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with the sign code, and are appropriate for the project. The proposed sign generally complies with the Sign Code in terms of height, size, and quality construction quality. 7. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation The primary orientation of the proposed signage is to foot traffic, which is appropriate. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, City Market Sign Design March 1", 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the Sign Design application for Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision (City Market) due to conflicts with review criteria #1 and #5. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748.4413, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 1990 Lots 67/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek City Market Sign Program Design Review INTRODUCTION The City Market Corporation is undertaking a significant expansion and renovation of the Avon store. A part of that overall scenario is a new sign program. The existing pole mounted sign will be removed. and all building mounted signage will be replaced. The sign code allows one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage for a single use business. City Market frontage, as a corner lot, is 544 lineal feet. The proposed sign program for City Market consists of two City Market logo signss of:(161 square feet each. One sign will be located on the west elevation and one on the southern elevation. The west elevation will also include an area of signage that identifies various departments available within the store. These signs, a total of six, will be constructed of individual pan channel letters 18 in hoe in height. Total square footage for this sign area is y The total sign area requested is 484 .square feet. As previously mentioned, the lineal frontage is 544 feet, so this proposal is within the size limits prescribed by the sign code. STAFF COMMENTS The Commission shall consider the following sign design guidelines in considering this sign program. 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. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 1990 Page 2 of 8 Lots 87/88, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek City Market Sign Program Design Review 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, interior -lit box -type plastic, window signs are discouraged, if determined appropriate tc discretion of the Commission. such as printed plywood, and paper or vinyl stick -on but may be approved, however, the location, at the sole 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. 1. A minimum of five lineal feet out from, and around the perimeter of, the sign shall be landscaped. 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. (Ord. 88-3 1(part)). The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing proposed designs STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 1990 Page 3 of 5 Lots 87/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek City Market Sign Program Design Review SECTION 15.28.070 Design Review Criteria 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 materials of the proposed signs are compatible and consistent with existing signs in the shopping center district. The number and location of the signs is appropriate for the building, but it is the opinion of the staff that the size is excessive. We believe this signage could be reduced in size and still present an effective identity to the building. A total of 484 square feet of sign area, while within the strict interpretation of the allowances, may adversely relate to the scale of the building. B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements; COMMENT: The adjacent properties intheshopping center district are all similar to the City Market building. The majority are single story, single or multiple business buildings. The scale of the proposed signs may relate to the Wal-Mart sign but will dominate the rest of the district. C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement; COMMENT: The quality of materials is consistent with the shopping center district.• D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property; The staff is concerned with the relationship between the scale of the signs and the scale of the building, but other that that, there is no other adverse impact. 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: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 1990 Page 4 of b Lots 67/68, Block 29 Benchmark at Beaver Creek City Market Sign Program Design Review F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code, and are appropriate for the project. COMMENT: Staff believes the type, materials, number and location of the proposed signs are appropriate and well designed. We do have reservations about the proposed size. