PZC Packet 062105WJ
�p Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
�( V 0 N Meeting
xJune 21s', 2005
` ° ` ° ' " ° ° Meetings Held At: Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
12:00 pm Site Tour. The Gates on Site Mock -Up
All Commissioners are invited to a site tour to review proposed material and
style of previously approved modifications.
Property Location: 38374 Highways 6 & 24
5:00 pm Commission Work Session
(Discussion of Items on Agenda)
- REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -
I. Call to Order at 5:30 pm
if. Roll Call
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Consent Agenda: Approval of the June
Minutes.
7"', 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
VI. Comprehensive Plan Update — (5:35pm — 6:45pm) — PUBLIC HEARING
Description: Present the High Priority Subarea section of Comprehensive Plan. Work through Draft
Plan Observation Summary as it pertains to the High Priority Districts, and general discussion of style
and content.
VII. Final Design - Tabled at the June 6'" Commission meeting (6:45pm — 7:15pm) —
(REOUESTiNG TABLING TO JULY MEETING)
Property Location: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540 Beaver
Creek Blvd.
Applicant/Owner. Davis Partnership Architects/Daniel Ritsch
Description: The applicant, Davis Partnership Architects, is proposing a 13 unit residential project on
this lot. The proposed materials include a combination of stone veneer and wood siding with a
maximum building height of 60' and maximum lot coverage of approximately 48%. The subject
property measures approximately .69 acres and is currently undeveloped.
VIII. PUD Amendment / Preliminary Subdivision Plan Review / Subdivision Variance - Dry
Creek (7:15pm — 8:00pm) PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2510 Old Trail Road
ApplicanUOwner. Blue Bird Meadows, LLC
Description: A request for an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for three (detached) single-
family residences in place of a four dwelling unit (one four-plex) structure. This amendment would
permanently reduce the density for the property. Vehicular access would be through an access
easement on the neighboring property on Lot 45, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision.
Posted on June 17'", 2005 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby
• City Market, main entrance bulletin board
• On the Internet at htto:/Avww.avon.org / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
Also being reviewed is a Preliminary Subdivision application and a Subdivision Variance application to
allow for the creation of lots within the proposed Dry Creek PUD that do not meet the minimum street
frontage requirement of twenty-five feet.
IX. Master Sign Program Amendment— Wells Fargo (8:00pm — 8:15pm)
Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek SubdivisiorV245 Chapel Pl.
Applicant. RMD Signs / Owner. Chapel Square LLC
Description: The applicant, RMD Sign Company, is proposing signage for Wells Fargo on Lot 22A of
the Chapel Square PUD. This MSP amendment application proposes one building sign and four
freestanding directional signs. A previous sign application for the same building (and tenant) was
denied at the Commission's April 19"', 2005 meeting.
X. Sketch Design Plans (8:15pm — 8:45pm)
A. Wells Fargo Drive Thru
Property Location: Lot 22AB, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/245 Chapel
Place
Applicant: Greg Gastineau, Timberline Commercial Management
Description: Greg Gastineau is proposing a sketch design plan to add a canopy and associated drive
through lanes for a drive up banking facility. The proposed drive through would be located on the
former "chapel" site, behind the City Market grocery store. Materials and colors of the canopy would
match the existing building to the south (Building C), and the bank will be occupying the entire first
floor of the building.
B. Wuhrman Duplex
Property Location: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540 Nottingham
Road
Applicant/Owner.•Jerald Wuhrman
Description: Jerald Wuhrman is proposing a duplex development on Nottingham Road immediately
east of the Bristol Pines Condominiums. The building is proposed at three stories tall, and
construction would be predominately stucco. This application follows the denial of a variance
application for building encroachments into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement and building
setbacks. At the Commission's September 21 st, 2004 meeting the variance application was reviewed
in conjunction with a sketch design plan for a duplex.
XI. Minor Project - Fence Application
Property Location: Lot 19 and 20, Eagiebend Subdivision/5297/5325 Eaglebend Drive
Applicant/Owner: Deborah Gallen
'Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a 5' high Cedar Dog Ear fence around the
perimeter of the backyard of the two subject properties. The width of the proposed cedar pickets are 1
X 6 with a natural finish.
XII. Final Design — Mock up Review
Property Location: 38374 Highway 6, Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision ("The Gates")
Applicant/Owner: JMJ Development/ Ivins Design Group
Description: Review discussion and action on the mockup elevation from noon site tour.
XIII. Other Business / Adjourn (9:00pm)
Posted on June 171h, 2005 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby
• City Market, main entrance bulletin board
• On the Internet at http://www.avon.org / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
r
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
�
VON
Minutes
VJune 7, 2005
C D L O R A D D
5:00 pm — 5:30 pm Commission Work Session
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance. Patty McKenny, Town Clerk, swore in Christy
D'/Agostino, Chris Green and Jim Buckner as newly appointed Planning and Zoning
Commissioners. Ron Wolfe, Mayor, congratulated the new commissioners on their
appointment by Town Council to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Buchner revealed a conflict of interest with Item VII, B. Final Design Multi -
Family, Property Location: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540
Beaver, Creek Blvd, ApplicantlOwner. Davis Partnership Architects/Daniel Ritsch.
V. Consent Agenda:
Approval of the May 17'h, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Vice Chairman Appointment, Commissioner Smith nominated Commissioner Struve, he
declined. Commissioner Savage nominated Commissioner Smith to the position of Vice
Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Commissioner Struve seconded
the motion. Commissioner Smith accepted the position of Vice Chairman for the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Savage nominated Commissioner Struve for the
appointment of Secretary, Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and Commissioner
Struve accepted. All commissioners were in favor of these appointments.
Commissioner Savage motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda and Commissioner Smith
seconded the motion. All commissioners who were present at the previous meeting were in favor.
VI. Comprehensive Plan Update — (PUBLIC HEARING)
Description: Summarize process for adoption of the plan (action to date, roles and responsibilities,
next steps).
Rebecca Leonard approached the podium to address the Comp Plan and its focus. She presented
the commissioners with several questionnaires to get a feel for the vision and to give her direction.
Discussion continued with bringing up to date the three new commissioners to the Comp Plan
process, what has happened prior to their appointment and their anticipated involvement. It was
determined that at the next Planning and Zoning meeting, subareas will be discussed. In the next
two weeks, the new commissioners are requested to review pages 21 thru 33, there will be a draft
distributed prior to the next meeting for commissioner review, certain consensus items will need to be
additionally reviewed for current commission input and consideration for writing style of the Comp
Plan. Ms. Leonard commented that the Comp Plan seemed to be on track as a good plan.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
There was no public input.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
VII. Final Designs
A. Belle Fare
Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/222 Chapel
Place (Chapel Square, Building A)
Applicant/Owner. Belle Fare of Vail Valley, LLC/ Timberline Management
Description: Belle Fare of Vail Valley is proposing various exterior building modifications and a
complete remodel of Building A (formerly Panda City) in the Chapel Square PUD. Exterior
modifications include: new enclosed entrance, addition to Chapel Alley side of building, and new roof
for outdoor seating area on south elevation. The sketch design for this remodel was reviewed at the
Commission's February 1, 2005 regular meeting.
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Commissioner Savage questioned the 400 sq it area and parking. Mr. Heidemann responded that
additional parking was not required for this project.
Scott Conrad, Forstmann Development Group, approached the podium to respond to the Staff Report.
Mr. Conrad voiced that the intent is to use similar materials to maintain consistency with the existing
building and the covered patio opening will not part of the initial build out but it is being planned
currently to be constructed and its approval was still sought. Mr. Conrad continued that when they
finish the patio, they would use black epoxy paint on the exposed steel or metal on the exterior and if
a rolled canvas awning is selected, a variety of products are available. The translucent panel was
discussed and Mr. Conrad responded that other materials were being investigated, as well, the cedar
fence was addressed for the east and west sides of the patio.
Commissioner Struve questioned if Mr. Conrad was seeking patio approval at this time. The
response was affirmative but that it would not be part of the initial build out. Commissioner Green
questioned the exact proposal for the patio area. Mr. Conrad responded that a covered awning was
proposed that would abut the loading area as a dogleg look from the south southeastern side.
Commissioner review began with Commissioner Savage and his concerns with the canopy wall and
its lack of compatibility with the surrounding uses. Commissioner Struve recommended that canopy
and drop wall be denied. Commissioner Smith agreed with previous commissioner comments.
Commissioner Buckner agreed with Commissioner Savage's comments regarding the canopy and
recommended its review in the future for a separate approval. He continued that the cedar fence had
a warm feel but the size might be better served by being more open and light. Mr. Conrad responded
that alternative materials are worth consideration. Commissioner D'Agostino concurred with the
previous comments and voiced concern with the entry gable, the stairway area and its mass on the
pedestrian level. Commissioner Green commented on the sense of entry by creating height
differentials might be beneficial and concurred with the other commissioners and their comments.
Commissioner Evans suggested the cedar fence should be incorporated with the existing fencing,
having the cooler in the southern exposure may be a mistake.
Commissioner Savage motioned to approve Item VII, Item A, Belle Fare, Property Location: Lot 22,
Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/222 Chapel Place (Chapel Square, Building A),
Applicant/Owner.• Belle Fare of Vail Valley, -LLC/Timberline Management, to incorporate staff
recommendations 1-4, highlighting that the applicant provide samples of the polycarbonate,
maintenance of the fencing around the cooler and denial of the canvas canopy. Commissioner Smith
seconded the motion. An amendment to the motion to include condition number 5 that the canopy,
canopy structure and roll down canvas sides are not approved at this time but are encouraged to be
brought back for specific review should the applicant decide they want to go forward, and condition
number 6 that a detailed section be provided showing the fence, the materials and their relationship to
the existing metal fence for guard rail be presented to staff for approval. Condition number 7
articulation between the two roof planes either match or be further articulated. All commissioners
were in favor.
B. Final Design Multi -Family
Property Location: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540 Beaver
Creek Blvd.
