PZC Packet 112007 (2)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda for November 20, 2007
VOAl Avon Town Council Chambers
lr Meetings are open to the public
C o L o R A D D Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
WORK SESSION (5:00pm - 5:30pm)
Description: Discussion of Regular Agenda Items. Work session is open to the public.
REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm)
Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Consent Agenda
• Approval of the October 16, 2007 Meeting Minutes
• Approval of the November 6, 2007 Meeting Minutes.
VI. Final Design Plans — Wildridge Duplexes - CONTINUED
A. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge
Property Location: Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 Wildridge Road West
Applicant: Michael Hazard /Owner.• 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.
B. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge
Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4090 Wildridge Road West
Applicant: Michael Hazard /Owner: 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.
VII. Minor Project— Gates at Beaver Creek
Property Location: Lot 2, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision / 38390 Highway 6 & 24
Applicant: Don Goerig, Ivins Design Group / Owner: CSC Land
Description: The applicant, Don Goering of Ivins Design Group, is proposing building,
site, and landscaping modifications to the approved final design plans for the Gates at
Beaver Creek project. Changes are proposed to the fascia terminations, screening for
-the gas meters, and landscape modifications.
Posted on November 16, 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.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
VII. Other Business
A. Hamel PUD — December 4"', 2007
XI. Adjourn
Posted on November 16, 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 htto://www.avon.orq / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
k'Ns Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2007
VAvon Town Council Chambers
C 0 L Or 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.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
Minutes from October 16, 2007 were withdrawn from the Consent Agenda and Item X,
Minor Projects - Wildridge Subdivision, A., Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision Color
Change, Property Location: Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision / 5201 Longsun Lane was
moved to the Consent Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Green disclosed a conflict with Item IX, A, Property Location: Lot 69,
Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5351 Ferret Lane. Commissioner Evans revealed
conflict with Item IX, C, Final Design Applications, A and B, Courtyard Villas of Wildridge,
Property Location: Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/4080 Wildridge Road
West. .
V. Consent Agenda
• Approval of Item X, Minor Projects - Wildridge Subdivision, A. Lot 1, Western
Sage Subdivision Color Change, Property Location: Lot 1, Western Sage
Subdivision / 5201 Longsun Lane
Commissioner Struve motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda with Commissioner
Foster seconding the motion. The motion passed unanimously with a 7 — 0 vote.
VI. Site Tour Follow-up / Timeshare West - CONTINUED
Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane
Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner: Starwood Vacation
Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Timeshare West
project. This design was approved at the May 1, 2007 Commission meeting, and an on-
site mockup review for this item is now required.
Matt Pielsticker commented that all Commissioners were present with Commissioner
Struve arriving late.
Jim Maclntyre, representative of Starwood, discussed the project from the podium with
Aleksandr Sheykhet, architect, present for technical queries and response.
The Commissioners discussed and commented on the windows, the painting done after
the site tour, how the presentation of windows did not accurately portray the finished
product, the trim around the metal panel and its intent, and the pop rivets and their
visibility on the finished product. The Commissioners also were concerned with the
discrepancies between the metal panels on the mock-up and the packet, the front soffit
materials, the edge detailing on all panels, no lack of attention to flashing on the decks,
and the color palate of the building.
Commissioner Struve moved to table Item VI, Site Tour Follow-up / Timeshare West,
Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane with Commissioner
Goulding seconding the motion.
After the motion was seconded and before the vote took place more concerns were
brought up by the Commissioners including: concerns with the metallic detailing; how the
elevations and mock-up did not match properly; how the gutters and drains were
functioning; how the eave returns were not consistent with the plans; and how the details
and color inconsistency were paramount issues.
Commissioner Green recommended that if the motion to table was passed, that we give
the applicant one more chance to get it right. Commissioner Green also stated that the
Commission has tabled this item 4 times in the past.
The motion to table passed 6-1 with Commissioner Struve opposing.
VII. Lake Street Design Update
Description: Review of the current Lake Street construction drawings. This project is
scheduled for commencement in the Spring of 2008.
Matt Pielsticker mentioned that Staff would be deferring the presentation to Justin
Hildreth, Town of Avon Engineer.
Mr. Hildreth commented on the project and presented the Town Center West Plan with
discussing Lake Street and its configuration. Commissioner Goulding questioned the
impact to the volleyball court and told that the courts would be eliminated, but the soccer
field would remain. Commissioner Smith questioned the library parking and Justin
Hildreth responded that the parking would be eliminated.
Ashley, working for Design Workshop, discussed the Site Plan functional aspects, the
natural history design aspects, and the landscape bands which celebrate the concept of
four -seasons. Next, design features were presented along with examples of entrance
art. The presentation also included the discussion of the four season garden, street
furnishings, plant palette, snow storage, and wayfinding tools and signs. The definition
of bosque was requested by the Commissioners and Ashley clarified the treatment of the
edge near Buck Creek.
Commissioner Green remarked that the staircase entrance to the park needed to be
more of a focal point for Main Street than the concepts presented. He also stated that
the safety parking sites for the Recreation Center was, a concern along with drainage
from the parking sites. Commissioner Evans commented that the sundial was to be
placed on a grander set of stairs with the idea that it could be used as an amphitheatre
such to present awards.
VIII. 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 four plex) to five single-family residences. The
five newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes, ECO build Standards, and
restricted to 5,000 square feet. This application was tabled from the June 19, 2007 and
July 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Commissioner Green
questioned a code reference for public benefit and was responded that it was addressed
in the Staff Report as the last review criteria in Section #5. Commissioner Green
commented that by citing this provision that the PUD Amendment was positively
affecting these criteria.
Tambi Katieb, applicant, approached the podium to present this application. Frank
Hamel, owner, was not able to be present however, Mr. Katieb read into the record the
letter from Mr. Hamel and continued by displaying comments and site plan options
presented to date to the Commission.
Gerry Miramonte, architect, approached the podium to discuss accesses particularly by
using Tract O, Town of Avon property, with 4 dwelling units having 3 car garages under
5,000 sq feet, homes are proposed to be under the 35 ft height limit, two story, linear in
design, 30 foot setback from west property line, 55 to 60 feet between buildings. The
retaining wall was reviewed with no greater than 10 foot wall height on the roadway
between the lots. Mr. Katieb continued with the Tract O access plan.
Commissioner review questioned the points needed for ECO build standards.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Leslie Roubos, 5039 Wildridge Road East, approached the podium and began her
presentation by commenting that she had built her home two years ago, researched the
project she was undertaking and does not believe that the applicant deserved to change
a PUD to "make more money". Ms. Roubos continued with the height of the retaining
walls as excessive, size of the homes were too large, its impact to her neighbors,
commented that having the homes as duplexes would be more viable and that 5 - 7
years of construction was unacceptable as well as drainage and staging was an issue.
Scott Rella, 5024 Wildridge Road, adjacent neighbor to the west, commented to the
Commission that the 7 -year duration of construction was excessive; a natural deer path
would be destroyed by the plan, close proximity to his home out his kitchen window, and
requested denial by the Commission.
Ann Clark, 5021 Wildridge Road, resident below the property in question, objected to the
number of buildings.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner review began with Commissioner Green questioning the duration of
construction and the intent of building. Mr. Katieb responded that the start date would
be 2009 with utilities and an end date of 2014. Commissioner Green questioned the
original development rights of the site and mentioned that duplexes could be huge with
the square footage desired by the applicant. Commissioner Lane commented that there
was nothing wrong with single family homes. Commissioner Foster mentioned duplexes
would be just as expensive as the single family home. Commissioner Smith agreed
with Commissioner Green that the single families would be better than a huge duplex.
Commissioner Struve commented on the construction timetable as it was difficult but
there was no way to get around it; building was not going to be affordable as prices in
Wildridge are; concerned with wild life movement; roads should have extensive amounts
of landscaping. Commissioner Goulding asked the applicant what the public benefit is
with Mr. Katieb responding that by breaking up the massing was better than duplexes,
design standards and single access; green building would be a model for Avon,
consistent architecture that does not exist in current standards. Commissioner Goulding
mentioned that the largest issue was current zoning, was struggling with the changing of
the site and what was best for the area.
Commissioner Evans remarked that he could not support this application due to: 20 foot
retaining wall, agreed the site was tough to build on but felt there were other scenarios to
explore, driveway to Lot 38 would bring structure down the site; approval of this PUD
Amendment would grossly impact the neighboring lots.
Gerald Miramonte mentioned that this project was described to the Commission.
Commissioner Evans was specifically concerned with Lot 38E as it towers over other
properties and the cut across the property, impact on the property and the retaining
walls. Commissioner Green remarked on the precedent setting nature of the decisions
made by the Commission and does this approval set precedent for future Wildridge
developments?
Matt Gennett commented that this application would not set a precedent but an example.
Commissioner Evans motioned to recommend denial of this PUD Amendment to Town
Council based on the findings that the impacts to neighboring properties are excessive
and could be avoided by not approving the PUD Amendment, and the site disturbance
as currently proposed is excessive and not in keeping with the Design Guidelines of the
Town of Avon. Commissioner Foster seconded. The motion was tied 3 to 3 with
Commissioner Struve abstaining.
