PZC Packet 040114April 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – Wyndham On-Site Mockup Review Page 1 of 3
Staff Memorandum
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Matthew Pielsticker, Planning Manager, AICP
DATE: March 27, 2014
RE: Wyndham On‐Site Mockup Review
Background
The Rezoning, Major Development Plan, and Alternative Equivalent Compliance applications
(collectively “the Application”) for the Wyndham Timeshare resort project were approved
by the Town Council on February 26, 2013. The Application was approved by Ordinance 13‐
03; the Ordinance contained the following condition regarding the final approval of
materials and colors for the project:
“The applicant will provide a mock‐up of exterior materials which shall be reviewed by
Avon PZC with the right to appeal to the Town Council in accordance with the Avon
Municipal Code Procedures”.
The on‐site mockup is scheduled for review at the beginning of the April 1, 2014 meeting.
PZC will convene the meeting and perform roll call at Town Hall before walking to the
project site to review the mock‐up.
Design Standards
For quick reference, the Generally Applicable and the Mixed‐Use and Non‐Residential design
standards related to building materials and colors from the Development Code are provided
herein. The PZC should consider these standards when reviewing the mock‐up.
Generally Applicable Standards
(3) Building Materials and Colors
(i) The use of high quality, durable building materials is required. Exterior walls
shall be finished with materials used in a manner sympathetic to the scale and
architectural style of the building.
(ii) Preferred materials reflect the Town’s sub alpine character such as native
stone, wood siding, masonry or timbers.
(iii) The following building materials and wall finishes are not permitted on the
exterior of any structure:
(A) asphalt siding,
(B) imitation brick,
(C) asbestos cement shingles or siding,
(D) imitation log siding, or
(E) plastic or vinyl siding.
April 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – Wyndham On-Site Mockup Review Page 2 of 3
(iv) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider newly developed
materials in light of subsections (i)‐(iii), above, and make a determination about
appropriateness.
(v) Indigenous natural or earth tones such as brown, tan, grey, green, blue, or
red in muted, flat colors with an LRV (Light Reflective Value) of sixty (60) or less are
required.
(vi) The following colors are prohibited: neon, day‐glow, fluorescent, reflective,
and non‐earth tones.
(vii) All flues, flashing, and other reflective materials shall be painted to match
and/or appropriately contrast with adjacent materials.
Mixed Use and Non‐Residential Standards
(i) Building Materials. The means and methods of construction of new buildings
should contribute to their durability, usefulness, and compatibility. In addition to
the general requirements of §7.28.090(c)(3), the following regulations shall apply
to exterior walls on mixed‐use and non‐residential structures.
(A) Durability of Materials. Materials should be used that have a long life and age
well. Materials at the ground floor should be composed and detailed in a manner
that enriches the pedestrian experience. Authentic materials are encouraged.
Faux or fake materials are prohibited. New materials, such as architectural
composite panels, should not imitate other materials, but should reflect their own
identity.
(B) Masonry and stone veneer. Masonry and stone veneer walls should be detailed
as masonry bearing walls, especially at corners and windows and door openings.
(C) Synthetic materials. The use of synthetic materials is discouraged unless they can
be shown to display the ability to age in a manner similar to or superior to the
natural materials they replace.
(D) Trim and molding. Building walls should be trimmed in wood, stone, cast stone,
precast concrete, or concrete. Foam moldings are discouraged.
(E) Multiple materials. Two (2) or more wall materials may be combined on one (1)
façade, but should be located one above the other with lighter materials above
more substantial materials (e.g. wood above stucco or masonry, or stucco above
masonry).
(F) Color. Materials and finishes should be composed to provide balanced designs
that are appropriate to each style and context. In general, large areas of bright
colors should be avoided, although strong accent colors can be successfully used.
April 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – Wyndham On-Site Mockup Review Page 3 of 3
Staff Discussion
The proposed materials and colors are in general conformance with the Design Standards
outlined herein. The color of the stucco, while limited in areas of application, exceeds the
codified maximum Light Reflective Value (LRV) of 60. The stucco is “Navajo White” with an
LRV of 79.97; an Alternative Equivalent Compliance application would be required in order to
approve this color application. Staff recommends reviewing the on‐site mockup and the
suitability of the materials and colors as they relate to the design standards provided in this
Memorandum. It should be noted that the Mixed‐Use Non‐Residential design standards
contemplate “strong accent colors” if successfully used, when placed above heavier
materials as contemplated on this building.
The PZC has the following actions available:
1) Approve the Materials and Colors as presented with the condition that an AEC application
be processed for the stucco color exceeding LRV.