Applicant/Owner: Davis Partnership Architects/Daniel Ritsch
Description: The applicant, Davis Partnership Architects, is proposing a 13 unit residential project on
this lot. The proposed materials include a combination of stone veneer and wood siding with a
maximum building height of 60' and maximum lot coverage of approximately 41%. The subject
property measures approximately .69 acres and is currently undeveloped.
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report.
Scott Evan, Davis Partnership, and Daniel Ritsch, owner, approached the podium. Mr. Evan
addressed the changes made to the design in order to accommodate commissioner concerns from
Sketch Design. Mr. Ritsch commented that this project could be the state of things to come.
Commissioner Green questioned massing and the applicant's process of design. Mr. Evan
responded that the intention was to break down mass with roof forms and the movement of the
building. Commissioner Evans questioned the Phase I and Phase II, Mr. Evan commented it was just
a matter of schedule. Commissioner Savage began review with his disapproval of changing the
duplex structure to a triplex structure. Mr. Evan responded that staff required the change to a triplex.
Commissioner Struve agreed with Commissioner Savage. Smith voiced concern with the triplex/
duplex issue. Commissioner D'Agostino appreciated the design of the building and its scale to the
surrounding area but expressed concern regarding the maxing out of the site. Commissioner Green
voiced concern that Nottingham Park area is a challenge in its design and this project sets a
precedent for the area. Concerns of creating a wall around the park were discussed. Commissioner
Evans agreed with Commissioner Green's comments and revealed his concerns with the massing
and future developments based on this project. Maxing out of the site to the technical limits of the
property's dimensions was mentioned by Commissioner Evans and what is the reasonable balance
for the site.
Commissioner Green motioned to table this application to the next meeting. Commissioner Evans
seconded the motion. Eric Heidemann requested clarification for the tabling. Mr. Ritsch mentioned
that it was his opinion that tabling is beneficial at this point and Mr. Evan suggested that the
commissioners meet as a group and clarify their position on the project. The motion carried 5 to 1
with Commissioner Struve denying tabling.
VIII. Sketch Design - Long Spur Duplex
Property Location: Lot 30, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision/2160 Long Spur
Applicant. Gerald Meremonte Owner. Patrick Campbell
Description: Gerald Meremonte is proposing a duplex on this Long Spur property. The proposed
structure is southwestern with adobe styled architecture (i.e. stucco, parapet walls, flat roofs). The
structure totals approximately 6,500 square feet.
Matt Pielsticker presented the staff report.
Commissioner Savage questioned the use of the term "architectural interest" and Mr. Pielsticker
responded with the need for styling.
Jerald Meremonte, applicantlarchitect, approached the podium and discussed the project. Patrick
Campbell, owner, commented that the project was not intended as a "southwestern" scheme.
Commissioner review began with Commissioner Buckner's comments of the project being more a
contemporary structure than southwestern and he appreciated the move away from the southwestern
look but suggested a variation in the roof heights. Commissioner D'Agostino agreed with
Commissioner Buckner's comments and voiced that the sea of asphalt in the project could use some
break up with landscaping. Commissioner Green commented that a more elegant structure could be
produced by the minimalism of the project and the rooflines could assist to make it happen. Mr.
Meremonte voiced that the rooms within the project were designed to avoid the vision of the other
homes and look up and over the other structures. Commissioner Smith voiced that according the
guidelines, this project is not compatible with the area. Commissioner Struve appreciated the
architectural statement but as Wildridge is built out, it might not fit.Commissioner Savage was
concerned with neighborhood compatibility, "shadow shades" to off set the flatness of the project, and
Mr. Meremonte voiced the walls and their depth. Commissioner Evans felt the project was compatible
to its neighborhood. Mr. Meremonte expressed the budget restraints for the project and amount of
asphalt was to address sufficient parking on the site. Mr. Campbell questioned if landscaping could
assist the asphalt concerns. Commissioner D'Agostino suggested the use of landscaping islands to
break up the two sides of the duplex.
IX. Master Sign Program — Petrohut
Property Location: Lot 67-68, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Applicant: Tom Davies
Description: The applicant is proposing to amend the'Master Sign Program (MSP) for the Petro -Hut
property on Nottingham Road. The amendment would allow for a new sign (replacing the current
Talbot Insurance Sign on south elevation) to utilize a text color not permitted in the current MSP. This
would be the second amendment proposed for the property's MSP.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff's report to the commission.
Commissioner revolved around changing the sign program to accommodate Talbot Insurance and
their corporate color changes and its impact on the other tenants in the building. Commissioner
D'Agostino questioned the other tenants on the other levels and their sign coloring. Commissioner
Evans commented that the existing signs would then have to be changed to comply with the new sign
program. The goal is for a consistent sign program without variations in colors.
Commissioner Green motioned to accept the request for Item IX, Master Sign Program — Petrohut
Property Location: Lot 67-68, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with the following
caveat; if they choose to pursue this direction, condition number 6 would be all building signage would
be brought in to conformance with jhe new program. And, condition number 7 that all signs must be
changed out within thirty days to conform to the program. Commissioner Savage seconded the
motion. All commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
X. Sketch Design — Walsh Residence
Property Location: Lot 10, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Applicant: Jim Jose, Owner: Karen Walsh
Description: The applicant is proposing a sketch design plan to add a second dwelling unit onto an
existing single-family residence on Wildridge Road East. The application would utilize the existing
entrance to the property and all materials are proposed to match the existing structure with a stone
base and stucco.
Matt Pielsticker presented the staff report.
if
Jim Jose, Applicant, approached the podium for commissioner questions. Elevations were shown on
the plans incorrectly according to Commissioner Struve. Mr. Jose distributed a reduced southern
elevation plan to the Commissioners to demonstrate the new units' integration to the existing structure
and will look into Commissioner Struve's concerns.
Commissioner Green began commissioner review commenting on the grading of the driveway, and
concerns with backing out of the driveway and the back patio. Commissioner Green continued that
the project may benefit from being dropped down but it would impact the retaining wall.
Commissioner D'Agostino questioned the retaining specs and its proximity to the property line and
commented on the corner grade by the garage and its problem. Commissioner Green requested
sections to be brought to Final Design of the driveway. Commissioner Struve complimented Mr. Jose
on his design and its integration to the existing structure. Items of discussion included: driveway
grades exceeding 10%, retaining wall design and construction, vehicle movements, window design,
massing, and the need for building sections.
XI. Other Business
Minor Project - Lot 86, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5749 Wlldridge Road East, Applicant,
Eric Baldwin. Proposal is for moss rock added to the front entry and garage. Commissioner review
revealed that the application met, with design guideline criteria. The project was accepted by the
commissioners
The Confluence will be having an open house in the Municipal Chambers by East West Resorts on
6/23 at 3 pm and ati 1 am on 6/24. A joint work session for 6/28 with Town Council is planned. The
Gates mock up will be presented on the 6/21. An injunctive relief is being pursed on the Ferret Lane
hotel.
Commissioner Green suggested a meeting of the Commission regarding the tonight's tabled item.
Tambi Katieb suggested reviewing performance issues. Mr. Katieb will review the issues associated
with meeting, consult legal counsel and determine process of meeting outside of commission meeting
schedule to discuss outstanding issues and impacts of such a project on future development.
XII. Adjourn
Commissioner Buckner motioned to adjourn; Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. All
Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
Design workshop, Inc. Memorandum
Landscape Architecture To: Town of Avon Planning and Zoning
Land Planning Commission r�
Urban Design
Strategic Tambi Katieb
services
From: Rebecca Leonard
Date: June 16, 2005
Project Name: Avon Comprehensive Plan Support
Project #: 3555
Subject: Agenda for June 21 Meeting
Copy To:
The proposed agenda for the meeting on June 21 is as follows:
I. Present the High Priority District section of Comprehensive Plan
2. Work through Draft Plan Observation Summary as it pertains to the High Priority Districts
3. General discussion of style and content
4. Collect the Status of Draft Plan Questionnaire and discuss
5. Next steps
a
DESIGNWORKSHOP
Asheville • Aspen • Denver • Park City • Phoenix • Santa Fe • Tahoe • Santiago • Sao Paulo
120 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (tel) 970-925-8354 • (fax) 970-920-1387
www.designworkshop.com
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
Town District Planning Principles
A. Districts Priority Classifications
While the Goals and Policies of this plan generally apply to all
areas of the town, the system of district designations provides
specific planning and urban design recommendations to distinct
geographical areas within the town. The district descriptions and
principles are a result of a combination of input from the
community, intent of the landowners, and the existing
development rights of the property.
As part of the comprehensive planning effort, the Steering
Committee undertook an effort to assess the appropriateness of
the previously assigned district boundaries and to make any
necessary changes to ensure that each district still comprised a
logical, cohesive geographic entity. Then the committee
conducted an evaluation of these districts to ensure that the
planning guidance and implementation recommendations of the
previous plan were still current and appropriate.
The next step was to assign to each district one of three relative
priority designations — High Priority, Medium Priority, or
Static/Low Priority— based upon the perceived level of
significant issues and/or changes confronting a particular district.
The priority levels do not understate the importance of any
particular area of the town. Instead, it was done out of the
recognition that the town needs to prioritize where and how it
expends its energy and resources to most effectively realize the
community -wide vision and goals expressed within this plan.
Because of this classifications effort, the Steering Committee
produced a new map identifying the town's districts updating
boundaries where appropriate and classifying each district by its
relative priority level. The final step in this effort involved re-
evaluating each district with particular emphasis upon the high
and medium priority areas in terms of the appropriateness of
these districts' role and specific Planning Principles given the
context of this Plan's Vision, Future Land Use Plan, Community
Framework Plan, and Goals and Policies.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page t
The heart of the
community.
Town District Planning Principles
High.Priority Districts
B. High Priority Districts
The following districts are high priority for the town:
0
Road
® Series of Public Plazas
0bgram
; Roundabout
®Vbtlar and Pedestrian
CrosIcina
P Parking
Redevg
n....,..