Commissioner Struve motioned to table to give the applicant a chance to come back to
demonstrate that the road was not visible and that the way to mitigate the impact on Lot
37. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion. The motion to table passed 4 to 3.
IX. Final Design Plans — Wildridge Duplexes - CONTINUED
A. Property Location: Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5351 Ferret Lane
Applicant/Owner.David Forenza
Description: Final Design for a duplex residence on the last vacant lot on Ferret Lane in
Wildridge. The design features a total of square foot building with wood, stucco, and
stone siding. Sketch review for a duplex on this property took place at the July 17, 2007
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. This Final Design application has been
revised since being tabled from the October 2, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
Commissioner Green reclused himself from this application due to the fact two realtors,
the applicant, an architect and the applicants financing agent had queried him on this
application and he refused to comment since it was an active application.
Commissioner Green felt to recluse would avoid any conflict of interest..
Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report and demonstrated the changes to the
application from its original submittal.
Bobby Ladd, project architect, commented from the podium that he had researched
structures in the area and that 7 homes fit the dimensions of this proposed project, the
mix was duplex and single family, the home has no retaining walls as the house aids in
retention, shortened the structure, enhanced the landscaping with clusters of trees,
added a dormer, and eliminated the gable/dormer and the connection of the units was
widened for greater integration.
Commission review began with Commissioner Goulding commenting appreciation of the
quantity increase in landscaping but commented that the tree heights needed to be
greater, greater variety to the trunk dimensions, expressed that it was a good looking
home and revealed that culture stone was more a veneer look. Commissioner Struve
concurred with Commissioner Goulding. Commissioner Smith appreciated the drop
down, had no issue with the culture stone and appreciated the work on the deck lighting.
Commissioner Lane had no problem except the culture stone. Commissioner Evans
voiced that the connection was better, believed that real stone would sell better but it
was up to the applicant, landscaping quantities were great with 1", 2" and 3" were fine,
agreed with the diversity of heights and sizes would help to blend the project in to the
site.
Commissioner Goulding motioned to approve Item IX, A, Final Design Plans — Wildridge
Duplexes, Property Location: Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5351 Ferret Lane
with the following conditions for landscaping as discussed and the use of real stone as a
recommendation. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 — 0.
B. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge
Property Location: Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 Wildridge Road West
Applicant. Michael Hazard/ Owner. • 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.
Discussed concurrently with Item C.
C. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge
Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4090 Wildridge Road West
Applicant: Michael Hazard /Owner. 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.
Jared Bames presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Michael Hazard, applicant, approached the podium to present the increase in
landscaping for buffering purposes, to demonstrate the distances between the duplexes
to decrease massing, changes to accent colors for diversity, lowering and diminishing of
chimney masses, changed the design to the hot tub decks, and encroachments have
been corrected.
Peter Warren, 4181 Little Point, approached the podium to comment with concern on the
massing and its appearance as a single structure and suggested the removal of the
courtyards to decrease its size and create a smaller footprint; two driveways would
create a division of the duplexes. Mr. Warren continued that the buildings are very
consistent in their architecture and overpower adjacent developments; and voiced
concern for the lighting impact in the neighborhood. Mr. Warren suggested that if one of
the duplexes was substantially different from the other would create the perception of
two separate buildings and compliment the area.
Ernie Atlas, 4151 Little Point, approached the podium to ask of Mr. Hazard the structures
for the hot tub were over the 35 foot height limit and was responded affirmative and were
more massive than the original chimneys from his point of view.
Commissioner Goulding began Commissioner review with his concern over landscaping
which was addressed, change of colors was appreciated, proposed roofs on top of hot
tubs was not appropriate, no issue with the size of the homes but was concerned with
the lack of diversity between the duplexes. Commissioner Struve was not in favor of
roofs with hot tubs, architecture and style was interesting, color changes were better,
landscaping plan needed to be concentrated on the west side of Lot 13. Commissioner
Foster commented appreciation for the architectural style, concerned with massing,
architectural style was different from those in the vicinity, concern with the compatibility
of the structure to the area, and site disturbance was a concern. Mr. Hazard responded
that the courtyards provide a relief between the homes, demonstrated pictorially
duplexes in the area and their diversity. Commissioner Lane voiced a preference to a
good design, preferred chimneys, color too light, and massing was large due to the
courtyard.
Commissioner Green commented on the lot coverage, creative duplex design.
Commissioner Smith remarked that the hot tub enclosures become a focus to the
structure and differentiation was needed as the elements created commonality,
architecture was great. Commissioner Green asked of the Commission if the hot tubs
were enough to table the application.
Commissioner Green motioned to table with the following suggestions: take more time to
evaluate the landscaping, 2) address roof structures, hot tub and stairway assemblies,
and 3) see more information on the lighting of the project with cut sheets and how it
relates to the night sky ordinance, 4) evaluate the penetrations to allow for as much
opening between the structures. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. The
motion passed 4 —2 to table this application.
X. Minor Projects - Wildridge Subdivision
A. Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision Color Change
Property Location: Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision / 5201 Longsun Lane
Applicant: Matt Dietz / Western Sage Partners, LLC
Description: A color change application for a single-family residence. The proposed
change includes the use of reclaimed materials stained with a dark brown hue.
Moved to Consent Agenda.
B. Driveway Extension
Property Location: Lot 81 B, Block 4, Wildridge / 5717B Wildridge Road East
Applicant/ Owner.- Bill Hubbard
Description: An application to expand the driveway parking area to the east and
construct a MSE retaining wall approximately 11 feet tall.
Jared Barnes presented the report by staff.
Bill Hubbard, applicant, approached the podium to address his application. Mr. Hubbard
commented that the revision was to provide a tum around and extra parking for the site.
Mr. Hubbard continued that there were two retaining walls of this nature in the
neighborhood and he was awaiting response from a local structural engineering firm.
Commissioner Evans questioned the rock wall. Green queried the drainage from the
snow melt system, voiced concern for the stairway, and remarked of the landscaping to
be removed but no indication of the landscaping to be replaced. Commissioner Lane
agreed with Commissioner Green and commented that the retaining wall needed to be
buffered. Commissioner Smith understood the need. Commissioner Struve reiterated
the need to buffer the wall. Commissioner Goulding commented that input from
neighbors would be valuable.
Commissioner Struve motioned to approve with the following conditions: Landscaping
plan to buffering the wall come back to the Commission and a letter of approval from the
neighbor to the east. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and the motion passed
5to2.
C. Snowrun Condominium Modifications
Property Location: Lot 43, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 520 Nottingham Road
Applicant. Ronald Tribelhom / Owner. • Sye Curtis, Unit A; Steve Smith, Unit B; and
Ronald Tribelhom, Unit C
Description: The applicant is requesting design approval for exterior modifications that
were applied for in August of 2004. The project was granted a 15 month extension on
their approval in July of 2006. The project is incomplete and the applicant has provided
a summary of progress.
Commissioner Evans discussed the notion of a bond for the project at past meetings.
Commissioner Evans continued that the Commission was willing to extend the
application another 6 months and then have the Building Department red tag the project.
Commissioner Foster motioned to approve the extension of 520 Nottingham Road to
June 151 (2008) at which time the project must be 100 percent complete. Commissioner
Green seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 1.
XI. Other Business
A. Resolutions
Resolution No. 07-03, A Resolution Recommending Approval of the Lot C PUD
Amendment Application, application dated May 4, 2007.
Resolution No. 07-04, A Resolution Recommending Approval of the Village (at Avon)
PUD Amendment Application
B. Future Agenda Items
• Madison Partners Revised PUD
• Next Tuesday at Town Council will have the housing amendment, the Village at
Avon, presentation by Dan Richardson regarding the climate plan.
X. Adjourn
Commissioner Evans motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Green seconded. All
Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
re
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
'�� Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2007
AVO K 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
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm.
IL Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Green.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
Items XI, Master Sign Program, Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 126
Riverfront Lane; XII, Minor Project Application, A., Shed Addition, Property Location: Lot
41-B, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision 14330 Flat Point Road; and Item XII, Minor Project
Application, B., Lau Deck Remodel, Property Location: Lot 95A, Block 1, Wildridge
Subdivision / 2380 A Old Trail Road, were moved to the Consent Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Evans revealed conflict with Items VII, PUD Amendment, Property
Location: Folson Annexation. Parcel / Highway 6 & 24; IX, Sign Code Variance, Property
Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 77 Metcalf; and X,
Final Design Applications, A and B, Courtyard Villas of Wildridge, Property Location: Lot
12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/4080 Wildridge Road West.
V. Consent Agenda
• Approval of the October 2, 2007 Meeting Minutes.
• Item XI, Master Sign Program, Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision /
126 Riverfront Lane
• Item XII, Minor Project Application, A., Shed Addition, Property Location: Lot 41-
B, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road
• Item XII, Minor Project Application, B., Lau Deck Remodel, Property Location: Lot
95A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2380 A Old Trail Road ,
Commissioner Struve motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda with Commissioner
Smith seconding the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
VI. Site Tour Follow-up / Timeshare West - CONTINUED
Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane
Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner: Starwood Vacation
Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Timeshare West
project. This design was approved at the May 1, 2007 Commission meeting, and an on-
site mockup review for this item is now required. Formal mockup review will be
November 6, 2007.
Matt Pielsticker gave a brief explanation of Staffs Memo.