2) Deny the Materials and Colors as presented based on non‐compliance with the LRV
standards for the stucco color
3) Continue action to the next regularly scheduled meeting if additional information is
necessary to finalize review.
Attachments
Building Elevations and Photograph of Mock‐up
ARCHITECTURE
URBAN DESIGN
INTERIOR DESIGN PAGE 45 |NORTH ELEVATION
LEVEL 1100' - 0"
LEVEL 2
114' - 0"
LEVEL 3125' - 0 1/4"
LEVEL 4136' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 5147' - 0 3/4"
ATTIC158' - 0"
PARKING LEVEL85' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
14
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
1
1
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
1
1
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
1
0
'
-
1
1
1
/
4
"
15
'
-
4
1
/
8
"
USGS = 7455'-0"
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT = 80'-0"
ARCHITECTURE
URBAN DESIGN
INTERIOR DESIGN PAGE 46 |EAST ELEVATION
LEVEL 1100' - 0"
LEVEL 2114' - 0"
LEVEL 3125' - 0 1/4"
LEVEL 4
136' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 5147' - 0 3/4"
ATTIC
158' - 0"
PARKING LEVEL85' - 0"
15
'
-
4
1
/
4
"
10
'
-
1
1
1
/
4
"
11
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
11
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
11
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
14
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
USGS = 7455'-0"
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
MAX BUILDING
HEIGHT = 80'-0"
ARCHITECTURE
URBAN DESIGN
INTERIOR DESIGN PAGE 47 |SOUTH ELEVATION
LEVEL 1
100' - 0"
LEVEL 2114' - 0"
LEVEL 3125' - 0 1/4"
LEVEL 4136' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 5
147' - 0 3/4"
ATTIC
158' - 0"
PARKING LEVEL
85' - 0"
15
'
-
2
"
10
'
-
1
1
1
/
4
"
11
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
11
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
11
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
14
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
USGS = 7455'-0"
MAX BUILDING
HEIGHT = 80' - 0"
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
ARCHITECTURE
URBAN DESIGN
INTERIOR DESIGN PAGE 48 |WEST ELEVATION
LEVEL 1100' - 0"
LEVEL 2114' - 0"
LEVEL 3125' - 0 1/4"
LEVEL 4136' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 5
147' - 0 3/4"
ATTIC
158' - 0"
PARKING LEVEL85' - 0"
14
'
-
4
"
10
'
-
1
1
1
/
4
"
11
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
11
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
11
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
14
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
USGS = 7455'-0"
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT = 80' - 0"
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
April 1, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page | 1
Lots 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / Minor PUD Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING
Staff Report – Minor PUD Amendment
April 1, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Report date March 27, 2014
Project type Minor PUD Amendment
Legal description Lots 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address 5151 Longsun Lane
Prepared By Matthew Pielsticker, Planning Manager, AICP
Introduction
Jeffrey Manley, the Applicant, representing Longsun 5151 LLC, the Property Owner, is
requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment (the Application) to modify the
allowed building type for Lot 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision (the Property). Currently,
two (2) dwelling units in the form of a single‐family structure or duplex structure are
permitted by right. The Application is requesting the ability to subdivide the Property to
develop two (2) single‐family structures, and is being processed as a Minor PUD
Amendment. Attached to this report is a Vicinity Map (Attachment A) and the Application
(Attachment B) materials.
Process
Minor PUD Amendment Process
This application is processed under §7.16.060(h), Amendments to a Final PUD, AMC.
Subsection (1)(ii), sets forth criteria for a Minor Amendment, while subsection (2)(ii) sets
forth the review procedures for the same process. The application, as submitted, meets the
criteria for a Minor Amendment and is processed as such.
Public Notification
In order to comply with the Public Hearing and pertinent noticing requirements, a mailed
notice was provided to all property owners within 300’ of the property. Additionally, a
notice was published in the Vail Daily newspaper on March 21st, 2014. Two (2) written
comments were received when this report was finalized and attached (Attachment C)
hereto. Another set of public notification is required prior to a Council hearing.
Public Hearings
The April 1st, 2014 meeting completes the public hearing requirements with the PZC. As
noted, the Council will make the final decision on this Application through a Resolution after
holding one more public hearing.
Proposed PUD Amendment
The Property is zoned PUD and is included in the Wildridge Subdivision. Included in the
Wildridge Subdivision and PUD Plat is a Land Use Summary table, which breaks down the
number of units for each individual lot, and also summarizes the type of construction
permitted on each property. Below (Exhibit 1) is an excerpt from the Wildridge PUD, with
the pertinent Property information highlighted in yellow. The Property is entitled two (2)
April 1, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page | 2
Lots 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / Minor PUD Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING
units in the form of either one (1) single‐family structure or one (1) duplex structure
containing two (2) integrated dwelling units.