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined oritentation. COMMENT: These signs.are traffic which is appropriate for this size of these signs however, appears necessary for easy identification from from Interstate 70. This is a complete application. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Rick Pylman Director of Community Development oriented to vehicular use and location. The to be larger than 'is both local streets and STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 19, 1990 Page 5 of 5 Lots 57/08, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek City Market Sign Program Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn l ) i Date G Denise Hill, Secretary � The Commission granted final design approval to the City arket Sign Program with the revision of the six specialty item signs being dropped from 18 inches to 12 inches and would be compressed both vertically and horizontally, and that the north elevation City Market logo be spaced the same distance from the top of the parapet wall.oc,. OD 0 CIS h— C3 I- 0 N 0 In9O 0 (k r a ' o y♦A v ,,,`•1,111111111111„/,/' t y 5C O .........% n .,��1�T 'I?iy� o .� CO 1 p d _I , „1 to i : 'n•. 3,'” a :,� .,'0'1 •�.CC,(.` SAO L �a I 9,0 n• �4 II IxNI Nr o o IN v o Jai I q d i O gt �Y N yI >� ,A a, � E W ODE p aa �O Lr o� w �00CS2 cc a u JZ 1.. p r > CNQu °H ` r V1Co0 to ,rE U f a 0 d a J N c 2� La r r � �Z W J T"" •� _��__1 �+� Q N % i 1fl rI • I ' I I • t'. •J r I 11 •1 11 • I I � 1 it` qT i lJ t i �f 1 ' 1 � . U) 1 1( Li d 3 1 w nLi M I O� ff � (01 I , 1 1 1 I \ I I 1 , N 111 y,l J I f] 1 r r`�2 1 ti Q W 1 0 M 4a z V VI J d N OD 0 C7 --t 0 Q Y ci I Z SWki p Q _ J �►A� r NWu7y0�tQp 46_j ZaOT N z�'rS Z SWki p Qi T pp�� ~rJ� Ng N V P, —CL r). . 4 w W N pC z'U iipu- -r + `w le rr. �' ►- r- .—.,.. w. i lig W A ww Z H 0 z v1 r r .g�gI: .^. N F1 r Iff 10 P . , � - 1 t 1• � Y"1. ,'•.; � �: I :N.�'i• ,,y.� • ;'...t,� c t, ,i? � r. � r 4�. G^ 31,. ,•;•,w • -- .. .. ,.. .. ''1 _ ... .. .. ... .. ...... .. ... .. . "I ... .. .... .....'x .... .... ..''...... .:t•... �,�.y.:r, ., .........;r.. -i s!..�dC'.�:..::..... '1d... ..•...�.. :.> .....:r.(`.1�eK3�13•:� : . �.., :'a iF n N NnV?At�ni of Lf to L^ '" a '• • '" io A� 1774((11 W N I M N N N V( N N LL N -+ LA N N N H N H b t VW 0 N VI t rN'f N Ln 0 Q 1�/1 1�/1 cc �ryy O p� � 2 IA �y N N � p .ti O tQ � H O p �O rQ" .p M O� H .•. t .p • ° 0 Pf M in M fV C ti P'1 •+ NI H Q� N '�i 1�\ ,.Mi .^i F 1•f M N O S •~ 0, �+g � � m- 5 - a'c 0 9; n� ° g 55 00 00 �.ci 25 11111 t✓. 2 Ov .� «<< OS.+ t70 u ..°uo �...° Z 20 �0 -. �S g3. ob / aP 1 /o d J 1 :cgs N / ate°'•° Q m S Y b3A01 � � W A A h � h cr I ^uf a iF n N NnV?At�ni of Lf to L^ '" a '• • '" io A� 1774((11 W N I M N N N V( N N LL N -+ LA N N N H N H b t VW 0 N VI t rN'f N Ln 0 Q 1�/1 1�/1 cc �ryy O p� � 2 IA �y N N � p .ti O tQ � H O p �O rQ" .p M O� H .•. t .p • ° 0 Pf M in M fV C ti P'1 •+ NI H Q� N '�i 1�\ ,.Mi .^i F 1•f M N O S •~ 0, �+g � � m- 5 - a'c 0 9; n� ° g 55 00 00 �.ci 25 11111 t✓. 2 Ov .� «<< OS.+ t70 u ..°uo �...° Z 20 �0 -. �S g3. ob / aP 1 /o d J 1 :cgs N / ate°'•° Q m S Y b3A01 � � W A A h � h r— i I — o O O z i i � W ~ ts '0 a a v 1.1 YA A iv N�33 i 8 1 �u Z $ n � Sn n 0 0 0 o ell 0-3 8 S 8 tw n �, D_&n si_ < < n o a o rn < o' z i i W ~ z D_&n si_ < < i Q dz p o = CSt u G 3z ~� yZj y < �< �G D 44 OC c AY ' C3 J I W S s Q C � Wud = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ lu VI L p '0 o ED 9 ,11 to WN ---------- ------------I ............... L_....._______ 3 � ; • - 41 1'r 1 I� ;2 0 N I I I 01. WN1R1 C7 Chm A LC ~ Vii~ ry x I r ) z � s QQ s d _ a 1-_ 1laN .09 'ry I I �+ ' ti t Pi s ° afx0•LiL) I I I co W D A t®AS I .9 s. . 14 / — o.rxo.za� o.rxo.zcz) arxo•=U) I naw .09 noH .re low .re ED 4" m mi E-41 no R W VI O N W 8 � C j a 3 o ,� < LU 0 119 t $ 00002 S1 S� -J W W W W W W H N VI J IL 4 m u C 6w W- t.* I I I I III 1 1 . r I r I O O O i i i i i�l I I I I I~1 I I � I III I I I I III I I I I III f I I III I I I I III III 1 III I I I III I I I III III I I I I III I I I I III I I I I III 1 . 1 I I I I III 1 I ill III f I I I Ill 1 I I l I Ili I I ( I I II I I I I III I I I III 1 1 1 1 1 I III III i i i I iii I i i i iii 1 i i i j ill 1 1 I I I III i I III III 1 ill I I I 1 I I I III III I I Ill I 1 1 III 1 III 1 , III 1 1 I I I III 1 I I I III I I i I III I I III 1 I I I I III 1 I I I III 1 I I � I III - I III �•I� �,Y' ' I �'•• I k• :I::"•,: � I I I I I .Ic.• •.I•• •�y• 1 1 'I� ;::•I • � I I I I 1 Efl•�f• ..•t` I I II 1 11 I I �1 1 I 1 W I I I I i i � iii • i i i i iii 1 1 , i i III ii i i i i l i 1 tii it is 8 r I I 1 I i I I I I I III I Q d 4 1 I I 1 III 111 i I I I I 1 8 o Y r w v► O 999O(B9)218 tN �. a $age a� ©R2@soOO 0 0 0 0 P V) 2c 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 a d w � VV g t L'U w w w w w in 4go %-I = 6w 61.. Iii F111111 —irZE i FEE F_ ME mjj= low. __ _ MAE MOMMLES, SHE= IE; 0 1 g 2 In PCM E3 E_ I II � _— _ 1 INS NEWS= �" ;a-��aeE E3 2 17, 5 30! IIIIVI REEDER .59=� AXIMS p Miz E egg: =Sam MEN M Wxm� . C-taic-2 C 13 __M- i-EE�`E��, Mae i S5111mgm -Era MPF - LN a - le-E,311IMEWIS LO Oz LN lililil;llllllllmll =am= --NES des ;� �.