Chuck Madison, East West Partners, approached the podium to address the concerns of
the mockup for the applicant. Mr. Madison discussed the palates of colors considered
by experts he consulted, changes in materials, windows, stone heights, and elevations,
and an explanation of how the decisions were derived.
Commissioner Goulding voiced concern for the level and quality of mock up
workmanship and detail. Commissioner Struve mentioned that this project was looking
similar to the hotel but better than previously presented. Commissioner Foster
commented that the original mockup did not look like the original plans and was
concerned it would remain as before and not the new look.
This item was tabled to the November 6, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting and a final on-site review.
VII. PUD Amendment — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Folson Annexation Parcel / Highway 6 & 24
Applicant: Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC /Owner. Craig Folson
Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a phased 112
unit condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. The
property is immediately east of the 49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek condominium project
currently under construction. This application was tabled from the February 20, 2007
Planning Commission Meeting.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Commissioner Goulding questioned if wildfire mitigation was reviewed and concern with
a fire on the 40% slope.
Greg Macik, Tab and Associates, approached the podium to address Commission
concerns. Mr. Macik began that he could not guarantee LEED certification, expressed
that design standards were high quality, and this project would provide a large amount of
open space, moved Phase I to the east, slightly away from the Gates project, lowered
the height of the buildings, eliminated Phase Ill, reduced the size of the units, parking
numbers were decreased, and mentioned that surface parking will exist. Lou Reese,
Madison Partners, spoke from the podium to get feedback, gave other suggestions for
Phase II such as to create 5 duplexes (10 housing units), requested increase in height to
accommodate duplexes, reduce the square footage of the condo units. from 1600 sq ft to
1300 sq ft,
Commissioner review began with Commissioner Goulding voicing surprise of the new
presentation that included duplexes. Commissioner Struve suggested townhouses
versus duplexes, and walking paths were necessary. Commissioner Foster commented
on the restaurant size change, duplexes were a good -idea, suggested duplexes on
either side of the main building. Commissioner Lane preferred the townhouse idea, roof
ridge was a concern, and questioned the LEEDS process. Commissioner Smith found
the townhouse concept interesting.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Chris Todd, Canyon Run Resident, approached the podium to understand the definition
of conditional approval. Matt Gannett responded that this was an entitlement process.
Mr. Todd expressed that elimination of Phase II with town homes was a good move,
commented that Highway 6 was to become a 4 lane highway and, with access and
egress, it would be 6 lanes and voiced concern that the landscaping would go away with
the expansion of the roadway and requested a new site plan.
Tom Hix, Canyon Run resident, commented that height was an issue, the structure was
too tall and too wide for the site, commented that there are geologic hazards on the site,
expressed that this project was on the wrong side of the highway and the wrong side of
the river, basically the wrong location, canyon effect was still present, and the Future
Land Use Plan specifically addressed the Folson Property with 7.5 residences per acre
and the developer was presenting 27.5 units per acre. Mr. Kelly continued that public
benefit was tax revenue, was not concerned with maximizing revenue at the sake of the
town, and voiced concerned for the impact to the historical ditch.
Mr. Reese commented on the work of the developer and their commitment to going
Green should be noted.
Julie Eaton, local, commented that the building was esthetically pleasing, and that this
would be a major improvement to the town as it was a good looking project.
Craig Folson, property owner, voiced from the podium support for this project.
Lance Kelly, Avon resident, suggested from the podium the elimination of Building I and
place townhouses throughout, and noise issues were voiced.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Goulding questioned access to the town, easy route to town and the
Westin gondola. Commissioner Lane questioned ceiling heights in the units with the
response of 10 foot heights in the units. Commissioner Struve voiced concern with
crossing Highway 6 and the Red Historic House, and traffic calming.
Commissioner Struve moved to table Item VII, PUD Amendment, Property Location:
Folson Annexation Parcel / Highway 6 & 24. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion
to table. The motion passed 6 — 0, with all Commissioners approving.
VIII. PUD Amendment — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Village at Avon PUD
Applicant. Dominic Mauriello, MPG /Owner. Traer Creek
Description: Amendment request to reconfigure the planning area boundaries of
Planning Areas H, Neighborhood Center, I, Neighborhood Center, E, Village Residential;
and F, Village Residential, in order to create a larger buffer between commercial uses
and the adjacent existing Eaglebend drive residential neighborhood. Also part of the
request is a text amendment to the PUD guide that will result in a modification to the
current percentages and ratios of commercial -to -residential uses in order to permit more
residential density in areas that are presently planned for more commercial square
footage. This item was tabled from the August 21, 2007 and September 18, 2007
Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.
Matt Gannett reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission.
Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, began by introducing Munsey Ayers,
attorney for the applicant, and Marcus Lindholm, representing Traer Creek. Mr.
Mauriello began his presentation with a review of the background, public comment and
his impression of the sentiment from the neighbors in the Eaglebend neighborhood
related to decreasing commercial presence adjacent to their street and to infuse some
residential presence. The areas at issue were Planning Areas E, F, H, I and J, which
are intended to be reconfigured with this application in terms of commercial -to -residential
square footages; and the size of Areas E, F. H and I are to be modified as well. No net
change of square footage or land use would result from this application.
Mr. Mauriello continued by stating that the Amendment refined and improved the
development, thereby establishing more of a 'village' atmosphere. Mr. Mauriello voiced
concern with Staffs report and his opinion that the conditions seem to violate the PUD
Guide and Annexation Agreement, and discussed his letter that was provided in the
Planning and Zoning packet. Mr. Mauriello continued that this Amendment would not
eliminate any of the triggers for the ice rink / event center approved in Planning Area C;
and the Amendment was designed to appease the Eaglebend neighbors.
Commissioner Evans commented that he did not disagree with Staffs conditions but that
this Commission was concerned with zoning and not legal issues. Commissioner Evans
continued that his interpretation was that newly enacted legislation in the Town can not
be retroactively applied to previous agreements and what was being requested (by this
application) was to make a change to that agreement and changes would be effected by
the rules in place at the time. Commissioner Struve commented that by virtue of the Mr.
Mauriello's October 9, 2007 letter responding to Staffs conditions, "shall not directly or
indirectly ......affect the Owner's rights". Mr. Mauriello replied that they were not asking
to change the Development Rights on the property but were asking to more some things
around. The PUD Guide anticipated future amendments per Mr. Mauriello.
Mr. Mauriello continued that a traffic report would be provided at time of permit as the
Code suggested and not prior to building as Staff has conditioned, and stated employee
housing being required in areas E, F, and H, was problematic for the applicant.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Matt Gennett stated that a resident of Eaglebend, who had to leave prior to this item
being heard, voiced concern for the potential height of buildings behind the Eaglebend
development. No other members of the public commented.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner review involved only the zoning aspects of the application, raised
concems with Tract F gaining additional commercial space, the realignment of the
subject planning areas, and stated that the staff conditions should be handled by Town
Council and are out of the realm of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. John
Dunn suggested the Commission rely on staffs expertise on the issue.
Commissioner Smith commented that a vote on the realignment should pass on to Town
Council but the conditions are a concern, and did not want to have them come back and
try to make a change in something that shouldn't have been done by Planning and
Zoning; however, if Town Council wished to negotiate it, that would be fine.
Commissioner Smith motioned to approve Ordinance No. 07-10, Item VIII, PUD
Amendment; Property Location: Village at Avon PUD, changing the Planning Areas E, F,
H, I, and J, as requested by the developer. Commissioner Goulding seconded the
motion and the motion passed 4 — 2.
IX. Sign Code Variance — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 77 Metcalf
Road, Applicant/Owner.BBG Holding Corporation
Description: The applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 15.28.080(15) of the
Town of Avon Sign Code. The request is to allow a freestanding sign within 10' from the
front lot line.
Matt Pielsticker presented Staffs Report and Matt Gennett gave an explanation of
photos in the behalf of the applicant, Chris Evans, who had recused himself.
Commissioner review included questions regarding other sites and their monument
signs, and truckers having difficulty finding addresses.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
No members of the public approached the podium for comment.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Lane questioned other variances for signs in Avon, signs were a way
finding tool, and voiced that the sign did not belong in a setback. Commissioner Foster
questioned the height limitations on signs of this nature. Commissioner Struve
commented that way finding on Metcalf was difficult and that the height could be
adjusted higher but not placed in the setback. Commissioner Goulding commented that
hardship must be proven. Commissioner Smith commented that the tree might block the
sign anyway.
Commissioner Foster motioned to approve the Resolution for denial of Item IX, Sign
Code Variance, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision / 77 Metcalf Road. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. All
commissioners were in favor and the motion to deny was approved unanimously by the
Commission.
X. Final Design Applications - CONTINUED
A. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge
Property Location: Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 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.
B. 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.
Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report for both lots, as there were presented together.
Michael Hazard, owner representative, began his presentation with some historical
information on the project and other duplexes in the project area.
Commissioner review included questions and comments on the views from each
residence, the building footprint's proximity to and encroachment of the setbacks,
adjustments for headlight issues, amount and type of landscaping and the proposed
colors. Commissioner Struve questioned if the square footage included the garage and
it was answered affirmatively. Commissioner Foster questioned the connection from C
to D and commented that the louvers reminded her of a jail.