Exhibit 1 – Wildridge Subdivision and PUD Land Use Summary
The Application (Attachment B) includes a narrative, response to the mandatory review criteria,
and preliminary site and building design plans showing a likely development scenario. This
Application would create two (2) separate lots of record that each would be permitted one (1)
single‐family structure.
The Application proposes to keep standard Wildridge easements: ten (10) foot front Snow
Storage, Maintenance Easement, and seven and one‐half (7.5) foot side yard drainage and utility
Easements. Setbacks would also be consistent with the current PUD standards: 1) twenty‐five
(25) foot front setback and ten (10) foot side and rear setback). The building height would also
match existing zoning at thirty‐five (35) feet. If the Council approved this Application, a Minor
Subdivision application would be required prior to building permit submittal(s).
Staff Analysis
By breaking the duplex into two structures, the massing could be improved with more
opportunity for building articulation, and the introduction of light and air between units.
This would be ensured through the platting of a new property line and corresponding
April 1, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page | 3
Lots 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / Minor PUD Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING
setbacks. After reviewing the PUD review criteria below, Staff finds the Application in
conformance with the purpose of the Development Code, review criteria, and there appears
to be no added impact to neighboring properties. The development pattern in this portion
of Wildridge is mainly duplexes with some single‐family structures; the proposed Application
will help provide variety in building forms and create a more diverse development pattern.
PUD Review Criteria
Pursuant to §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, the PZC shall consider the following
criteria when forming the basis of a recommendation:
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or
incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development
Code and represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished
through strict application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards.
Such improvements in quality may include, but are not limited to: improvements in open
space provision and access; environmental protection; tree/vegetation preservation;
efficient provision of streets, roads, and other utilities and services; or increased choice of
living and housing environments.
Staff Response: The stated purposes of §7.04, Development Code, AMC, and §7.16.060,
PUD, AMC, includes statements regarding the implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan; regulating intensity of use; avoiding increased demands on public services and
facilities; and providing for compatibility with the surrounding area, among other
statements. The proposed amendment does not increase demands on public services,
and provides compatible building layouts with the surrounding area. It should be noted
that all other applicable development standards (parking, design standards, access
requirements) would remain intact.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Staff Response: The Application does not appear to negatively affect the public health,
safety and welfare. The inclusion of single‐family structures on the Property is compatible
with the adjacent single‐family and duplex residential uses.
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this
Development Code, and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.060(b);
Staff Response: The proposed PUD amendment is part of an established PUD, and is
therefore not subject to the eligibility criteria or Public Benefit requirements outlined in
§7.16.060(b). Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is required and analysis is
provided below.
The Comprehensive Plan includes this property within District 24: Wildridge Residential
District. The planning principals specific to this property include the following:
Redesign the intersection of Metcalf and Nottingham Roads, and implement the other
April 1, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page | 4
Lots 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / Minor PUD Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING
recommendations for District 4 to enhance the entry to Wildridge and provide more
direct access from the Town Center to Wildridge.
Construct bicycle lanes along Metcalf and Wildridge Roads.
Promote a trail system through open space areas in Wildridge to provide alternatives
to the roadways for pedestrian circulation and greater connection to the surrounding
open space.
Preserve and enhance the existing open space trails and explore the possibility of
developing additional parcels into pocket parks.
Acquire and maintain as public open space the U.S. Forest Service-owned parcel
adjacent to Wildridge that includes Beaver Creek Point.
Add an alternative or second access route to Wildridge (perhaps forest service road
during the spring and summer).
Identify and delineate all open space parcels and public trails.
Site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect
views, be compatible with existing surrounding development, and break up building
bulk.
The majority of the Wildridge District planning principles deal with enhancing and
promoting open space connectivity. Regarding the last principle (highlighted in red), this
Application would result in a greater flexibility in building sizes. The break from a single
duplex structure into two smaller structures has the potential to maximize sun exposure
and break up building ‘bulk’.
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police
and fire protection, and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to
serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing
development;
Staff Response: The PUD amendment has no incremental impact on public facilities or
services; therefore, the existing services can adequately serve the property.
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise,
storm water management, wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially
mitigated;
Staff Response: When compared to the existing duplex zoning, the proposed Minor PUD
Amendment will not result in any adverse impacts upon the natural environment, wildlife,
vegetation, or air. Storm water management is improvement with more opportunities
for storm water runoff between the buildings.
April 1, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page | 5
Lots 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / Minor PUD Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
Staff Response: As discussed herein, the approval of the PUD amendment would not
result in significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity. The proposed
PUD Amendment maintains building setbacks and utility/drainage easements.