District 1: West Town Center District
The role of the West Town Center District is to be the heart of
the community. Social, cultural, intellectual, political, and
recreational gatherings occur in this district. In addition, it acts as
the common ground between the full-time residents, part-time
residents, and destination tourists through its diverse retail and
entertainment opportunities. All this activity and fusion will
make it the center of society and the true heart of the community.
'The West Town Center District will be an intensely developed
mixed use, pedestrian -oriented area that serves as the primary
area for residential and lodging development within the overall
Town Core.
Currently, this district provides a diverse mix of land uses in
vertically mixed-use buildings. Uses include retail, office,
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan RVEN
P
age 2
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
residential, government services, civic facilities, and parks
loosely grouped around a 50 -foot pedestrian mall right-of-way.
In 2001, the town completed a specific area master plan
(Appendix A: Town Center Plan) for this district that articulated
how the district could enable Avon to ensure its role as a
regional activity center. Key components of that planning effort
identified the following elements:
• The creation of a new "Main Street" in the existing
pedestrian mall right-of-way;
• The realignment of West Benchmark Road in order to
improve the circulation of the area and enhance the
development feasibility of key remaining vacant parcels;
• The linking of pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile
circulation to and through Avon's Town Center, Nottingham
Park, the Confluence site and the Eagle River;
• The development of a multi -modal transit center, and,
• The development of a parking structure associated with the
expansion of Avon's Recreation Center.
Planning Principles:
• Develop a mix of uses that provide a strong residential and
lodging bed base supported by a mix of community and.
guest serving commercial uses.
• Create inviting storefronts with retail, restaurant, and
entertainment uses on ground levels and offices, lodging,
and residential uses above.
• Plan for public plazas and other gathering spaces for
community interaction:
• Provide entertainment opportunities for residents and guests
to enliven the area and extend retail hours.
• Implement key recommendations such as the Main Street.
concept from the Town Center Plan.
• , Enhance both pedestrian and auto connections within the
West Town Center District and link to the East Town Center
District and the Confluence District.
• Use signage, streetscape design, landscaping, points of
interest, and other wayfrnding elements to help orient
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plant
Page 01
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
visitors and lead them toward important destinations within
the district and the large Town Core area.
• _ .Use architectural detailing on ground level/first floor to
create an enhanced pedestrian environment.
• Site buildings of various sizes along.thc street edge to
maximize sun exposure, protect views, and break up
building bulk. "
• Develop and incorporate a new/expanded transit center and
joint private/public structured parking facilities that provide
well -lir pleasant pedestrian circulation throughout thi
district.- ,
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan hI' p
Page 4 n loll
A key
revitalization
prospect.
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
olagnm= to wle.
District 2: East Town Center District
The role of the East Town Center District is that of a key
revitalization prospect for the community. Significant
redevelopment opportunities exist for many properties in the
district, and should be considered comprehensively and with
concern for the community's greatest needs and desires. This
district also abuts on the east to the Village at Avon project and
its anticipated future development. Strong, cohesive pedestrian
and street connections should be established to ensure that these
districts together create a consistent and cohesive community
experience.
The scale of the parcels provides an opportunity for
incorporating a variety of uses including those that require larger
lots and ample parking. The challenge will be to overcome the
confusing street layouts, indirect pedestrian walkways,
diminished sight corridors, and entice people to get out of their
car and experience the entire Town Center. Wayfinding will be
essential to the success of this district's commercial spaces.
A mix of uses with a primary orientation toward major retail
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 5
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
establishments, smaller retail shops, personal service
establishments, offices, and supporting residential/lodging uses
will be suitable for the district.
Planning Principles:
• Develop a mix Of uses consisting of commercial useswith
supporting residential/lodging development.
• Reconfigure key parcels and/or redevelop older,
underutilized buildings adjacent to Avon Road to make them
compatible with existing and future development in the West
Town Center District.
• Implement a modified street grid pattern that functionally
extends Main Street across Avon Road.
• Plan for public plazas and other gathering spaces for
community interaction.
• Develop public/private structured parking facilities to make
parking less obtrusive to the pedestrian.
• Accommodate anchor retailers without large expanses of
parking to ensure individual buildings'and their uses are
integrated into a larger, unifying framework.
• Create a cohesive physical framework and community imaSe
(compatible building orientation, scale,, massing, sitting;
street alignments, streetscape furnishings, signage, lighting,
etc.) between the town and the Village at Avon.
• Use architecturally interesting detailing on ground level/first
floor for enhanced pedestrian environment.
• Site buildings of various sizes along the street edge to
maximize sun exposure, protect views, and break up.
building bulk.
• Strengthen the pedestrian environment by ensuring
convenient pedestrian and auto access to the entire Town
Core.
• Building height should not exceed four stories above grade
to maintain a strong visual connection to Beaver Creek
• Encourage a scale of development (i.e. 80' maximum
building height) consistent with West Town Center District.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 6 SAV 0 N
The key
community
connector.
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
T
;.i Roundabout
® Vehicular and Pedestrian Crossing
T Transit Center
17-1
ice. Redevelopment Opportunities
District 3: Confluence District
The Confluence District is the key community connector. Not
only a place where a river and creek converge, the Confluence
District represents one where roads, the railroad, regional trail,
and future gondola brings the community together and enlivens
the Town Core. The intent of the district is to facilitate an
extension of the Town Center with a significant residential/
lodging component, limited supporting commercial and services
uses, and direct gondola access to Beaver Creek.
The district is comprised largely of undeveloped land, with the
exception of the area's district wastewater treatment facility and
employee housing. The district has direct access to the railroad
right-of-way, the Eagle River, and Avon Road. The planning and
development of this district should appropriately incorporate
these three key assets.
Planning Principles:
• Develop a mix of uses consisting of bed -base development
with supporting commercial development.
• - Develop a gondola (or other state-of-the-art conveyance)
linking the Confluence District to Beaver Creek Village as
the preferred alternative.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 7
Gondola to
Beaver Creek
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority
Districts
•
Orient buildings to capitalize upon the river as an amenity by
generally stepping down with varying heights across the site
to create a more natural scale.
•
Parking areas, trash dumpsters, and loading or service areas
should be screened and/or buffered from the river corridor
and from Highway 6 to minimize impacts upon the river
corridor and sustain compatibly with the river environment.
•
Create a seamless vehicular and pedestrian connection to the
Town Center. _
Preserve and entrance public, access to the existing linear
path/natural park numing along the riverbank. Connections
from this path to both the Town Center and Nottingham Park
must be created in an ecologically sensitive manner as a key
natural amenity.,
•
Encourage preservation.of all trees in wetland areas.
Encourage development efforts to minimize the loss of trees
and impact to the riparian area while still achieving the
urban design goals of this section: _
•
Use signage, streetscape designi building forms,
landscaping, points of interest, and other wayftnding
elements to help orient visitors and lead them toward
important destinations within the district and Town Core
area.
•
Anticipate and provide for transit facilities between the
Town Center and the Confluence in anticipation of a
passenger train on the railroad ROW.
•
Plan for public plazas and other gathering spaces for
community interaction.
•
Develop a whitewater park to broaden the spectrum of
recreational opportunities in town.
•
Recognize the Confluence District as the most valuable
property in Town limits and should be developed at its most
optimal level.
•
Building height should not exceed eight stories above grade
and maintain a strong visual connection by preserving
prominent view corridors to both the river and Beaver Creek.
•
Limit buildings to no more than four stories in height to
ensure that development is subordinate to the town center
and compatible with the river environment.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Pian
Ice—
Page 8 9
A showcase
for the hest
of Avon
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
t
Roundabout
vehicular and Pedestrian Crossing
Avon Road Showcase
Diagram rmt to wale.
District 4: Avon Road Corridor
The Avon Road District's role as a showcase for the best of
Avon is derived from the pan it plays in the experience of the
community. Being the major connection between 1-70 and
Beaver Creek Resort, Avon Road is the first (and occasionally
only) area many people see in the community. It is important that
this generally vehicular experience is significant enough to peak
the interest of the vehicle's occupants and get them out of their
cars and into the Town Center. The artwork and immaculate
landscaping helps this cause, but the surrounding architecture
and streetscaping must also be affecting.
Avon Road is the most traveled road in Avon, providing direct
access to Avon's Town Core areas, I-70, Highway 6, and the
Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch base areas. In 1997, the town
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan I
Page 9 N
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
completed a major improvement project of Avon Road that
replaced all five of its signalized intersections with roundabouts
and provided significant streetscape enhancements. Though
these improvements and enhancements are widely recognized as
having achieved their primary objective of congestion relief, two
significant challenges still confront this condor. First, the ease
and speed at which vehicles traveling through Avon's Town
Core area between the 1-70 interchange and the entrance to
Beaver Creek and other U.S. Highway 6 destinations is such that
travelers are not enticed to venture into the Town Core's two
major mixed-use districts. The second significant issue is that
Avon Road functions as a barrier for pedestrians attempting to
walk within the Town Core between East and West Town Center
Districts.
Planning Principle's:
• Integrate Avon Road into the Town Core development and
redevelopment efforts by incorporating wayfinding,
pedestrian planning, and other streetscape enhancements to
ensure that Avon Road provides a sense of arrival to the
town.
• Site buildings of various sizes along the street edge to
maximize sun exposure, protect views, and break up'
building bulk.
• Use signage, streetscape design, landscapigg, points of
interest, and other wayftnding elements to help orient
visitors and lead them toward important destinations within
the district and Town Core area
• ' Create a pedestrian connection across Avon Road to fully
integrate the Town Core and link the East and West Town
Center Districts.
• Limit building heights fronting Avon Road to existing
heights to avoid a canyon effect and to preserve Beaver
Creek views.
• Continue to use Avon Road as a gallery for sculptural art.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan �Ae O
Page 10 H
m
H `
s O
8 $ 3ulzz P3 & 8 00 Q m 3
WEryE qEE fi<s
L L d W¢�L Lq Lp S�LNFF
CC O NpNps� ypyp�� 000 �_� CC .N U' �NL
F~�p NE NNN
'g 55..sa4»> 3aT'zzz_i izSz
N�Q2�SSS.. .. .. .. ....
