Loading...
PZC Packet 080707` i�7 V0N C O L O R A D O WORK SESSION (5:00pm - 5:30pm) Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda for August 7, 2007 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road Description: Discussion of Regular Agenda Items. Work session is open to the public. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order It. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the July 17, 2007 Meeting Minutes. • Approval of the July 31, 2007 Meeting Minutes. VI. Urban Renewal Plan - Continued Description: Review of the Town Center Urban Renewal Plan. A public hearing before the Town Council to adopt the Plan is scheduled for August 14"' 2007. The purpose of this meeting is for the Commission to provide comments prior to the August 14"' public hearing and formal adoption of the Plan. VII. Minor Projects - Continued Lot 75, Block 4, Wildridge: Fence Staff Approval Review VIII. Final Designs - Wildridge Subdivision A. Lot 112, Single -Family Property Location: Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / Beaver Creek Point Applicant. Bill Nutkins/Owner. BBG Investments Description: Final Design for a Single -Family residence in the Wildridge Subdivision. The Lot is accessed off of Beaver Creek Point. The design features a 5,600 square foot residence with a 3 -car garage, and wood, stucco, and stone siding. B. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Property Location: Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 Wildridge Road West Applicant/Owner. Michael Hazard/Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Posted on August 3, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • Avon Public Library • On the Internet at httD://www.avon.oro, / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in Stucco and wood to diminish scale. C. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4090 Wildridge Road West Applicant/ Owner Michael Hazard /Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in Stucco and wood to diminish scale. D. Wuhrman Duplex Property Location: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision /540 Nottingham Road Applicant/ Owner Jerald Wuhrman Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via an access easement from Lot 70 off of Nottingham Road. The design uses stucco, stone and wood siding as well as a mansard and gabled roof forms. IX. Minor Projects A. Rella Deck Railing Property Location: Lot 37A, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5024 Wildridge Road East Applicant/ Owner Scott Rella Description: Proposal to replace vertical wooden deck balusters with horizontal metal cables for east unit of duplex unit. This material change was completed prior to application. X. Other Business • Duplex Guidelines Revision • Walkin' the Dog (update) XI. Adjourn Posted on August 3, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • Avon Public Library • On the Internet at httD://www.avon.oro / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions J ,,, ' • i/0.I1144 Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for July 17, 2007 AVON Avon Town Council Chambers C o L o a A o U Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - Regular Meeting - Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm. II. Roll Cali All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Lane. 111. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Item VIII, Zoning Text Amendment, was moved to end of agenda, behind Item IX, Urban Renewal Plan, and before Other Business. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts to disclose. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the June 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes. • Approval of the June 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Green motioned to approve the Consent Agenda with the corrections to the Minutes. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion and the motion passed with a 5-0 vote. Commissioner Foster abstained due to her absence at the meeting. VI. PUD Amendment / Hamel — CONTINUED Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road Applicant: Land Planning Collaborative/ Owner Frank Hamel Description: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lot 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the currently entitled 3 duplexes (or 1 duplex and 1 fourplex) to six single-family residences. The six newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes and restricted to 5,000 square feet. This application was tabled from the June 19, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Goulding questioned the AMI figures regarding income. Tambi Katieb, Land Planning Collaborative, approached the podium to present this application, discuss the slope analysis, and review issues identified at the last meeting. Gerry Miramonte, Architect, continued the presentation by discussing the buildabiz- area, access points, mentioned that the building forms were placed for land use and not the desired constructed project. Mr. Katieb continued with a three dimensional demonstration of the site. Mr. Katieb commented on the ECO Build, presented a graph on the buffer retaining wall, reviewed current and proposed zoning, square footages, building heights and setbacks for each lot. Conversation revolved around the height of the buildings, coverage, deed restricted unit and its issues, what are the benefits to the Town, and deed restricted unit only upon initial purchase. Elsa Reiss, 5021 Wildridge Road East resident below project, commented that the western part looked like a city with five houses together, expressed that some should be moved to the east, and didn't think it was the proper site design. Janet Kozan, 5191 Longsun Lane, wondered why she wasn't noticed for the meeting, project was too dense, agreed with the comments of Ms. Reiss, Lot 39 looked like a city dwelling with modular homes, thought duplexes would be better, and was against the variance in this project. Brian Nolan, 5191 B Longsun, hasn't formed an opinion and was representing four other neighbors, expressed that the 320 foot wall was enormous, and he did receive the public notice. Eric Petrillo, 5134 Longsun Lane, size of the buildings are disturbing to him, expressed that maybe the rules need to be changed, consideration of views for existing neighbors was necessary, and huge duplexes are ruining Wildridge. Commissioner Evans responded that the setbacks are consistent with all zoning in Wildridge. Tami Merto, 5134 Longsun Lane, commented that they never envisioned such a project on this site. Commissioner Green commented that the burden to break up the massing was on the developer, get the project to be what people move to Wildridge for, architecture could soften the project and the walls were an issue, and more spatial considerations were needed to insure the integrity of the neighborhood. Commissioner Smith voiced concern with the density on the west end, 5 buildings on one end was too much, would like to see one go and the little lots being created were too little. Commissioner Foster commented 3 homes in lieu of a duplex was too much, deed restricted unit was lost, its okay. Commissioner Struve expressed that Zoning got it right when they plotted out the lots, Lot 38 was good for a duplex, retaining wall was too visible, footprint was excessive, sited other developments and their outcomes, deed restricted unit confuses the issue, and why can't the 30 foot easement be vacated. Commissioner Goulding voiced that the deed restricted unit was not revealed as a benefit by the neighbors, thought the developer was attempting a cluster home situation but it was for smaller homes than those being presented, and does not support the amendment due to the density and the challenges of neighbor support. Commissioner Evans does not support the 6 to 6 trade off, sets a dangerous precedent, in favor of seeing one or two of the homesites removed, deed restricted unit be eliminated as such, does not see a benefit, project could benefit from removal of one or two sites, would like to see a study on the traversing lot particularly if two sites are eliminated, scar of 300 foot was enormous, and size of homes was excessive. Commissioner Struve motioned to table Item VI, PUD Amendment / Hamel, Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with all Commissioners in favor. 3 VII. PUD Amendment I Sheraton Mountain Vista - CONTINUED Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision /140 West Beaver Creek Boulevard Applicant/Owner. Points of Colorado, Inc Description: A request for an amendment to the Lot C PUD to modify the existing property rights and zoning for Lots 2C, 3, 4, and 5 (Phase 1C). This application proposes to eliminate a 125 -room hotel, and increase the number of time-share units in the project's last phase of development. This application was last reviewed at the March 21, 2006 Commission meeting. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission Commissioner Struve questioned lot definition. Kathryn Plouff, Vice President of Corporate Initiatives for Starwood Resorts, introduced herself and described how Starwood operates and their investment in Avon. Alexandr Sheyhket, architect, presented with the proposed development by presenting anticipated designs for retail space, parking, and commented that the project was reasonably consistent with the PUD. Mr.Sheyhket continued with demonstrating building sections, elevation studies, and sketches of the project. Ruth Borne, attorney for the developer, approached the podium to discuss residential densities, both existing PUD and proposed PUD; explained the reduction of commercial square footage and revealed that the parking spaces remain the same although the residences and commercial square footage have been reduced. Ms. Borne continued that the 2nd and 3id floors of the office building were to be changed to condominiums from office space and the first floor would remain restaurant space. Ms. Some reiterated for the record that plans were submitted May 4, 2007, a PUD application was submitted on May 4, 2007, supplemental information to PUD criteria No. 3'which is also contained in the application and referenced supplemental information which has tabs No. 1, copy of the PUD Development Plan which was approved in February of 2000 which was referenced throughout the application as the existing ordinance, Tab No. 2 has the original Development Agreement for Confluence and Lot C, No. 3 was the ordinance approving this PUD which was considered an Amendment to the Development Agreement, No. 4 was the actual Development Agreement and No. 5 was the proposed Second Amendment to the Development Agreement with a strike through version as well as a clean version; and, No. 6 was the fiscal analysis prepared by Price Waterhouse and Stan Bernstein was also used in developing the numbers. Ms. Borne continued by revealing for the record a fax submitted by fax and email to Matt Pielsticker clarifying some points in the Staff Report: Item One: Vesting was based upon when construction commences and not occupancy; and Item Two: Was in regard to the Walker Parking Study, page 7 stated that the demand for parking is 339 and 374 are to be provided. Commissioner Evans asked for rational behind the elimination of the hotel in lieu of timeshare. Ms. Borne responded that there is a higher demand for timeshare. Commissioner Evans continued by questioning if there was an analysis comparing and contrasting hotel usage versus timeshare, which includes an evaluation of its revenue stream to the Town in 10 to 15 years from now. Stan Bernstein was reviewing the situation currently. Commissioner Foster expressed that there was a clear plan in place in the old PUD with a greater mix and was concerned with losing hotel and office space in the proposed PUD. Ms. Borne responded that the restaurant was relocated to the Main Street plan and the timeshare would be rented similar to hotel rooms. Commissioner Green questioned the additional 30 accommodation units and Mr. Sheyhket responded that timeshare did not increase the density. Commissioner Green questioned employee housing and Ms. Borne replied that some units would be leased and others sold, 20 units with an average size of 250 sq ft. Commissioner Goulding voiced concern for parking and was responded that 339 was suggested by the Walker Parking and consistent with the Confluence parking stats; can not determine if this was a benefit for the Town. Commissioner Struve needed the financial analysis to determine the impact to the Town, and setbacks needed to be addressed to avoid 100 foot walls. Commissioner Foster commented that an analysis was needed, condos are still bought as second homes but full time residency should be addressed. Commissioner Smith would like to see the numbers before proceeding, agreed wi(h office to condos. Commissioner Green expressed that the numbers needed to be looked at, restaurant location was good, and would be focused on the design. Commissioner Evans voiced no issues with the application and elevations needed more consistency. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING There was no comment from the Public. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Green moved to table Item VII, PUD Amendment / Sheraton Mountain Vista, Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision /140 West Beaver Creek Boulevard, until such time as the financial information was available from Staff. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. VIII. Zoning Text Amendment Applicant. John Dunn, Town Attorney Description: Text amendment proposal concerning the applicability of the Town of Avon Municioal Code to public projects. Eric Heidemann read an abbreviated version of the Amendment to the Commission: "Section 17.04.080 makes the Town's zoning applicable to governmental agencies 'to the extent permitted by law'. The proposed amend amendment to that section would delete that language. It is unclear why the language was included in the first place. The concern is that the inclusion of the language could raise some issue as to the relationship of the Town's zoning and the requirements of state law. The Town of Avon is a home rule municipality. As such, it possesses the power to preempt state law in areas of local and municipal concern. Planning and zoning is a traditional area of local and municipal concern, and the courts for the most part have allowed home rule legislation to preempt state statute (except with respect to vested rights)....." Attached to the Memo was Ordinance No. 07-07 which reflects the language noted in the memo. Commissioner Green motioned to approve Item VIII, Zoning Text Amendment, recommending approval to Town Council. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. IX. Sketch Design Plans - Wildridge Subdivision A. Lot 112, Single -Family Property Location: Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / Beaver Creek Point Applicant: Bill Nutkins /Owner BBG Investments Description: Sketch Design for a Single -Family residence in the Wildridge Subdivision. The Lot is accessed off of Beaver Creek Point. The design features a 5,600 square foot residence with a 3 -car garage, and wood, stucco, and stone siding. Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Bill Nutkins, VAG architect, approached the podium to address the project and began that the scale was wrong on the site plan and the driveway was fixed. Commissioner questions revolved around the landscaping details. Commissioner Green commented that the project was pushed to the limit of the site. Mr. Nutkins responded that views were the reason that the home was positioned as it was; the lot was small, .36 acres, site and elevation was sensitive to the drop in the southwest corner to keep the roof down as you come across to the northeast corner. Commissioner Goulding suggested massaging tree locations. Commissioner Struve commented to make landscaping look more natural, place toward street side and the entrance gives a good strong statement. Commissioner Foster voiced concern with the retaining wall in the easement/setback. Commissioner Green mentioned that landscaping needed to be addressed. B. Lot 69, Duplex Property Location: Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5351 Ferret Lane Applicant/Owner. David Forenza Description: Sketch Design for a duplex residence in the Wildridge Subdivision. The Lot is accessed off of Ferret Lane. The design features a total of 8,900 square foot building with wood, stucco, and stone siding. Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report. David Forenza, owner, approached the podium. Commissioner Green revealed that the house was too large for the site, concerned with the boulder wall and landscaping plan, the south elevation was too uniform, and roof form too simple — it needed interest. Cbmmissioner Smith commented that the north elevation was repetitive as well as the east elevation. Commissioner Foster agreed with the need to scale down the project. Commissioner Struve voiced that the driveway and landscaping are an issue, west elevation has two windows in the dirt, west elevation left side roof massing was huge and needed to be broken up, and there were too many gables. Commissioner Evans was concerned with the stone veneer at the base of the home and a need for a better base element for a home of this size. X. East Avon Draft Plan Description: Detailed review of the remainder of Chapter 2 (Physical Plan), pages 25- 43. This review will also include Chapter 3 (Implementation) of the Town Center East District Plan. The draft plan is dated May 10, 2007. Last review took place at the Commission's June 19, 2007 meeting. This item has been table to the Special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for July 31, 2007. XI. Urban Renewal Plan Description: First review of the Town Center West Area Urban Renewal Plan for review and recommendation to Town Council. A public hearing before the Town Council to adopt the Plan is scheduled for August 14th 2007. The purpose of this meeting is to allow the Commission sufficient time to review, ask questions, and provide comments prior to the August 10' public hearing and formal adoption of the Plan. Eric Heidemann presented Staffs Memo to the Commission. Commissioner Evans questioned why East Avon was excluded and what does that mean. The Urban Renewal Plan was to be taken home and reviewed prior to the August 7, 2007, meeting. XII. Other Business • Walkin' the Dog - Re -review requested at June 19, 2007 meeting. Matt Gennett presented the Staff Memo to the Commission by beginning with the historical details of this project. Commissioner Green asked if Staff has looked at the plans from the original application to the current plans. Commissioner Evans mentioned that this was not about the operation of the business, the dogs or anything else, but is solely about compliance with the conditions of the Special Review Use Permit that was granted pertaining to the grading for access• and the site disturbance that has occurred on the adjacent property. Commissioner Green asked why Ms. Lahman graded when told not to. Ms. Lahman responded that Steve Miller, engineer, had spoke with Norm Wood, Town of Avon Engineer, about the grading. Shane Pegram, TOA engineer, worked with Mr. Wood on this project. Original submittal required an engineered plan with a stamp and Mr. Miller responded that he would not stamp the plans since there were no improvements, Mr. Miller was going to install a fence and there was minimal grading. Mr. Pegram gave Mr. Miller the needs of the site and the current plan with reference for vehicle access to the site. The Town of Avon was looking for safe access to the site. Commissioner Evans commented that a material representation was made that there was no impact to the existing site and an engineered drawing for access has still not been submitted to Staff. Mr. Pegram commented on the erosion issue, its need to vegetate the hillside to prevent erosion to the ditch line, the 1.5 to 1 requires matting to re -vegetate, and the need for watering to make it happen. Conversation continued on the need for a landscaping plan to know where the applicant was going, what was going to be provided and where items would be planted and make the scar disappear. Commissioner Goulding commented that the Geotech said to get everything to 1.5 to 1 lay back has to be reveged, has to have a mat on it, has a seeping and needs to be addressed