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential
future uses on other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Staff Response: Single‐family uses would be compatible in scale with current and
potential uses on other properties in the vicinity of the Property. There is an undeveloped
duplex lot to the south, and larger undeveloped duplex properties below the Property
accessed off Wildridge Road East.
Staff Recommendation
Staff requests that the PZC conduct a public hearing, consider public comments, and direct
Staff to prepare a formal Findings of Fact, Record of Decision, and Recommendation to
Council pursuant to Section 7.16.020(f)(3), Findings.
Attachments
A: Vicinity Map
B: Application Materials – Narrative and Conceptual Plans
C: Public Comment from Mitch Chambers & Beverly and Gary McBride (both via email
on 3/27/14)
39
184
5 7 6 1
5170
5123
5
5 1 56
5054
5164
57
5 3 9 1
5735
5135
5749 5743
5178
5 7 5 5
5107
5141
5150
5171
5101
5177 5 3 5 183
5 11 0
527
5100
5113
5128
5
5221
5161
5380
5151
50
5
0
5134
53
5040 L
O
N
G
S
U
N
L
N
W
I
L
D
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
E
WILDRIDGE RD E
014070
FeetThis map was produced by the Community Development Department. Use of this map
should be for general purposes only. Town of Avon does not warrant the
accuracy of the data contained herein.
Created by Community Development Department
I
Property Boundaries
5151 Longsun Lane
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment B
Project number Date PO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631 www.martinmanleyarchitects.com Sheet 3/5/2014 12:39:20 PM A014035151Longsun Residence03.05.14 Lot 48, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision 5151 Longsun Avon, CO 81620 PROGRESS SET 13D View 123D View 2
3
3D
V
i
e
w
3
4
3D
V
i
e
w
4
Attachment B
UPDNREF.DW
X
851
X8511.4
X
8511.3
160.00'N 10°17'00" W 40.00'
=2
R=2
L=11 8
4
9
0
8
5
0
0
8
5
1
0
8
4
8
0
EDGE OF LANDSCAPELOT 49EDGE OF ASPHALT
1.2' CMP ELEV. 850
VIEWPOINT
ARROWHEAD MOUNTAININV. OU
MAINTENANCE,DRAINAGE, &SNOW STORAGE EASEMENT
SLOPE
UTILITY &DRAINAGEEASEMENTBUILDINGSETBACK
10.0'
25.0'
UP
DN
R E F .
D W
BL
D
G
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
16
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
8
5
1
1
'
-
0
"
+
85
1
0
-
0
"
+
85
0
8
-
0
"
+
82
84
8890
92
94
9698
000608
10
6'
-
0
"
b
o
u
l
d
e
r
r
e
t
w
a
l
l
8
5
0
8
-
0
"
+
08
08
08
08
06
06
06
4 '-0 " b o u l d e r r e t w a l l
00
00 00 828486889092
10
10
4'-0" boulder ret wall
L
L
V
L
8
4
8
6
'
L
L
V
L
8
4
8
6
'
86
04
2'-0" boulder ret wall
25
'
-
8
9
/
1
6
"
4 % s l o p e
F O R F I R S T 2 0 '
8
%
s
l
o
p
e
8%
s
l
o
p
e
3%
s
l
o
p
e
3% slope
1 0 % s l o p e
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
L
I
N
E
85
1
1
'
-
6
"
+
Project number Date PO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631 www.martinmanleyarchitects.com Sheet 3/5/2014 12:15:27 PM A1.114035151 Residences03.05.14 Lot 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 5151 Longsun Lane, Avon, CO 81620 Minor Subdivision
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
1
92
08 GA
R
A
G
E
S
L
A
B
92 90
88 86
0
8 G
A
R
A
G
E
S
L
A
B
NAttachment B
X
851
X8511.4
X
8511.3
160.00'N 10°17'00" W 40.00'
=2
R=2
L=11 8
4
9
0
8
5
0
0
8
5
1
0
8
4
8
0
EDGE OF LANDSCAPE
LOT 49EDGE OF ASPHALT
1.2' CMP ELEV. 850
VIEWPOINT
ARROWHEAD MOUNTAININV. OUT
MAINTENANCE,DRAINAGE, &SNOW STORAGE EASEMENT
SLOPE
UTILITY &DRAINAGEEASEMENTBUILDINGSETBACK
10.0'
25.0'
85
0
8
'
-
0
"
85
0
8
'
-
0
"
85
2
2
'
-
4
1
/
4
"
85
2
4
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
85
1
0
'
-
1
0
3
/
8
"
8522' - 4 3/8"
NA
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
=
8
4
9
2
'
-
0
"
FI
L
L
A
T
D
R
I
V
E
.