Mark Slatkoff, local resident, approached the podium to question the setback
encroachments, concerned with the sameness of all the units, had difficulty seeing any
daylight between the structures, asked if the site coverage calculations could be redone
and it that the project may negatively impact his home. Nigel Dagnall, neighbor to the
north of this project, voiced that the original presentation was poorly done. He was
concerned with parking in the area, light pollution from this type of window, chimneys
size and height as compared to the rest of the buildings, white coloration and
improvement from the original presentation.
Ernie Atlas, adjacent property owner, commented on how different this project is from
others in the area. Ron Brethauer, owner of 4221 Wildridge Road, approached the
podium to comment on the height and that this project would not be appropriate on
Highway 6 so why should it work in Wildridge. He also mentioned that the structure was
extreme and was concerned with light pollution. Ben Kleimer, Wildridge resident and
realtor, voiced that people want to buy something new and didn't think it would tum into
"a white elephant".
Commissioner Goulding began the review by commenting that he measured the project
by the Guidelines not by his personal preference and determined that it was within its
limits. He also commented that courtyards were a nice approach, good articulation in
both the vertical and horizontal planes, but was concerned that this would be perceived
as one building and that the landscaping plan was wimpy and would benefit by being
doubled. Commissioner Struve voiced concern about the main floor connection, the
parking issue, and he stated that a lighting plan was needed and landscaping would be
key. Commissioner Foster questioned staff regarding the lot lines. Commissioner Lane
remarked that the style turned its back on the neighborhood and that he liked the
courtyard design but wasn't sure it fit this project. He also voiced disappointment with
the materials to be used, stating that he expected different materials. Commissioner
Smith voiced concern with the Residence C and D connection, how the two duplexes
appeared as one big building and that a model would be useful for review.
Commissioner Struve motioned to table Items X, Final Design Applications A. and B.
Courtyard Villas of Wildridge, Property Location: Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge
Subdivision / 4080 and 4090 Wildridge Road West. Commissioner Lane seconded the
motions. All Commissioner were in favor and the motion passed 6-0.
XI. Master Sign Program - CONTINUED
Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 126 Riverfront Lane
Applicant. Andy Gunion /Owner. Riverfront Village Hotel, LLC
Description: A Master Sign Program Amendment to allow for tenant identification signs
around the public plaza and gondola area. The signs include blade signs, awning signs,
window signs, and freestanding signs.
Moved to Consent Agenda.
XII. Minor Project Application
A. Shed Addition - CONTINUED
Property Location: Lot 41-B, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road
Applicant. James G. Downs, Tuff Shed, inc. / Owner. Tony Prior .
Description: Construct an attached shed to the side of the subject property. The shed
exterior finish will match the existing residence.
-Moved to Consent Agenda -
B. Lau Deck Remodel
Property Location: Lot 95A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2380 A Old Trail Road
Applicant. GaryDeKoker/Owner. David Francis -Lau
Description: A Minor Project application to remodel an existing deck on one half of a
duplex structure. The remodel will include the addition of 370 square feet and the
change from stucco to wood as the major material used. The application also includes a
color change on both halves of the duplex structure.
-Moved to Consent Agenda -
XI. Other Business
X. Adjourn
Commissioner Goulding motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Lane seconded. All
Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
Staff Report P""t';- --7�`,
FINAL DESIGN PLAN AVON
C O L O R A D O
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date November 15, 2007
Project type Duplex Residences
Legal description Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning 2 Units per Lot— PUD
Address 4080 & 4090 Wildridge Road West
Introduction
The applicant, Michael Hazard, has submitted a Final Design application for two duplex
structures on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3 of the Wildridge Subdivision. The lots would be
accessed off of a private drive from Little Point. The four residences (A and B on Lot
13, C and D on Lot 12) are 3,734 sq. ft. (Residence A); 3,826 sq. ft. (Residence B);
4,017 sq. ft. (Residence C); and 3,997 sq. ft. (Residence D); and designed in a
contemporary architectural style utilizing flat roofs, 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 shared 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 G). Also, the applicant has provided a list of
changes from the most recent submittal (Exhibit D).
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 a Utility and Drainage Easement is problematic, differentiation needed between
duplexes on both lots, and that the materials and colors need to compliment the
neighborhood.
At the Commission's August 7, 2007 meeting, a similar Final Design application for
these properties was tabled. Prior to the tabling being granted, comments were
received from the public regarding the size of the proposed structure on the lot as
compared to neighboring properties, the differing roof style as compared to the
neighboring properties, and the lack of compatibility with other homes in Wildridge.
At the Commission's October 16, 2007 meeting, a Final Design application for these
properties was tabled. Comments received from the Commissioners included the
following: the style of architecture and the approach to a duplex connection were
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design T9W
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 8'
suitable; the linear width of the duplex connection for the proposed structure on Lot 12
was lacking; a lack of parking provided; and the designs of the proposed duplexes read
as one structure as viewed from the roadway.
The most recent submittal was a Final Design application that was tabled on November
6, 2007. The Commissioner's concerns voiced at that heating included the following:
the lack of landscaping on the north and west sides of Lot 13; the roof feature on the
roof top deck; and the massing of the proposed duplexes.
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 duplex zoning.
• Density. The lots are zoned for a duplex and the density is appropriate.
Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is
fifty (50%) percent. The project is in compliance with the PUD, proposing forty-
five (45%) percent lot coverage, and this coverage ratio is for all impervious
surfaces compared to the entire size of the properties. Due to the change in the
proposed property line, the overall site coverage has been reduced by two (2%)
percent.
Setbacks: The setbacks for the properties are typical for Wildridge with a twenty-
five (25') foot front yard setback and ten (10') foot side and rear yard building
setbacks. The twenty-five (25') foot front setback is measured from the property
line adjacent to Wildridge Road West for Lot 12, while it is measured from both
Wildridge Road West and Little Point for Lot 13. An Improvement Location
Certificate (ILC) is required to document the exact locations since the buildings
do abut the setbacks on the north and south sides of Lot 12 and the north, south,
and west sides of Lot 13.
Easements: A Utility and Drainage Easement of ten (10') feet in width borders
the east side of both Lots 12 and 13, while a fifteen (15') foot wide (seven and
one-half (7.5') feet for each lot) Utility and Drainage Easement borders the north
side of Lot 12 and the south side of Lot 13. The western side of both lots has a
ten (10') foot wide Slope Maintenance, Drainage and Snow Storage Easement.
The north side of Lot 13 has a ten (10') foot wide Slope Maintenance, Drainage
and Snow Storage Easement, while the south side of Lot 12 has a seven and
on (7.5') foot wide Utility and Drainage 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.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision—The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design IIIA
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 8 '
�• Building Height. The maximum allowable builbing height according to zoning for
these properties is thirty-five (35') feet. The designs for Lots 12 and 13 are in
compliance with the applicable zoning with all top of parapet heights and roofs at
or below thirty (30') feet for Lot 12, and at or below thirty-one and one-half (31.5')
feet for Lot 13. There are also elements such as chimneys that extend above the
allowed height, but they are exempt from the overall height calculation. Again,
adherence to 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 three (3) spaces for each dwelling unit (two (2) per
unit under 2,500 sq. ft. / three (3) per unit over 2,500 sq. ft.). The applicant is
proposing a total of four (4) spaces (two (2) interior and two (2) exterior) for each
dwelling unit. The plans propose the exterior spaces for each unit to be in front
of their respective entrances in a paved area. The areas differ between each
residence with Residence A having a twenty (20') feet wide by eighteen (18') feet
long area, Residence B having an eighteen (18') feet wide by sixteen (16') feet
long area, Residence C having a seventeen (1 T) feet wide by nineteen (19') feet
long area, and Residence D have an eighteen (18') feet wide by sixteen (16') feet
long area. The minimum size for a parking space is nine (9') feet wide by
eighteen (18') feet long, as required by the Design Guidelines. It appears that
the spaces for Residences B, C, and D do not support enough square footage for
two (2) vehicles, but are large enough for one (1) exterior space for each unit.
The two (2) exterior and two (2) interior parking spaces for Residence A and the
one (1) exterior space and two (2) interior spaces for Residences B, C, and D are
enough to satisfy the parking requirements for each duplex structure.
2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon
Comarehensive 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 properties for up to two (2) dwelling units
per lot.
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 the site layout
configuration 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
and as necessitated by steep slopes.
Due to the interior courtyard design of each duplex, the project utilizes a
majority of the buildable area on each lot. The proposed project abuts the
Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design fl11A
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 8 '
setbacks on both the north and south slides of Lot 12, the north, south and
west sides of Lot 13, and is within two (2') feet of the setback on the east
side setback of Lot 12.
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 both lots is provided with a twelve (12') foot wide
driveway which traverses Lot 13 from Little Point to access Lot 12. The
private drive starts with a four (4%) percent grade for the first twenty (20')
feet adjacent to the roadway. The grades throughout the drive vary from
no grade to a ten (10%) percent grade. The first twenty (20') feet adjacent
to the garage for both Residence A and B (Lot 13) have a two and one-
half (2.5%) percent grade. The first twenty (20') feet adjacent to the
garage for Residence C (northern half of the duplex on Lot 12) has a two
(2%) grade, while Residence D (southern half of the duplex on Lot 12) has
a two and one-half (2.5%) percent grade. The Design Guidelines require
no more than a four (4%) percent grade for the first twenty (20') 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 to access Lot
12, an access easement must be provided on Lot 13 where the proposed
drive is located for the use of Lot 12. This would be completed during the
resubdivision of these lots.