� I'll ,P=-- Ulm INS W,Mmm RIB re - ,' LE IN rm RME- i m l'ILII i I . , ow] EMMA;' .. I i I ( i i owl I10 -0s,11 ro-EW X __;7 " 172" Mi .'a=2, MaMn ZMN MERsmME WIN rig omMb lo s— Iyy E3 t3 �I I � Ia III III I III 1 III 1 0 4 I III III i iii i iii III I III I III i iii I III I III III III III III III III I III III III III III III lil i iii I III III I III I III I III III III I III i iii III iii III I III iii III III III III I III III iii III III III W a 1 c « ° 0 go swi t o U Q m v d W ►� l7 l qJ d o r W ►- F- I I I I I I O N • Not No Q O Iq N �j C o � O ti w, +o VI b N r a � r W K 1f 'i O IA to N ©❑e El tx Z e r O M g� r 40 4 Staff Report 7vi FINAL DESIGN PLAN C O L O R A D O March 1St, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date Project type Legal description Zoning Address Introduction February 24, 2005 Single-family Residence Lot 76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Planned Unit Development — PUD 5651 Wildridge Road East The applicant, Andrew Abraham, is proposing a single-family residence on a duplex zoned .55 - acre lot within the Wildridge Subdivision. The proposed residence has a maximum building height of 32.5'. The proposed materials include a stucco finish, wood siding, asphalt shingles and corrugated metal roofing and stone veneer. The sketch design was reviewed at your December 7, 2004 meeting. The Commission commented on the driveway width in front of the garage, if changing the position of the home/garage could decrease the driveway length, and a majority of the Commission did not favor the use of corrugated metal for a siding material. Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential Commercial and Industrial Design Review Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zoning Code. • Allowed use: A single-family residence is an allowed use for this lot. • Density: The lot is zoned for 2 units. • Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for this PUD is 50%. This project is in compliance with the Zoning Code, proposing 30.5% lot coverage. • Setbacks: All setbacks appear to be correctly indicated on the site plan. There is a 25' front and 10' side and rear lot building setback. • Easements: All easements appear to be correctly indicated on the site plan. There is a 10' Slope Maintenance, Snow Storage and Drainage Easement and a 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement. • Building Height: This design appears to be in conformance with the 35 -foot maximum allowable height requirement. The maximum building height is 32.5'. An Improvement Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 A t Lot76, Block 4, W'ildridge Subdivision, Verlinde Single-family Final Design March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 6 Location Certificate (ILC) at framing will be required to verify compliance with the PUD's maximum height requirement. Grading: The drainage swale indicated on the site plan does not appear to be supported by the topography of the site. It does not appear that elevation 8,614' has been graded correctly on the site plan. Proposed grade 8,614' extends from the garage to the northeastern corner of the residence. The contour interval to the northwest of proposed grade 8,614' is existing grade 8,614'. Two parallel contour intervals cannot be the same elevation. It is unclear as to what the elevation will be for the drainage swale that is located between the two 8,614' contour intervals. • Parking: 3 parking spaces are required for this project, and 5 spaces (including garage spaces) are proposed. • Snow Storage: Adequate on-site snow storage is provided with 3,100 square feet. At least 1,462 square feet of snow storage is required for the area of the proposed driveway. • Landscaping: It appears that the Landscaping Plan is in conformance with the Town guidelines. The maximum irrigated area allowed is 3,329 square feet. The proposed plan includes 1,080 square feet of spray irrigation and 1,200 square feet of drip irrigation, which totals 2,280 square feet of irrigated area. The total irrigated area appears to be in compliance with the Town's 20% maximum irrigated area requirement. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project generally complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist in the Wildridge PUD for a single-family or duplex residence. 