.-N Cg1 Py Vi bryl�b01�����qb Nb_gg h_pO GIO���NNN Nq
a2.22E 228B2$22232$ d2zzz-2 � �B
L>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a>>>>> >
Z N N N N � N N N N N N N N N N N JO N N N N N� N N N N N N
W
Zen
b �
r n
O
W 1�
f
A
LU
z
LU
x
LU
x
IL
2
O
V
z
Q
LL
z
0
BackgroundAntent
This chapter contains policies for the six planning areas, identified on the
map to the right. These areas are distinct, unique districts, some that are
mostly built out, such as Old Town, and others that contain land for new
growth, such as West of Steamboat Springs. The six planning areas are
described briefly below.
The Planning Areas
The Old Town area
This area is characterized by four specific features: the Yampa River, the
hills on either side of the valley (including Howelsen Hill and Emerald
Mountain), the mineral springs, and the railroad. The Old Town area's
character is also defined by its historic layout, consisting of three major
plats (known as the Original Town). Old Town contains largely residential
neighborhoods, as well as commercial development along Lincoln Avenue
and Yampa Street.
The Mountain area
The Mountain area serves as the primary base facility for the Steamboat Ski
Area and houses the majority of resort accommodations in the community.
It is the center for commercial resort activities and provides the mainstay for
the winter tourism economy. The area also contains a series of
commercial/retail nodes anchored by Ski Time Square. Central Park Plaza
is another retail and commercial hub. Located along US 40 at Mt. Werner
Drive, It Includes a variety of office, commercial, and retail space serving a
regional market. The mountain area also includes residential
neighborhoods that are addressed in this chapter.
The Fish Creek area
The Fish Creek planning area is comprised of the residential neighborhoods
north of Fish Creek and south of Old Town. The neighborhoods are a mix
of very low density single family development and duplex units have filled
more of the vacant land.
The Strawberry Park area
While the fields of strawberries have long disappeared from this area north
of Old Town, Strawberry Park maintains a unique mountain valley
character with meadows bordered by aspens and evergreens. The area
provides a variety of recreation uses and residential development types.
The planning area is accessed from the city by RCR 36 and Amethyst Drive.
Lots within Strawberry Park are still generally large and homes are set back
from the road, although many smaller rural residential lots exist. The area
also contains the Strawberry Park Hot Springs facility.
,
May 2004 #-.SIf!lMJiW/r.t�NlN,rflwlNINIYNlIf.IMfIY,fY-•1
.1%Mir'(rlarrwia,^:Irmr ■ /,7._'
a
Y
57wwGvrr.Ypriups Gewwaairy.Lw /'tiro
The West of Steamboat Springs area
West of Steamboat Springs is the area of future growth for Steamboat
Springs that is designed for mixed use, affordable neighborhoods. It is a
characterized by industrial and commercial development adjacent to the
airport and along US 40 and RCR 129, and large tracts of vacant lands.
The South of Steamboat Springs area
The South of Steamboat Springs area reaches south of the city for almost
12 miles and is characterized by the flat, open river valley surrounded by
forested hillsides. The area is predominantly rural and supports a number
of viable ranching and agricultural operations. It includes some of the best
irrigated hay meadows in the state, and the views of vibrant green fields
from the main roads establish the image for the whole of the south area
and Routt County.
This chapter incorporates goals and policies from specific area plans
(including the West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan, the Mountain Town
Sub -Area plan), and includes policies that are particular to the six planning
areas described above. Previous chapters have addressed broader
community -wide goals and policies for the six planning areas.
Old Town Planning Area Goals and Policies
Rationale
Old Town is the historic heart of the Steamboat Springs
Community. The character of Old Town is defined by its street
layout and lot pattem which were determined by three major
historic plats that established views and a relationship to Howelsen
Hill. The existing development pattern is predominately one- to
two- story residential structures within the neighborhoods and one -
to three- story commercial development along Lincoln Avenue.
Historically, the Old Town area has also been the center for
government. Both city and county offices and a number of
educational facilities continue to provide a strong, institutional
anchor in this part of town.
The community continues to value maintaining the Old Town as
the heart of the community, and conserving the character—of both
the residential and the commercial districts. The Mountain Town
Sub -Area plan addresses concerns about improving the quality of
the pedestrian environment and continuing to support the retail and
local businesses in this area. This recent planning effort has
identified the following priorities:
• Retain Old Town as the heart of the community;
• Retain government presence downtown;
• Promote infill development on commercial streets;
• Increase amount and mix of retail downtown;
May 2004
i
.1%n�JYoruiNp:lmu ■ r.i.J
• Assure o future supply of parking;
• Improve the sidewalks, public spaces, and green space
downtown;
• Reduce traffic volume and congestion;
,
• Connect neighborhoods to the mer through downtown with
safe pedestrian/bike pathways; r
• Restore historic buildings; i
• Continue to provide a visual arts center; and
• Minimize night sky glare from exterior lighting. '
Policy SPA -1.1: Maintain the historic character of Old Town.
Within the Old Town planning area, land use planning efforts should focus
on maintaining the historic character of the existing residential
neighborhoods and the Lincoln Avenue commercial core. Historic design
elements of Old Town include:
• Lot coverages that range from 10 to 35 percent coverage;
• Lot sizes that range from 25 to 50 feet wide, and 125 to 140 feet
deep (or 3,125 — 7,000 square feet);
• Residential buildings that are up to two stories in height;
• Non-residential buildings along Lincoln Avenue that are one to
three stories in height, with an average of two stories;
• Steep roof pitches; and
• Building additions that are typically at the rear of the structure.
Policy SPA -1.2: Promote infill, redevelopment, and
affordable housing in Old Town, but new development should
preserve Old Town's historical character.
The city encourages infill on vacant parcels, redevelopment of underutilized
parcels, and development of new affordable housing units in the Old Town
commercial area and new residential units in Old Town residential area.
Infill and redevelopment of parcels in all parts of Old Town should be
contextually compatible with the scale and massing of existing
development. Historic preservation survey documentation should be used
as a tool in zoning, development approvals, and public works
considerations for properties that are adjacent to contributing features.
Strategy SPA -1.2(a): Develop Contextual Design Standards for Old
Town - Develop contextual design standards that are a means of
allowing new development to conform to the existing pattern and scale
in Old Town. Consider incorporating Historic Preservation Guidelines
that address new construction in Old Town.
Strategy SPA -1.2(b): Explore Funding Options for Old Town such as a
Business Improvement District— a business district or other funding
mechanism should be explored for funding of Old Town improvements.
Policy SPA -/.3: Support neighborhood planning for the Old
Town residential neighborhood(s).
The city will support neighborhood planning for the residential areas of Old
Town to address issues such as historic preservation, design quality, infill
and redevelopment. Residential neighborhoods in Old Town include:
May 2004 _ .fW/IN(/1-�pllMxJ iAIWNIYNiIf /JNf J�lY.1
*ifrl muiapin ■ 134
• Old Town;
• Fairview, and
• Brooklyn.
Policy SPA -1A Maintain a strong institutional/government
land use base in Old Town.
Federal, state, city and county government offices should continue to have
a strong presence in Old Town. Schools, hospitals, courts, and other quasi -
public uses should continue to be on integrated part of the community,
each located as close as feasible to the clientele served.
Strategy SPA -1.4(a): Continue to locate govemment facllltles In Old'
Town —The city and county will continue to maintain current
government offices and will expand or build future government office
buildings and service centers in the Old Town area when appropriate.
Policy SPA -1.5: Improve pedestrian circulation and safety in
Old Town.
Support widening and improvements to sidewalks and pedestrian facilities
along Yampa and Lincoln Avenues; add signalized crosswalks and bulb -
outs (i.e., wider sidewalks at intersections) to increase pedestrian safety
within and through the Old Town commercial area (See also
Transportation Chapter policies and strategies).
Policy SPA -1.6: Preserve views of Howelsen Hill.
As future development occurs in Old Town, the city will consider views of
Howelsen Hill and limit the impact of new development on views from
public places and public roads.
Strategy SPA -1.6(a): Prepare a Downtown View Corridor Study -
Identify important view corridors from downtown to determine whether
building heights or massing should be limited in certain areas.
Policy SPA -1.7: New development will improve physical and
visual access to the Yampa River.
The Yampa River is an important feature of the Old.Town area that
residents and visitors cherish. The city will encourage new development to
relate to the river, rather than tum away from it, and will continue to
improve public visual and physical access to the river from public rights-of-
way, open space, and recreation lands.
Mountain Planning Area Goals and Policies
Goal SPA -2% Our cornmanity will continue to promote
the*ountain'Arec as the focal point for tourism
Rationale
The Mountain area serves as the primary base facility for the
Steamboat Ski Area and houses the majority of the resort
t .UNu/Lun.1'p?!¢r laWMu.ruJ/IIWI'!/u� --'-.� May 2004
t
accommodations in the community. It is the center for commercial
resort activities and it provides the mainstay for the tourism
economy. Resort and recreation commercial activity is
concentrated around Ski Time Square. The area also contains
several of the community's commercial shopping centers at US 40
and Pine Grove Road, and a US 40 and Mount Werner Drive.'' _
This ski base area began to develop in the 1960's. Over a thirty-
year period the ski area has become one of the country's premier
winter resorts. However the age and somewhat disjointed growth
over time means that many of the structures and facilities are
dated, and the circulation system and way finding is less than
optimal. The community believes that the base area requires
significant improvements to infrastructure and physical forth to
make it more functional and attractive. The Mountain Town Sub -
Area Plan identifies the following improvements:
• Improve public spaces;
• Improve pedestrian connections between destinations in the core,
especially between the base village and the ski mountain and
reduce conflicts between pedestrian crossings and vehicles;
• Improve the road and path circulation patterns and "wayfinding" to
make circulation less perplexing;
• Diversify the mix of retail to make it less seasonal and more
vigorous on a year-round basis;
• Improve the quality of the architecture;
• Develop a multi-purpose Civic Center facility; and
• Increase the connections (visual and physical) with the natural
environment in the mountain area.