before the snow flies, allow applicant to start the process tomorrow, and submit the plan that matches it. h Commission Goulding motioned to accept the Condition #4 from Resolution No. 06-14 has been adequately satisfied with some additional detail required and any cut that is out there needs to be at a minimum 1.5 to 1 and in all areas that are disturbed are to have mats and seed mix and that the applicant agrees to hand water as recommended by the landscaper. Work to start immediately with a plan in at the next scheduled meeting. Commissioner Struve seconded. All in favor passed unanimously • Lot 75, Block 4, Wildridge: Fence Staff Approval Review— Jared Barnes summarized Staffs Memo to the Commission. Bob Sutter approached the podium to address the fence via reading his son's letter. The letter contained detail of the application process, acknowledged that he did not build the approved fence, voiced hostility to his neighbor's opposition to the fence and his right to build it, and requested tabling so he could appear before the Commission. Commissioner Evans addressed Wildridge Covenants by stating they are not enforced by the Town or by the Commission, and the method to enforce the protective covenants was by legal means. The Commission enforces the Town's Guidelines. Jack Gardner of 5723 Wildridge Road, and 7 full time property owners oppose the fence since it does not comply with the guidelines, they have dogs and kids as well, commented that Mr. Sutter has thumbed his nose at the Commission and built what he wanted, fence delineates the property, and the fence would be much more apparent in winter. Gerry Herman, 5531 Coyote Ridge, voiced that this fence does not comply with guidelines and believes that rules need to be enforced. Mr. and Mrs. Hricik, lives directly above the Suffers, were here about a fence that does not belong there as it is not split rail, chicken wire was added and this would set a dangerous precedent. In addition, their dog cries all day outside in the fence. Commissioner Evans commented that fences have specific guidelines and the applicant has requested to table in order to be present. Commissioner Struve mentioned that the Commission has been consistent in its fence approvals and Mr. Sutter did not get a permit yet but continued building. Commissioner Green voiced concern for the size of the fence and the tone of spite in the letters submitted. Commissioner Smith commented that the mass of fence is too much, chicken wire is disappointing, and Mr. Sutter ignored the requirements of the Town. Commissioner Foster mentioned the risk of setting a precedent, the fence was too large and chicken wire inappropriate. Commissioner Goulding commented that someone went ahead and did not follow procedure; his decision on this issue would be based on the 7 criteria presented in the Staff Report. Commissioner Evans agreed with the two separate issues. Commissioner Green moved to table this issue until the next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. The motion to table passed 5-1 with Commissioner Struve opposing. • July 31, 2007 Special Meeting to review Town Center Design Guidelines XIII. Adjourn Commissioner Foster motioned to adjourn. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 pm. a Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission �( V O'iSpecial Meeting Minutes for July 31, 2007 111,1 Avon Town Council Chambers C O L O R A D O Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road REGULAR MEETING Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm. It. Roll Call All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Foster and Commissioner Smith. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest No conflicts of interest were revealed. V. Consent Agenda VI. Town Center Design Guidelines Description: At the previous Commission meeting held on July 17, 2007, staff distributed the final draft of the Town Center Guidelines to members of the Commission for their review and scheduled a special meeting to be held on July 31, 2007, for the purpose of discussing this document. Staff would like to receive input from the Commission on this document and forward on the document to Council for adoption. Rebecca Leonard, Design Workshop, approached the podium to discuss the historical process of this guideline. Ms. Leonard continued with the outline to be used, the document structure, conceptual master plan; underlying zoning, PUD and density; form and massing balance; 8 elements of district wide use; 7 elements of public signage guidelines; 10 .items of general building •guidelines; and 5 items of site specific guidelines. Commissioner Green commented on concern of the diagrams contained within the guidelines and that said diagrams were critical for developers. Commissioner Struve suggested a caveat regarding the approval of pictures contained within. Commissioner Lane approved of the integration of LEEDS comments throughout the guidelines, circulation and pedestrian diagrams needed enhancement, and civic art direction was to be tied to a place and criteria. Use of public art as a public benefit and the role of the developer were discussed. Lighting specifics were reviewed. Commissioner Green motioned to accept the Design Guidelines for the Avon Town Center dated July, 2007, with the following revisions: the metal halide not be a restricted light source as called out on page 24, that there be language inserted at the beginning of the document that more strongly states the nature and intent of the illustrations as being illustrate only and not approved designs for this Town Center Plan, that there be some way, whether here or in another document that the fact that the documents get consolidated for ease of use and understanding, and that on page 17, the language be revised so that it reads that all installed landscaping shall be maintained and so moved to accept these Guidelines. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. With the permission of the Commission, we make a strong recommendation to Town Council to adopt this strong set of guidelines and will have a real positive and long term effect on the development of the Town of Avon. All commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously with a 5-0 vote. VII. East Avon Draft Plan Description: Detailed review of the remainder of Chapter 2 (Physical Plan), pages 25- 43. This review will also include Chapter 3 (Implementation) of the Town Center East District Plan. The draft plan is dated May 10, 2007. Last review took place at the Commission's June 19, 2007 meeting. Matt Pielsticker discussed the Commissioner's previous comments with the Commission. Page 25: Third Bullet — Should Read "Enhance and maintain strong pedestrian connections between East Town Center and the Eagle River." The second to last bullet to be modified stating "Provide comfortable and safe spaces with adequate separation of automobiles and pedestrians." Add bullet "Create a safe and exploratory environment with strong pedestrian connections to secondary pedestrian corridors." ' • Page 26: Strike word "thereby" • Page 27: Avon Road Crosswalk color and or symbol showing connections between East and West Town Centers should be emphasized. First sentence should be reworded to start with "Consistent high quality and intuitive design are the driving forces....." There should be a consistent level of visual directives including materials, signs, landscaping, etc. The Photoshop drawing does not give the right feel to the plan. The lines appear too hard and should be broken in some way with new hand drawn sketches. • Page 28: The second dashed walking radius line does not have a leader. Page 29: The top photo is great, but the bottom picture is no representative of the envisioned East Town Center District. Under principal 4, second bullet, the work "border" should be replaced with "front " Under fourth bullet, should read "Avoid or minimize the impacts of traffic on secondary streets to create a pleasant living environment." Bullet five, "by encouraging owners with vehicles..." Under bullet one of principal five, replace "residential" with "mixed use." Also, the bottom photo shows flat roofs. • Pages 30 and 31: The residential street should be called "secondary' streets, and there should be some sort of hierarchy in line types, colors, etc. to differentiate between through roads and secondary roads. The buildings in the drawings should not be blocky as shown. J� J • Page 32: Residential cross section appears more commercial than residential, and the cross septions throughout the document should be softened in some way. • Page 33: Trash Bins should be replaced with Trash Cans. Also in the first paragraph, should read "Trees should be no more than 30 feet on center." • Page 34: Same as previous page, trees should be no more than 30 feet o.c. The sentence in the middle of the paragraph should read "A minimum of six foot clear pedestrian circulation route should be provided, however, creative solutions to pedestrian routes is strongly encouraged." • Page 35: Strike 15% mixed use reduction bullet. Strike "Casual surveillance" bullet from principal 7. Under principal 8, add bullet to read "Encourage decentralized underground parking." Last bullet to read "Prohibit bland walls facing the street on buildings with parking garages. Bland walls must be decorated with artwork, display cases......" • Page 37: Do the footprints work with parking numbers? What were the assumptions that went into these parking studies? • Page 40: Strike last bullet under principal 10. Under the second to last bullet under principal 11, should read "Provide appropriate lighting to insure that paths are safe at night and still compliant with the Dark Sky Ordinance. • Page 41: LEED certification was discussed at length and whether or not it should be required in this document. Some of the bullets may be redundant (i.e. encourage the use of renewable materials) since they are required by LEED already. The second to last bullet under principal 14 should start with "Encourage the use of alternative energy sources and improve energy......" The bottom photo is not representative of the East Avon vision. • Page 42: Strike entire page. • Page 43: Strike first bullet. Add Bellyache Ridge to the third bullet. Strike the word "trees" from last bullet and this last bullet should be reworded. • Page 44: Strike entire page. • Page 45: View corridors should not be broken into primary and secondary, they should all be accepted as view corridors with no prioritization. The narrative should go into more detail on which views are important (i.e. call out bachelor's gulch, gypsum cliffs, etc again) and there should be a view from beaver creek boulevard looking straight down. • Page 47: The third bullet should read "Require the realignment of East Beaver Creek Boulevard" Under the last bullet Tax Increment Financing should be spelled out since it is the first time it comes up in the document. • Page 48: Strike first sentence of first paragraph. • Page 49: The Chapel Square figure was questioned. In the caption the work "will" to be replaced with "shall." There should be a note added indicating that the expenditures are based on 2006 or 2007 numbers based on assumptions. • Page 53: The schematic drawings should show existing conditions next to the proposed drawings that are shown. • Page 56: The relationship between this plan and the Village at Avon was questioned. There should be a clear statement of intent in the conclusion. All Commissioners requested a copy of the final product prior to presentation to Town Council. VIII. Other Business • Duplex Connection Design Guidelines (update) • Walkin the Dog — no progress to date, will be followed up by Matt Gennett. IX. Adjourn Commissioner Struve motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary f_ll�:l;•1�1��7I Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary ` Memo AVON C O L O R A D O To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners From: Matthew R. Gennett, AICP, Senior Planner Date August 7, 2007 Re: Review of Proposed Town Center West Area Urban Renewal Plan Introduction On July 17, 2007, staff distributed to the Commission copies of the Town Center West Area Urban Renewal Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Plan") for your review and recommendation to Town Council at the August 7, 2007 hearing. As noted in the timeline provided below, a public hearing before the Town Council to adopt the Plan is scheduled for August 14'° 2007. The purpose of the distribution at your last regularly scheduled hearing was to allow the Commission sufficient time to review, ask questions, and provide comments on the subject document prior to the August 14"' public hearing and formal adoption of the Plan by the Council. As described previously, the Plan contains general background information, a description of the purpose and intent of the Plan, and the statutory requirements and findings necessary for adoption. Of particular importance for the Commission's review is the harmonious correlation between the Plan and the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to Sections 3.0 and 4.0 for a detailed discourse relative to conformance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan has been made available to business and property owners located within and adjacent to the Plan area boundaries, as well as to other Avon residents. Staff has provided notification of the public hearing to property owners, residents, and owners of businesses for input on the Plan's content. Backoround On June 26', 2007 the Town Council approved the formation of the Avon Urban Renewal Authority, (hereafter referred to as the "Authority") pursuant to the provisions of the Urban Renewal Law of the State of Colorado. The Authority, which is comprised of all seven Town Council members, will be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this Plan, including the preparation and execution of any documents implementing the Plan. Timeline July 17 Distribution to the Planning and Zoning Commission August 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Review and Recommendation August 14 Town Council Public Hearing and Adoption Recommended Motion The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Avon Town Council approval of the Town Center West Area Urban Renewal Plan, pursuant to the following findings: 9. The Plan meets the purpose and intent of the Avon Municipal Code and promotes the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Avon, and 2. The Plan conforms to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan and promotes the planning principles contained therein." Respectfu P Submitted Matthew R. Gennett, AICP Senior Plan _,/'� Memo VON C O L O R A D O To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners From: Jared Barnes, Planner 15S Date July 17, 2007 Re: Fence at 5601 B Wildridge Road East Background and History: On June 8t', 2007, the Town of Avon's Development Review Inspector, Paul Brogren, noticed that work was beginning on a fence at 5601 Wildridge Road East (Lot 75B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision). Mr. Brogren informed the owner that a "Minor Design and/or Minor Modification" application needed to be submitted and approved prior to the erection of a fence. Over the weekend, prior to submittal of the application, the applicant, Ryan Sutter, continued work on his fence. On June 13, 2007, an application was received for the project and Mr. Sutter was informed that the area he intended to enclose was more than the 2,000 square feet, the maximum allowed by the Design Review Guidelines. The applicant then submitted revised plans, on June 18, 2007, depicting an enclosure of 1,950 square feet and the fence was subsequently changed to reflect the revised application. Staff reviewed the project and granted approval on June 18, 2007, with the condition that the fence was no more than four feet in height. Staff informed Mr. Sutter that he would be allowed to finish work on his fence in accordance with the approved plans. At the June 19, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commissioner Green made a motion to call up the Staff Approval for the Sutter Fence. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion and a unanimous vote of approval followed. The following day, staff informed the applicant that the Staff Approval was being called up by the Planning and Zoning Commission and that they should cease all work on the fence until after a decision has been made at the scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 17, 2007. Mr. Sutter asked if he could stain his fence so that the wood would not be ruined while he was waiting for the hearing date. Staff informed Mr. Sutter that he may stain his fence at his own risk since the Planning and Zoning Commission may require changes to the fence. On July 2, 2007, staff received letters and signatures in opposition of this fence (Exhibit B). Staff received more letters of opposition (Exhibit C) on July 5, 2007 as well as a revised application from Mr. Sutter describing his landscaping and fencing work (Exhibit D). Also on July 5, 2007, staff received a letter requesting a tabling from the July 17, 2007, Planning and Zoning commission meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting, and another letter responding to several comments made in opposition to the fence (Exhibit E). Discussion: The Town of Avon's Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines regulate fence construction as listed verbatim below. All fences require approval through a `Minor Project and/or Modification' application. Although discouraged in WIdridge and Widwood, in all instances fences should complement the property and landscape rather than contain the property. Fences that delineate property boundaries are not permitted. Fences will be considered for approval by staff only when demonstrated by the applicant that the design is consistant with the following criteria: 1. Fence material shall be wood and no more than four feet in height 2. Split rail design with no more than 2 horizontal `rails 3. Does not delineate property lines. 4. Fenced area is less than 2,000 square feet 5. Wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed fence design. 6. If part of a multi -family project approval must be received from the association, and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design of the property. 