4. The final design plan is in compliance with all final design plan submittal requirements. • Site Development: o Site Design: The site layout utilizes passive solar use and the building location compliments the existing topography of the site. o Site Access: The access width and grades are in compliance with Town standards. Adequate maneuvering for vehicles on site is provided. The applicant has increased the driveway width in front of the garage from 22', indicated at Sketch Design, to 25'. o Parking and Loading: The parking spaces provided are in compliance with Town standards. o Easements: This project is in compliance with all platted easements. o Drainage: During sketch review of this application Staff indicated that positive drainage on the northwest area of the residence had not been provided. The applicant has addressed the issue by filling this area of the site with approximately 6 feet of fill at the foundation and sloping the grade by four feet away from the residence (8,618' to 8,614'). The applicant is also proposing a drainage swale Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Verlinde Single-family Final Design March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 6 around the residence, from the garage to near the driveway entrance. Staff requires further information to determine if the swale will provide adequate drainage away from the residence. A drainage direction and/or slope should be indicated on the drainage swale. The drainage swale indicated on the site plan does not appear to be supported by the site topography. The drainage Swale near the driveway entrance may need to be extended to ensure all drainage is directed into the driveway entrance culvert. The drainage swale near the garage may need to be extended to ensure drainage is directed toward Wildridge Road East and not Lot 75. o Snow Removal and Storage: Ample snow storage is provided on-site. • Building Design: o Building Height: As proposed, the height of the building is in compliance with the 35 -foot allowance. o Building Materials and Colors: The proposed building materials (stucco and wood siding, cultured stone, asphalt shingles) appear to comply with the guidelines. The proposed colors are earth tone and the use of high quality materials (multiple materials on each elevation) is encouraged by the design guidelines. o Exterior Walls, Roos, and Architectural Interest: This design proposes areas of stone veneer, wood siding, and stucco. The exterior wall colors should be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. Varied roof pitches are being proposed with 5:12 and 8:12 pitches for the asphalt shingled roof and 3:12 for the corrugated metal roofs. The Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest Requirement 5 of Section B states, `Large expanses of bright, reflective materials will not be acceptable, however, metal such as copper, cor-ten may be acceptable. Colors should be natural or earth tones.' The garage roof (south and west elevations), and sections of roof on the east and north are proposing the use of corrugated metal. The corrugated roof material is labeled `B" on Sheet A3.0. A3.1 and A3.2. Staff does not feel the proposed use of corrugated metal on the abovementioned roof elevations qualifies as a `large expanse' and would require the metal be an earth tone or natural color. o Outdoor Lighting: As presented, the proposed light fixture(s) comply with safe harbor/exemption section of the Town of Avon's Lighting Ordinance. However, the intent and purpose of the ordinance is to reduce light trespass through the use of full cut-off light fixtures. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant come back prior to building permit submittal with a revised fixture to comply with Section 15.30 of the Town Municipal Code. • Landscaping: o Design Character: The landscaping proposed recognizes the drought conditions that prevail in our region, and the tree species proposed are tolerant of drought episodes. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Verlinde Single-family Final Design March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 6 o Erosion Control: Adequate erosion control must be installed during construction. Silt and straw bale fencing is proposed on the uphill and downhill side of the residence during construction. o Retaining Walls: No retaining walls are proposed with this application. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. The design appears to be compatible with the site. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. The project should not dominate the landscape of the property. The architectural style and scale of the proposed development appears appropriate for the neighborhood and consistent with adjacent properties. High quality materials and earth tone colors should make this project beneficial to the neighborhood as viewed from adjacent properties. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. This project will create minimal impact to neighbors and should not create monetary impairment to the adjacent properties. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project generally conforms to the adopted goals and policies of the Town. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the final design plan for the single-family residence proposed on Lot 76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions to be resolved prior to submittal for a building permit: 1. A revised lighting fixture that complies with the Town Lighting Ordinance must be submitted and approved by Community Development. 2. The site plan shall be revised to include the size, length, slope and invert elevation for the proposed culvert beneath the driveway. The Town requires an 18" diameter culvert. 3. The street address for the property is 5651 Wildridge Drive East. All plan set sheets as well as the topographic survey (address circled) shall indicate the address. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised with the following corrections (a)the silt fence should be extended on the western side of the property north towards the 8606 ft contour line and (b) straw bales or other erosion control measures should be installed in the ditch adjacent to Wildridge Drive East upstream of the 18" culvert already in place. 5. Grading/drainage shall be revised to correct the following issues (a) a drainage direction and/or slope should be noted on the drainage swale. The drainage swale indicated on the Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 i Lot76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Verlinde Single-family Final Design March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 6 site plan does not appear to be supported by the site topography. It appears to lack $positive drainage at the rear of the house, (b) the site plan shall be revised to ensure that the site grading is such that the snow storage area does not drain onto Lot 75, and (c) the drainage swale indicated on the site plan may need to be extended to ensure that it drains into the culvert beneath the driveway entrance, and extended near the garage to ensure drainage away from Lot 75. 6. The original date of the survey is 11/19/01 and was updated on 12/3/04. Note #4 on the original survey states that 2 feet of snow was on the ground and that features may exisit that did not show up on the survey. The Town requires a survey to be completed with no snow cover. This note should be revised if the 12/04 survey was completed with no snow cover; or a current survey conducted without snow cover on the lot. 7. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4017, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, 4 Kenneth Kovalchik Planner I Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 • 0 Lot76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Verlinde Single-family Final Design March I, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 6 SAME AS ORIGINAL r a r 1T1oA1., +, "i, Y rw r J 4 Looking southeast G1 - V. :,. w? Looking northeast Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 • 0 +-i n J :o r {{ f N7�^�ryf `� �t iNNq HIM I QO'J i •� Q �• R W m _ V � r 1 4 � {{ f N7�^�ryf `� �t iNNq HIM I QO'J �� '�� ,a��o�� g � s s o 0 0 0 ,� �•��`� � 6'5,10 A3 �� 7 F \ In h � � o J 6 R s gF� 3 ^ m Nul I F aaa aaaaa a a p', mum I Him ��i �� 0 as �� 0 ---- | (| § | � �!|. | )§§,■ �2!|;§§§\ •'•'� �p I i ; ; I I I i i I i i i i I I I III ear i i i i i ili j i I i iii j i I I iii j i I i iii j i i i iii I i i i ill i i i ili ; I i I lid i I I I III i i i ill i Hi j i iji i I iii j i iii I II j I I III j i i i i Hi j I i iii j i i iii j i i jjj j I i i ili ; i i i iii I i i j i iii I I j I j I j I j I j I i j I j I I j I I j I j jl II j I j jl II j I I I II j I 1 I II j I 1 I II j I 1 I II j I j l I II j I I i I II j i j l I IIII .� j I if I IIII � j I (I I III W j I i I IIII 3 T I I j — — -i- i+ji 3 I I III j II I III j I I i i II j I I I III j i I I III j I I I III j I I I I j I I I I I I I I I Id I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I i hi III III III III III III III jjj III III I Ii III III III III III III III I�I I I I I I I I 111 of °i i i l i I a� 0 x ^C � o � Boa©oaao � @ a $ Hill ©0000aR- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I i hi III III III III III III III jjj III III I Ii III III III III III III III I�I I I I I I I I 111 a� 0 x ^C � o � Boa©oaao � @ a $ Hill ©0000aR- I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II II I II I II I II I II I II I II .17 I H NHHIMH I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II II I II I II I II I II I II I II .17 I H I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II II I II I II I II I II I II I II .17 I I I I I I II u � r i I i i i I i I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I C I I i I I i II I i i i i I ii I II I i i i it i i 8 i i i ii I t I 8 i i i i I i i i i i i i i i 8 i i i i i i i i i i i i i I i I i i i i I I i I I I i i i i i i ii i i i i i li i i I i i I ii i i i i i ii i i i i i i ii i I i ii i i i i i li i i ii i I i i i i ii ii i i i i i ii i i i i i i i i i i i i i ii i i I i ii i i i i i ii I i i ii li i i i i I ❑ I I I it I I II I ! I II LI I I I I I II I I I I I II I I II I I II I I I I II I I I II i i I I I I II I I I I I II I i I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I p I I I i i i i ii I a i N O } F 44 s3s yyyy X SAd E a� O a � n aoo�aao© � ©000aaoa s, I I I I I I I I I li !