=
16
'
-
0
"
LL
S
L
A
B
=
8
4
8
6
'
NA
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
=
8
4
8
2
'
-
0
"
RI
D
G
E
H
T
.
=
2
9
'
-
1
0
3
/
8
"
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
=
8
4
8
9
'-
6
"
R
I
D
G
E
H
T
.
=
3
4
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
=
8
4
9
3
'
-
0
"
F
I
L
L
A
T
D
R
I
V
E
.
=
1
5
'
-
0
"
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
=
8
4
9
0
'
-
0
"
R
I
D
G
E
H
T
.
=
3
2
'
-
4
3
/
8
"
85
1
1
'
-
6
"
+
85
1
0
-
0
"
+
10
85
1
1
'
-
0
"
+
85
1
0
-
0
"
+
85
0
8
-
0
"
+
85
0
8
-
0
"
+
08
08
08
08
06 06
06
00 00 828486889092
10
10
4 % s l o p e
8
%
s
l
o
p
e
8%
s
l
o
p
e
3%
s
l
o
p
e
3% slope
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
S
W
A
L
E
DR
A
I
N
A
G
E
S
W
A
L
E
1 0 % s l o p e
21
'
-
8
1
/
2
"
82
84
8890
92
94
9698
000608
6'
-
0
"
b
o
u
l
d
e
r
r
e
t
w
a
l
l
86
06
4 '-0 " b o u l d e r r e t w a l l
00
2'-0" boulder ret wall
00 004'-0" boulder ret wall
13
'
-
1
"
D R A I N A G E S W A L E
DRAINAGE SWALEProject number Date PO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631 www.martinmanleyarchitects.com Sheet 3/5/2014 12:15:28 PM A1.214035151 Residences03.05.14 Lot 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 5151 Longsun Lane, Avon, CO 81620 Minor Subdivision
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
SI
T
E
R
o
o
f
P
l
a
n
N
Attachment B
10.0'
X 8512X8X85X8511.6X8511.4X8511.3X8511.1
1
6
0
.
0
0
'
16
0
.
0
0
'
N 10°17'00" W 40.00'
S
3
1°2
2'5
3
"
W
5
3.5
4'
N
5
1
°
4
2
'
2
0
"
E
2
2
5
.
0
0
'
N
7
9
°
4
3
'
0
1
"
E
2
1
0
.
5
9
'
=28°00'41R=225.00'L=110.00'
N
7
9
°
4
3
'
0
1
"
E
5
0
.
0
0
'
LOT 48
.51 ACRES
LOT 49
LOT 50
TRACT O
TRACT O
8 4 9 08500 8 5 1 0
84 8 0
84 70
8 4 6 0
EDGE OF
LANDSCAPE
LOT 49
GASSTUB PHONEPEDESTAL EDGE OFASPHALT 1.2' CMPELEV. 8506.7VIEWPOINT
BELLYACHE RIDGE
ARRO
W
HEAD M
O
UNTAIN
SAWATCH
RANGE
APPROX. 0.5 DIA.
CONIFEROUS TREE
SEWER MANHOLE
MEAS. RIM 8460.9'
CENTERLINE OF
30' UTILITY
EASEMENT
PHONE
PEDESTAL
UTILITY
PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC
METER
FND. PIN &
ALUMINUM CAP
LS 30091
FND. PIN &
ALUMINUM CAP
LS 5447
BASIS OF ELEVATION:
SEWER MANHOLE
E
11
MEAS
RI
TV PEDESTAL
INV. OUTMAINTENANCE,DRAINAGE, &SNOW STORAGEEASEMENTSLOPE
UTILITY &
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
BUILDING
SETBACK
UTILITY &DRAINAGEEASEMENTBUILDINGSETBACK
BUILDING
OUTLINE
15.0'
15.0'
10.0'
10.0'
7.5'
7.5'
10.0'
25.0'8508' - 0"8508' - 0"
82
84
8890 92949698000608
86
0600 0090
80
Project number Date PO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631 www.martinmanleyarchitects.com Sheet 3/5/2014 12:15:29 PM A1.314035151 Residences03.05.14 Lot 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 5151 Longsun Lane, Avon, CO 81620 Minor Subdivision
1" = 20'-0"1 Copy of SITE Roof Plan
1
OV
E
R
A
L
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
N
Attachment B
Project number Date PO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631 www.martinmanleyarchitects.com Sheet 3/5/2014 12:18:45 PM A1.4145151 Residences03.05.14 Lot 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 5151 Longsun Lane, Avon, CO 81620 Minor SubdivisionAttachment B
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
11 1/2"2' - 6 1/2"17' - 0"
13
'
-
0
"
18' - 7"
ba
r
ME
C
H
14
'
-
0
"
28
'
-
6
"
13' - 6"15' - 0"10' - 0"
42' - 6"23' - 6"15' - 1"11' - 6 1/2"38' - 6"11' - 10"
3' - 0"
15' - 6"16' - 0 1/2"Project number Date PO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631 www.martinmanleyarchitects.com Sheet 3/5/2014 9:39:09 AM A214035151Longsun Residence03.05.14 Lot 48, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision 5151 Longsun Avon, CO 81620 PROGRESS SET
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
01
.