7. if located on a duplex property, written approval must be received from adjoining property owner and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design. Applications that do not meet one or more of the above criteria can only be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff reviewed the application for a fence and determined its compliance with the intent of all of the criteria. Staff then approved a fence for Lot 75B, Block 4 of the Wildridge Subdivision. Below are the criteria upon which the fence was approved: 1. Split Rail type fence built using 4"x6" posts and 2"x8" rails; 2. Stained a natural wood color to match wood trim on the existing residence; and 3. Enclose an area of 1950 square feet; After the Staff Approval was called up, Staff went to the site to verify that what was built was the same as what was proposed and approved. Staff found a few discrepancies between the built fence and its associated approval. Below are the differences: 1. The applicant enclosed an area of approximately 3,190 square feet; 2. The applicant attached chicken wire to the inside portion of the fence; and 3. The applicant created a second gate to the northeast side of the fence. F:\Pianning & Zoning CornrnWon\Memos\2007\sutter Fence - 071707.doc Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map B. Letters of opposition from Eileen and George Hdcik and Jack and Greer Gardner C. Letter of opposition from Randy Smith D. Revised application stating Mr. Sutter's intent for landscaping and fencing on his property E. Letters from Ryan and Trista Sutter requesting a Tabling and responding to the letters of opposition F. Letter of support from Dominic and Diane Maudello. F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Memos\2007\9utter Fence - 071707.doc Landscape Pla EXHIBIT D nCc-1C1Vt:U 5801 B Wildridge Road East - Sutter Residence JUL o 5 Zoor Cemmvntty 9evelspment Is1 = 1 ==tin This plan outlines the intentions at 5801 B Wildridge Road East, The Sutter Residence (referred hereto after as "The Residence"). The plan will relate the ideas and theories associated with the residence's current and planned outdoor living environment in regard to boarders, retaining walls, patios and landscape. It is the goal of this plan to demonstrate and justify the creation and maintenance of an effective, comfortable and aesthetically pleasing outdoor experience. At the onset of the planned landscape renovation, the residence's current landscape consisted mainly of a small back concrete patio, a four -foot brick retaining wall and a section of split rail fencing. In addition, the residence's landscape includes a small lawn, a small front patio, a curbside large boulder retaining wall. The focus of this landscape plan will be on the rear and side landscapes. Little change will be made to the front portions of the lot. Prior to the submittal of this Landscape Plan and with approval from the Town of Avon Design Review Board, a fence has recently been constructed to replace the old, dilapidated split rail and to help In bringing definition to the outdoor living space. See attached "Fence" attachment for Au Cher explanation. Under the current landscape plan the following are intended. • Completion of aforementioned fence - Please see "Fence" attachment. • Installation of flagstone patio to replace concrete slab - Will expand current patio, providing an area for outdoor living, including dining and relaxing. The patio will be constructed to provide a porous surface for water run-off mitigation. • Lowering and stair stepping of current brick retaining wall - Will provide a more open environment and opportunity for a more Interactive and creative landscaping. • Flora - Most of the natural landscape and vegetation will be unaltered. Special consideration will be made to preserve drought tolerant native vegetation and eliminate noxious weeds. A buffer of native vegetation will be maintained and enhanced around the perimeter of the outdoor living space. It is the intent of this buffer to provide a transition into the living space as well as to maintain the native look and feel of the area to both the residence and the neighboring property. The creation of various sitting spaces - will provide opportunity to enjoy a more intimate natural experience within the outdoor living space. Modification of Irrigation system - Implementation of this landscape plan will reduce lawn space and decrease irrigation needs. Traditional sprinkler heads will be replaced or modified where applicable. Low flow drip irrigation will be utilized in areas where supplemental irrigation may be needed. The Landscape Plan at 8801 B wildridge Road East has been designed with the intent of providing a safe, effective and beautiful outdoor living environment. It offers the space for comfortable outdoor living while specifically allowing buffer zones to bring the native landscape into the living environment. The design was created with respect to the natural environment, the residence and the neighborhood. Its footprint is small, especially when considering the size and scale of neighboring homes. Wildlife corridors are respected and maintained. ' Fev%Ge'Attachment Fence - The fence at the residence is an integral part of the overall landscape plan. It also seems to be a point of contention and thus deserving of special explanation and consideration. Intent - The intent of the fence is to define and enhance an outdoor living space. Additionally, it provides security and the ability for an entire family, in this case consisting of two dogs and an enfant, to enjoy the outdoors together without worry. By blending into the landscape and relating in style and finish the home structure, the fence in effect creates an outdoor living room. It allows the occupants the opportunity to experience and enjoy the natural environment without the coniines of walls or a calling. Defining an ample yet conservative space allows natural buffer zones to create a transition from "wild" space to "living" space while also serving to blend the fence into the landscape. Construction - The fence is constructed in traditional post/rail construction using dimensional posts of 4" x 8" size and rails of 2" x 8" x 8' size. Each post is placed 8 foot on center with a series of two rails extended between each post. While consistent in style and dimension to traditional cedar split rail fences, this fence is far superior in design and construction. Each section is secured with wood screws for sturdiness and durability. The height of the fence does not exceed four feet in height. Unfinished lumber was used in order to avoid leaching of pressure treated chemicals into the soil. A more bio -friendly alternative was used to preserve and protect the wood below grade. Above grade, the fence was stained to match the siding of the home structure and to blend into the overall landscape. In order to effectively provide a safe and worry free environment, wire mesh was hung between each post. The mesh used is the lowest gauge available with the largest effective spacing. It was tailored to fit securely and discreetly within each section of fence. Though immediately upon installation the mesh is a shiny metallic, it will tarnish over time to become mostly invisible within the natural background. Additionally, a buffer of native grasses, brush and trees, growing upwards of three feet in height and surrounding the fence, will further aid in blending the fence into the landscape. The fence runs briefly along the property line between units of the duplex where it replaced the old fence but avoids delineating the property in any other area or affecting wildlife migration. Furthermore, a large portion of the fence runs below the highest grades of the site providing additional camouflage. Conclusion - While this fence cannot be classified as traditional cedar split rail, its post/rall design reflects the tradition of cedar split rail while allowing for a higher quality, safer and more finished looking fence. Its design is consistent with that of the home as well as the aesthetic of the neighborhood. The fence was constructed with care and craftsmanship and with the intent, as part of a greater landscape plan, to create a usable and enjoyable outdoor living environment. t 9r 11 /(f1 1 � 1 . \ _ �r Landscape Plan - Site Map Legend A - Flag Stone Patio . L : , :.. C n . a . C - Existing Stene R,etaining°Wall E - Fence Y W G 11111 Staff Report r;:r� ;�`, FINAL DESIGN PLAN AVON C O L O R A D O August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date August 2, 2007 Project type Single Family Residence Legal description Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning 1 Unit — PUD Address 2060 Beaver Creek Point Introduction The applicant, Bill Nutkins, has submitted a Final Design application for a single family residence on Lot 112, Block 1 of the Wildridge Subdivision. The lot would be accessed off of Beaver Creek Point. The residence is proposed to be 5,695 sq. ft. with a 969 sq. ft. three car garage. The building is designed with gabled roofs and utilizes stucco, stone, and wood siding on the exterior walls. Included with this report are a vicinity map (Exhibit A) and reduced plan sets with a site plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit B). Review History At the Commission's July 17, 2007 meeting, the sketch review took place for this property. There were several comments centered around the following: location, type, and amount of landscaping and location of a retaining wall within the setback. Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Review Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items when reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zonina Code. • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the single family - PUD zoning. • Density. The lot is zoned for a single family residence and the density is appropriate. • Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is 50%. The project is in compliance with the PUD, proposing 30% lot coverage. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Y Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision—Speculative Residence Final Design ,p, August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 5 Ali! • Setbacks: The setbacks for the property are typical for Wildridge with a 25' front yard setback and 10' side and rear yard building setbacks. Even though the building is within all required setbacks, an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) will be required to document the exact location since the building does abut the setbacks on the east, south, and west sides of the property. • Easements: A Utility and Drainage Easement of 10' in width borders the east side of the property, while a 7.5' wide Utility and Drainage Easement borders the north and south sides of the property. The western side of the property has a 10' Slope Maintenance, Drainage, and Snow Storage Easement. It is not advised to place landscaping within platted easements; however, it is the owners responsibility if this landscaping requires removal and replacement in the future. • Building Height Unlike other properties in Wildridge, the height maximum is unique to this property. As stated in Note 5 of the second Replat of the Wildridge Subdivision, the overall height for Lot 112 is 24 feet. The note goes on to state the height is measured from the finished road centerline elevation at the center of the lot frontage. The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 21.5 feet as measured using the requirements specified for this lot on the.Wildridge Plat. • Grading/Drainage: All existing and proposed grades are indicated on the site plan. Parking: This project requires 3 spaces (2 per unit under 2,500 sq. ft. / 3 per unit over 2,500 sq. ft). The applicant is proposing a total of 3 interior and 2 exterior spaces provided for each dwelling unit. The proposal meets the parking requirements. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist on the property for up to two dwelling units. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Guidelines. A. Site Development: o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put emphasis on site layout design and state that structures should blend in with natural settings and limit the need for extensive site grading and slope retention. Additionally, buildings should be stepped in appearance where practical. The proposed design utilizes a majority of the buildable area by having the building footprint stretch from east to west setback. The building is designed to step with the grade as a lower level is placed in the southeast comer of the lot. The Guidelines state that all disturbed areas should be revegetated with native seed. The applicant intends to restore disturbed areas with Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 l� Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision —Speculative Residence Final Designs August 7,'2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 5 7111 vegetation as shown on the landscape plan and discussed later in this report. o Site Access: Access to the site is provided with a 12' wide driveway from Beaver Creek Point. The drive starts with a 4% grade for the first 20' adjacent to the roadway. The grades throughout the drive vary from less than 1% grade to 6.7% grade. The first 20' adjacent to the garage has a 0.6% grade, while the first 20' adjacent to the roadway has a 4% grade. The Design Guidelines require no more than 4% grade for the first 20' of the driveway entering a site and leaving a garage door. This design appears to be in compliance with the access requirements. o Parking and Loading: The intent of the parking guidelines is to provide residents and guests with suitable parking locations that are also durable and functional. The parking requirements of this section are discussed above in the parking zoning requirements. The material used for the driveway is asphalt. o Site Grading: Grading on the property is significant and does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. Grading is used to alter drainage around the structure. The applicant has proposed to revegetate all the areas disturbed by grading work. o Drainage: The guidelines have been met with regard to drainage as the drainage is set away fromt the buildings and into the drainage easements., o Snow Removal and Storage: The project has designated the area to the northeast of the hammerhead portion of the driveway as snow storage. The project proposes 340 sq. ft. of snow storage, which is 20.1% of the paved surfaces and exceeds the required 20%. B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: A variety of quality building materials are proposed with this application including: Stucco, stone and wood siding. The applicant has proposed EI Rey color 125 La Luz for the stucco, dry - stack moss rock for the stone, and two shades of Porter (33145-1 and 33154-1) for the wood siding. The darker of the two shades will be used for trim, soffit, beams, and rafters. The windows will have an aluminum Mesa red color. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest. The building's massing is broken up with varying building materials, wall planes, roof elevations, and use of fenestration. The building utilizes both horizontal and vertical wood siding, as well as a stone and stucco base varied throughout the elevations. o Outdoor Lighting: The applicant has proposed to use exterior lighting on the south, east, and entry elevations. The light fixture uses a 60 watt bulb with a honey glass pane. It appears that the light fixtures will meet the minimum requirements of the outdoor lighting ordinance. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision —Speculative Residence Final Design T W. August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 5 Alll C. Landscaping: o Design Character: The design appears to generally comply with the intent of the Residential Landscaping Guidelines. In terms of plantings, there are a total 6 Colorado Blue Spruce trees, 19 Aspen trees, 14 Cinquefoil shrubs, 6 Mountain Mahogany shrubs, 7 Woods Rose shrubs, Low Rabbit Brush shrubs as needed, and an assorted ground cover as needed. Most of the plant species proposed are contained in the Appendix 1: Recommended Plant List, from the Town's Design Guidelines. According to the applicant, all trees would meet the minimum size requirements as prescribed by the Design Guidelines: 6' minimum height for evergreens, 2" minimum caliper for deciduous trees, and 5 gallon minimum for shrubs. One discrepancy between the requirements and the proposal is the irrigation of 94.5% of the lot area and a temporary irrigation of 97.24% of the landscaped area. The Guidelines only allow for a maximum of 20% of the landscaped area to be irrigated. Staff recommeds that a timeframe be given for the temporary irrigation and that the permanent irrigation area be revised to meet the Guidelines. o Irrigation/Watering: The proposed landscaping plan does not include a rain sensor note and that will need to be added to meet the minimum standards of the Design Guidelines. o Retaining Walls: There is one retaining wall located in the southeast comer of the lot. The wall is taller than four feet and will need to be structurally engineered and stamped by a CO licensed Professional Structural Engineer. Also, the retaining wall is located almost entirely within the buildable area, but a small area does extend into the southern setback, no more than eight inches. Staff feels that this is acceptable since it is such a small portion and is needed for proper soil retainage. 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 and building appear to be compatible with the site topography. The structure would be stepped with the grades as they fall to the southeast. 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 applicant has proposed high quality materials and earth tone colors that should make this project visually compatible with the surrounding environment. The property is adjacent to open space and a vacant lot to the south. The only developed property to the north of the adjacent open space and should not be impacted. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. No monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the proposed improvements. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision — Speculative Residence Final Design ;; August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting ' Page 5 of 5 AM 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies and is a use by right per the Wildridge Subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending conditional approval of this final design plan for a duplex residence on Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the final design plan for a duplex residence on Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, with the following conditions to be resolved by building permit submittal: 1. The landscaping plan be revised to meet a maximum of 20% of the landscaped area that is irrigated; 2. A rain sensor note be added as required in the Design Review Guidelines; 3. The retaining wall needs to be designed and stamped by a Colorado licensed Professional Structural Engineer; and 4. The title block should be revised to include "Block 1" after Lot 112. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4023, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Jared Barnes Planner I Exhibits: 1. Aerial Map 2. Reduced plan set and colored elevations Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74SA030 Fax (970) 949-5749 W. Staff Report FINAL DESIGN PLAN AVON C O L O R A D O August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date August 2, 2007 Project type Single Family Residence Legal description Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning 1 Unit — PUD Address 2060 Beaver Creek Point Introduction The applicant, Bill Nutkins, has submitted a Final Design application for a single family residence on Lot 112, Block 1 of the Wildridge Subdivision. The lot would be accessed off of Beaver Creek Point. The residence is proposed to be 5,695 sq. ft. with a 969 sq. ft. three car garage. The building is designed with gabled roofs and utilizes stucco, stone, and wood siding on the exterior walls. Included with this report are a vicinity map (Exhibit A) and reduced plan sets with a site plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit B). Review History At the Commission's July 17, 2007 meeting, the sketch review took place for this property. There were several comments centered around the following: location, type, and amount of landscaping and location of a retaining wall within the setback. Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items when reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zoninq Code. • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the single family - PUD zoning. • Density. The lot is zoned for a single family residence and the density is appropriate. • Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is 50%. The project is in compliance with the PUD, proposing 30% lot coverage. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949.5749 6 Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision — Speculative Residence Final Design � August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 5 Al1A • Setbacks: The setbacks for the property are typical for Wildridge with a 25' front yard setback and 10' side and rear yard building setbacks. Even though the building is within all required setbacks, an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) will be required to document the exact location since the building does abut the setbacks on the east, south, and west sides of the property. • Easements: A Utility and Drainage Easement of 10' in width borders the east side of the property, while a 7.5' wide Utility and Drainage Easement borders the north and south sides of the property. The western side of the property has a 10' Slope Maintenance, Drainage, and Snow Storage Easement. It is not advised to place landscaping within platted easements; however, it is the owners responsibility if this landscaping requires removal and replacement in the future. • Building Height. Unlike other properties in Wildridge, the height maximum is unique to this property. As stated in Note 5 of the second Replat of the Wildridge Subdivision, the overall height for Lot 112 is 24 feet. The note goes on to state the height is measured from the finished road centerline elevation at the center of the lot frontage. The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 21.5 feet as measured using the requirements specified for this lot on the Wildridge Plat. • Grading/Drainage: All existing and proposed grades are indicated on the site plan. Parking: This project requires 3 spaces (2 per unit under 2,500 sq. ft. / 3 per unit over 2,500 sq. ft). The applicant is proposing a total of 3 interior and 2 exterior spaces provided for each dwelling unit. The proposal meets the parking requirements. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist on the property for up to two dwelling units. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Guidelines. A. Site Development: o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put emphasis on site layout design and state that structures should blend in with natural settings and limit the need for extensive site grading and slope retention. Additionally, buildings should be stepped in appearance where practical. The proposed design utilizes a majority of the buildable area by having the building footprint stretch from east to west setback. The building is designed to step with the grade as a lower level is placed in the southeast comer of the lot. The Guidelines state that all disturbed areas should be revegetated with native seed. The applicant intends to restore disturbed areas with Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision— Speculative Residence Final Designs August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 5 p1f, vegetation as shown on the landscape plan and discussed later in this report. o Site Access: Access to the site is provided with a 12' wide driveway from Beaver Creek Point. The drive starts with a 4% grade for the first 20' adjacent to the roadway. The grades throughout the drive vary from less than 1% grade to 6.7% grade. The first 20' adjacent to the garage has a 0.6% grade, while the first 20' adjacent to the roadway has a 4% grade. The Design Guidelines require no more than 4% grade for the first 20' of the driveway entering a site and leaving a garage door. This design appears to be in compliance with the access requirements. o Parking and Loading: The intent of the parking guidelines is to provide residents and guests with suitable parking locations that are also durable and functional. The parking requirements of this section are discussed above in the parking zoning requirements. The material used for the driveway is asphalt. o Site Grading: Grading on the property is significant and does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. Grading is used to alter drainage around the structure. The applicant has proposed to revegetate all the areas disturbed by grading work. o Drainage: The guidelines have been met with regard to drainage as the drainage is set away fromt the buildings and into the drainage easements.. o Snow Removal and Storage: The project has designated the area to the northeast of the hammerhead portion of the driveway as snow storage. The project proposes 340 sq. ft. of snow storage, which is 20.1 % of the paved surfaces and exceeds the required 20%. B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: A variety of quality building materials are proposed with this application including: Stucco, stone and wood siding. The applicant has proposed EI Rey color 125 La Luz for the stucco, dry - stack moss rock for the stone, and two shades of Porter (33145-1 and 33154-1) for the wood siding. The darker of the two shades will be used for trim, soffit, beams, and rafters. The windows will have an aluminum Mesa red color. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest The building's massing is broken up with varying building materials, wall planes, roof elevations, and use of fenestration. The building utilizes both horizontal and vertical wood siding, as well as a stone and stucco base varied throughout the elevations. o Outdoor Lighting: The applicant has proposed to use exterior lighting on the south, east, and entry elevations. The light fixture uses a 60 watt bulb with a honey glass pane. It appears that the light fixtures will meet the minimum requirements of the outdoor lighting ordinance. Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 k Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision —Speculative Residence Final Design ,M" August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 5 Aug C. Landscaping: o Design Character: The design appears to generally comply with the intent of the Residential Landscaping Guidelines. In terms of plantings, there are a total 6 Colorado Blue Spruce trees, 19 Aspen trees, 14 Cinquefoil shrubs, 6 Mountain Mahogany shrubs, 7 Woods Rose shrubs, Low Rabbit Brush shrubs as needed, and an assorted ground cover as needed. Most of the plant species proposed are contained in the Appendix 1: Recommended Plant List, from the Town's Design Guidelines. According to the applicant, all trees would meet the minimum size requirements as prescribed by the Design Guidelines: 6' minimum height for evergreens, 2" minimum caliper for deciduous trees, and 5 gallon minimum for shrubs. One discrepancy between the requirements and the proposal is the irrigation of 94.5% of the lot area and a temporary irrigation of 97.24% of the landscaped area. The Guidelines only allow for a maximum of 20% of the landscaped area to be irrigated. Staff recommeds that a timeframe be given for the temporary irrigation and that the permanent irrigation area be revised to meet the Guidelines. o IrrigationlWatering: The proposed landscaping plan does not include a rain sensor note and that will need to be added to meet the minimum standards of the Design Guidelines. o Retaining Walls: There is one retaining wal comer of the lot. The wall structurally engineered and Structural Engineer. Also, t within the buildable area, but setback, no more than eight since it is such a small portion I located in the southeast is taller than four feet and will need to be stamped by a CO licensed Professional he retaining wall is located almost entirely a small area does extend into the southern inches. Staff feels that this is acceptable and is needed for proper soil retainage. 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 and building appear to be compatible with the site topography. The structure would be stepped with the grades as they fall to the southeast. 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 applicant has proposed high quality materials and earth tone colors that should make this project visually compatible with the surrounding environment. The property is adjacent to open space and a vacant lot to the south. The only developed property to the north of the adjacent open space and should not be impacted. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. No monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the proposed improvements. Tom of Avon Community Development (970) 74BA030 Fax (970) 949.5749 :4 Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision —Speculative Residence Final Design �,�r August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 5 710 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies and is a use by right per the Wildridge Subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending conditional approval of this final design plan for a duplex residence on Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the final design plan for a duplex residence on Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, with the following conditions to be resolved by building permit submittal: 1. The landscaping plan be revised to meet a maximum of 20% of the landscaped area that is irrigated; 2. A rain sensor note be added as required in the Design Review Guidelines; 3. The retaining wall needs to be designed and stamped by a Colorado licensed Professional Structural Engineer; and 4. The title block should be revised to include "Block 1" after Lot 112. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4023, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Jared Barnes Planner I Exhibits: 1. Aerial Map 2. Reduced plan set and colored elevations Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 81, � \ opsJOJOO'uony O co ,e � , \ a6PPPI!M `Z L L fol I 8 1 ~ f 1 83u8p!s8a en!}elnoedS w LU �co Q z U. Illltilt ttlitttttttt i ! 0 c fill] i t I l 8alad�6a26��9Ct1x6s5;llY:�SiYaxEix R� � I I� I I �, i e X23 � .a g e Y � OPRJolaJ tuony e6pupl!m `Z L G 101 eouepisea eni}7aln3edg _!!-------r— —non �!33z17 ZI3n'v'39 1V' �!V'WH7N39 opmolo� 'uony a `� i E e6PuPl!M `Z l L 1o� L o r e3UOP!sea en!De!noedS a � � h egg ; E %. gr it T gg r�3 3' j 9�r ;y i� §Tg s § 4§§ 0 Ep 4 s ! a �� § _ E e it h�' �� -3 tig 8 s g' a § � Y E a �'`� 0 �� ➢ ��' E§� a g � s �e�U D •� �� _ate�� � Z � �m °i § � � g-9 E'; � § a� 3 y a :� • m s � a '. 99 s E g � � ail "g_ag, cp t� ;as tip% �•+��� 8' g $ ¢� a =e§ egS �� �S ;S , � ", 4s 9a 9� ; ssg $ • S 5F S 9 ; S '-a ;�� •§9' Zit �� ba g SII�s '!g a4�� kggs L 0 ir Q) —1 a AQ 1146i sa � <NIP < a �ay L —1 A : s i d d 9 d d 2 O 2 9 IL u � ■7 �ti� �B .S Z L �d ■ a J a C Y a r0 s off; � N aCL allIL ----'--/' -1------------- I OPWOjOO 'uony 86pppl!M `Z L L 10-1 eouep!sea en!}eln3edg o [ ❑ II -------- ------ h II L II I I C h r-rr� L � I I I I I 1 1 1 47� --- W I I I I I O[® --- . ® \/ o I I 1 r --J I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 �-1 I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 i I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I t 1 JJ$iL OPeJoJwJ ,UO,d 86pljpl!M `Z L L 101 e3uepiSea en11181noedS ------------------------------ A... ,�.� ., a.� 41 ----------------__--____ - I s, �"llo I • � I • I Il I I II �p ; I I � I I I I �g'❑y ; � I i I I p I• ' I, I h I BB I H mm erg `g N 9 � aa- D f i I I lR 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I \ - I I I I � I I I I I qiti ' .--------- - ----Y------- --' ---------- z d S LL T Z9 211111111 opaJOjOO 'uony 96piJpl!m `Z L L lol e3uepisea eniLelnoedg 4JD um E m El CO opwoloD'uony f a; R e6PpPI!M `Z G L 10-1 93ueP!sea en!luInoedg p� II II u� II I� II L_ -_____________--------------------------- _at_______________; N tL �4 13�1� II 9 ■ Y I b§ r I ---------------- �I j ` \ t�J ------------------a - II I I rt M i - III p Y ' o IY J_ II II � ''" � II IF ----•-4f ,� II H �----•-II II II II II g III III € I I III >a iii z II ii pxp ; ii ; ii R m II � II II Q 11 II II I II Y � II 1 I !) I I ' II L o wolf* ,uontl eopliplim `ZI � 1e, eoueplse>d enl�eln�edS Oil � 2� opsmoo'U oxv 01 a6puPl!M Z V eds eouep!seb GAIJ i k lit I 4) v o C d '> N � � ai � � o C? = -o - 00 o U v r � � c o CL o CO CO) -j <C (n '3 Staff Report �� FINAL DESIGN PLAN AVON C O L O R A D O August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date August 2, 2007 Project type Duplex Residence Legal description Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning 2 Units — PUD Address 4080 Wildridge Road West Introduction The applicant, Michael Hazard, has submitted a Final Design application for a duplex residence on Lot 12, Block 3 of the Wildridge Subdivision. The lot would be accessed off of a private drive from Little Point that will serve Lots 12 & 13. The two residences are 4,175 sq. ft. and 3,997 sq. ft. and are designed in a Contemporary architectural style with flat roofs, utilizing wood siding and stucco on the exterior walls. It should be noted that in order for this design plan to function, a minor subdivision plat would first need to be approved to adjust the lot line between lots 12 and 13. Included with this report are a vicinity map (Exhibit A) and reduced plan sets with a site plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit C). Review History At the Commission's June 19, 2007 meeting, a sketch design for Lots 12 and 13 was reviewed. There were several comments, including the following: location of private drive in an easement, differentiation needed between duplexes on both lots, and that the materials and colors need to compliment the neighborhood. 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 when reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zoninq Code. • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the duplex zoning. • Density. The lot is zoned for a duplex and the density is appropriate. • Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is 50%. The project is in compliance with the PUD, proposing 47% lot coverage, Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design ON August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 6 and this coverage ratio is for all impervious surfaces compared to the entire size of the property. • Setbacks: The setbacks for the property are typical for Wildridge with a 25' front yard setback and 10' side and rear yard building setbacks. The 25' front setback is measured from Wildridge Road West and all building setbacks have been adhered to with this submittal. Even though the building is within all required setbacks, an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) is required to document the exact locations since the buildings do abut the setbacks on the north, south, and west sides of the property. • Easements: A Utility and Drainage Easement of 10' in width borders the east side of the property, while a 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement in width borders the north and south sides of the property. The western side of the property has a 10' wide Slope Maintenance Drainage, and Snow Storage Easement. It is not advised to place landscaping within platted easements; however, it is the owners responsibility if this landscaping requires removal and replacement in the future. In addition, a new Utility and Drainage Easement needs to be platted along the adjusted property line to replace the one affected by the future resubdivision. • Building Height: The maximum allowable building height for this property is 35.' This design is in compliance with the applicable zoning with all top of parapet heights at or below 31', as proposed. Again, this requirement would need to be verified by planning staff with an ILC at the time of ridge construction. • Grading/Drainage: All existing and proposed grades are indicated on the site plan. • Parking: This project requires 3 spaces for each dwelling unit (2 per unit under 2,500 sq. ft. / 3 per unit over 2,500 sq. ft). The applicant is proposing a total of 2 interior and 2 exterior spaces for each dwelling unit. It appears that the 2 exterior spaces are not functional spaces. Residence D appears to have space for a third parking space in front of the garage, while Residence C appears to have a functional third space in front of its entry door. The area in front of the garage for Residence C needs to be used for access to the entry doors of both residences and is not large enough to be available for parking. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comorehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist on the property for up to two dwelling units. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines. A. Site Development: o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put emphasis on site layout design and state that structures should blend in with natural settings and limit the Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 6 need for extensive site grading and slope retention. Additionally, buildings should be stepped in appearance where practical necessitated by steep slopes. Due to the interior courtyard design of the duplex, the project utilizes a majority of the buildable area. The project abuts the setbacks on both the north and south sides of the property and is within four feet of the setback on both the east and west sides of the property. The Guidelines state that all disturbed areas should be revegetated with native seed. The applicant intends to restore disturbed areas with vegetation as shown on the landscape plan and discussed later in this report. o Site Access: Access to the site is provided with a twelve foot wide driveway which traverses Lot 13 from Little Point to access Lot 12. The private drive starts -with a four percent grade for the first twenty feet adjacent to the roadway. The grades through out the drive vary from no grade to ten percent grade. The first twenty feet adjacent to the garage for Residence C (northern half of the duplex) has a two percent grade, while Residence D (southern half of the duplex) has a two and one half percent grade. The Design Guidelines require no more than four percent grade for the first twenty feet of the driveway entering a site and leaving a garage door. This design appears to be in compliance with the access requirements. In order for access to this lot, an access easement must be provided where the proposed drive is located. o Parking and Loading: The intent of the parking guidelines is to provide residents and guests with suitable parking locations that are also durable and functional. The parking requirements of this section are discussed above in the parking zoning requirements. The material used for the driveway/courtyard area is not specified and staff recommends that the material be asphalt, concrete, concrete pavers, or another impervious surface. o Site Grading: Grading on the property is minimal and meets the intent of the Design Guidelines. Grading is used to alter drainage to the east of the driveway and in between the two duplexes. The applicant has proposed to revegetate all the areas disturbed by grading work. } o Drainage: The guidelines have generally been met with regard to drainage. The eastern easements had minimal grading work to ensure that drainage is contained within the site. The construction management plan should show straw bales placed in drainage ways. These drainage measures should stay in place until vegetation has been reestablished. o Snow Removal and Storage: The project has designated the area to the east of the driveway, located in the Utility and Drainage Easement, as snow storage. The project proposes 1,680 sq. ft. of snow storage, which exceeds the required 20% of the paved surfaces (1,306 sq. ft.). Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design TIM August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 6 B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: A'varlety of quality building materials are proposed with this application including: Stucco, both smooth and horizontal banding, horizontal wood siding, and painted steel railings. As depicted on the colored elevations, the proposed colors are earthtone; a light tan smooth stucco, a darker tan horizontal banding stucco, and a radish brown wood siding. The colors meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest: The building's massing is broken up with varying building materials, wall planes, and use of , fenestration. The Guidelines encourage pitches roofs and no unbroken ridgelines and only acknowledge fiat roofs when discussing pueblo architecture. The proposal is designed in a contemporary architectural vernacular in which flat roofs are vital to the design. o Outdoor Lighting: The applicant does not intend to use exterior lighting, o Duplex Development The connections between the two halves of each duplex are not the typical Wildridge duplex connection. -The proposed design has a duplex connection on the lower'level and can only be seen - from Wildridge Road on the west elevation, not from the driveway and east elevation. This connection space is used as a second bedroom and is a functional area, as it measures 15 feet in width. At the Sketch Design review for both lots 12 and 13, the commissioners expressed intrigue and support of this connection. C. Landscaping: o Design Character: The provided Landscape Plan encompases both lots 12 and 13 since they will be developed at the same time. The design appears to generally comply with the intent of the Residential Landscaping Guidelines. In terms of plantings, there are a total 5 Amur Maple trees, 45 Aspen trees, 5 River Birch trees, 4 Rocky Mountain Maple trees, 1 Serviceberry, 11 Spruce trees, 11 Alpine Currant shrubs, 5 Blue Mist Spirea shrubs, 22 Chokecherry shrubs, 17 Mugo Pine trees; 18 Peking Cotoneaster shrubs, 5 Rock Cotoneaster shrubs, 20 Sea Green Juniper shrubs, 16 Three Leaf Sumac plants, 37 White Potentilla plants, 10 Woods Rose plants, and groundcovers. Most of the plant species proposed are contained in the Appendix 1: Recommended Plant List, from the Town's Design Guidelines. According to the applicant, all trees would meet the minimum size requirements as prescribed by the Design Guidelines: 6' minimum height for evergreens, 2" minimum caliper for deciduous trees, and 5 gallon minimum for shrubs. One discrepancy between the requirements and the proposal is the irrigation of 50% of the landscaped area. The Guidelines only allow for a maximum of 20% of the landscaped area to be irrigated. Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision— The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design fill, August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 6 o Irrigation/Watering: The proposed landscaping plan includes a rain sensor with irrigation and meets the minimum standards of the Design Guidelines. o Retaining Walls: There are no retaining walls proposed for this project 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 and building appear to be compatible with the site topography. The structure would be stepped with the grades as the fall to the southwest. 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 applicant has proposed high quality materials and earth tone colors that should make this project visually compatible with the surrounding environment. Although the architecture used is not identical to the neighboring properties the lack of architectural conformity in the area promotes this design. The massing and appearance of this project do not appear dominating as viewed from the neighboring properties and public ways. 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 does not feel that any monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the proposed improvements. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies and is a use by right per the Wildridge Subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending conditional approval of this final design plan for a duplex residence on Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the final design plan for a duplex residence on Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions to be resolved by building permit submittal: 1. The landscaping plan be revised to meet a maximum of 20% of the landscaped area that is irrigated; 2.. A resubdivision application be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit to adjust the lot line between lots 12 and 13 and to replat a Utility and Drainage Easement between the two lots; 3. The construction staging plan be revised to show straw bales in drainage ways and a note added that requires the drainage protection to remain in place until vegetation has been established; Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision —The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design 7W, August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 6 4. Plans sets be revised to correct errors in spelling and lot numbering in the title block; and 5. The Topographical Map be revised to show the central angle for the north section of the west lot line for lot 12. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4023, or stop by the Community Development Department. Res ectfully subm�itt\ed, Jar Barnes Planner I Exhibits: 1. Aerial Map 2. Letter from Victoria and Nigel Dagnall dated August 3rd, 2007 3. Reduced plan set and colored elevations Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 1 t5x� 1 , August 3, 2007 Dear Commissioners, My husband and I appreciate you taking the time to understand our serious concerns with regard to the proposed application for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13 of the Wildridge Subdivision. We fully understand the right and need to develop vacant lots; however, we feel these huge structures are totally out of keeping with the surrounding area while some of the design features are "suspect" with regard to the Design Review Guidelines, as outlined below. 1) Roof. The flat roof design as proposed for this development is extremely contemporary in style and in no way reflects or complies with the suggested pueblo/adobe or typical mountain architecture with a pitched roof design. The design guidelines state that "all design shall he compatible with existing built structures". The existing contemporary style homes in the area as referenced at the June 19* meeting all have a pitched roof design (photos to follow). 2) Design The design of the buildings looks massive and retail/commercial in image, completely out of character with the Wildridge Subdivision and a mountain lifestyle, and rather more fitting in the Domino/Columbine bakery complex in Avon. The site coverage although within the guidelines by a mean 2%, again does not reflect the open living space and mountain lifestyle of Wildridge. We suggest that the design is based purely on monetary gain while sacrificing the environment, image and lifestyle of the Wildridge Subdivision. 3) Lighting The many and large windows, although not governed by the light pollution standards for on site outdoor lighting as indicated in the guidelines, yet the impact and affect to the existing homes is the same as is stated that "the access to a clear and visible night sky is a strong value to our community. Light pollution is a threat to our clear skies that are part of the heritage of the Rocky Mountain West". While this proposed development has meet the landscaping requirements, it appears that the majority of it is between Lots 12 & 14 with minimal coverage around the north and west side of the buildings which directly affects the community as a whole. 4) Parking The guidelines call for 3 spaces per residence, you will notice on the plans that this is an extremely confined and compacted parking area, and the turning spaces seem extremely tight for this type of density and will give difficult access to a number of the garages. In an emergency situation we believe there will also be difficult access for life safety personnel and their vehicles. Little Point road clearly states "no parking" on the road side. Should residents of these units have social events this will cause serious congestion in the area which is likely to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and the existing residents. 5) Traffic With most homes today sharing 2-4 cars the impact of between 8-16 vehicles sharing a very small and quiet cul-de-sac will negatively impact the existing residents. In closing, we would like to bring to your attention points C and D from page 47 number 6 of the Design Review Guidelines and The Planning and Zoning Commission Review (Final Design Plan Approval Criteria): Point "C"... "The appearance ofproposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to the street, quality ofmaterials and colors. " Point "D"... "the objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired" with regard to these statements most certainly Architectural style, Massing, Height and Aesthetics will be totally compromised in comparison to the vicinity of other homes in the immediate area. It is also our understanding that complete drawings were required to be submitted one week prior to the meeting of August 8th, however only partial drawings of one lot were submitted for review. We accept that a building will most likely be constructed at some point on these lots, we ask that the design is in keeping with the direction of the Design Guidelines and that the appearance is more residential as opposed to retail or commercial as defined by the design. Thank you so much for your time in listening to our concerns, we hope that you will move forward in reevaluate the design of this proposed application and acknowledging that it is out of keeping for the Wildridge area and insist that what ever structure is placed on the lots that they are harmonious and aesthetically complimentary to the mountains and not a small Mall. Sincerely Victoria and Nigel Dagnall 4211 S. Wildridge Road West tJ3 A t7 O tJ3 t�r A:W11 W a a 4) IN 00 ��° xabeas 0 i aNO .s'j-^ �I,DD 3 ` N Nl {+• Ci to tto� I�� rr y,°�awraaa,�°d�33 Ug 111x x �i��l �u Q- F, h \ ' I' 00In \ o p 00 00 z .� 1 o \ N \TQM - " 00 en auav $° + 00 00 \ ;\ \ rrr \ \ \ \\ fill 314/111 $a In, '42 cap, 1.1Y. am 141 It N Miss It111vol is 1l 0ii�lYl+t�81f�1;1A Prtf;uaog;utAl�i ;t*l�tdt�;uttmatQ fltlet;u;:;uispM;tput;i�l out t;uwnt,pVP I- r,05�) CJJO - VVV jlf✓/`�/ 0 �F e, , QW' Q d^ A NCv M O 4 t (y O lh 9 U ❑V ' C R7 � .N.r.o'nGJ I- r,05�) CJJO - VVV jlf✓/`�/ 0 �F e, ----- y ------ a ' I , QW' Q d^ A NCv �i 7:d ❑V ' C a k' ----- y ------ a ' I , O o h o rN Q d^ A NCv gq U V N g � 7:d ❑V ' C nd Urn w� tA'\ 0 1-4 I I i' I I r2•, -------------------- Q , ------------ , EAsEM o pR AINAG h -J --� A NO � vv 1 vv 4Ntlrfd Py 7dp +yl �'•S'7Y SI iPJ 707 O t1 I! lgl+j 747i'v9nd ), [t PiirdnMeiQi+gllA 1+ 0 '7N++JN�+pt od 7o+(oiripv+unonQ (M,rry+ggviaPYi�dv171+d Pv+ +7vew,DOQi+Q I I i' I I r2•, SLLMCOL6 xyd OdV2 -09 'NOAV 9696'C9d'OLd 3NOHd 9NI�1d NOISIAI (15 99dl?k 1M ZI 4NV II 5107, CL9 IB 00"0100'awam YVO x IMSIMusaV� WI —17I V / \ L!'�IV ILJI IV '011 'S3SIHdN31N9 A1V0 '1W Cost 1Npy Ey 3L//7 t J i i t I 1 t i j I i 1 I I t i I 1 ! I t I 1 I I r I r I r i 1 I t i I t I t I I i t I 1 I ! I I I I ! 1 I I I t I f1 I ! I I I i I I I I I I I I ! S I I t 1 1 I t 1 I I IIL-------------------------------------------� I I I I I I I [I t I I I t I I I I I I t i I i I I I 1 i I I I L- i 1 t � I ------ E#3 I I i I I 1 1 L I I I I i 1 I I j I t ! 1 I I I I I I � I I t � I 1 I I i I I ! i I I I I 1 I k I I � I I I ' i I I I I I I -- —`j "D I I I 1 � I tit _ �-m-�— r � • � 1, (I � i I. I �. J 1 t t \ \ \ /r \ ,6 -,St 21 0 N rn 000 t 0 w A i3y ilia 0 IM11 is IOf 141 > rvu 0 al 101 IO t0 Miss 101110401 O Ia OOt00uhu0tn111A 0lrllmeptulPl0i 100letdlyuwnoop Irytuel0u101u1u0p10011100 0us Ijuw000p1t0 D rn g ai a �y u �y.�y •� v O G i q] C Q ° aRUM U.° J i i t I 1 t i j I i 1 I I t i I 1 ! I t I 1 I I r I r I r i 1 I t i I t I t I I i t I 1 I ! I I I I ! 1 I I I t I f1 I ! I I I i I I I I I I I I ! S I I t 1 1 I t 1 I I IIL-------------------------------------------� I I I I I I I [I t I I I t I I I I I I t i I i I I I 1 i I I I L- i 1 t � I ------ E#3 I I i I I 1 1 L I I I I i 1 I I j I t ! 1 I I I I I I � I I t � I 1 I I i I I ! i I I I I 1 I k I I � I I I ' i I I I I I I -- —`j "D I I I 1 � I tit _ �-m-�— r � • � 1, (I � i I. I �. J 1 t t \ \ \ /r \ ,6 -,St 21 0 N rn 000 t 0 w A i3y ilia 0 IM11 is IOf 141 > rvu 0 al 101 IO t0 Miss 101110401 O Ia OOt00uhu0tn111A 0lrllmeptulPl0i 100letdlyuwnoop Irytuel0u101u1u0p10011100 0us Ijuw000p1t0 D w g V W a CQ �y.�y •� v O G i q] C Q J i i t I 1 t i j I i 1 I I t i I 1 ! I t I 1 I I r I r I r i 1 I t i I t I t I I i t I 1 I ! I I I I ! 1 I I I t I f1 I ! I I I i I I I I I I I I ! S I I t 1 1 I t 1 I I IIL-------------------------------------------� I I I I I I I [I t I I I t I I I I I I t i I i I I I 1 i I I I L- i 1 t � I ------ E#3 I I i I I 1 1 L I I I I i 1 I I j I t ! 1 I I I I I I � I I t � I 1 I I i I I ! i I I I I 1 I k I I � I I I ' i I I I I I I -- —`j "D I I I 1 � I tit _ �-m-�— r � • � 1, (I � i I. I �. J 1 t t \ \ \ /r \ ,6 -,St 21 0 N rn 000 t 0 w A i3y ilia 0 IM11 is IOf 141 > rvu 0 al 101 IO t0 Miss 101110401 O Ia OOt00uhu0tn111A 0lrllmeptulPl0i 100letdlyuwnoop Irytuel0u101u1u0p10011100 0us Ijuw000p1t0 1 I I I •I I I i 1 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I ! I I i t I 7 I rn �A� u �•°o ��u I N— IF+Nyi 'F N ij a mu o 0 a FU 00 30< rn �A� u �•°o ��u I N— I J ilia 121#111 1a lot An Pq'a'1Y mal 117 11 II 111148 I01I11'9o8 LI At Il\11u1*u0\11111A P11AUAo011l1P10A loltoldlquou000p Pn\Ie1u111411�P9118u11118 Put quwlooavo l qN oJ•C � n I J ilia 121#111 1a lot An Pq'a'1Y mal 117 11 II 111148 I01I11'9o8 LI At Il\11u1*u0\11111A P11AUAo011l1P10A loltoldlquou000p Pn\Ie1u111411�P9118u11118 Put quwlooavo l �u r 0; 0 d az V p co W g� w r aaygg �� xm� O l OOM "oa � a° o c N � C0 RS •p� 0 d olr=, pa. V O t ' I I I 3 I I N I � a O d M 00 O r - M till 11191til K IAP An up IV alm 141 ti It MISS I611109At is !l 91UAAIu/plttlllA PutAlmoplutploj tetltuNltlutmttp ARtuputtluldPYUtNillil Put t{utrtmegUp ti 0 CA'i v 1 iMe01 Ni C; Li n{ U Wiz° ,� O S < a9 a�mA�E xA U ,a, z M 00 00 g I S (raV\A gain , C -10 ! i %(Iaso o ?3d\ i � ,N +�- } M \ } \ pvla as &VA aQiS .,0-.01 \ r T ------ so lad _ +� \ \ p 00 N \ \ \ N /A✓ v uW:au r 1 G als .0 -,OT 1 \00 (24 \ \ 7\ \ \ M / 'Q \ \ \ 00 00 CN \ r' o N 2 A", ILI \ 0 0 v M 00 0 M M 00 I W �=1 W HPN Ltt NP=tt P3 rNP A41 NAP'YNv mat 1011# to Mill I111tw4fis to it swoul-lowillA P1t117NAOtuAPi A3 jtArAldUjutttltDQ 1ptaetutAlNlnPritQtt}ttN Put ttutaettO SO N EG c<^ Ch d 59 Q Mg � HS�6 Uri �ro 0. EG ?m Es II till !#Mi=tt it far 041 "P'if 41 fl f'/Y hilt 101 fl if flit$$ I#tif$Wn$ f# td 61t$$#l+#t4t$ltttA P»ti$d#M400113 tdf(aidiftumnafQ trill#tut$t#fa01"i$$dfI'#$ Put flu#on$#ptlp c<^ Wco 59 ?m Es II till !#Mi=tt it far 041 "P'if 41 fl f'/Y hilt 101 fl if flit$$ I#tif$Wn$ f# td 61t$$#l+#t4t$ltttA P»ti$d#M400113 tdf(aidiftumnafQ trill#tut$t#fa01"i$$dfI'#$ Put flu#on$#ptlp a: A 0: Eo ! 1 11 I ? m Ali I I r I -j--- i# i I i i --� i �� IT j i i i i Mal' j y W o A UA i i I i I I f ILI' i i i i II i I i i i l l I I I l i I 1 I I I i i l i II i i I I 1 I I 0: Eo m Ali � m 60 ••V �F oO a U fs, O W o A UA 0: Eo 0 Eel Lisa W11:11 13 I0f 041 040'11 41 11 s'tY 91M 101 LI 11 Lgl41 11111WOS LY Lt 1111tulAsswil1-1A 104 pus Y10YWeY001l0 m T.0 D z jy� �•���Jj 0 Eel Lisa W11:11 13 I0f 041 040'11 41 11 s'tY 91M 101 LI 11 Lgl41 11111WOS LY Lt 1111tulAsswil1-1A 104 pus Y10YWeY001l0 Staff Report r`7;_ _,i;� FINAL DESIGN PLAN AVO N C O L O R A D O August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date August 2, 2007 Project type Duplex Residence Legal description Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning 2 Units — PUD Address 4090 Wildridge Road West Introduction The applicant, Michael Hazard, has submitted a Final Design application for a duplex residence on Lot 13, Block 3 of the Wildridge Subdivision. The lot would be accessed off of a private drive from Little Point that will serve Lots 12 & 13. The two residences are 3,734 sq. ft. and 3,952 sq. ft. and designed in a contemporary architectural style with flat roofs, utilizing wood siding and stucco on the exterior walls. It should be noted that in order for this design plan to function, a subdivision would first need to be approved to adjust the lot line between lots 12 and 13. Included with this report are a vicinity map (Exhibit A) and reduced plan sets with a site plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit C). Review History At the Commission's June 19, 2007 meeting, Lots 12 and 13 were reviewed and there were several comments, including the following: location of private drive in an easement, differentiation needed between duplexes on both lots, and that the materials and colors need to compliment the neighborhood. 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 when reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zoninq Code. • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the duplex zoning. • Density: The lot is zoned for a duplex and the density is appropriate. • Loi` Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is 50%. The project is in compliance with the PUD, proposing 47% lot coverage, Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design ,R, August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 6 All,1 and this coverage ratio is for all impervious surfaces compared to the entire size of the property. Setbacks: The setbacks for the property are typical for Wildridge with a 25' front yard setback and 10' side and rear yard building setbacks. The 25' front setback is measured from the property lines adjacent to Wildridge Road West and Little Point, and all building setbacks have been adhered to with this submittal. Even though the building is within all required setbacks, an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) will need to be submitted in order to document the exact location since the building does abut the setbacks on the north, south, and west sides of the property. • Easements: A Utility and Drainage Easement of 10' in width borders the east side of the property, while a 7.5' wide Utility and Drainage Easement borders the south side 'of the property. The western and northern sides of the property have a 10' Slope Maintenance Drainage, and Snow Storage Easement. It is not advised to place landscaping within platted easements; however, it is the owners responsibility if this landscaping requires removal and replacement in the future. In addition, a new Utility and Drainage Easement needs to be platted along the adjusted property line to replace the one affected by the future resubdivision. • Building Height The maximum allowable building height for this property is 35.' This design is in compliance with the applicable zoning with all top of parapet heights at or below 33', as proposed. Again, this requirement would need to be verified by planning staff with an ILC at the time of ridge construction. • Grading/Drainage: All existing and proposed grades are indicated on the site plan. • Parking: This project will require 3 spaces for each dwelling unit (2 per unit under 2,500 sq. ft. / 3 per unit over 2,500 sq. ft). The applicant is proposing a total of 2 interior and 2 exterior spaces for each dwelling unit. It appears that the 2 exterior spaces are not functional space. Residence A appears to have space for a third parking space in front of the entry door or in the adjacent courtyard paved surface, while Residence B appears to have a functional third space in front of it's entry door. The area in front of the garage for Residences A and B need to be used for access to the entry doors of both residences and are not large enough to be available for parking. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist on the property for up to two dwelling units. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Guidelines. Tovm of Avon Conmurdty Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 A Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design�sr August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 6 p11A A. Site Development: o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put emphasis on site layout design and state that structures should blend in with natural settings and limit the need for extensive site grading and slope retention. Additionally, buildings should be stepped in appearance where practical. Due to the interior courtyard design of the duplex, the project utilizes a majority of the buildable area. The project abuts the setbacks on the north, south, and east sides of the property. The Guidelines state that all disturbed areas should be revegetated with native seed. The applicant intends to restore disturbed area with vegetation as shown on the landscape plan and discussed later in this report. o Site Access: Access to the site is provided with a twelve foot wide driveway from Little Point. The drive traverses Lot 13 to provide access for Lot 12. The private drive starts with a four percent grade for the first twenty feet adjacent to the roadway. The grades through out the drive vary from no grade to a ten percent grade. The first twenty feet adjacent to the garage for both Residence A and B have a two and one half percent grade. The Design Guidelines require no more than four percent grade for the first twenty feet of the driveway entering a site and leaving a garage door. This design appears to be in compliance with the access requirements. An access easement must be provided where the proposed driveway is located to ensure access to Lot 12. o Parking and Loading: The intent of the parking guidelines is to provide residents and guests with suitable parking locations that are also durable and functional. The parking requirements of this section are discussed above in the parking zoning requirements. The material used for the driveway/courtyard area is not specified and staff recommends that the material be asphalt,' concrete, concrete pavers, or another impervious surface. o Site Grading: Grading on the property is minimal and meets the intent of the Design Guidelines. Grading is used to alter drainage to the east of the driveway and in between the two duplexes. The applicant has proposed to revegetate all the areas disturbed by grading work. o Drainage: The guidelines have generally been met with regard to drainage. The eastern easements had minimal grading work to ensure that drainage is contained within the site. The construction management plan should show straw bales placed in drainage ways. These drainage measures should stay in place until vegetation has been reestablished. o Snow Removal and Storage: The project (both Lots 12 and 13) has designated the area to the east of the driveway, located in the Utility and Drainage Easement, as snow storage. The project proposes 1,680 sq. ft. of snow storage which exceeds the required 20% of the paved surfaces (1,306 sq. ft.). Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design ��w August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 6 741 B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: A variety of quality building materials are proposed with this application including: Stucco, both smooth and horizontal banding, horizontal wood siding, and painted steel railings. The applicant has not submitted colored elevations for this lot, but according to the proposed colors on Lot 12 and the color board, the proposed colors are earthtone: a light tan smooth stucco, a darker tan horizontal banding stucco, and a redish brown wood siding to match the design on Lot 12. The colors meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. Due to the similarity of the colors and materials on both Lot 12 and 13, staff would recommend slightly altering the colors to compliment, but not be identical to, the design on Lot 12. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest: The building's massing is broken up with varying building materials, wall planes, and use of fenestration. The Guidelines encourage pitched roofs, no unbroken ridgelines and only acknowledge flat roofs when discussing pueblo architecture. The proposal is designed in a contemporary architectural vernacular in which flat roofs are vital to the design. o Outdoor Lighting: The applicant does not intend to use exterior lighting. o Duplex Development The connections between the two halves of each duplex are not the typical Wildridge duplex connection. The proposed design has a duplex connection on the upper level and the connection is a substantial one. The space is used by a master suite on both halves of the duplex and is 23 feet in width. The interior courtyard and garages are below the connection and easily viewed from both the east and west elevations. At the Sketch Design review for both lots 12 and 13, the commissioners expressed intrigue and support for this connection. C. Landscaping: o Design Character. The provided Landscape Plan encompasses both lots 12 and 13 since they will be developed at the same time. The design appears to generally comply with the intent of the Residential Landscaping Guidelines. In terms of plantings, there are a total 5 Amur Maple trees, 45 Aspen trees, 5 River Birch trees, 4 Rocky Mountain Maple trees, 1 Serviceberry, 11 Spruce trees, 11 Alpine Currant shrubs, 5 Blue Mist Spirea shrubs, 22 Chokecherry shrubs, 17 Mugo Pine trees, 18 Peking Cotoneaster shrubs, 5 Rock Cotoneaster shrubs, 20 Sea Green Juniper shrubs, 16 Three Leaf Sumac plants, 37 White Potentilla plants, 10 Woods Rose plants, and groundcovers. Most of the plant species proposed are contained in the Appendix 1: Recommended Plant List, from the Town's Design Guidelines. According to the applicant, all trees will meet the minimum size requirements as prescribed by the Design Guidelines: 6' minimum height for evergreens, 2" minimum caliper for deciduous trees, and 5 gallon Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision—The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design �;�rr August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 6 A 1k minimum for shrubs. One discrepancy between'the requirements and the proposal is the irrigation of 50% of the landscaped area. The Guidelines only allow for a maximum of 20% of the landscaped area to be irrigated. o Irrigation/Watering: The proposed landscaping plan includes a rain sensor with irrigation and meets the minimum standards of the Design Guidelines. o Retaining Walls: There are no retaining walls proposed for this project. 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 and building appear to be compatible with the site topography. The structure will be stepped with the grades as they fall to the southwest. 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 applicant has proposed high quality materials and earth tone colors that should make this project visually compatible with the surrounding environment. Although the architecture used is not identical to the neighboring properties, the lack of architectural conformity in the area promotes this design. The massing and appearance of this project do not appear dominating as viewed from the neighboring properties and public ways. 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 does not feel that any monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the proposed improvements. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies and is a use by right per the Wildridge Subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending conditional approval of this final design plan for a duplex residence on Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the final design plan for a duplex residence on Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions to be resolved by building permit submittal: 1. The landscaping plan be revised to meet a maximum of 20% of the landscaped area that is irrigated; 2. A resubdivision application be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit to adjust the lot line between lots 12 and 13 and to replat a Utility and Drainage Easement between the two lots; Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 6 Afll 3. The construction staging plan be revised to show straw bales in drainage ways and a note added that requires the drainage protection to remain in place until vegetation has been established; 4. Plans sets be revised to correct errors in spelling and lot numbering in the title block; and 5. The Topographical Map, be revised to correct the central angle of 22110'45" on the west lot line of existing Lot 13, to match the Wildridge Subdivision Plat that shows an angle of 17046'18". If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 7484023, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Jar d Planner I Exhibits: 1. Aerial Map 2. Letter from Victoria and Nigel Dagnall dated August 3rd, 2007 3. Reduced plan set and colored elevations Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 August 3, 2007 Dear Commissioners, My husband and I appreciate you taking the time to understand our serious concerns with regard to the proposed application for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13 of the Wildridge Subdivision. We fully understand the right and need to develop vacant lots; however, we feel these huge structures are totally out of keeping with the surrounding area while some of the design features are "suspect" with regard to the Design Review Guidelines, as outlined below. l) Roof. The flat roof design as proposed for this development is extremely contemporary in style and in no way reflects or complies with the suggested pueblo/adobe or typical mountain architecture with a pitched roof design. The design guidelines state that "all design shall be compatible with existing built structures". The existing contemporary style homes in the area as referenced at the June 19'" meeting all have a pitched roof design (photos to follow). 2) Design The design of the buildings looks massive and retail/commercial in image, completely out of character with the Wildridge Subdivision and a mountain lifestyle, and rather more fitting in the Domino/Columbine bakery complex in Avon. The site coverage although within the guidelines by a mean 2%, again does not reflect the open living space and mountain lifestyle of Wildridge. We suggest that the design is based purely on monetary gain while sacrificing the environment, image and lifestyle of the Wildridge Subdivision. 3) Lighting The many and large windows, although not governed by the light pollution standards for on site outdoor lighting as indicated in the guidelines, yet the impact and affect to the existing homes is the same as is stated that "the access to a clear and visible night sky is a strong value to our community. Light pollution is a threat to our clear skies that are part of the heritage of the Rocky Mountain West". While this proposed development has meet the landscaping requirements, it appears that the majority of it is between Lots 12 & 14 with minimal coverage around the north and west side of the buildings which directly affects the community as a whole. 4) Parking The guidelines call for 3 spaces per residence, you will notice on the plans that this is an extremely confined and compacted parking area, and the turning spaces seem extremely tight for this type of density and will give difficult access to a number of the garages. In an emergency situation we believe there will also be difficult access for life safety personnel and their vehicles. Little Point road clearly states "no parking" on the road side. Should residents of these units have social events this will cause serious congestion in the area which is likely to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and We existing residents. 5) Traffic With most homes today sharing 24 cars the impact of between 8-16 vehicles sharing a very small and quiet cul-de-sac will negatively impact the existing residents. In closing, we would like to bring to your attention points C and D from page 47 number 6 of the Design Review Guidelines and The Planning and Zoning Commission Review (Final Design Plan Approval Criteria): Point "C"... "The appearance ofproposed improvements as viewedfrom adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to the street, quality of materials and colors. " Point "D"... "the objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired" with regard to these statements most certainly Architectural style, Massing, Height and Aesthetics will be totally compromised in comparison to the vicinity of other homes in the immediate area. It is also our understanding that complete drawings were required to be submitted one week prior to the meeting of August 8th, however only partial drawings of one lot were submitted for review. We accept that a building will most likely be constructed at some point on these lots, we ask that the design is in keeping with the direction of the Design Guidelines and that the appearance is more residential as opposed to retail or commercial as defined by the design. Thank you so much for your time in listening to our concerns, we hope that you will move forward in reevaluate the design of this proposed application and acknowledging that it is out of keeping for the Wildridge area and insist that what ever structure is placed on the lots that they are harmonious and aesthetically complimentary to the mountains and not a small Mall. Sincerely Victoria and Nigel Dagnall 4211 S. Wildridge Road West / t A � V) Q °o n 0 � s a+ bU C 00 R o io 4 L50 N o oma $"m 61:g s V) m C W o N M. �y (i/� U � N o oma $"m 61:g "N fu C a a irl ' Z Qi da9 34\I \\d Lil 0o a o-0, o b 8 W 5 E 'Pig q zLZ^ In M P CI C+. fA Vl 7607Uq:r V �µ•.� 00 µQS MN �WN J NNS L I \ \ 00 en en M 00 00 \ \\ \\ \ I� \ t I\� _ \\ \ M IT M +I O \ \ \ \ \I 1 1 1 I\ I o M \ v� It 04 So N \\\�\\�\ N \\ N M 9a + I�i00 N N + \\P\ It N MN ilia t 11f 191 /A/'1'FY 11111 11111 11 /111q 1111119111 to IIVIUIAu0191111A InAl lnoplwll li leu(oidlquwnoep An11gi a On IeoullUl pus Ilu"M660llo m C W o N Lil 0o a o-0, o b 8 W 5 E 'Pig q zLZ^ In M P CI C+. fA Vl 7607Uq:r V �µ•.� 00 µQS MN �WN J NNS L I \ \ 00 en en M 00 00 \ \\ \\ \ I� \ t I\� _ \\ \ M IT M +I O \ \ \ \ \I 1 1 1 I\ I o M \ v� It 04 So N \\\�\\�\ N \\ N M 9a + I�i00 N N + \\P\ It N MN ilia t 11f 191 /A/'1'FY 11111 11111 11 /111q 1111119111 to IIVIUIAu0191111A InAl lnoplwll li leu(oidlquwnoep An11gi a On IeoullUl pus Ilu"M660llo Nz t? nod ptl y,' a aiu wag i O�J \ \ -y-' .-PR (NAGE �' w -- -' A 2 -� 4TY �o '1 0 VV apt A D tap e41 Gp'D'tY P71/! tei li !e pNtD N7UapnD le [D RttdepU OttglrA fnAUaaJleiepiei legeyiryuer,eb AtUq� gn n 4A \ a ��(afp as \. \ -y-' .-PR (NAGE �' w -- -' A 2 -� 4TY �o '1 0 VV apt A D tap e41 Gp'D'tY P71/! tei li !e pNtD N7UapnD le [D RttdepU OttglrA fnAUaaJleiepiei legeyiryuer,eb AtUq� gn n g ppN ��(afp 0 ieDtllt71D Iiat ,n#Mtfa{,o W Cat e 1 surc 6'OL6 %VJ ,6861S161016 3NONJ cuts OOVMOIO, 31VONoom Col 3=133HISOSINI'N WI ,011S3SI 31N3 Va'1W OdVS9-M 'NOAV %IIID NOISIA rf 9IMIdIIM ZI aW II 910I 2V71 n COS'J tyq„ EF' &.t/? Ci OR 00 C4 Z %2106 mi / •it ;es I �'� j � I / � I i � I I 1 -- -- ------ g I a 3 II 1 CDy L E a� La Ic U r-------_, I I I I = � � I , I 1 I I I� ` � I I - / I I f I I , I —�-- — — — — — -- 1 n I I I I d I i I �— 1 I I I i .10-,a4 I I I , 1 I .0 I 1 u ' � ' I I , I I 1 I I I I ' 1 I I I d In 0 �o 00 M 00 a o 0 + Fri O cn W w a w I I I I � w 1 H I I Q I a I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 I 1 Loa a 101 041 eArvtY 11111 101 LI II Lillt1 Itlllrof LI La 1NOthu0111111A NtAutt01ut111d 106101dlquten000 Ap11011 '10ulllV Put qutxmt0110 t � m u 0 00 0 Hf Oy U M �j u y N N m co mm � a°iu Cit M a m az 16 a U 00 ,3k< Qi �a9 d>mms� �:4 ;R21 a, s.9 rn I i / � s / a g m — I I _ _ I I � F 1 a I I I � 1 I ol I I I i 1 , I I _ I • I a I I I � I I I i I a I I I e I � I i I > a I 1 I —'4-- — — — — — — — I , I I I , I I I 1 I 1 I I I l i ----------- ----------- .10-.Z4 .ro-,zc I c ! I I - I o 0 I O 00 Wog a � I I j i I M x I I I I Q q�q I , I I I I I I I I l I � I I I 1 I 1 I 1 , I Lola ld 101 041 CAPT &V 11111 101 LI 11 L41111 11111701 LI 19 1111101A0o01agllA 1LoLI0000Uoo110d looloLdloluoenoo0 LAliop 1o10111o1 pus olumoeOVO A 4 G A U F yt la W O •s ppCC AN oA� "'a qpo w gnSQ� 0 W •• W a O U g.M m G N N N a Z l�1 \ 2 — rr yy OQ 4z a E-� U O 9� $ Q daS a>mlpm f a s �° i / I � I ----------- -- a — I / I I I 1 , I I � .Fft-•rr I --------------- I , I I I I i I � I I � a I I I L LI 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 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I' I I I I i I I I I I I 1 1 I i I — I I• I I I t 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 ills Is IoP 441 aP•1•sV PIM I61 if II /11118 It11 om it is /11210141jBIt1111A p1611o001111Pltd lo1(adltluttomoo lrylioll '10uIIIIS Put oluounooplio I \ 3QIS „0-10 T aodc � 1 \ ,A IAP AA1 d•A rn ANAs 101 !l It LOWS ISM10 AB 1A it Ail Adului0lAAIlIA NAli,aAOUnPi Ai tAA(adNianM1m0 !ry„eA. 'Adnilito pus SJUM0001:0 i .A Ail ., �! w g �4pu {aj WV OGil ,.��,$g�r� �V PPo e� O 1� t4,L I \ 3QIS „0-10 T aodc � 1 \ ,A IAP AA1 d•A rn ANAs 101 !l It LOWS ISM10 AB 1A it Ail Adului0lAAIlIA NAli,aAOUnPi Ai tAA(adNianM1m0 !ry„eA. 'Adnilito pus SJUM0001:0 s R S C az 10 107 RH A� o up � ��]] q [E�� �r1 V � o. $ °w �m 9 Q S Ki OQ r a �USQ0 ni 10 107 RH a l0e 041 ai'PW filet lot /1 11 111101 I0mocifie 11 if el10e01M0i01ogllA Nollioo0lu0Pl0d toolaalolumoo0 X4111010, ��]] q [E�� �r1 V � o. $ °w �m 9 Q S Ki O pq� � fA M• e00pppM � �Oy V ✓ a l0e 041 ai'PW filet lot /1 11 111101 I0mocifie 11 if el10e01M0i01ogllA Nollioo0lu0Pl0d toolaalolumoo0 X4111010, 4 44 x b. U C 7 I 77 II II 7 71 I II i II EG m 12 lop 141 DAPTIV 1IIP1 101 AI 11 A11111 11111101111 13 0111p1pu01111I IA PnAU0o01u1Plti 101104181VOon000 Aalitp ItOtII1Q put 11unn060110 Gi zr x b. U C H 'G Vl Q /�WI rNv o E -4o o s< EG m 12 lop 141 DAPTIV 1IIP1 101 AI 11 A11111 11111101111 13 0111p1pu01111I IA PnAU0o01u1Plti 101104181VOon000 Aalitp ItOtII1Q put 11unn060110 a Staff Report FINAL DESIGN PLAN AV O N C 0 L 0 R A D 0 August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date August 2, 2007 Project type Duplex Residence Legal .description Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Zoning 2 Dwelling Unit — Residential Duplex Address 540 Nottingham Road Introduction The applicant, Jerald Wuhfman, is proposing a duplex on Nottingham Road. The units would be stacked one on top of the other, and would each be accessed from the ground floor through a central corridor between two single car garages. Each unit is proposed to contain 3 bedrooms and 3 full bathrooms. The floor area of the proposed building would total approximately 8,000 square feet. Included with this report are a vicinity map (Exhibit A) and reduced plan sets with a site plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit C). The drawings clearly show all existing and proposed improvements on the property. Review History On five prior occasions Design Review applications have been submitted for Lot 70A. In February 2002, a Final Design Application was officially withdrawn, and in February 2003, a Sketch Design Application was withdrawn. In reviewing both applications, staff stated technical issues that should be addressed, such as concerns with positive drainage and retaining walls, driveway grades, encroachment into the side lot setbacks, and inadequate drainage to carry storm water runoff/debris flows that occur from the slope located to the north of the property. The most recent applications were three Sketch Design Applications reviewed in November of 2004, June 2005, and March 2006. The 2004 and 2005 submittals proposed the same general floor plan and massing as previous submittals. The 2004 application was accompanied by a Variance Application seeking relief from the platted side yard setback and easement for building encroachments. That Variance Application was denied by the Planning Commission and the accompanying design could not be pursued. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax(970)949.5749 Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Wuhrman Duplex Final Design ;��r August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 6 rN The architecture of the 2006 submittal and the current application is a slight departure from the 2005 submittal; therefore the applicant submitted a new Sketch Design Application (2006) and is proceeding with this Final Design application. During Sketch Design .review last year, both staff and the Commission stated serious concerns with the following items: drainage, architectural style and colors, compatibility with the neighborhood, and access to the site. A copy of the minutes from the March 2006 meeting is attached to this report for your review (Exhibit B). Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission reviewing the design of this project: Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review shall consider the following items when 1. The, conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zonina Code. • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the two dwelling units and the Residential Duplex (RD) zoning. Density. Zoning allows for two dwelling units per lot plus one accessory caretaker apartment per dwelling unit. The proposed project is in compliance since it has only two dwelling units. • Site Coverage: The RD zoning allows for 50% site coverage and the proposed site coverage is 32%. • Setbacks: The setbacks for the property are: Front — 25 feet Side — 7.5 feet Rear -10 feet The proposed development is contained within all setbacks, but does abut the setbacks on the east and west sides of the property. The building's location on the site would need to be verified by planning staff with an ILC at the time of construction. • Building Height. The maximum allowable building height for this property is 35'. This design is in compliance with the applicable zoning regarding all ridge heights, as proposed, the maximum height of the structure is 34.4 feet. Again, this requirement would need to be verified by planning staff with an ILC at the time of ridge construction. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project is within the Nottingham Road Residential District (#22) which is labeled as a low priority district. The proposed project appears to comply with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 f Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Wuhrman Duplex Final Design ��rn August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 6 IIIA Adequate development rights exist on the property for up to two dwelling units. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial. and Industrial Design Review Guidelines. A. Site Development Guidelines: o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put an emphasis on buildings blending in with natural settings and minimizing the amount of grading necessary. The proposed design currently places the building in the rear of the lot near the steepest grades. This will require more grading than if the building were to be placed in the front of the lot. o Site Access: On the subdivision plat for Beacon Hill, an access easement was platted for Lot 70A (subject property). The centerline of this access easement intersected with the subject property 77.5 feet north along the property line from the southwestern comer of the property. The applicant has proposed to move this platted access easement centerline 29 feet to the south along the western property line (31 feet north from the southwest comer of the property). In order to approve this site plan, approval from the neighboring property (Beacon Hill and Bristol Pines) to the west must be obtained. Subsequently, a resubdivision needs to be approved and recorded to change the access easement (vacate the old easement and record the new easement). Currently no such agreement has been received from the neighboring property, therefore, the access is not viable. The proposed access to the site is provided with a 15 foot wide driveway which has maximum grades of eight percent. The first twenty feet adjacent to the garages have varying slopes. The eastern garage has a two percent grade and the western garage has a four percent grade. This design does appear to be in compliance with the access requirements contingent on an approval from the neighboring property. o Parking and Loading: The units are required to have, at minimum, two parking spaces each. The proposed plan provides six parking spaces (two interior and four exterior) and is in compliance with zoning. o Easements: The property has a 7.5 foot wide Drainage and Utility Easement located along the western property line. The Design Guidelines state that disturbance in the drainage and utility easements should be avoided. The proposed project has extensive grading and paving within the easement located on the subject property, as well as with the neighboring property to the west (Beacon Hill and Bristol Pines). o Site Grading: The project proposes to have extensive grading within the easements and onto the neighboring property to the west. Without approval from the neighboring property to the west (Beacon Hill and Bristol Pines), for work done on their site, the site plan does not function. o Drainage: The site plan has numerous drainage issues that need to be resolved prior to the drainage being acceptable. First, the Swale located on the north side of the proposed structure is not sufficient enough to contain debris and water flow from the existing slope. Second, the Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Wuhrman Duplex.Final Design e�rrr August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 6 7111 drainage and 18" corrugated metal pipe below the proposed drive diverts water flows onto the adjacent property instead of containing them within the existing drainage easement on Lot 70A. Approval from the neighboring property to the west (Beacon Hill and Bristol Pines) must be obtained prior to the current drainage plan being approved. o Snow Removal and Storage: The applicant has proposed 519 square feet of snow storage, which is 20% of the total paved surfaces and meets the minimum required by the Design Guidelines. B. Building Design Guidelines: o Building Materials and Color. The building is designed with stucco, decorative rock, and wood siding as the main materials. The decorative rock is used on the garage level and is seen on the south (front), east (right), and west (left) elevations. The stucco is a "Fairy Wren" color (tan hue) and used as the base material on the middle and upper level. The wood siding is a "Gallery Green" and used as a vertical element on each elevation. The trim around windows, garage doors, and deck railings is a "Crosby" color (brown hue). The colors are natural or earth tones but do not appear to integrate well with the other colors on the building. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest: The proposed building has the most architectural interest on the south (front) elevation, noticeably less interest on the west (left) and east (right) elevations, and appears to be lacking interest on the north. (rear) elevation. The south (front) elevation uses a mixture of materials, windows, decks, and nine foot wide (wood siding) entry element to create fenestration and architectural interest. The west (left) elevation has a two-story bay window element, two visible roof forms (mansard to the south and gable to the north), deck railings, and a portion of the entry element that create a enough variation to add interest to this elevation. The east (right) elevation uses two six and one-half foot wide strips of wood siding that are recessed six inches and windows to create some architectural interest. The north (rear) elevation has the least amount of architectural interest of all the elevations. Besides the use of windows and a single eight and one- half foot wide wood siding strip that is not recessed, the entire flat wall is stucco. This elevation has a single wall plane which is not allowed by the Design Guidelines. Staff feels that more variation in materials and wall planes need to be added to the west (left), north (rear), and east (right) elevations to continue the quality of architecture from the south (front) elevation. o Outdoor Lighting: The applicant has proposed exterior lighting on the south (front) elevation. The applicant has also provided staff with the proposed light fixture that uses sixty watt bulbs and seeded glass panes. The bulb appears to be visible through the panes and staff recommends that the fixtures be replaced with ones that use frosted panes or full cut-off housing. Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Wuhrman Duplex Final Design ,4W August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 6 Alli o Duplex Development•. The duplex connection is quite substantial as one unit is placed one floor above the other unit. The design certainly• is unified .and has compatible materials. This design does meet this requirement of the Design Guidelines. C. Landscaping Guidelines: o Design: The design appears to generally comply with the intent of the Residential Landscaping Guidelines. In terms of plantings, there are a total 2 Colorado Blue Spruce trees, 20 Quaking Aspen trees, 6 Servicebery shrubs, 17 Native Yellow Potentilla shrubs, 13 Snowberry shrubs, and 7 Vanhoutte Spirea shrubs. All of the plant species proposed are contained in the Appendix 1: Recommended Plant List, from the Town's Design Guidelines. According to the applicant, all trees would meet the minimum size requirements as prescribed by the Design Guidelines: 6' minimum height for evergreens, 2" minimum caliper for deciduous trees, and 5 gallon minimum for shrubs. The proposed landscaped area does extend on to the neighboring property to the west and the calculations include that area. Without approval form the neighboring property to the west (Beacon Hill and Bristol Pines), the landscaping plan does not function. The applicant is proposing 45.28% of the lot to be landscaped, and only 5.2% of the landscaped area to be irrigated. o Irrigation and Watering: The irrigation and watering requirements of the Design Guidelines appear to have been met. o Retaining Walls: The applicant is proposing two separate retaining walls. The retaining wall to the north of the proposed building has a maximum height of six feet and is designed by a CO licensed Professional Engineer. The retaining wall on the east side of the property is denoted with, "Retaining wall designed by others". Both of these retaining walls will need to be designed by a CO licensed Professional Structural Engineer prior to building permit. 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 and building appear to be compatible with the site topography. The structure would be dug into the hillside with a portion of the lower levels buried on the north, south and east elevations. 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 applicant has proposed high quality materials and earthtone colors that should make this project visually compatible with the surrounding environment. The massing and appearance of this project do not appear dominating as viewed from the neighboring properties and public ways. Tovm of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Wuhrman Duplex Final Design ��rw August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 6 Ari! 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the ,vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. No monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the proposed improvements. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending Tabling this Final Design Plan for a duplex residence on Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to table the Final Design Plan for a duplex residence on Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, based on the inconsistencies between Criteria A -D of the Design Review Guidelines. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4023, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Jared Barnes Planner I Exhibits: A. Aerial Map B. Meeting Minutes from the March 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting C. Reduced Plan Set Tovn of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 v F ~ p 4". } jlrA 11�� p � . ..� • -- i t9 1 ° fir. ' •°, y,° Ova"J— � � is .f •��! j i .. 7 3�. EXHMIT B v Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 540 Nottingham Road Applicant/Owner. Gerald Wuhrman Description: A sketch review for a duplex located on Nottingham Road immediately east of Bristol Pines and Beacon Hill Condos. A similar design plan has been presented to the Planning Commission at previous meetings. The structure is constructed mainly with wood siding and features stackable condo design with two separate garages on the entry/ground level. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Struve questioned the optional floor plan, if it were for either floor and the response was positive. Gerald Wuhrmann approached the podium for Commissioner questions and discussed the drainage and roof issues. Mr. Wuhrmann would like to trade off the stucco with masonry and use stucco instead of Iapboard. Commissioner Savage suggested that the chimney and the siding should be different materials. Commissioner Struve commented on the other elevations to break up all the stucco. Commissioner Savage questioned the driveway with Mr. Wuhrann trying to get approval from the adjacent property for access. Commissioner Green expressed that the garage was too short, the height restriction on the building was according to Code and could not be varied, and disagreed with the applicant's interpretation for a boring look to the rear elevations with a suggestion of a hardy plank stained for interest, perhaps making the roof a deck was a better solution than mere access to the roof for maintenance issues, and told Mr. Wuhrmann the project needed a better design. Commissioner Struve questioned the game room on the ground floor, the applicant responded that it was to be a common amenity. Commissioner Struve remarked that the colors have to be earth tone, siding was okay, mansard roof was okay, and landscaping would be critical at final approval. Commissioner Buckner commented that something was missing from this project and suggested to speak with a local design and concept professional, suggested a flat gabled roof with fors to move the flatness, a mansard roof was not a consideration, needed to see a mock up of the materials being considered, and commented that the basement was an opportunity to sell with window wells and natural light to enhance the project. Commissioner Smith concurred with the other commissioner comments, commented that elevations needed help, and the sides of building needed reconsideration. XII. Other Business A. Comcast and cable issues are being worked on with Scott Wright and Town Attorney, to address issue. B. An amendment to Title 8, Nuisance Code, would be scheduled before the Commission within the next month. C. East Avon redevelopment plan to be presented within the next month or so. D. Housing needs assessment study will begin soon. E. The status of the Gates performance bond issue and revised mock up for the Gates should be available at the next meeting. F. Lot C will be presented to the Commission at the next meeting. XIII. Adjourn Commissioner Green motioned to adjourn. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, A9 NOLLcows30 91 YO 'ON 'd'7 1NS3 VO1 MU OMMO 310rt3H 90 -ZZ -Zi '1 'd1 dM NOILYOO'1 3OYLg1S MONS LO -11-L Z 30` CD ZU LL 4 a o aM O J� LL W N. ' W 0: N °da . az L uki 33 � x �i I m 4� LLS o� c� � n X fMRffomt;- L N aWW �Ummo <ma XZ WKQ20 r 9 o• 7;• a � � H V1 V Na WF r- �a U 0 N WZW Ol2 W�• I' a= C, :E! o� 00V4V0700 :UN/100 370V3 VnH3 30 NMOL 'OVDN fYVHONLIiON 0*9 X33N0 H3AV39D X0?IVNHDN30 I X0070 'VOL 107 6906-9Z6 (OL6) XDf 9906-9Z6 (OL6) 101 Z£918 00 'sPJDmP3 L£9Z Xo8 '0'd •auI I.furraaurfu� "7 7VOINH08d.03J/mM3 - CD a Imo- UJ o0 O Q N. L a c� �" fMRffomt;- L OO 0 z0 w wZ Zf. 9 o• 7;• a � � H V1 r- am<a< 0 LL Z o� Z 2Y o��am 6906-9Z6 (OL6) XDf 9906-9Z6 (OL6) 101 Z£918 00 'sPJDmP3 L£9Z Xo8 '0'd •auI I.furraaurfu� "7 7VOINH08d.03J/mM3 - I Q L a c� ry I LL LLX U — E W pU N / Yz J LLD w � p q 3 ice ,- � cn r fL w 3> J..J IL w zp z Q w q r a <L�zvwi (k w a J Z Z J Z fY W y W 11 O w Q.. L t7�� L7Qz Q ti �Z W < V W K ti¢J Z FJ 7J UJ U W (xo -z- Z- Q'rp Uy q 2f. r1 a - yQ z�3 l._<L Li3 7 m 03 RRIL Qa^,n w o�z'p"Qw �m N pgr7 pp �• li•Up ZQ�(J J Q 1.7 z ¢ZZ > QZ oZ Z Z J F= -W to ZL'" J R towH NR Z U aN%+� ZCL 1- H L y (Y QQ W 1Q U -LL- R'Q JI- QJ �U y WQ R= AQZ N41> p J N W Z NUJ J o QR 7 r J U Xi�W W lL lr WW (1 ff ZJ .W tri o'czu ZUO' HzQ JN o<U iQ�. o QQN co cri �n Li O ri Ln Q 0 Q 0 Z 0 Z VOPdO-1=1 'GN1103 380M 0(3VHO-100 WAV r SOIHdb'AD HO:qi(]VO X�3-ldfla N` V4HHnm Q A•.t9 I Lz ^TL .L 3JOR C Y A yWV� a ly m W N v ^1 4913 Az -4 or t •= II z t g A -L A I O .YA C -,W .Y ' L. .Y .N E•.EL '�' •'._1 � e - Yy zQ A g b CI lqi n A 'v xf1 sl� m Ir 4 — Q .f •,YY .1•.E -.Y/E L -.L' .Y•.L ...._-_... •iA 4•.Z N 4�W � LL C t E- AAS A .A& x gg,g & A d � $�� R g g R v a RRQ tRC RAQ v w E G O < < �m� 3 v7 A•A89 min o e K Oe 0-000- 0 0- V(31HO-1=1'aMM 980H OaVIAO-100'NOAV ol g SOlHclVHO HO=li(]VO Y�rlcAnG NVa V4HHnmII Rl 11 -.wt 49 11 ITV wc F-5 .*A 4 'lA I I .t -.e 10 C—) C12 z 0 Ul 'z nobooso. c) o. cr eaiao-I=I 'GNnM BSOH SOIHcJVHD HO9iGVO X .N'•LL .K•E•YL i 1 li I i I oavdo-100 'NOAV T R XTlcAnG NVV4HHnm a _ A � 9•.f .B Ii � .Y .L .Y/E 6•.A I .YA W'EI l R i=.i♦♦! is ol� 0 Q W W Z LL 0 v -0 VGHO'ld'GNnos 38oH SOIHd` HD HO9iGVO 9 OOVHO-nO 'NOAV LO Xq�dfla Nb'W�IHf1M a Q uvnvww oGou m.0 1i d 9 OOVHO-nO 'NOAV LO Xq�dfla Nb'W�IHf1M a Q uvnvww oGou m.0 daWo-7=l 'GNrOS 38oH OGVUO-100 'Nona SOIHcAVH!D HO9iGVO Xq-ldfla NVV4HHnm v I v ;I Town of Avon Design Modifications AVON •' C O L O R A D O Residential Staff Report August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date August 2, 2007 Project type Deck Railing Change - Minor Project Legal description Lot 37A, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning PUD — Duplex Dwelling Unit Address 5024 Wildridge Road East Introduction Scott Rella, the owner of the subject property, is proposing a deck railing material change to his half of the existing duplex. The prior materials include vertical wooden rails. The deck railing has been completely replaced using horizontal metal cables. Design Approval Criteria According to Section 7 from the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Guidelines, the Commission shall review all design plans utilizing specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zonina Code. This criteria is not applicable to the design review. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comurehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The property is located in District 24: Wildridge Residential District, and is labeled as a Low Priority District. The subject proposal does not have any implications on the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. There are no planned improvements that impact the development rights. 4. The Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desicin Guidelines. A. Site Development: There are no planned changes to the site plan with this application. Lot 37A, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Minor Design Modification August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 ofkK B. Building Design: The guidelines require that: "Duplex developments must be designed in a manner that creates an integrated structure on the site. ... Unified design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, massing, detail, roof forms, and landscaping. While 'mirror image' -duplexes are not supported, the design intent should be one that creates a unified structure with enough variety and architectural Interest to distinguish a duplex from a single-family home." Staff does not believe that the change in deck railing materials promotes a unified design between the two halves of the duplex. This is due to the fact that neither the colors of the two deck railings nor the materials used match one another. The neighboring property (other half of the duplex) uses a stained wood color that matches the rest of the deck material and neither of the decks' colors match the duplex building color (a greenish gray). Staff has provided the Planning and Zoning Commission with photographs taken of the deck as seen in Attachment A. C. Landscaping: There is no landscaping being proposed with this application. D. Miscellaneous Items: There is nothing proposed that would be affected . by these guidelines. 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. There is no site grading required. 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 deck railings are only seen from the road as a person heads up Wildridge Road East and from the neighboring properties to the west. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. No monetary values should be impaired or otherwise lowered with the planned improvements. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. This project is in general conformance with the adopted Goals, Policies, and Programs for the Town. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 37A, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision— Minor Design Modification '9' August 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of hin Recommendation Staff is recommending DENIAL of the deck railing material change on Lot 37A, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, pursuant to the criteria listed in the previous section of this report. Recommended Motion "I move to deny the deck railing material change on Lot 37A, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, subject to the Design Approval Criteria." If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748.4023 or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Jared Barnes Planner I Attachments: A. Vicinity Map B. Photographs of 5024 Wildridge Road East Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax(970)949-5749 • � � i � • � _r ..r4 y �� Y: d 1 �.. � }��#iyy �I { T{ ' r+� 1 � I ., � v Y Q ii � � - a, �` � k .. �S 1 y M } � Y � 1_� � { i ' . �� \ � � `, � A � W (44" w ,'"",,,... `' �" ;• Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners From: Matt Gennett, AICP, Senior Planner Date August 2, 2007 Re: Duplex Design Guidelines Introduction: AVON C O —L-0 It'A D O At the April 2e, 2007 meeting the Town Council reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of a duplex design for Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. After a lengthy discussion the Council re -affirmed the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. The Council directed staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to revisit the 'Duplex Development Guideline contained on page 19 of the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines and update them if deemed necessary. The Community Development Subcommittee met on July 20, 2007 in order review the Duplex Development Guidelines. Attached to this Memorandum are the Community Development Subcommittee's recommended revisions to the Design Guidelines in a strikethrough format. The definition has been expanded to include Multi -Family developments, and some of the problematic language has been deleted to further simplify future duplex, single-family to duplex conversions, and multi -family development proposals. Requested Action: Staff is requesting the Commission review the attached, amended Guidelines and recommend approval to the Town Council for final approval. Attachment: Strikethrough Guidelines August 7, 2007 Planning and ZoNng Commission MeethV Page 1 Dualex- Multi-Familv Developments Duplex Multi -Family developments must be designed in a manner that creates an a sinele unified integrated structure on the and sitelean. Two single family _eside..,.e,. 