� I I I Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Eric Heidemann, Senior Planner Date: February 24, 2005 Re: Minor Project Application — Deck Alteration Summary: At the Council's February 22nd meeting, the applicant, Bob Mach, appealed the Commission's prior decision regarding the placement of a wrap around deck on property located at 2520 Old Trail Road. The Council has remanded this item back to the Commission for further discussion. The Council directed the applicant to provide an aftemative design that achieves the removal of the western portion of the deck, but also addresses the Commission's rationale for denial. The rationale for denial was that the removal of the deck would leave the firebox bump suspended in the air with the appearance that the bump out was not supported by any architectural feature. The applicant has submitted a site plan and revised western elevation that proposes the use of three 4x12 Faux Structural Cantilever Beams beneath the firebox bumpout. The applicant also proposes a 4' high privacy fence along the eastern elevation. Staff has advised the applicant that this item requires the submission of a new Minor Modification Application and was not part of the appeal made to Council or part of the action remanding this item back to the Commission. Attached to this memo is the following background material. 1. Revised western elevation and site plan 2. February 170 Appeal Memo to Council and background information 'Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Tambi Katieb, Director of Community Development Eric Heidemann, Senior Planner Date February 17�h, 2005 AVON C O L O R A D O Re: Appeal to Town Council of Planning and Zoning Commission Denial of Minor Project to remove portion of deck Summary On February 15th, 2005 the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a Minor Project Application to remove a portion of a wrap around deck that was previously approved through a Final Design Application. The applicant, Bob Mach, is appealing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to Town Council. The subject property is a'single-family residence currently under construction located at 2520 Old Trail in Wildridge. The application proposes to reduce the size of the deck that wraps around from the south to the west elevation of the residence. The deck has already been constructed on the south elevation (per approved plans) and this application proposes to eliminate the western portion. The Commission denied the Minor Project because the proposal was "inconsistent' with the Residential Design Guidelines. The rationale for denial articulated in the motion was that the removal of the deck would leave the firebox bump suspended in the air with the appearance that the bump out was not supported by any architectural feature. Attached for your review is the staff report to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated February 15th, 2005, and a picture of the firebox bump out. Background: The Final Design Application for the subject propel, which included the wrap around deck on the second level, was approved on August 5 , 2003. On October 19th, 2004, the applicant requested several exterior and site design modification to the Final Design approval, one of which was the removal of the portion of the deck and the inclusion of two firebox bump -outs. At that meeting, the Commission approved the two firebox bump outs, which were already constructed, and denied the removal of the portion of deck. The Commissions rationale for denial of removing the deck was consistent with the February 15th decision by stating that the bump out along the west elevation needed the appearance of support, which the Commission stated was achieved through the placement of the deck. Memo to Town Council, February 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Minor Project Appeal Subsequently, the applicant missed the appeal period and resubmitted a new application for . further review. Commission Review Considerations: According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4.10, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the this project: The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed. 2. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. 