0
L
o
w
e
r
F
l
o
o
r
1/8" = 1'-0"202.0 Main LevelAttachment B
8525' - 5 1/2"8522' - 3 5/8"
85
1
7
'
-
7
3
/
8
"
85
2
2
'
-
4
3
/
8
"
8525' - 5 1/2"
85
2
1
'
-
2
5
/
8
"
4" / 12"
3"
/
1
2
"
3" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"
4" / 12"
4"
/
1
2
"
4"
/
1
2
"
Project number Date PO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631 www.martinmanleyarchitects.com Sheet 3/5/2014 9:39:12 AM A314035151Longsun Residence03.05.14 Lot 48, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision 5151 Longsun Avon, CO 81620 PROGRESS SET
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
03
.
0
U
p
p
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
1/8" = 1'-0"204 Roof PlanAttachment B
UP
UP
REF.
DW
DN
DN
10
1
4
S
F
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
68
S
F
Me
c
h
/
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
A
r
e
a
.
12
5
8
S
F
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
49
0
S
F
GA
R
A
G
E
40
8
S
F
UP
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
Project number Date PO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631 www.martinmanleyarchitects.com Sheet 3/5/2014 9:39:14 AM A414035151Longsun Residence03.05.14 Lot 48, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision 5151 Longsun Avon, CO 81620 PROGRESS SET
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
01
.
0
L
o
w
e
r
F
l
o
o
r
1/8" = 1'-0"202.0 Main Level
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
3
03
.
0
U
p
p
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
Ar
e
a
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
(Livable Area)
Na
m
e
A
r
e
a
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
1014 SF
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
1258 SF
UP
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
408 SF 2679 SFAttachment B
Attachment B
1
Matt Pielsticker
From:Mitch Chambers <mitch@mulhernmre.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 27, 2014 9:47 AM
To:Matt Pielsticker
Subject:Proposed Minor PUD Amendment - Lot 48, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision
Mr. Pielsticker,
Thank you for sending the progress set from Martin & Manley regarding the proposed Minor PUD Amendment, Lot 48,
Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision also known as 5151 Longsun Lane, Avon, CO 81620. With this information and Notice of
the proposed Minor PUD Amendment, I would like to provide the following comments:
1) Shared access to the two parcels should be required.
2) The two proposed single family residences should be required to have identical architecture so that the intent of
PUD is maintained (i.e. single family or duplex per lot).
3) Set back from proposed internal lot line should be minimized to maintain the original intent of the existing PUD as
above.
4) All other requirements of the existing PUD (i.e. height restrictions, parking, etc) should remain unchanged.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the information related to this project. Feel free to give me a call if you have
any questions.
Mitch Chambers
5156 Longsun Lane Unit B
Mitch Chambers
Principal
303-649-9857
Attachment C
1
Matt Pielsticker
From:Beverly McBride <bevjmcbride@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:40 PM
To:Matt Pielsticker
Subject:Lot 48, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision
Proposed Minor PUD Amendment - Lot 48, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision
Dear Mr. Pielsticker:
This is in response to the drawings sent by Martin & Manley regarding the proposed Minor PUD Amendment, Lot 48,
Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision, also known as 5151 Longsun Lane , Avon , CO 81620. I just received the drawings today
and understand that the Board packets will be mailed today. Please include this in the mailing. If this is too late to go in
the packet, we shall be happy to pay for a separate letter to be sent to the Board.
For over 15 years my husband and I have owned 5156A Longsun Lane on the north side and across the street from the
proposed development. We have three concerns re: the proposal:
1. The edge of the proposed parking area for the 2 homes is only 10 feet from the right of way for Longsun. All of the
homes from Wildridge Road East where Longsun begins to the site in question have parking areas that commence either
farther from the right of way than 10 feet or have parking areas that are partially or totally hidden by mounding. The
duplex immediately to the west of the site in question, for example, has a parking area that is significantly lower than the
level of Longsun and the parking area is thus obstructed from view. This placement of parking areas farther back than 10
feet and/or hidden or obstructed from views along Longsun has long added to the beauty, nature and value of this
residential area. The parking areas and thus the homes should be moved farther south on the lot(s) in question. There is
plenty of land to do so and to maintain the natural ambience of the road and residential area. (Mounding in the 10 foot
area would not be wise here because that area along the road has been used and will continue to be needed for snow
removal - both on the home owners parking lots and by the City of Avon.)