The site must also be accessible for emergency vehicles. The applicant is
proposing an emergency vehicle turnaround between the two duplexes on
Lots 12 and 13. The applicant has also provided a notation that a dry
horizontal standpipe be designed and installed for both duplexes. This is
acceptable to the Eagle River Fire Protection District as outlined in a
memorandum from Carol Gill-Mulson (Exhibit E). Staff requires that this
standpipe be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer.
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 as required by the Design Guidelines.
o Site Grading: Grading on the properties 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 have minimal grading work to ensure
that drainage is contained within the site. The Construction Management
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision— The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design ME
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 8 '
f Plan, which encompasses both Lots 12 And 13, should be revised to show
that the Limits of Disturbance fencing encloses the material storage area
to the northern portion of Lot 13 as well as encloses the entirety of the
construction area.
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 for both Lots 12 and 13. The project proposes 1,680 sq. ft.
of snow storage, which exceeds the required twenty (20%) percent of the
paved surfaces (1,306 sq. ft.).
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
proposed colors have been modified since the most recent proposal. Lot
12 uses the colors as follows: smooth stucco - "Sand Trap" (SW 6066);
banded stucco — "Chivalry Copper" (SW 6353); wood siding and soffits —
"Light Brown" (Parklex 1000 Ayous); metal louvers, railings, and chimney
caps — "Pennywise" (SW 6349); and windows and doors — "Pueblo Tan".
The smooth stucco has a light tan to off-white color, while the banded
stucco is more of a peach/tan color.
Lot 13 is proposing the following colors: smooth stucco - "Bona fide Beige"
(SW 6065); banded stucco — "Sociable" (SW 6359); wood siding and
soffits — "Light Brown" (Parklex 1000 Ayous); metal louvers, railings, and
chimney caps — "Privilege Green" (SW 6193); and windows and doors —
"Pueblo Tan". Both the smooth stucco and banded stucco have lighter
hues than their respective proposed color on Lot 12. The metal louver,
railings and chimney caps are a red hue on Lot 13, while Lot 12 utilizes a
green hue. All of the colors appear to be earthtone or indigenous,
compatible of one another and 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 proposed design for the duplex on Lot 13 differs from
the proposed design on Lot 12 for a few reasons one of which is the use
of wood siding as a building material. The.two duplexes (Lots 12 and 13)
appear to compliment each other not only in the application of certain
materials but also in the varying of colors. Each building's design meets
the intent of the Architectural Interest Design Guidelines.
The Guidelines encourage pitched roofs and no unbroken ridgelines,
acknowledging only flat roofs when discussing pueblo architecture. The
proposal is designed in a contemporary architectural vernacular in which
flat roofs are vital to the design. The proposal utilizes flat roofs as the
main roof type; with the exception of the roof above the roof -top deck/hot
tub space. This roof has an inverted pitch, butterfly roof, appearing like a
wing shape or v -shape.
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 8 '
o Outdoor Lighting: The applicant is proposing to use two types of exterior
lighting (Exhibit F). The first is style is a Teka Illuminations "Beacon Wall
Mount". This light fixture is mounted on either side of the entry doors for
each residence (unit). This light fixture shines light downward and due to
its location on each residence will have limitedvisibility from neighboring
properties. The second style is a Teka Illuminations "Beacon Tower
Bollard". This light fixture is a ground bollard and is placed in six (6)
locations along the private drive the help with visibility. These bollard do
not aim light downward and could impact neighboring properties due to
their locations on the drive. These lights are adjacent to and some are
located within designated snow storage areas. These lights may be
impacted by snow removal.
o Duplex Development•. The connections between the two halves of each
duplex are not typical of most Wildridge duplex connections. The
proposed design on Lot 12 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 master
suite and is a functional area, but the area is not overly large in terms of
width as it measures only twenty (20') feet. The proposed design on Lot
13 has a duplex connection on the upper level and the connection is a still
a functional yet secondary one. The space is used by a secondary
bedroom and bath on both halves of the duplex and is sixteen and one-
half (16.5') feet in width. The interior courtyard and garages are below the
connection and are easily viewed from both the east and west elevations.
The designs of each duplex have similarities between the two halves but
they do not appear to be 'mirror images' nor do the two duplexes appear
to be 'mirror images' of each other. At the Sketch Design review and
previous Final Design reviews for both Lots 12 and 13, the Commissioners
expressed intrigue and support of this connection, although they asked if
the connections could be more massive.
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 five (5) Amur Maple
trees, fifty-nine (59) Aspen trees, five (5) River Birch trees, twenty (20)
Spruce trees, four (4) Rocky Mountain Maple trees, one (1) Serviceberry,
eleven (11) Alpine Currant shrubs, five (5) Blue Mist Spirea shrubs,
twenty-two (22) Chokecherry shrubs, seventeen (17) Mugo Pines,
eighteen (18) Peking Cotoneaster shrubs, five (5) Rock Cotoneaster
shrubs, twenty (20) Sea Green Juniper shrubs, sixteen (16) Three Leaf
Sumac plants, thirty-seven (37) White Potentilla plants, ten (10) Woods
Rose plants, and groundcovers. Most of the plant species proposed are
contained in Appendix 1: Recommended Plant List, from the Town's
Design Guidelines.
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision'— The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design OF,
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 8
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 landscape plan appears to be well designed
and meets the intent of the Guidelines. The reorganization of the
plantings appear to address the comments and concerns made by the
Commissioners at their last review of this application.
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 buildings appear to be compatible with the site topography. The
structures would be stepped with the grades as they fall to the southwest from Lot
13 to Lot 12. As stated in section 4 of this report, minimal grading is being proposed
to alter drainage between the two duplexes on Lots 12 and 13.
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 on the two duplexes is not identical to the neighboring
properties, the lack of architectural conformity in the area promotes this architecture
and 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 two
duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the final design plan for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13,
Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with the finding that the Design Review considerations
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 749-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design Wit
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 8 "
listdd in the staff report have been sufficiently adhered to and with the following
conditions to be resolved by building permit submittal:
1. The horizontal standpipe be designed and stamped by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer;
2. A resubdivision application be approved to adjust the lot line between Lots 12
and 13, provide an access easement on Lot 13 for Lot 12, and to replat a Utility
and Drainage Easement between the two lots;
3. 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 as required by the Design Guidelines;
4. The limits of disturbance fencing be revised to include the area called out for
material storage on the Construction Staging Plan (Sheet A 1.2) as well as, the
entirety of the construction area; and
5. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations made
by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public
hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748-4023, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
n
Jar Barnes
Planner I
Attachments:
A. Aerial Map
B. Letter from Victoria and Nigel Dagnall dated August Td, 2007
C. Other Public Input
D. Letters from the Applicant dated October 25,2007 and November 9, 2007
E. Letter from Carol Gill-Mulson dated October 30, 2007
F. Light fixtures
G. Reduced plan set and colored elevations
Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
�
Jared'Bames
From: Nigel Dagnall [dagnall12@romcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:30 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Proposed Development of Lots 12 R 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 19`h meeting all have a pitched roof design (photos to follow).
2) Design
The design of the buildings looks massive and retaillcommercial 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 "... "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 Architectuml style, Massing, Height and
8/6/2007
Page 2 of 2
Aesthetics dill be totally compromised in comparison to the vicinity of other ho mes in th1.e 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
8/6/2007
Jared harries
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.
8/7/2007
Page 1 of 1
I
Jared Barnes
From: john wamke@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, August 06, 200710:23 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 concem, John and Becky Warnke, 5768 Wildridge Rd. E. Avon, Colo.
8/6/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared dames
From: Harrel Lawrence [harrel3@cwcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Jared Bames
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 NOTIIII 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
9709494060
4313 JUNE POINT, WILDRIDGE
8/6/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 200710:40 AM
To: Jared Bames
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
23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657
(970) 479-5762 Direct Line
(970) 476-2421 Receptionist
(970) 476-2658 Fax
wwwslifer.net
8/6/2007
Pagel of I
Jared games
From: Mike Neff [mneff@insuranceaai.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 200712:58 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 ofthis nature, it wilrnot 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 thunk.
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
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: Lynn Brethauer [brethr88@comeast.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 comer, 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, orjust "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
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: GeraldPHernan@aol.com
Sent: Monday, August 06, 20071:57 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: duplex proposal for lots 12 813 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 buildings 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 Bamea
From: nelsonelecbt@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, August 05, 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 I of 1
Jared B3mes' ' 1
From: Doss Malone [malone a@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
Page 1 of I
Jared Barites
From: Chuck Bunting [chuck.bunting@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:23 APA
To: Jared Bames
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.huntinp(a).p_mail.com
Home: 970-845-6319
Cell: 970-390-4281
Mail:
PO Box 6034
Avon, CO 81620-6034
8/7/2007
Page 1 of 1
14
Berries
Jared Bar
From: Paul & Terese Jeppson [paul4799@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 200710:20 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Cc: Paul & Teresa 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 Singietree 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 modem 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
(wood/log/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,
Tem Jeppson
4480B West Wildridge Road
8/7/2007
Jared Bames
d:
to:
Subject:
Kathleen Kunis [kathleenkunis@comcast.net]
Tuesday, August 07, 200710:20 AM
Jared Barnes
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
1
Lots 12 and 13
Jared Barbes
From: Joanne Morgan [morgangd@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:09 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Lots 12 and 13
Jared,
Page 1 of 1
III be anxious to hear what happens with the Ryan Sutter fence this evening. I'll be amazed if he doesn't have
to tear that thing down. He's continuing his backyard remodel which is fine - but hopefully the P&Z folks will
stand by their guns and make the fence go.