Policy SPA -2.1: Promote redevelopment of the Mt. Werner'
base area.
The community will support continued improvements and redevelopment of
the Mt. Werner base area to enhance the public spaces, improve pedestrian
circulation, make transportation and mobility within and to and from the ski
base more efficient, and improve the visual quality of the architecture and
landscape.
Strategy SPA -2.1(a): Implement the Mountain area primary
recommendations in the Mountain Town Sub -Area Plan, including:
• Bus tum -around in Ski Time Square;
• New public spaces and streetscape treatment in Ski Time Square;
• Burgess Creek trail corridorand,park;
• High frequency SST base area circulator shuttle;
• Reconfiguration of Mt. Werner Circle;
• Expansion and improvement of the Gondola Transit Center, and
• Development of a Civic Center facility.
Strategy SPA 2.1(b): Use Incentives to promote redevelopment of the
Mt. Werner base area —Reevaluate development incentives in the Code
(e.g., waiver of fees or credits) and dimensional standards to entice 1
developers to redevelop the area.
May 2004 .-- .hururdxrr Jpnurt firxrmuuirj,itir l'Grx--�'
,1(ui%rl'hrcuix::Lwr ■ AIA
Strategy SPA -2.1(c): Explore Funding Options for the Mountain Area
Such as a Business Improvement District — a business district or other
funding mechanism should be explored for funding of Mountain Area
improvements.
Policy SPA -2.2: Create a lively, year-round mixed-use
commercial core for the Mountain area.
To the extent possible, improvements to the commercial core area at the
ski base should focus on diversifying the mix of retail to make it less
seasonal and more vigorous on a year-round basis.
Policy SPA -2.3: Support neighborhood planning for Mountain
area neighborhoods.
Consider neighborhood planning for the following Mountain area
neighborhoods:
Fish Creek (North of Clubhouse Drive, including Mountain View
Estates);
Whistler area (South of Walton Creek Rood); and
Bose Area (Clubhouse Drive to Walton Creek Road).
Policy SPA -2.4: Improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation
patterns in the Mountain Area and reduce vehicular conflicts
and the visual impact of parking.
The quality of the pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems should be
improved in the Mountain area in the private and public realms. To
integrate uses and visually hide parking spaces from view, the city promotes
placing parking under the main structure(s) for developments in the base
area. In addition, the city will provide incentives to reduce parking
requirements and other options (including financial participation by the
public sector). (See also Transportation Chapter policies.)
Policy SPA -2.5: Improve the appearance and circulation
along the US 40 Corridor.
The US 40 Corridor within the Mountain area requires improvements to
improve pedestrian safety, define stronger visual connections to the river,
improve the architectural character, and make a strong entry statement at
the south end of the city. The Mountain Town Sub -Area plan defines the
following priorities for improvements:
• Create safe pedestrian and bicycle connections across US 40;
• Create stronger visual and physical connections with open space
along the river,
• Do not allow more strip commercial development;
• Improve the architectural character,
• Continue the highway landscaping program; and
• Make a stronger entry statement at the south end of town.
Strategy SPA -2.5(a): Implement the Mountain Town Sub -Area Plan
recommendations for the US 40 Corridor - Implement the Highway 40
Corridor primary recommendations in the Mountain Town Sub -Area
May 2004
Plan, including:
• Continuous pedestrian circulation (sidewalks detached from roads)
from Old Town to Pine Grove;
• Improved pedestrian crosswalks at Pine Grove and Anglers;
• Open space acquisition;
• Fish Creek trail corridor,
• Core Trail extensions;
• Landscaping program for the highway margin; and
• Walton Creek tree planting program.
Fish Creek Planning Area Goals and Policies
sidential'neighborhoods with+commercial=;
that'is located and designed to not'impact
Rationale
Fish Creek residential development was originally characterized by
small, singe -family subdivisions that were separate and well-defined
neighborhoods. More recent development of residential duplex
units scattered through the planning area have filled in some of the
former vacant lands. Fish Creek also contains a number of high
end subdivisions. Over time the neighborhoods have become less
defined.
Policy SPA -3.1: New development will maintain the
residential character and natural landscape of the Fish Creek
area.
The presence of Fish Creek and steep topography are also defining
characteristics of the area that should be conserved as future development
occurs. As new residential development occurs, the scale, character, and
mix of residential uses should be compatible.
Policy SPA -3.2: A community Commercial Activity Node will
be located at the Anglers Drive/US 40 intersection.
The US 40 commercial corridor passes through the Fish Creek planning
area—connecting the Mountain area to Old Town. Along this corridor,
infill commercial development should be limited to the Anglers Drive
Commercial Activity Node. Commercial development should minimize
impacts to the Yampa River, provide controlled access on US 40, and help
to create an attractive image by meeting or exceeding design standards.
Policy SPA -3.3: Support neighborhood planning for Fish
Creek neighborhoods to improve neighborhood identity.
Consider neighborhood planning for the following Fish Creek area
neighborhoods:
• Huckleberry,
• Sanctuary;
May 2004
- - -- Srurxrdwu.lprigr fn+rxrxuxilj.lnn l'Gru .t
.5piifrlynnxi :hurt ■ 1AY
• ValVerdant/Highlands Circle/Valley View,
• Anglers;
• Mountain View Estates to Clubhouse Drive;
• Blue Sage; and
• Tamarack/Hilltop.
Strawberry Park Planning Area Goals and
Policies
1jr;4.-ri;1rnefpr of StJnulhorrd pnrk-� X. - -
Rationale
Strawberry Park, named for the fields of strawberries that once
existed, has a unique mountain valley character due to the open
meadows, largely enclosed valley, and Waal residential development
that has occurred largely away from RCR 36. The Park is also a
gateway to many recreational uses in the surrounding National
Forest lands. Strawberry Park has a group of residents and
interested parties that have been active in formulating policies and
planning the area's future for some time. These residents and
others in the community continue to reiterate past goals and
policies of maintaining Strawberry Park as primarily a rural valley
and not a growth center. The county should continue to reinforce
development patterns established over the past several decades to
maintain the area's character.
Policy SPA -4.1: New development in Strawberry Park will
maintain the rural character.
The county will encourage the pattern of new development in Strawberry
Park to be similar to existing development patterns where lots and homes
are located away from main roads to create privacy and to protect views.
Strategy SPA -4.1(o): Maintain current county zoning for Strawberry
Park—The County will not change the current rural zoning provisions
or allow urban development patterns In the valley.
Strategy SPA -4.1(b): Develop Rural Design Guidelines (see
Community Design Chapter).
Policy SPA -4.2: New development in Strawberry Park will be
sensitively sited development and clustered away from the
road when possible.
Where it is difficult to place all development away from the road (i.e., RCR
36) and/or minimize the visual impacts through vegetative screening, the
county will allow and promote clustering of home sites. Clustering can help
to minimize access points on roads, reduce visual impacts (including for
ridgelines and open meadows) and promote a more efficient use of
infrastructure while still maintaining current zoning density requirements.
.W#Awlr.tpriAQp G#wmaxily,lnfrMay 2004
.1%.nJirl'koixixx.lma ■ l.f.% �
Strategy SPA -4.2(a): Promote Use of the Land Preservation
Subdivision (LPS) — Promote the LPS as a viable alternative to large lot
development. Consider whether incentives and requirements are
flexible enough to entice developers and landowners to consider this
option.
Policy SPA -4.3: Development will be directed away from
roads in Strawberry Park.
Road corridors and the lands along them within Strawberry Park feel
"open" because the majority of development is set back from the roads
(primarily RCR 36), and often within or behind the treelines. To the extent
possible, the county will promote this development pattern.
Strategy SPA -4.3(a): Evaluate Use of a RCR 36 &eriay District—
Consider whether to establish an Overlay District along RCR 36 to
ensure that development setbacks from the road are maintained.
Policy SPA -4.4: Minimize commercial expansion in
Strawberry Park.
Expansion of commercial developments (other than on a limited basis) is
generally not appropriate in Strawberry Park because of potential traffic
impacts and the desire to maintain the scale and character of existing
development.
Policy SPA -4.5: Institutional uses will maintain current
development patterns and character in Strawberry Pork if and
when they expand.
As institutional uses (primarily educational) expand or add additional
facilities in the valley, expansion of these facilities should be consistent with
the existing scale of development and character of the surrounding area.
Each facility should prepare an overall master plan prior to expansion to
avoid unplanned, incremental growth.
May 2004 - Siaxxlronalj�riprj (i�MMIUUlrt dnn /%au
.lpnefrMffdv.1w; ■ M-10
West of Steamboat Springs Planning Area
Goals and Policies
Goa/ 5PA-5:,� The West. at Steamboat aprmgs area will
•Kr
develops as a se.ries of`new pidnned mixed-use
`neigf borhoods that are well connecied'to the Old Town'
oreogpnd other parts of the commanityc The West of
Stecm6oat Springs _Su6-area plan is,e' jorirt effort.
Fbetweeq thb C*,!6nd 6unty'to compreheiisivel-y.plam .
theSentire areo,to assure that coordinated and.
compatible developrnent occurs h the. most cost-
, .. _
-nf%r►:vwrmnnnmi nncd6lw .. ., �. •r .,. r -
Rationale
West of Steamboat Springs is planned to be the main future growth
area for the community. The adopted West of Steamboat Springs
Area Plan (WSSAP) proposes a series of new neighborhoods for this
planning area. New retail development and other community
commercial uses are also proposed as a Village Center that will be
central to and integrated with new residential neighborhoods and
designed to also serve existing residential areas west of Old Town.
The plan envisions approximately 2,600 dwelling units, including
existing units. However, current development rotes suggest that
this is a very long-range (30 to 40 year) plan. It is anticipated that
growth will occur in orderly phases progressing westward from the
existing City boundary.
In order to minimize traffic impacts on an existing road system that
has capacity limitations, it is desirable that the West of Steamboat
Springs community be developed with a high degree of self-
sufficiency—access to a wide variety of jobs and amenities—without
having to travel into and through downtown Steamboat Springs.