'bridged' by ., br-ee.,e.. ay or other non strut -Pura! _rd n3n habitable eenneetien does not ,meet the intent ea., duplex design. Unified design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, massing, detail, roof forms, and landscaping. While `mirror image' duplexes are not supported, the design intent should be one that creates a unified structure with enough variety and architectural interest to distinguish a duplex from a single family home. Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines Page 1 Adopted November 6, 2001 / Last Revised daauaFy 10, 2006 August 28, 2007 Aug 01 07 04:40p . i1a 1 121A Marisa Lahman 970-949-1607 p,3 Pal Tf=k you far doopportunib+ to lbw you as estimate for the Wowing work to be pafammcd at s*ccta lot to Wolin The Dos All work is pafwmtd on a time and materials basis These prigs are Good for 30dgr3 fmm date of pmpoW. Work will be schodulod upon roeeipt of WA pmpaymcat. The following rates apply: Machine Time: Reftm Disposal: lrngat;ao labor. Tree race $50.04 perruan-hotr 545-00 per rtutrt-hour SUM perbotr S65.Oti pabour $175.00 par load 545.00 per man-hour SSS.t10' perrnan hour 1 _ Dssetipt%n of waek !o be Rertormed: Revegetation *farm with straw bales, active wood and silt fcacc The rcvcgesation of the area Will ensure that there will be no erasion occurring at the site. Makriah: 140 Straw Bales 17 Pounds Native Gross Seed Mix 360 Fest of Sift Fence Labor. 45 Man Hours rithmatrotMaterh is and Labor Picric d=k the services you wish us to perform mW sip, in the bottom Thank You again for Me opportunity to preset you this estimate end we look forward to hearing from you soar. .,Sirrceel"K� DougtSs 1Cu'friic 'tmprca by Drat: •t` Pagel of 2 Jared Barnes From: Nigel Dagnall [dagnal]12@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:30 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Proposed Development of Lots 12 & 13 August 3, 2007 Dear Commissioners, My husband and I appreciate you taking the time to understand our serious concerns with regard to the proposed application for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13 of the Wildridge Subdivision. We fully understand the right and need to develop vacant lots; however, we feel these huge structures are totally out of keeping with the surrounding area while some of the design features are "suspect" with regard to the Design Review Guidelines, as outlined below. 1) Roof. The flat roof design as proposed for this development is extremely contemporary in style and in no way reflects or complies with the suggested pueblo/adobe or typical mountain architecture with a pitched roof design. The design guidelines state that "all design shall be compatible with existing built structures". The existing contemporary style homes in the area as referenced at the June 191h meeting all have a pitched roof design (photos to follow). 2) Design The design of the buildings looks massive and retaillcommereial in image, completely out of character with the Wildridge Subdivision and a mountain lifestyle, and rather more fitting in the Domino/Columbine bakery complex in Avon. The site coverage although within the guidelines by a mean 2%, again does not reflect the open living space and mountain lifestyle of Wildridge. We suggest that the design is based purely on monetary gain while sacrificing the environment, image and lifestyle of the Wildridge Subdivision. 3) Lighting The many and large windows, although not governed by the light pollution standards for on site outdoor lighting as indicated in the guidelines, yet the impact and affect to the existing homes is the same as is stated that "the access to a clear and visible night sky is a strong value to our community. Light pollution is a threat to our clear skies that are part of the heritage of the Rocky Mountain West". While this proposed development has meet the landscaping requirements, it appears that the majority of it is between Lots 12 & 14 with minimal coverage around the north and west side of the buildings which directly affects the community as a whole. 4) Parking The guidelines call for 3 spaces per residence, you will notice on the plans that this is an extremely confined and compacted parking area, and the turning spaces seem extremely tight for this type of density and will give difficult access to a number of the garages. In an emergency situation we believe there will also be difficult access for life safety personnel and their vehicles. Little Point road clearly states "no parking" on the road side. Should residents of these units have social events this will cause serious congestion in the area which is likely to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and the existing residents. 5) Traffic With most homes today sharing 24 cars the impact of between 8-16 vehicles sharing a very small and quiet cul-de-sac will negatively impact the existing residents. In closing, we would like to bring to your attention points C and D from page 47 number 6 of the Design Review Guidelines and The Planning and Zoning Commission Review (Final Design Plan Approval Criteria): Point "C"... "The appearance ofproposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to the street, quality ofmaterials and colors. " Point "D"... "rhe objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values rvi/l be impaired" with regard to these statements most certainly Architectural style, Massing, Height and 8/6/2007 Page 2 of 2 Aesthetics will be totally compromised in comparison to the vicinity of other homes in the immediate area. It is also our understanding that complete drawings were required to be submitted one week prior to the meeting of August 8th, however only partial drawings of pne lot were submitted for review. We accept that a building will most likely be constructed at some point on these lots, we ask that the design is in keeping with the direction of the Design Guidelines and that the appearance is more residential as opposed to retail or commercial as defined by the design. Thank you so much for your time in listening to our concerns, we hope that you will move forward in reevaluate the design of this proposed application and acknowledging that it is out of keeping for the Wildridge area and insist that what ever structure is placed on the lots that they are harmonious and aesthetically complimentary to the mountains and not a small Mall. Sincerely Victoria and Nigel Dagnall 4211 S. Wildridge Road West 'R 8/6/2007 k Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: john_warnke@comcast.net Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:23 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 and 13 Jared, we would like to join those opposed to the proposed commercial style duplexes in Wildridge. We believe design mistakes have been made in the past and hope this one can be avoided. Thanks for your concern, John and Becky Warnke, 5768 Wildridge Rd. E. Avon, Colo. 8/6/2007 1�, Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Harrel Lawrence [harre]3@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:37 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: building at wiildridge road and little pt. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT ON LITTLE POINT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT SHOULD BE A 7-11 STORE AND DOES NOTMI FIT THE DESIGNS THAT ARE IN THE AREA. WE LIVE ON 4313 JUNE PT. AND THINK THAT THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE AREA THAT WILL DOWN GRADE THE VALUES AND THE APPEARANCE AND BEAUTY OF THE AREA. MARY HARREL LAWRENCE DONALD J. MCMAHAN 970 949-4060 4313 JUNE POINT, WILDRIDGE 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:40 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 and 13 Wildridge I have lived at 4737 Wildridge Road since 1994 and drive by these Lots every day. Every house shows up on these sage covered hillsides and it has taken me 12 years to grow trees and vegetation to soften my home. ( which happens to be somewhat contemporary.) This proposed design is the ugliest I have seen in my 24 years of selling real estate in this valley. It is even too ugly for a commercial store in Denver much less a residential neighborhood. Do not let this happen. Thank you. Carroll Tyler Carroll S. Tyler Branch Broker Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office 230 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657 (990) 479-5762 Direct Line (970)476-2421 Receptionist (970)476-2658 Fax www.slifer.net 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Mike Neff [mneff@insuranceaai.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 12:58 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lot 12 & 13, Wildridge Road West & Little Point Mr. Barnes, I have just been made aware of a pending design approval for the subject property. I do not believe that this design as depicted is appropriate for the Wildridge sub -division. If constructed from materials commonly used in architecture of this nature, it will not only stand out it will detract from the surroundings of our neighborhood. While the design may be consider good architecture, it will fail to enhance the surroundings. As evidence of the kind of negative impact this type of architecture has to the visual appeal of our neighborhood, I only have to relay the comments of all of my guests that drive into Wildridge for the first time make regarding The Barrancas Townhomes on Metcalf. I quote. "what in the world are buildings like that doing in an area like this". How much more of a detriment to the Wildridge neighborhood will a design of this nature have? Significant I think. There have been many homes built in Wildridge over the 10 years I have lived there. (I am a full time resident, by the way) I have not necessarily liked the design of each one of them. However, this one goes too far a field to be considered appropriate for the area. Regards, Michael Neff, President Michael Neff Agency, Inc. 970-949-5633 8/6/2007 1 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Lynn Brethauer [brethr88@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 9:40 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lot 12&13 WildridgeRd ATTN: Jared Barnes Subject: Unacceptable Construction Project This is regarding the two duplex residences on Lots 12 &13 Wildridge Rd and Little Point Rd up for final review this Tues, Aug 8, 2007. 1 find it hard to come up with the proper language to describe such a despicable looking construction project to be called duplexes/residences. How would anyone on the board/committee like to have this built next to where they live? I for one want to express my total displeasure of having such a poorly designed, commercial strip mall looking structure built in the area of Wildridge. It lends itself to look like a low affordable housing project. Wildridge has homes, this structure looks like and has the feel of a retail office building—not a mountain home. Because of its size and being on a corner, I am very concerned about the traffic and parking situation that would be involved, the light pollution it would cause, and what about the size of each unit and each structure? I also wonder if this structure will be built with the quality of the homes in Wildridge that is currently here, or just "built" to get it up and sold. I feel Wildridge residence deserve better than this and would say so if they knew of this project design!! This design does not belong in a residential area!! and Lynn Brethauer yrs + residence, two lots away from lot 12&13 on Wildridge RD 8/6/2007 t. Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: GeraldPHerman@aol.com Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:57 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: duplex proposal for lots 12 &13 Wildridge Rd West and Little Point My name is Jerry Herman and I live at 5531 Coyote Ridge. I formerly lived at 4211 Wildridge Rd West My wife, Connie and I believe that the proposed duplexes, which have an ultramodern design, will ruin the character of Wildridge and in particular, the area near Little Point. While we recognize that there already are a few residences that are not "Mountain Home" in design, they do nothing to enhance the beauty of Wildridge and we assume were built before there was an active Planning Commission. We chose to move to Wildridge in 2000 because of the beautiful mountain atmosphere and the homes which were compatible with this setting. The proposed build(ngs belong in a commercial, not a residential setting in the mountains. Therefore we are taking this opportunity. to strongly protest this proposal. Thank you. We plan to attend the meeting. Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: nelsonelectric@comcast.net Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 7:54 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lot 12,13 comm. style duplexs Jared, Excuse me, but why do I have a note on*my door concerning this project? Isn't this something that obviously doesn't belong here and should have never made it through the beginning conceptual stage approval process? When I built my house, I took the plans to the town and inquired as to whether my proposed home was something that would be acceptable to the town of Avon. This was done before it ever got so far as final DRB review. This is obviously a plan by some greedy developer and egotistical architect. Please just handle these ridiculous plans earlier in the future and tell them no. Sincerely, Steven Nelson 4033 Wildridge Road 8/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Doss Malone [malone@vail.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:52 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Aug 7 Planning Meeting Jared, Regarding the double duplex planned for lots 12 and 13 off Little Point in Wildridge; the design is very industrial looking and completely out of character with the overall character of our neighborhood. The lots in question are beautiful and deserve beautiful homes in line with the standard "mountain" style of architecture up here. As well, two of these things placed back to back on a prominent ridge will be visually unappealing and an overbearing eyesore for the entire subdivision. My heart goes out to the homeowners on Little Point and surrounding Wildridge Road if this design is approved. Sincerely, Doss Malone 4700 Wildridge Rd Avon . 8/7/2007 v Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Chuck Bunting [chuck.bunting@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:23 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 & 13 - Wildridge Road Jared - My wife and I are full time residents at 4015 Wildridge Road West. We are concerned that the appearnce of these buildings in not appropriate for the mountain community where we live. Please have the builder consider redesigning the exterior to be more compatible with the surrounding homes. We plan to attend the meeting this evening. Thank you for your time. ****************************** Regards, Chuck Bunting chuck.buntina(@,email.com Home: 970-845-6319 Cell: 970-3904281 Mail: PO Box 6034 Avon, CO 81620-6034 8/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Paul & Terese Jeppson [paul4799@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:20 AM To: Jared Barnes Cc: Paul & Terese Jeppson Subject: West Wildridge Rd & Little Point Duplex Dear Mr. Barnes and the Community Development Board: My Husband and I have lived in Wildridge since 1988 when we bought our first townhome at Buffalo Head Townhomes on Draw Spur. We are currently in our third house in Wildridge. We have watched the development in this area go from sagebrush, to an area that has struggled with it's identity, and today to a desirable neighborhood that is finally coming into it's own. Lacks Design Compatibility Recently there has been many new single family homes and duplexes built that have been of a higher quality - we are actually seeing properties that are rivaling other neighborhood areas in the valley such as Singletree and Upper Homestead. This proposed development is not compatitable with the current development trends in Wildridge (or in the valley) in either style or high-end quality/feel. In fact, it already looks dated circa 1970. Loss of Property Values and Value on living in Wildridge The neighboring homes surrounding this development will probably decrease in value and Wildridge will again risk becoming a place "not to live" because your investment will not be safe. One of the nice aspects of Wildridge is that the houses do not have that high end track home look (like Cordillera or Eagle Ranch). The town of Avon has given a lot of latitude in what is considered acceptable design. However, if given too much latitude the neighborhood will suffer. It will begin to look like some of the neighborhoods in Clear Creek County where "anything goes". Where an A -fame home can sit next to a modern style home which can sit next to a log cabin. Is there really no way (given the large latitude) to make this property more similar to the surrounding properties (woodfiog/stucco)? Commercial Distant from Metcalf Road Given the fact that one already enters Wildridge via a'commercial area with large non-descript storage buildings. It is important that the neighborhood distinguishes itself from this in it's design. Altering this proposed property so it retains the contemporary feeling yet blends - (perhaps making it an adobe like home) benefits Avon and Wildridge. There is a reason designs like this are not being built in other areas of the valley. I know you have heard from many residents in Wildridge - I hope you would consider the opinions of your current residents, the people who are believing and supporting Avon, and tax payers of Avon, over a developer who at this point is not building a property that will enhance the desirability of living in Wildridge and Avon. Do we really want to look back in three years and say - "What were we thinking?" Thank you for your time, TerriJeppson 4480B West Wildridge Road 8/7/2107 '� Jared Barnes From: Kathleen Kunis [kathleenkunis@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:20 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Commercial Style Duplex Dear Mr. Barnes: I would like to express my dismay about the commercial style duplexes that are proposed for Wildridge Road and Little Point (Lots 12 and 13). We already have a number of architectural disasters on Wildridge. These structures would definitely represent a new low. We are living in the mountains! This style is more appropriate to the suburbs of a city or an industrial zoned area. I cannot imagine what the builder and the architect are thinking! I am also disturbed by the fact that this building would cause a great deal of lighting pollution. I used to be able to see the stars very clearly from Wildridge. This building would be a disaster for its neighbors. We also have the issue of the buildings' size, traffic, and parking issues. I would hope that this building is not allowed to be built in Wildridge. It is the antithesis of a mountain home! Sincerely, Kathy Kunis 5301 Ferret Lane Wildridge V.. 1 Page I of 1 Jared Barnes From: Karl Krueger [Kruegerarchitect@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:21 PM To: Jared Barnes Cc: mha@vail.net Subject: Proposed Duplexes for Lot 12 and 13, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon colorado Planning and Zoning Commission, In view of citizen's comments received as recently as late this afternoon and because I was unable to be at today's scheduled meeting due to a long standing appointment, I would request that the Planning and Zoning Commission table my submittal for final approval until the next available meeting. I had arranged for an associate to field questions about the Courtyard Villas project already recommended for final approval, but I would prefer to address concerned citizens comments in person and make a fuller presentation of the project during the next meeting in order to allay concerns, refute mischaracterizations or misunderstandings and present visual aids (renderings and/or a model) over and above the final approval requirements already met. Sincerely, Michael Hazard Assoc. XR 8/7/2007 �IIEDIA RETURNED .ov N