3. The objective that no improvement is so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. Altematives • Uphold Planning and Zoning Commission decision • Overturn Planning and Zoning Commission decision • Remand decision to Planning and Zoning Commission for further review Town Manager Comments V Attachments: A. Letter from applicant to Town Council requesting appeal B. Staff Report for Minor Project dated October 14t , 2004 C. Staff Memo for Minor Project dated February 7"', 2005 Memo to Town Council, February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Minor Project Appeal Alucyuner* A Feb. 16, 2005 Avon Town Council Re: Lot 45c Wildridge Request: Omit wrap-around deck I am currently building a single family residence at 2520c Old Trail Rd. To buffer 2520 b and c I planted 2 large spruce trees which will likely be 20 feet in diameter at maturity , almost touching the deck portion I hope to omit. After commencing construction on the SFR, I realized that the 5 foot wrap-around deck will be a detriment to both neighboring homes, making the lot C residence appear overly massive and encroaching even further into the small yard space (airspace also) between the two homes. The wrap deck also would create unwanted shade in the small yard. My appeal is to 1) omit this deck wrap and 2) allow 4' privacy screen for a future hot tub on the NE side of the new home. My efforts to build what I feel are the best improvements to the property include the following: 1) rezone fourplex to two dupl;xcs 2) down -zone second duplex to single- family ($700.00 design review fees paid) 3) 1st too -large house plan scrapped 4) New house plan approved ($700.00 design review fees paid) 5) 1st deck appeal (minor design modification) $75.00 6) 2nd deck appeal (minor design modification) $75.00 7) city council appeal $50.00 8) $3,000.00 worth of spruce trees planted \ $1,000.00 seeding \ hydro seeding on current project I feel strongly about doing the right thing for the property, and I would submit to the council that the appearance of the side elevation of the home in question has no bearing on the community - it cannot be seen until an observer stands in the yard between the two homes. Nevertheless, I would like to improve the appearance of the fireplace cantilever by adding 2-3 faux structural lookouts made of heavy timbers under the cantilever. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Mach, RECEIVED F E B 16 2005 Community Development PQ 4 g'' '/itejd6 ta.(a ( ply b Staff Report Minor ProjectV70N C 0 L O R A D 0 October 19, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report Date October 14, 2004 Project Type Minor Project — Building and Landscaping Modifications Legal Description Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Address 2520 Old Trail Introduction The applicant, Bob Mach, has applied for modifications to the final design for his project currently under construction. Some of the proposed design changes have already been made to the single-family home. Staff conducted a number of site visits, and deviations from the approved plans were noted. This application was received after numerous submittal requests by the Community Development Department. Proposed design changes include: 1. Two berms on easterly prope.:-ty line ("surveyor to verify'), each with two 12' spruce trees. 2. Install 40' length of 3' high split rail fence ("property line delineation") on property line between Lot 45B and Lot 45C. 3. Install 20' length of 6' high cedar fence at north east comer of structure for hot tub screening. 4. New window location for the main level window on north elevation. 5. Omit bellyband detail from all elevations except for gable bumpout on north elevation and utilize continuous wood trim above windows in place of bellyband. 6. Omit deck on west elevation. 7. Two new firebox bumpouts with one on west elevation and one on east elevation. These boxes utilize shingle roofs and accent wood siding. 8. Cedar sided double garage doors in place of one single arched door. 9. New swale between duplex on Lot 45B and Lot 45C. Attached for your review are letters sent to the applicant in addition to a reduced copy of the applicant's current (approved) final design plans from your October 21, 2003 meeting. Full size copies of the proposed design changes and digital photographs of the property will be available for your review at the meeting. Town or Avon Commun4 Development (970) 749.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Minor Project for Design Modifications October 19, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 2 Review Considerations According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4. 10, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the this project: 1. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed. 2 The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. 3. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. 4. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Staff Recommendations After review of the required design review considerations and the Residential Design Guidelines, staff recommends the following motions in correspondence with the above -listed design changes: 1. Denied. After reviewing the survey stakes in the field, the two installed berms appear to exceed the property boundaries and must be removed immediately. Any disturbance to the adjacent lot should be restored to the pre-existing condition. No occupancy certificate will be issued for Lot 45C until this work is completed. 2. Denied. The Residentia' Design Guidelines state "fences that delineate property boundaries are not permitted." The Guidelines continue to say "fencing is discouraged, and will only be permitted where it complements the character of the property." This fence appears to violate the Guidelines. 3. Denied. It does not appear that this "hot tub screening" fence compliments the character of the landscape or property. Additionally, the Guidelines clearly state that fences over 4' are not permitted. 4. Approved. 5. Denied. 6. Approved. 7. Approved. 8. Approved. 9. Approved. Positive drainage must be provided and maintained away from the structures. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please do not hesitate to call me at 748.4017 or stop by the Community Development Department. Res ctfully ubmitt , Matt Pielstick Planning Technician Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Matt Pielsticker, Planning Technician Date: . February 7, 2005 Re: Minor Project Application — Deck Alteration Summary: Staff received a Minor Project application for a design change to the 2520 Old Trail property where a single-family residence is currently under construction. The application proposes to reduce the size of the deck. As approved, the deck wraps around from the south to the west elevation of the residence. The deck has already been constructed on the south elevation (per approved plans) and this application proposes to eliminate the western portion. Background: A previous Minor Project application for design changes was heard at the Commission's October 19"', 2004 meeting. At that meeting, action was taken on a number of exterior and site design changes, including changes to the deck (see number 6 below). Attached to this memo are reduced photocopies showing the proposed reduction in deck area. The deck change being proposed with this application was denied at your October 19, 2004 meeting because the Commission felt that removing the deck would be inconsistent with the Design Review Guidelines. The Residential Guidelines do not specifically address decks and their placement. Subsequently, the applicant missed the appeal period and has resubmitted a new application for further review. Following is a recap of the previous Minor Design application and the changes that were proposed, and with a brief progress update on each change: 1. Install two berms on easterly property lines, each with two 12' spruce trees. Acorn: Conditionally approved. The neighboring property owner (Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge) must submit a letter of approval for these berms prior to Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Progress: No letter has been received by Community Development. The applicant has started dialogue with the neighboring owner's representative. 2. Install 40' length of 3' high split rail fence on property line between Lot 45B and Lot 45C. Action: Approved. Progress: Posts in ground. 3. Install 20' length of 6' high cedar fence at north east comer of structure for hot tub screening. Action: Denied. 4. New window location for main level window on north elevation. Action: Approved. Progress: Complete. 5. Omit bellyband detail from all elevations except for gable bumpout on north elevation and utilize continuous wood trim above windows in place of bellyband. Action: Denied. The bellyband must wrap around the entire north elevation of the home and will terminate into the inside comers of the building. Progress: Trim board has been applied to approved locations. 6. Omft deck on west elevation. Action: Denied. 7. Two new firebox bumpouts with one on west elevation and one on east elevation. These boxes utilize shingle roofs and accent wood siding. Action: Approved. Progress: 900/6 Complete 8. Cedar sided double garage doors in place of one single arched door. Action: Approved. Progress: Complete except for trim. 9. New swale between duplex on Lot 45B and Lot 45C. Action: approved. Progress: Not constructed. F.•IPI"ftAZa7kWCWWWSS1MWffMM O67L4W82*RBobMeehM*WPrgW--td* .0 qp m Btu -O WA -I . VP.*o . ° gom ma od V nyo • lTm* . -gwwn At • '�M'l1iJl585 • '�� JSM aAWW O moIll ^o' Oard(YI00 'NOAV NOm1llIagns zomcru a an z m(na ' 9t JA►t m ZSf O m 4 Z c 0 m g a. Us© C=31 NIn Fz ULII..J W CIQ Q� 1z m u. wJ 0 m ZSf O m 4 00 FO O O Q a[) J A n- J O w W <mw a: C) p Z WOY mHY E x a Im Z 0 O �? ow m_ m Fz wI' Oo w 2 U V O J p Q O ZWpj wJ 0 Fa ONp No F- O10:N_/ (Q') o z U- ocrz �O: 3 w Opo F -a ' (WO� 0w 5po 5; 0 CE <w 3. 00 FO O O Q a[) J A n- J O w W <mw a: C) p Z WOY mHY E x a Im