Polity SPA -5.1: Create a "village center" that offers a variety
of benefits for the community.
The West of Steamboat Springs area will feature a lively "village center,"
where limited retail activity and public functions provide focal points for the
community. The centers facilities will meet a variety of local needs:
convenience commercial, Institutional uses, child care, post office,
fire/police, small offices, a school, and public parks.
Policy SPA -5.2: Design new development to be transit -
friendly.
Development will have transit -friendly layout, with higher densities
concentrated along the proposed New Victory Parkway and Slate Creek
Road to allow walking -distance access to bus routes for a majority of the
}` residences.
" SIMNAVI sprlua(:cIumuliijAfw PlroMay 2004
i
Policy SPA -5.3: Provide a variety of housing design, types, t
s
and prices. '
The area will be a socially and economically diverse community with k
affordable housing intermixed with, and indistinguishable from, surrounding
market -rate homes. There will be Interesting, diverse neighborhoods with a
variety of lot and unit sizes and types blended together throughout the
community so as not to create mono -character enclaves. r
+
Policy SPA -5A Develop interconnected street layouts.
Development will have a pattern of interconnected streets that conned
neighborhoods, disperse traffic and serve as distinctive public places.
Policy SPA -5.5: Provide developed and natural open spaces.
There will be a combination of developed and natural open space, with a
variety of recreation amenities, including a network of interconnected trails
for both recreationists and commuters.
Policy SPA -5.6: Preserve open space, including key
environmental and visual features.
The plan anticipates preservation of key environmental and visual features,
including:
• interior ridges that create boundaries and embrace distinct sub -area
neighborhoods while separating and screening development from each
other and from public thoroughfares,
• natural stream courses and drainogeways to maintain natural drainage
patterns, wildlife habitat and movement corridors and minimize the
need for expensive storm sewer systems;
• a natural, open scenic corridor along US Hwy 40 minimizing strip
commercial appearance and function and
• the addition of 200 acres identified by updated mapping.
Strategy SPA -5.6(o): Review WSSAP within 12 Months - The City and
County will review the WSSAP within twelve months of adoption of this
Plan, to ensure that its policies and proposed actions are concurrent. A
review of the Steamboat Springs Airport Layout Plan will be part of this
process.
Strategy SPA -5.6(b): Review Intergovernmental Agreeement within 6
Months - The Intergovernmental Agreement that was to be signed by
the City and County must be reviewed and considered for signing within
six months of the adoption of this Plan.
May 2004 SrurrxL+mt.1%uiw,'r+nr•muirj drtn !'/up ;
.WWjYa=iAg'11 N ■ cr•rr
Policy SPA -5.7: Encourage continuation of agricultural uses
in undeveloped areas.
The plan strongly encourages continuation of agricultural uses in all
undeveloped portions of the Plan area.
South of Steamboat Springs Planning Area
Goals and Policies
of;Steamhoat Springs planning.'.
Rationale
The South of Steamboat Springs area includes the agricultural
valleys and forested hillsides which extend from the ridgelines
immediately south of city limits to the CR 18 intersection with Hwy
131. A number of ranches with some of the most productive hay
meadows in the region are situated in this valley.
In recent times many new homes have been built in the hills and
valley, as well as recreation facilities such as the Haymaker golf
course, but the overall character and density of the area remains
low-key and largely rural.
The Urban Growth Boundary demarks the limits far the efficient
and cost effective provision of future urban services. Significant
development to the south would require lift stations for sewer
service, additional water storage tanks, and expansion of the nods
network, and is strongly discouraged by this Plan, the Routt County
Master Plan, the South of Steamboat Area Plan # 1, and the Routt
County Open Lands Plan.
Policy SPA -6.1: Residential uses should be sited to minimize
impacts on agricultural operations, maintain the integrity of
natural resources, and conserve the overall visual quality of
the valley south of Steamboat Springs.
The county will continue to encourage clustered rural residential
development and patterns other than 35 -acre tract development. To the
extent feasible, development should be hidden by topographic features or
vegetation. In addition, residential development should be planned and
sited to provide transitions or buffers to agricultural uses (see also Natural,
Scenic, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas chapter). .
I S'rnrmlwrr Sprixcc r.'owwueil�.I gra 1'/�u-.— ++�� May 2004
..-..._-. ---l— _ _:..... A_.
1
Policy SPA -6.2: Support continued use of prime agricultural
land and irrigated hay meadows as working landscapes by
limiting urban development patterns in the South of
Steamboat Springs area.
Encourage the economic viability of agriculture using a variety of means (as
discussed in other chapters), by limiting urban patterns of development to
designated urban growth areas, and by providing buffers between
development and agricultural land uses (see Community Design and
Image chapter).
Policy SPA -6.3: Maintain the visual quality of the
community's southern community gateway.
Land uses and activities should support and enhance the community
"entry" in the South of Steamboat Springs area along US 40 and SH 131.
The county will encourage compatible land uses and design that uses
minimal signage, large setbacks from the roads, and landscape buffers to
enhance the visual quality of the gateway, and that minimizes light
pollution.
Policy SPA -6.4: Ensure that all mineral extraction operations
are designed and managed to be compatible with other land
uses.
The city and county will discourage mineral extraction operations that do
not mitigate impacts (including visual impacts). The county will evaluate
gravel mine proposals according to the indicators and criteria in the
county's Gravel Pit Evaluation Guidelines, developed in 2003, and require
mitigation. New mineral extraction operations should minimize visual
impacts along entry corridors to the community to the maximum extent
feasible.
May 2004 .- - SmuxdmNprixyt (rimwuuirrAmrly""-%
Memo
To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
From: Eric Heidemann, Communi evelopment
Date June 15, 2005
Re: Final Design for Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision/540 Beaver Creek Blvd.
Summary:
Attached to this memo is a letter submitted by the applicant requesting the Final Design
application be tabled to July 5'", 2005 for reason described in the letter. However, the
applicant requests the Commission provide direction or guidance in response to the
Commission's previous comments relative to massing and scale of the proposed
development.
Staff will provide the large plan sets during the scheduled work session for review and
discussion purposes.
Jun 16 2005 12:OOPM Crmekside Mountain Proper 971.524.7769
.CREEKHIDE MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES, INC,
P.O. eox I 183, Gypsum, CC 01097
270-524-7771 cpplca 970-024-7769 pAx
Creeltsidempamentn tel.net
Date: June 14, 2005
Project: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
540 Beaver Creek Boulevard, Avon
To the Planning & Zoning Commission of Avon and Staff,
p.2
Lot 12 is currently on the agenda for Tuesday, June 21, 2005.
However, our chief Architect will be out of town and unable to attend.
Therefore, not having full representation on June 21, I am respectfully requesting the commission
to "Table" our project to the July 5, 2005 meeting.
Thank you,
c,
Daniel Ritsch, owner
%T
ci
Staff Report pi, N ,uI
SIGN DESIGN AVON
C O L 0 R A 0 0
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date June 9, 2005
Sign type Master Sign Program Amendment
Legal description Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision (Chapel Square, Building C)
Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address 245 Chapel Place
Introduction
The applicant, RMD Sign Company, is proposing signage for Wells Fargo on Lot 22A of the
Chapel Square PUD. There are a total of five proposed signs with one building mounted sign
and four freestanding directional signs. The building mounted sign is constructed with pan
channel lettering and measures 14" x 14' (approximately 16 square feet). The directional signs
are staggered on the property and are constructed with aluminum frames and vinyl lettering.
The freestanding signs stand on 4" x 4" gray aluminum support posts approximately 5 feet tall.
Background
A revised Master Sign Program (MSP) was approved for the Chapel Square PUD at the
Commission's March 2, 2004 meeting. The revised program allowed for greater flexibility for
individual tenant's sign needs, approved the design for new monument signs, as well as the
design for banners to be installed on light poles. The MSP never contemplated Building C,
except for a small monument sign near the vehicle entrance to the south side of the project that
has since been installed.
On April 19th, 2005 the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a Master Sign Program
Amendment for the subject property. That program included two building mounted signs and
five directional signs on Lot 22A (Building C property). The building mounted signs both
measured 11' x 4'8" (approximately 51 square feet), and the directional signs stood seven feet
tall. This application was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission. The Commission
had concerns with the amount of signage proposed and compatibility with the existing program.
The meeting minutes from the April 19'h, 2005 meeting are attached for your review.
Master Sign Programs
A MSP acts as a sign code for a project and allows the sign administrator to approve specific
signs that are in compliance with the MSP without requiring subsequent approvals by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
T.
Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Wells Fargo Sign Design
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3
Sign Programs are encouraged by the Sign Code for larger projects. Section 15.28.080.16 from
the Avon Municipal Code states "sign programs shall be compatible with the site and building
and should provide for a similarity of types, sizes, styles and materials for signs within a project."
Design Review Considerations
According to the Town of Avon Sign Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing this design application:
1. The suitability of the Improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be
constructed and the site upon It is to be located.
The proposed materials for the additional signage (i.e. aluminum, acrylic faces) included in
this MSP amendment are consistent with the already approved sign program. The oval
shaped individual business signs located on the existing retail building and building B of
Chapel Square are of the same construction quality.
Excluding the old Wal-Mart building (Office Depot, Gart Bros & Pier 1) the placement of pan
channel lettered signs above the arcade level of the building would be inconsistent with the
rest of the Chapel Square Sign Program. The scale of the old Wal-Mart building lends itself
to larger signs. Building C of Chapel Square is a continuation of Building B, and staff feels
that the signage should represent the same human scale with oval sign(s) at the arcade
level.
Sign construction varies in the area, and the other freestanding signs in Chapel Square
utilize stucco and stone for materials. The freestanding signs proposed with this application
may be more appropriate if they utilized a similar design and materials with the already
approved freestanding signs in the project (see sheet A4).
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements.
The area is mixed-use with commercial, residential,. service, and office land uses. While
sign construction varies on adjacent and neighboring improvements, the signs in the area
are generally internally lit pan channel letters or box type construction.