I am also stunned at the plans for Lots 12 and 13 Block 3. This Isn't LODo and that's what this looks like. What
else is going to happen up here in Wildridge that makes no design sense given the adjacent properties? This is
almost as III -placed as that hideous building Daniel Llebskind wants to plop down in Edwards.
Joanne Morgan
Joanne Morgan Graphic Design
970.743.1004
970.390.7246 cell
8/16/2007
Page I of 1
Jared Bames
From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:00 PM
To: Jared Bames
Subject: Thank you
For getting the design for Lots 12 and 13 tabled. Now we need them to redesign this so that it is more in keeping
with the neighborhood and not a light reflecting eye sore. In my opinion, if that duplex were built as is, any
property within that view corridor would be devalued at least $200,000.00. Just because something meets Avon
.guidelines" does not mean that it should be built. Carroll Tyler
Carroll S. Tyler
Branch Broker
Slifer Smith & Frampton Ileal Estate- Bridge St. Office
230 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657
(970)479-5762 Direct line
(970)476-2421 Receptionist
(970)476-2658 Fax
www.slifer.net
10/11/2007
Pagel of 2
Jared Barr4es
From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 200711:51 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: RE: Thank you
Jared, I understand all of this. Avon's aminimurn zoning and design guidelines' should not be an excuse to allow
such an eyesore to be built on a prominent piece of land visible from a huge part of the subdivision. The fact that
Avon has not had tougher requirements is now being reflected by the hugely expensive redevelopment of the
town which will be on going for several years. People buy in Wiklridge for the visors and if they have to look at this
ugly duplex which k►oks like a bad gas station, they will lose value in their homes whether Town of Avon cares or
not. Take the high road. Carroll
From: Jared Barnes (mailto:jbames@avon.org]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:10 AM
To: Carroll Tyler
Subject: RE: Thank you
Carroll,
I appreciate your comments and care about what is designed in town. Unfortunately there are some incorrect
statements in your email. First, I did not ask or request the tabling. The applicant requested it due to him not
being able to attend the meeting. In addition, he full intends to have his application presented at the next
regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on August 21. Second, you refer to view corridors
and devaluation of property. Unfortunately, the town of Avon does not protect any view unless there are in a
platted view corridor—In Avon projects are reviewed based on their compliance with the Municipal code and the
Design Review Guidelines. if a project meets all of these requirements it will receive a favorable recommendation
from staff. This project in particular meets the minimum zoning and design guideline requirements and has
received a recommendation for approval from the town staff. Hopefully this clarifies what went on at the last
meeting and the next steps for the project.
Regards,
Jared Barnes
Planner I
Community Development
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
970-748-4023
From: Carroll Tyler [mailto:ctyler@slifer.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:00 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Thank you
For getting the design for Lots 12 and 13 tabled. Now we need them to redesign this so that it is more in keeping
with the neighborhood and not a light reflecting eye sore. in my opinion, ff that duplex were built as is, any
property within that view corridor would be devalued at least $200,000.00. Just because something meets Avon
'guidelines' does not meati that it should be built. Carroll Tyler
Carroll S. Tyler
Branch Broker
Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office
23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657
(970) 479-5762 Direct Line
8/16/2007
Page 1 of I
( -
Jared Barnes
From: Doss Malone [malone@vail.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:59 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Wildridge Lots 12/13
Jared,
This is a follow up to my e-mail last week concerning the planned development of lots 12/13 in
Wildridge. I loop around the entire subdivision daily on my bike and would like to stress just how
prominent these lots are. As I try to visualize the design that strikes me as industrial, but is
euphemistically described as `contemporary", the words invasive and predatory come to mind. I grew
up in Colorado and have enjoyed this valley for 30 years. I fust purchased in Wildridge in 1994 and
have seen the progression of development. While there are certain interesting, unique designs that have
been tucked innocently against the natural topography over the years, this design's departure from the
regional norm will be exaggerated by its location. I don't advocate a bland cookie cutter approach and
appreciate quality and creativity but I do think there is a certain style of architecture that appeals to those
of us who love living here and this design seems out of character. On a positive note, I appreciate the
economical access design using multiple lots that minimizes the excavation required to development
challenging locations.
Sincerely,
Doss Malone
4700 Wildridge Rd.
From: Doss Malone [mailto:malone@vail.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:52 PM
To: 'jbames@avon.oig'
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
10/11/2007
Page 1 of 2
Jared Barrks
From: MIKE NEFF [MNEFF@INSURANCEAAI.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 200712:52 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: RE: Wildridge Lots 12 & 13
Thank you. I appreciate your quick response. I assume that you will provide the meeting
with all of the public comment that you have received.
Have a nice day,
Mike
Michael Neff, President
Michael Neff Agency, Inc.
970-949-5633
From: Jared Barnes [mallto:jbames@avon.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:30 PM
To: Mike Neff
Subject: RE: Wildridge Lots 12 & 13
Mr. Neff,
The applicant has requested that the project be tabled from the August 7th meeting. He intends to go forward
with this application at the August 21 st meeting but I stiil am waiting to get the final word to verify that intention he
has expressed to me.
Regards,
Jared Barnes
Planner
Community Development
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
970-748-4023
From: Mike Neff [mailto:mneff@insuranceaai.com]
sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:30 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Wildridge Lots 12 & 13
Mr. Barnes, please advise me of the outcome of the final review of the plans for the
duplexes on Lots 12 & 13 in the Wildridge sub -division. The review had been scheduled
for Augusi 7th.
8/16/2007
Page 2 of 2
Mike Neff i
Michael Neff, President
Michael Neff Agency, Inc.
970-949-5633
8/16/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Bames
From: GeraldPHerrnan@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 13,2007 12:43 PM
To: Jared Berries
Subject: Property at Wildridge Rd. West and Little Point
My wife Connie and I finely believe that the proposed houses on Wildridge Rd. West just south of Little Point
are not an appropriate design for the Wildridge neighborhood. They have the appearance of commercial
structures and will only serve to lower the desirability of Wildridge. We urge the P&Z Commision to reject the
design and demand that the architects design something that complements the other homes in the area.
While, we now live at 5531 Coyote Ridge, we formerly lived at 4211 Wildridge Rd. West. We can't believe that
the Commission would even consider such monstrosities in Wildridge.
Thank You.
Gerald P Heenan
I also, have a question as to why nothing has happened with the fence built by Ryan Sutter?
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
10/11/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: Harrel Lawrence [harrel3@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 200710:51 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: WILD RIDGE - LITTE PT.
WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE DELAY IN THE WILDWRDGE SITE APPROVE ON WEST ROAD/LITTLE PT.
MEANS THAT THHEY ARE TRYING TO NOT HAVE THE PROJECT LOOK LIKE A 7-11 STORE AND THAT IT
WILL BETTER FIT THE AREA . JERRY MCMAHAN AND HARREL LAWRENCE /// CONCERNED HOME
OWNERS
10/11/2007
plans
Jared Barns
From: Joanne Morgan [morgangd@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:07 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: plans
Page 1 of 1
Jared,
I just spent some time with Michael Hazard looking at his plans for the two duplexes. Aker seeing the
renderings with shading and recesses more distinct, I like the project.
Joanne
I, _ . .. J ,
10/11/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: Matt Ivy [Ivy@vailracquetclub.comj
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:10 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: courtyard villas
Hi Jared,
We are writing in support of the proposed Courtyard Villas of Wildridge. My wife and I live just
up the road from the site at 4274 Wildridge Rd West and will pass the new homes several
times each day. We have seen the plans and the elevations and feel that the project is an
excellent fit for the site. We encourage the Town to approve the project.
Thank you,
Matt and Jane Ivy
Wildridge Home Owners
10/16/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: Paul & Teresa Jeppsan [paut4799@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 200711:55 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Lots 12 & 13 Residential Units
Mr. Barnes,
We live at 4480B Wildridge Road W. Terri and I have lived in Wildridge since 1988. We have seen numerous
buildings and projects constructed over that time. Some good and some bad. Recently, we have started to see
the influx in the last 4 or 5 years of high end, high quality projects especially at the upper end of Wildridge. This is
consistent with the goal of the majority if not all of homeowners and should be the goal of the P&Z.
The currently proposed project has the same look an feel as a combination circa 1975 condominium complexes
and commercial industrial design. This design is found in the 30 year old portions of Vail, Avon and other
mountain towns. It has no redeeming characteristics that would be pleasing to the eye or that would improve the
value of the proposed projects or improve the values of those neighboring the project. It is interesting to note that
when these older projects are remodeled as you are seeing in Vail, they are all trying to cover up the old design. I
am not an advocate of subdivision building such as you would see in Denver, however the individualistic design
needs to fit the character of upscale mountain projects that will assist in creating a better Wildridge not an
eyesore.