2. I am not able to ascertain the height of the proposed homes above the level of Longsun. This, however, is an
extremely important issue. The level of the land of the site in question is almost exactly the level of the lot for the duplex
that adjoins this site on the west (the duplex referred to above.) The terrain is very similar. My husband and I and other
buyers in the area have relied upon the low level of this site and the roof line of the adjacent duplex. That duplex has
been there for at least 15 years and probably longer. Under no circumstances should a home or a duplex built upon the
proposed site exceed the height of the adjacent duplex at road level. One of the proposed homes is 3 levels and that
could be accommodated by locating the homes farther south (lower) on the lot. Again, there is plenty of land to do
so. Staggering the homes, if necessary, in order not to exceed the low level of the terrain and the height of a neighboring
building would maintain the naturalness of the hill. The developer is requesting two homes instead of one duplex and
should be willing to do this.
3. Finally, we do not object to two homes PROVIDED the above changes are made in the plan. However, the two homes
should share a common driveway. This would be consistent with other homes along Longsun and in accordance with the
planned original number of entrances and exits on this short road. The site is at a curve in the road which further argues
for just one entrance/exit instead of two. One entrance/exit should also help maintain more space along Longsun for
snow removal storage.
We deeply regret that we shall not be able to attend the public hearing for this proposed development. Please use this
communication as our request to amend the proposal as set forth herein. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Beverly J. and B. Gary McBride
419-509-5032 or 419-509-5830
Colorado Address:
Attachment C
2
5156A Longsun Lane
Avon, Colorado 81620
Mailing Address:
5274 Cambrian Road
Toledo, Ohio 43623
Attachment C
April 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 1 of 5
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Manager
DATE: March 26, 2014
RE: Light Reflective Value (LRV) Code Review ‐ CONTINUED
Background
As the result of an Appeal application regarding a paint color application in the summer of
2013, PZC was directed to review the Light Reflective Value (“LRV”) standards in the
Development Code. In the approved 2014 Work Plan, the following direction is provided:
1.1 Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission the Development Standards
for building colors as stated in the Avon Municipal Code, Section 7.28.090(c),
Generally Applicable Design Standards, specifically related to Building Materials
and Colors (v) and the standard set at a sixty or less Light Reflective Value”
“LRV”.
Overview of Review Criteria
Section 7.28.090(c), Generally Applicable Design Standards, outline the requirements for building
materials and colors as follows:
(3) Building Materials and Colors
(i) The use of high quality, durable building materials is required. Exterior walls
shall be finished with materials used in a manner sympathetic to the scale and
architectural style of the building.
(ii) Preferred materials reflect the Town’s sub alpine character such as native
stone, wood siding, masonry or timbers.
(iii) The following building materials and wall finishes are not permitted on the
exterior of any structure:
(A) asphalt siding,
(B) imitation brick,
(C) asbestos cement shingles or siding,
(D) imitation log siding, or
(E) plastic or vinyl siding.
(iv) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider newly developed
materials in light of subsections (i)‐(iii), above, and make a determination about
appropriateness.
(v) Indigenous natural or earth tones such as brown, tan, grey, green, blue, or
red in muted, flat colors with an LRV (Light Reflective Value) of sixty (60) or less are
required.
April 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 2 of 5
(vi) The following colors are prohibited: neon, day‐glow, fluorescent, reflective,
and non‐earth tones.
(vii) All flues, flashing, and other reflective materials shall be painted to match
and/or appropriately contrast with adjacent materials.
§7.16.080(f), Development Plan
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development
Code as specified in §7.04.030, Purposes;
(2) Evidence of substantial compliance with the §7.16.090, Design Review.
(3) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
(4) Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat,
planned development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the
property as applicable;
(5) Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in
this Code, including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts
and Official Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development
Standards; and
(6) That the development can be adequately served by city services including but
not limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical
services.
§7.16.090(f), Design Review
(1) The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding
community; or, where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the
character of Avon as a whole;
(2) The design meets the development and design standards established in this
Development Code; and
(3) The design reflects the long range goals and design criteria from the Avon
Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents.
§7.16.120(d), Alternative Equivalent Compliance
(1) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or
development standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(2) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(3) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are
equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard; and
(4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties
than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this
ordinance.
February 18, 2014 PZC Meeting
At the February 18, 2014 meeting PZC discussed the approach to the LRV standard review.