3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement.
The Sign Code encourages "quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or
sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass -faced
letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are
encouraged." The proposed materials are of high quality and should be appropriate.
Although the Sign Cade encourages individual lettered signs, staff feels that the business
identification sign for Building C should be similar to those that exist on building B. The
directional signs may be more suitable if utilizing a stone base and stone body, as does the
other sign on the property.
4. The visual Impact of any proposed Improvement, as viewed from any adjacent or
neighboring property.
The proposed signs should not have any significant impact to adjacent properties. The
signs would be visible from Chapel Place and East Beaver Creek Boulevard. The building
mounted sign would be visible from the employee housing located above City Market and
residential units in Building B of Chapel Square.
5. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the
vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be Impaired.
Town of Avon Community Development (970)748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
r
Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Wells Fargo Sign Design
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3
It is Staffs opinion that there will be no monetary values impaired with these signs. The
Commission must determine whether aesthetic values would be experienced with the
proposed signage.
6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with the
Sign Code, and are appropriate for the project.
The proposed signs generally comply with the Sign Code in terms of height, size, and
construction quality. It may be more appropriate for the sign construction and design to
mimic other existing signs on the property.
7. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether
the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation.
The primary orientation of the proposed signage is to automobile traffic.
Staff Review and Discussion
Although the signs are scaled down from the previous sign application (which was denied on
April 19`"), there are a number of reasons this application appears to be unsupportable. When
reviewing the building mounted pan channel letter sign it is difficult to find a relationship
between this sign and the existing oval signs found throughout Chapel Square. The goal or
intention of a MSP is to have consistent signage on a property in terms of size and type. As
stated above, the "old Wal-Mart" portion of Chapel Square should not set precedent over this
application since the scale of that building is different than Building C.
The four directional signs have no relationship or association to the other stand alone signs in
the PUD. These signs are appropriate to help direct customers, however, they could benefit
and be more compatible by using similar construction to others on the property with a stone
base and stucco. The exact location of Sign E must be determined with a survey to ensure that
it is not located in the 10' Slope Maintenance, Drainage, and Snow Storage Easement.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the sign design application for Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision due to incompatibility with the existing sign program.
Recommended Motion
"I move to deny the sign design application for Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision due to conflicts with review criteria 1, 5, and 6."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748.4030 or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted
Matt Pielsticker
Planner I
Att: April 19, 2005 meeting minutes
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
F1
AVON W1,541
Minutes
April 19, 2005
C 0 L 0 i A 0 0
5:00 pm — 5:30 pm Commission Work Session
I. 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
Item VII, Minor Project — Addition of Outdoor Deck, Property Location: Tract 0, Block 2, ,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Applicant: Nova Entertainment LLC, d/b/a Loaded
Joe's and Item XI, Final Design - Commercial Remodel, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/77 Metcalf Rd, Applicant: Evans Chaffee
Construction were moved to Consent Agenda. Resolution 05-05 was placed back on the
regular Agenda for Commission review.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Evans disclosed conflicts with Item VIII, Final Design — Wells Fargo Drive Thru,
Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision; Item IX, Master
Sign Program — Amendment, Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek Subdivision; and Item XI, Final Design - Commercial Remodel, Property Location: Loi
22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/77 Metcalf Rd. Commissioner Karow
voiced a conflict of interest with Item X, Chateau St. Claire on-site mockup, Property Location:
Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision/38390 Hwy 6 & 24.
V. Consent Agenda:
A. Approval of the April 5th, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes.
B. Item VII, Minor Project — Addition of Outdoor Deck, Property Location: Tract 0, Block 2',
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Applicant. Nova Entertainment LLC, d/b/a
Loaded Joe's.
C. Item XI, Final Design - Commercial Remodel, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/77 Metcalf Rd, Applicant: Evans Chaffee
Construction.
Commissioner Didier motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda and Commissioner Smith
seconded the motion. All commissioners were In favor with Commissioner Evans abstaining due to a
conflict of interest.
VI. Comprehensive Plan Update — [Public Hearingl
Description: The Planning and Zoning Commission to reviewed section 4 of the draft Comprehensive
Plan. This section includes the Subarea Planning Principles and Recommendations and Regional
Goals and Policies along with associated maps.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Pat Dawe, RNL Design, gave a presentation on the sections under review. Comments from the
Commissioners included that the Avon Town Center was being addressed in the Town Center Plan.
Commissioner Karow voiced concern with the 36" overhang on commercial structures and believed
that it was addressed in commercial design guidelines. Mr. Dawe responded it was a good point and
the built to line seemed not to be appropriate in the Camp Plan as it was too detailed.
Dominic Mauriello, approached the podium, to comment that build to lines and setbacks should be
included in design guidelines. Mr. Dawe felt the Comp Plan should not contain such specific
comments as built to lines and setbacks.
Chris Ekrem, questioned the boundaries of the Town Center. Avon Center on the East and the park
on the west, per Pat Dawe.
Brian Sipes, Town Councilman, commented that build to lines are planning principles and mentioned
that these were outline tools.
Mr. Dawe commented that a vision statement was necessary for the Town. Commissioner Evans
voiced that there is an 80 -foot height restriction within the Town Center and there is a need to
distinguish what is current and what is desired. Commissioner Evans continued that perhaps the rear
area of City Market could house a parking structure and the parking lot In front of Chapel Square
could be transitioned into a town square/park scenario in reference to the subarea and the references
to height of 1 to 3 story building. Councilman Sipes was questioned by Commissioner Evans
regarding the transition of the Chapel Square parking area to an activity zone. Mr. Dawe said the
comments were encouraging for designing a vision for the Town.
Subarea 3 is the Confluence and Mr. Dawe commented on the necessity for allocating view corridors
with the Confluence structure and the benefit of transporting over the tracks, along with preservation
of the river and its banks. Commissioner Evans voiced that the Camp Plan is an Indicator of the
wants of the Town of Avon such as the access to Beaver Creek Village.
Subarea 4 is the Avon Road Corridor. Commissioner Evans commented that this road currently
separates East and West Avon and that a future vision would demonstrate the need for Avon without
an East or West.
Subarea 5 is Nottingham Park Area. Conversation revolved around the Municipal Building being on
valuable land for Avon, area could be redeveloped as greater recreational area and Councilman Sipes
voiced that in concept the Town Hall as a civic heart of the town and should remain so with its
uniqueness. Larry Brooks, Town Manager, stated that there are multiple buildings for various
purposes that could be consolidated giving greater use of the parklands. Commissioners Evans and
Savage voiced that an amphitheater might be more valuable to the Town than having the municipal
center. Larry Brooks continued that recommendations to seize parkland for recreation might be more
viable to the Town as a general statement.
Subarea 6 and the parking lots would benefit from screening per Commissioner Savage.
Commissioner Evans suggested that all recommendations presented need to be included when the
Comp Plan is reviewed by Town Council such as the Subarea 9 being increased in square footage to
accommodate residential commercial, as an example.
Subarea 12 regarding the railroad corridor was discussed along with an historical discussion
regarding the intergovernmental, agreement relative to a corridor for transit valley wide.
41
Subarea 16 is Nottingham Road residential area, north side of 170. Dominic Mauriello commented
that the area that could use incentives, greater density and as a view corridor off of 170, could use
redevelopment with greater architectural enhancement.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
VIII. Final Design — Wells Fargo Drive Thru
Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Applicant. Greg Gastineau
Description: The applicant is proposing a final design for a canopy and associated drive through lanes
for a drive up banking facility. The proposed drive through would be located on the former "chapel"
site, behind the City Market grocery store. All materials and colors of the canopy would match the
existing building to the south (Lot 22-A), and the bank would occupy the entire first floor of the
building. The sketch plan was reviewed at the Commission's February le, 2005.
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report.
Greg Gastineau, Timberline Commercial Management, approached the podium with comments on the
Staff Report. He began with Page 3, Building Design, 3'" bullet point — "Exterior Walls, Roofs, and
Architectural Interest", that the statement "there are no flat roofs on the building" is incorrect .and
continued that there are prominent flat roofs all on the frontage of the building and the design for the
drive thru is meant to be an extension of that flat roof canopy and the reason it was proposed. Mr.
Gastineau believed a sloped roof is a "failed" alternative as It would create problems with the second
floor band of windows and would be inconsistent with Chapel Square. It would present problems with
snow collection sliding off the canopy and creating a dangerous condition for vehicles entering or
exiting the canopy. Mr. Gastineau continued by addressing the Staff Recommendations. He clarified
Item 5; voiced that the transformer landscaping must meet Holy Cross requirements and they woule
not permit the screening of such from path of travel via painting or landscaping and revisited Item 6
regarding the sloped roof option.
Commissioner Savage questioned the run off of exterior drains on flat roofs and could not see the
area of runoff. Mr. Gastineau commented that the owners would prefer that it be hard piped and run
into a sewer drain. Commissioner Savage revealed no problem with the flat roof and agreed with the
danger a sloped roof may cause with the cars and that it is consistent with other flat roofs in the area.
Commissioner Savage continued that he would like to see some language that specifically addressed
the drainage issue and that drainage is not going to drain onto a the driving surface.
Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Savage's comments and questioned the drive thru
not having "arches". Mr. Gastineau responded that the option was explored with the architect and it
was determined that with varying vehicle heights, it was best to maintain a consistent height across
the path of traffic.
Commissioner Didier commented that the flat roof was consistent with other roofs. Mr. Gastineau
interjected that the pitched roof's angle does not relate to anything within Chapel Square.
Commissioner Didier continued that there were to be 15 parking places and saw only 12 on the
drawing but commented that he didn't believe this was an issue.
Eric Heidemann clarified some items in the conditions. He began by revealing that the Intent of the
landscaping condition was to be placed outside of the easement and he understood that as long as
the utility company had access to one side of it, there should be no objection by said company.
Commissioner Karow questioned. the two trees to be removed and Mr. Gastineau responded that they
would be relocated. Commissioner Karow commented that he was in agreement with Commissioner
Savage's assessment.