On the way to our house you will pass the "Glass House" duplex and just past it you have a "Frank Lloyd Wright"
copy. In between you have Southwestern, modem Mountain and others. While we as individuals might say I
don't care for that residential design, we don't confuse them with commercial buildings and go "Why did the town
allow that to be built in the neighborhood?" The proposed design would definitely elicit that type of response.
The only reason I can think of for this type of design proposal is that it is the cheapest building concept possible.
You must take the neighborhood in which this project is proposed into account. Wildridge, has been fortunate to
have many beautiful and high-end projects approved and built recently. A poorly designed eyesore in the middle,
could and probably would convince developers to build elsewhere as they cannot count on the town to protect the
overall values. We will regret this project as proposed for tie next 20 years is approved.
Please vote no!
Thanks,
Paul A. Jeppson
4480B Wildridge Road W.
10/16/2007
October 15, 2007
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Commissioners:
The purpose of this letter is to provide several formal comments regarding the current
proposed development of Lots 12 & 13 in Wildridge, referred to as "The Courtyard
Villas of Wildridge".
Having monitored the evolution of this application and reviewed the current plan
submissions (contained within the spiral -bound booklet), as residents of Little Point and
nearby homes, we have several concerns. Below please find an explanation of each as
well as some suggestions for how the applicant may address each:
1) Homogeneity of architecture — This application is for two (2) duplex units to be
built on adjoining lots. The principle exterior architecture, materials, color
treatments, etc. for all four units are identical. As such, the development is out -
of -proportion and inconsistent with the neighboring residences and with the
Wildridge development in general.
Proposed solutions: An optimal solution to the above will be to execute two
different architectural styles. For example, one duplex unit remain as is and the
other be done in a different style such as a `mountain-esque' structure (e.g. 4214
West Wildridge). Alternatively, one of the duplex units could have several
pitched roof sections incorporated into the execution as a means of differentiating
the two duplexes (e.g. 4220/4224 West Wildridge). Also, the colors of each
duplex could be different, rather than uniform, as a means of further
distinguishing the units (e.g. two duplex units on a shared driveway developed by
ASE at 5101 Longsun Lane).
2) General Mass of the proposed development — By the design (minimal
connectivity of each duplex unit) as well as the placement of the lots, from most
any angle of each of 5 views (east, west, north, south, and topPabove' view), this
development will look like one massive structure. While we are not shown all 4
units within any elevation, the overlapping nature of the walls, even between the
two duplexes themselves, will give the observer the impression that this is one
massive structure. This is not consistent with other single family nor duplex
developments of adjacent lots (e.g. ASE Development of 3 duplexes on Longsun
Lane).
Proposed solutions: If the architecture of each duplex were different, and/or if
there was greater distance between the structures such that `daylight' could be
viewed between the buildings, this could improve the current effects. Perhaps the
use of separate driveway entrances could facilitate a solution. Altering the duplex
connections (and reducing/eliminating the courtyards) could also reduce the
footprint and thus improve the proposed impact.
3) Proposed ancillary treatments — While not portrayed in any current drawings, we
understand there bad been discussion of incorporating a gate and signage at the
driveway entrance from Little Point. This is clearly inconsistent with the
neighborhood and is not seen as a positive component of any development in the
area.
Proposed solution: Ensure the entrance treatments are consistent with the
neighboring residences which, in many cases, use natural rocks with simple
residence numbers applied, as a means denoting the specific units served by the
driveways.
We feel strongly about these issues and look forward to working with the
Commission, the Town Council and developers towards a solution that will
complement the neighborhood while delivering a favorable ROI for the
investor(s).
Sincerely,
Pam and Peter Warren (4181 Little Point)
Carel and Marc Slatkoff (4191 Little Point)
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes t
From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:34 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Cc: Tina Vardaman
Subject: Little Point duplex
Hi Jared, Mike Hazard gave me a colored rendering of this proposed 'Courtyard Duplex." for Little Point in
Wildridge. I am sorry to say that I do not think it is appropriate for our neighborhood. It will cover the entire point
and be visible both from above as well as from the roads. This is a commercial style structure with bars that block
the views and make it look like a jail. It has taken me 13 years to grow trees at my house and no amount of
screening is going to help this one on Little Point. Vote No, please. Carroll Tyler
Carroll S. Tyler
Branch Broker
Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office
23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657
(970) 479-5762 Direct Line
(970) 476-2421 Receptionist
(970)476-2658 Fax
www.slifer.net
10/16/2007
rage t of t
Jared Bames'
From:
GeraldPHennan@aol.com
Sent:
Tuesday, October 16,2007 12:47 PM
To:
Jared Barnes
Subject: tonights meeting
I, again want to reiterate my opposition to the architectural style of the proposed development at the corner of
Wildridge Road West and Little Point, The design is much too commercial looking in appearance and will
detract from the neighborhood. I realize this is a matter of taste. However, this proposed design belongs on
Metcalf Road in a commercial setting. I ask the P & Z Commission to ask the developer to change the outside
appearance to better fit in to the Wildridge subdivision.
See whats new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
10/16/2007
Michael
P.O. Box 1068
Hazard
Vail, Colorado
Planner 1
Associates
81658
Architecture
970.949.4958
Planning
970.9494838jax
Interiors
mha(alvail.net
Date:
October 25, 2007
To:
Jared Barnes
Planner 1
Town of Avon
From:
Michael A. Hazard AIA
Re.:
The Courtyard Villas of Avon
Please find the enclosed documents for consideration at your November 6th Planning
Commission Meeting. The following revisions to the October 16'h submittal are submitted in
response to the conditions for approval and commissioner comments :
The following revisions shall be submitted to address Commissioners' concerns:
• The landscape design has been revised to address the commissioners' concerns with the
extensive addition of trees to improve screening. The engineering departments' concern
regarding vegetation in the drainage easement has also been addressed.
• The dimensions of the chimneys have been diminished both in height and length. To
further lessen the overall height and visual bulk of the homes the roof top hot tub
enclosures have been diminished by only enclosing the stair while there is a simple roof
form supported with wing walls to protect the deck areas.
• The colors have been revised with a compatible color palette applied to the duplex on lot
13. This should help to further differentiate the 2 duplexes.
B. The following revisions are submitted to address the conditions noted in the Staff
comments:
• The landscape architect resolved issue addressed by the engineering department
• The encroachments noted into setbacks have been corrected.
• The Construction Staging Plan now shows the addition of straw bales.
• Intermountain Engineering has addressed the concerns voiced with the topographical
map.
Exhibit D
Michael
P.O. Box 1068
Hazard
Vail, Colorado
Assoeiald
81658
Architecture
970.949.4958
Planning
970.9494838 fax
Interiors
mha(Mvail.net
Date:
November 9, 2007
To:
Jared Barnes
Planner 1
Town of Avon
From:
Michael A. Hazard AIA
Re.:
The Courtyard Villas of Avon
Please consider the following in our desire to be reviewed at the November 2& Planning
Commission Meeting. The enclosed drawings have been revised as follows:
• The landscape design will be revised to address the commissioners' concerns with the
addition and redistribution of trees along the north and west faces of the homes to further
screen the homes.
• The roof decks, hot tubs and roofs have been entirely removed resulting in a two story
massing throughout with an average overall height of 22' above grade.
• New darker colors selections have been have been submitted.
• The demising property line between lots 12 & 13 has been straitened resulting in a clear
and unobstructed separation between adjoining homes.
• Screened exterior light fixtures have been located and specifications supplied.
OCT -30-2607 09:52 From:ERGLE RIVER FIRE PD 9707484747 To:9709495749 P.1/1
► ► EXHIBIT C
To: Jared Barnes, Planner 1, Town of Avon
From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD
Data: 10/30/2007
Re: The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge, Lots 12 & 13, Filing 3, Avon
I met with Michael M17ad, Architect, this montutg and reviewed the previously noted fire
depiatment comms on the above project He is revising the proposal to im iude a tum around
bctwm the buildings and is including a horizontal standpipe to provide water to the mtrrior
of the property. I believe this meets the intent of adequate water supply and access.
If ffi= are any questions, plow feel flee to call me at970.748-4741.
1
i
TEKA
I L L U M I N A T 1 O N
BB'
E D H C B
TM W
iFFF� J CC
r
IT
AA
AA
Description
Exterior wall mounted luminaire
Materials and ConstruUion
A. Cost bronze cop
B. Heavy pure copper shade
C. Stainless steel a copper on stainless steel ring bates
D. Solid brass spacers
E. Cost aluminum wall plate with pure capper cover
F. Heavy pure copper stem - W O.D.
G. Pure copper glass retainer with clear glass disk
H. Gear glass cylinder
I. Pure copper hmpholder corer
Mounting
Recessed 4' octagonal wiring box
Product Number Lamp Rings
AA
BB CC Finish Option
BWM•2046 / Notural I DOW Al SI. Sd.
12'
17k': T/: Brown Patina
BWNr2016 / Natural I OOW AI9 Copper
12'
17Yi 7'/: &own Patina
BWM2066 / Nkkel• IOOW AI9 SI. Sd.