The consensus was that more information was needed in order to make an informed
decision, and ultimately a formal recommendation to Council. The Commission requested
that Staff bring back examples of other color‐related Alternative Equivalent Compliance
April 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 3 of 5
(“AEC”), and to present other living LRV examples of recently painted buildings for
reference. Finally, Staff offered to return with examples of how other Towns treat color
guidelines for reference.
The PZC has reviewed a total of thirteen (13) AEC applications, but only one application
involved a variation to the LRV standards. That application was the subject of the appeal
that triggered this review. In terms of other major project that have repainted in recent
years or other LRV examples for PZC to review, please review the following properties and
colors in the field:
Avon Center (2011). New colors included “Portabello” at the wing walls and lower wall
accents with LRV of twenty one (21), “Roycroft Suede” for the upper stucco wall color with
LRV of thirty one (31), and “Whole Wheat” for main stucco color with LRV of fifty (50).
Seasons Building (2008). New colors range from “Brown Horse” with an LRV of eleven (11)
to “Danville Tan” with LRV of forty (40).
PZC also requested that Staff come back with additional examples of how other mountain
communities govern color for new construction. Following are several examples of how
other mountain communities handle color standards for their particular design review
boards:
Color Regulations in Other Mountain Communities
1) Eagle‐Vail
2) Eagle
Facade and roof colors shall have subtle, neutral, or earth tone colors.
Muted colors are encouraged. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors,
black, or fluorescent colors is prohibited. Exemplary colors are available for review
at the Town Hall.
Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter, complementing colors,
including primary colors, but plastic materials and neon tubing is unacceptable for
building trim or accent areas. Plastic light raceways are prohibited.
April 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 4 of 5
3) Vail
The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures
and any accessory structures upon the site.
Exterior wall colors should be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings.
Natural colors (earth tones found within the Vail area) should be utilized. Primary
colors or other bright colors should be used only as accents and then sparingly such
as upon trim or railings. All exterior wall materials must be continued down to
finished grade thereby eliminating unfinished foundation walls. All exposed metal
flashing, trim, flues, and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be anodized, painted
or capable of weathering so as to be non‐reflective.
4) Steamboat Springs
Primary Building and Roof Colors
(a)
Permitted primary building and roof colors may be applied to any building or roof
element and shall consist of the following:
(i) Dark reds and maroons;
(ii) Dark and sage greens;
(iii) Browns, sepias, and tans; or
(iv) Variations of the above colors that result from natural weathering or oxidation
processes (rusts, grays, etc.).
Accent Building Colors
Accent building colors shall only be used on wall surfaces—not roofs. Accent
building colors shall consist of the following:
(i) Gray‐blues;
(ii) Ochres, yellow‐browns;
(iii) Light tans, off‐whites; and
(iv) Grays and dark grays.
Bright or highly reflective variations of these colors are prohibited.
6) Beaver Creek
To establish an overall image or “feel” to the architecture that meets the expectation
of a Colorado mountain retreat. As a contrast to urban development, Beaver Creek
is intended to be a mountain retreat, a place to enjoy a balance between nature and
human‐built environment. Buildings and the design of spaces shall use forms that
convey a sense of protection from the harsh mountain weather, indigenous materials
April 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 5 of 5
that visually link the architecture to the surrounding mountains, and colors that
blend buildings into the natural earth and vegetation. Buildings should also portray
the cultural and natural history of the Colorado Mountains with featured accent
colors that provide complementary distinction from the surrounding buildings and
landscaping.
5) Silverthorne
Require exterior colors to be subtle yet rich colors rather than intense,
bright colors; and color schemes to tie building elements together and to
enhance the architectural form of the building;
March 4, 2014 PZC Meeting
The Commission again discussed the LRV standards at the March 4, 2014 meeting. The
Commission requested that Staff bring back LRV samples for other properties in Town and
in Vail.
March 18, 2014 PZC Meeting
At the March 18, 2014 meeting PZC discussed several possible changes to the current LRV
standard, including:
Increasing the applicability of the LRV standard
Reducing or eliminating the LRV standard
Different regulations for commercial and/or mixed‐use projects
Statistically, the occurrence of non‐compliance of LRV standards was decidedly low and
appeals to Town Council rare. As a result, there was general consensus among the PZC that
the LRV standard is still desired as a method to regulate design aesthetic and ensure colors
are deep, saturated earth‐tone to be more compatible with the community to help tie
together the build form of Avon.
Recommendation
As a result of the discussions, Staff recommends no change to the current code language
pertaining to LRV standards. If PZC concurs with this recommendation a report will be
drafted to the Town Council for their April 22, 2014 meeting.