12'
I7i': 7'/: None
BWM2246 /Natural I OOW AI9 St. U.
15'
20' 8'h' Brown Patina
BWA&2216 / Natural 1 OOW A19 Copper
15'
20' 8th' Brown Patino
3WM.2266 / Nickel• 10OW AI9 St. U.
15'
20' 8'h' None
Nickel Plate
Options available at additional cost...
A Add su8ix'61' for brown patina
Note
1.1.1- and CLL listed, suitable fa wet locations.
Exhibit F
F 51/• —1
T-20
Beacon Wall Mount
TEKA ILLUMINATION, INC
86 Gibson Rood, i'3 Templeton, California 93465 (8051434-3511 F=18051434-3512 www.lekoilluminatiar.can
oCooat Wtowaws
TEKA
I L L U M I N A T 1 0 N
-i--- 8to--{-
D "'
'
8vv
$tJQs
1 i•
2-I'
Materials and Construction
A. Cast broom cop
B. Stainless steel ring baffles, .135' thio
C. Brass spacers, .875' diameter
D. Heavy, .122' wdt, pure copper post - 6.125'0.D
E. Etched dear gloss cylinder -.19T thick
F. Pura capper lompholder cover
G. Cast bronze housing
H. Cost bronze base with 3 anchor points on 7.250' circle
1. 70W, MH model supplied with integral HPF+iX magnetic
120 ballast. 18W Compact Lorescent, HPF electronic
bollasi in post, 120V standard.
—150F sron temperature for PLC model
T-7
Beacon Tower Bollard
Product Number
lamp
Rinps
Finish Option
81&2327JNatural
70W E-17 MH
S.S.
Brawn Patina
M-2323/Natural
18W PLC
S.S.
Brawn Pailno
ST&2326/Naturol
15OW A21
S.S.
Brawn Panno
Options available of additional cost...
A. Add suffix # 277 to PLC models for Integral 277V electronic ballast,
-15°F starting temperature
B. Add &Am # 277 to MH models For Integral 277V magnetic ballast
C. Add s>dfix 8P lot brain patina
D. Higher or laver overall heights avoiloble, consult bcIory
Note
I.I.L. and CLL listed, suitable far wet locations.
TEKA ILLUMINATION, INC
86 Gibson Rood, #3 Templeton, California 93465 180514343511 Fox (805)434.3512 www.bkoillumination.com GCWVripMTWA M
of
R
11
T
r s
�.E
T
J
Town of Avon -11
Design Modifications AVON
C O L O R A D O
Commercial Staff Report
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
Project type
Legal description
Zoning
Address
Introduction
November 14, 2007
Design Modifications
Lot 2, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision
Planned Unit Development
0011 West Beaver Creek Boulevard
The applicant, Don Goerig of Ivins Design Group, is proposing building, site, and
landscaping modifications to the approved final design plans for the Gates at
Beaver Creek project. Please refer to the attached letter from the applicant
(architect) for a point by point breakdown of the proposed changes. Also
attached to this report are reduced plan copies for your review. Full size plan
sets will be available for review during Work Session.
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.
The changes would be in conformance with all provisions of the Town of Avon
Zoning Code. There are no implications to the required setbacks, massing,
access, land use, or other provisions that pertain to the Town's Zoning Code.
2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains.
The subject property is located within District 6: Highway 6, Gateway
Corridor. This district includes the Elk Parking lot in the Beaver Creek
Subdivision, Avon Road/Highway 6 Roundabout, Gates on Beaver Creek,
and the Folson property.
The plan explains that the property is somewhat isolated with respect to other
development and improvements in Town. The property's terrain makes it
Gates at Beaver Creek— Design Modifications k
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 4 7111
unique and is one of only two properties in the Town located south of
Highway 6 & 24.
The planning principles for the Highway 6 Gateway District focus on providing
a sense of entry in this area of Town, and strengthening the association
between the Town and Beaver Creek Resort.
3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed
improvements.
This criterion does not apply to this application.
4. The Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through
D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Guidelines.
A. Site Development: There are minor site modifications proposed, and the
changes are limited to replacing the planter boxes on the south elevation with
colored stamped stone. Monument signs are proposed on either side of the
entrance to the property.
The Design Guidelines state that buildings and other improvements should be
individually designed for the site on which they are to be placed. Pedestrian
ways should be aligned and focus should be placed on architectural or
aesthetic features.
The Design Guidelines state that "the use of sun exposure—reducing
elements such as overhangs, canopies, eaves and awnings should be
designed as integral components of the architectural design," and "building
entries and public spaces should be treated with special design emphasis,
easily identifiable, and visible from the public realm."
B. Building Design: There is a strong emphasis in the. Design Guidelines
placed on the building design for the first two floors of buildings, or the "base."
Secondary emphasis should be placed on the "roof form".
On the east elevation, there is a gate proposed to screen the gas meters.
The Design Guidelines require that all gas meters be screened, and therefore
this appears to be an acceptable improvement. Another design change is to
select fascias, which have been cut straight vertical for a "more authentic
design appeal." The intention is to create more design variety around the
building; some fascias were too deep to perform the same design change.
C. Landscaping: The primary change to the landscape plan (Sheet L1) is the
arrangement of trees and shrubs that have been removed and replaced with
a native grass/wildflower mix. This is at the southeast comer of the
developed potion of the site, where there are a series of retaining walls.
As noted, the raised planter boxes between the drive lane and parking spaces
on the south side of the building would be replaced with stamped, colored
concrete to match other areas of the project. A portion of the displaced trees
are now being proposed at the southwest comer of the site. Additionally,
there are now 6 aspen trees around the 8' mechanical screening wall on the
west side of the property near Beaver Creek.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
:� Gates at Beaver Creek— Design Modifications ��rr
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 4 Al1A
As proposed, there is a net loss of one 8-10' Spruce, one 10-12' Spruce,
three 2-3" caliper Summit Ash trees, and 7 5 -gallon Chokecherry shrubs.
D. Miscellaneous Items: There are two monument project identification
signs near the entrance, which show up on both the site plan and landscape
plan. These signs will be reviewed separately with a sign application.
S. 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.
Not applicable.
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 improvements are highly visible from Highway 6 & 24. The materials are
consistent with other already approved and applied materials. There is no
detrimental effect to the architectural style, massing, height, or quality of
materials with these design changes.
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.
The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted Goals and
Policies.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the design application for
Lots 2, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision — Gates at Beaver Creek."
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the modifications proposed for the Gates at Beaver Creek,
Lots 2, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision, subject to the following condition:
1. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material
representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this
application and in public hearings shall be adhered to and considered
binding conditions of approval."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please
call me at 748.4413 or stop by the Community Development Department.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Gates at Beaver Creek— Design Modifications
November 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 4
Respectfullyfitted,
Matt Pielstick r
Planner II
Exhibits
• Letter from Don Goerig, Ivins Design Group
• Reduced Plans
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
I U i n es November 13, 2007
O � B ,1 0 •R
Matt Pielsticker
0 Fl O 1.1 P Town of Avon
Planner
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
RE: The Gates Residences Project #: 00032.2
Dear Matt
This letter is a narrative of the changes to the project as it corresponds to the
drawings dated November 13, 2007. This submission includes previous
revisions as approved and current revisions as necessary.
SITE PLAN - SHEET 1
1. Replaced the planters again south wall of the building with integral colored
stamped concrete. The planter details were not working out well enough to keep
water away from the building, thus created damage and maintenance issues.
2. Added entry monuments at the entry to the site. Refer to sheet 3 for
elevations.
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - SHEET 2
North Elevation
1. Fascia revisions for a more authentic design appeal.
2. Added more detail to the transformer gate.
3. Added already approved stone veneer to Porte Cochere columns in lieu of
stucco as previously designed.
4. As previously approved, replace concrete file with copper shingles at
northwest comer patio.
West Elevation
1. Added painted HVAC louvers due to building mechanical requirements.
Wins Design Groep East Elevation
1480 Fiwnboldl 51ree1 1. Added stucco finished wall at the east end of the building to screen the gas
Denver, CO 80218 meter and exposed piping. Refer to sheet 3 for elevations.
303 446 8030
FX 303 446 8031
ivinsdesign com
South Elevation
1. Fascia revisions for a more authentic design appeal.
2. Added exterior man door in between mechanical louvers.
3. Added already approved stone veneer to Porte Cochere columns in lieu of
stucco as previously designed.
4. Chimney clarifications as final design.
ENLARGED ELEVATIONS — SHEET 3
1. Entry Monument sign, refer to separate sign application.
2. Added stucco finished wall at the east end of the building to screen the gas
meter and exposed piping.
PLANTING PLAN — SHEET L1
1. Replaced the planters again south wall of the building with integral colored
stamped concrete. Refer to Site Plan Sheet 1.
2. Added entry monuments at the entry to the site. Refer to Site Plan Sheet 1.
3. Miscellaneous tree relocation revisions due to geo-fabric rock wall planting
restrictions and watering issues.
4. Replacement of vine detail with new Aspen trees.
5. Added Perennials at North parking garage entry.
End of narrative
If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Donald Goerig, Assoc AIA