Commissioner Savage motioned for approval of Item VII, Final Design — Wells Fargo Drive Thru,
Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with staff
recommendations #1 through #4, eliminating recommendation #5, adding to recommendation #6 "to
the extent allowable by Holy Cross", and eliminating recommendation #8 in its entirety.
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Commissioner Karow mentioned that in his assessment
of the plan, there were two different east canopy elevations being proposed and that a specific
reference to the flat roof might be warranted. Commissioner Savage made an adjustment to his
motion.that in condition 418, the flat roof option will be utilized.. Commissioner Smith seconded the
revised motion. All commissioners were in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
3Appficant:
Master Sign Program - Amendment
Property Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Greg Gastineau
Description: The applicant, Greg Gastineau, is proposing signs for Wells Fargo in Building C of
Chapel Square. There are seven proposed signs total; two building mounted signs and five
directional (freestanding) signs. The two building mounted identification signs are constructed with
pan channel lettering and each measure 11' x V-8" (approximately 51 square feet). The directional
signs are staggered on the property and are constructed with aluminum and acrylic materials. These
signs stand on a 4" x 4" aluminum support post approximately 7 feet tall.
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Greg Gastineau, Timberline Commercial Management, approached the podium and commented that
he was presenting the wishes of Wells Fargo Corporate. He continued that since they will be a
24,000 sq it tenant, they were requesting an amendment to sign program.
Commissioner Didier voiced that there were too many signs, with his main concern being the other
tenants that may leased the building in the future and sign b and c were too many. Commissioner
Smith commented that the poles needed to be reduced in height and Mr. Gastineau replied that the
height was relative to the amount of snow accumulation. Commissioner Smith questioned the square
footage of the signs and the response of 111 square feet was too much. Per Eric Heidemann, the
signage should be 72 sq feet. Commissioner Struve mentioned that the directional signs were okay,
but 7 feet was too tall and the base should be rock like that shown on the building, and sign A is too
large. Commissioner Savage believes it is inconsistent with the Chapel Square Sign Program.
Commissioner Karow agreed with the rock base and the square footage does not comply with the
sign program.
Commissioner Struve motioned to deny Item IX, Master Sign Program — Amendment, Property
Location: Lot 22A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, as items 1-6 do not comply with
the design criteria, Commissioner Savage seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
X. Chateau St. Claire on-site mockup
Property Location: Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision/38390 Hwy 6 & 24
Applicant: lvins Design Group
Description: The applicant requests an extension of the April 30`" deadline to prepare an on-site mock
up for the Gates PUD project. The requirement for the on-site mock up was a condition of approval for
pervious site design modifications. A preliminary panel design has been submitted for review by the
Commission prior to construction on-site.
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Memo.
Mike Stomello, CSC Land, approached the podium to comment on the staff's memo. He stated that
the Planning and Zoning Commission requested modifications to the original plan and he understood
that he agreed to begin a collaborative meeting to design the mock up panel but not to construct it.
Mr. Stornello would like to get Commission comment on the materials for the building tonight and
provide a mock up panel by July 1". Commissioner Evans requested the panel to have a two -foot
( return on the left side to include the eave. Commissioner Didier commented that he wanted to review
the railings and that they may be split. Commissioner Savage questioned the decision of colors and
Mr. Stornello commented that the site mock up was to reflect the colors per past meeting directives.
Ron Wood, CSC land, commented on the materials anticipated being used, framing will be in
September and mid November will use the materials with final items applied in December.
Commissioner Smith encouraged Mr. Stornello to get the mock up materials as early as possible.
Third Tuesday in June, 6121, is the latest date for the mock up presentation to the Commission.
XII. Approval of Resolution 05-05 Commercial Design Guidelines Amendments. This item was
unanimously approved at the April 5h Planning and Zoning Commission meeting after holding a public
hearing.
Commissioner Karow voiced concerns regarding Heading B - Building Massing, last sentence of
paragraph needed definition and how one could interpret a light and airy space. Item 5, last sentence,
use the word transition instead of erode. The use of mirrored windows was raised and it was
prohibited under the heading of windows. Item 8 regarding roofs was to have varied roof lines and
questioned the meaning and application. Commissioner Evans suggested a rewording.
Commissioner Karow had difficulty with the word 'activate'.
Tambi Katieb suggested that this issue be reviewed again by staff and rewritten along with
Illustrations. Commissioners agreed to evaluate this Issue at the next meeting.
Adjourn
Commissioner Didier motioned to adjourn; Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. The meeting
was adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Terry Smith 1�
Secretary
ti J
U
t
i
� N
d O C
0.�
J .�,i.•. t T •� ` �' � U O
CD
co CL CJ
Nk
t6 E U
°• �"• ' .tic ix }
tL11
LU
cn
. . ,.......r,., i . ... `i.3r.......-
w
C-)¢
m
N�
z
J
W
Z
¢
t.L
= Z
LU
g
►- c
w
79CD
CO ULU
WCD V
C
O1
CO
cm
C, Ll. Z
O
0
C d
y
h
D
C fn
L- Z
O Y Z
Z O v~
CA
?}d
� N
d O C
0.�
J .�,i.•. t T •� ` �' � U O
CD
co CL CJ
Nk
t6 E U
°• �"• ' .tic ix }
tL11
LU
cn
. . ,.......r,., i . ... `i.3r.......-
w
C-)¢
UD
z
J
W
Z
¢
t.L
= Z
LU
g
►- c
w
CO ULU
WCD V
�-
cm
C, Ll. Z
O
LL d Z
O O= C
cc
h
D
R
L- Z
O Y Z
Z O v~
CA
?}d
p
L
W
O
O
o Q=¢d
—¢
W J
N
a
T
�►
V CCmrC,�
ccLU
W�
�O-Y=
¢
°y23J
W
LU
W
W
LEC
T
ACL
W
CDC-�Lij �e�F=-->C)
Z�
m
J
�LUCLci CU
w Q� J= ¢ O Q
CL
Q _i w m
=Li. mmQ
CL
O—
V>
u-
Z Y
�Lo
c>
Z
>
C
G
Q
C.,)
J LLMI.L F—LL
CDC.
_!�
¢
Q
to
t—OJC1
�'w
?�
W
Z}�
X
ao
tc,70J
CD
V
. uZ
= w w
cl
z LLJ F-
c �
�mouj
U-
C-.) =tL
oQ Z � ¢ Ouj
��ccim
Qw
.0-.E
z
J
W
Z
z
CO ULU
WCD V
N
u- d C A m
.0-.E
'- is oW!u fKjC*RM
DECEIVED
CHAPEL SQUARE SIGN PROGRAM—SIGN DESIGN CRITERIA
MAR 0 8 2004
GENERAL INTENT Community Development
These criteria have been established with the intent of assuring visual harmony for the mutual benefit of all
tenant leases. Conformance to these criteria will be enforced by the Lessor and any nonconforming or
unapproved signs will be brought into conformance atthe expense of the Lessee. Existing signs which
conform to the previous sign guidelines will still be considered to be conforming signs and will be accepted by
this amended sign program. The purpose of these amended criteria is to allow tenants to have individual
identity in their exterior signage, something which is critical to the success of their retail and/or restaurant
businesses.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A The Lessee shall be responsible for the fulfillment of all signage requirements and specifications.
B All permits for signs and their installation shall be obtained and paid for by the Lessee.
C The Lessee shell submit to the Lessor for approval two (2) copies of a detailed shop drawing, to scale, of
all proposed signage and/or graphics prior to fabrication an&priorto making application to the Town of
Avon for review. These drawings shall indicate size and style of lettering, installation details, colors and
logo design. The Lessor shall retain one (1) copy of the approved drawing and return the other to the
Lessee.
D All signage shall be approved by the Lessor and all local governing authorities prior to fabrication. Lessee
shall be responsible for any and all permits if necessary.
E Logo decals, hours of business, credit cards, emergency telephone numbers, etc shall be limited to a total
of 144 square inches (one square foot) per single door entrance. Handwritten signs will not be permitted;
these signs must be professionally produced and installed.
F Advertising devices such as attraction boards, posters, banners and flags are not permitted.
G Flashing, animated, audible, revolving signs or signs which otherwise create the illusion of animation are
not permitted.'
H Signs with exposed bulbs or light sources are not permitted.
I The Lessee shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all signs as well as the operations
of their sign contractor.
3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
A SIGNTYPEA: Monument Signs (by Lessor, not Lessee/ Tenant)
1 See site map for proposed monument sign locations (Sign Type A).
2 Monument signs are internally illuminated and ere provided and maintained by the Lessor.
3 Tenants will be allowed, on a space available basis, to have a sign placard identifying the Tenant
included on a monument sign. Tenantto contactthe Lessorto make such a request.
4 If space is available, Lessor will provide the Tenant with size parameters for the particular placard
location that is available. Tenant shall submit to the Lessor two (2) copies of detailed drawings, to
scale, of the proposed placard prior to fabrication.
5 All tenant identification placards on monument signs to have a white sign face end a bold contrasting
color for their logo/type. A bold sign face with white or contrasting logo/type will also be considered.
B Refer to Sign Drawings Al, A2, A4, A5 and A6 for details related to specific monument signs.
Foot IInAAtod M nA RA
B SIGN TYPE B: Tenant Identity Signs (by Lessee/Tenant)
Location of exterior signs must be centered within the archway of each location.
Identity signs will be made up of one cabinet (see enclosed drawings for shape).
A maximum of one (1) cabinet sign will be permitted per tenant entrance.
The size of the cabinet signs will be 2 feet high and 10 feet long (wide); see attached diagram.
Bottom of sign cabinet will be 8'-0' above the finished sidewalk. If any sign elements project beyond
the elliptical boundary of the sign cabinet, these elements will maintain a minimum clear distance of
7'-8" above the finished sidewalk. Refer to Diagram B attached.
Sign cabinets will be made from 1/8" thick aluminum. The color of the sign cabinet will be metallic
bronze to match existing sign cabinets.
The color of the sign face, individual letters, numbers or symbols within the sign face may vary to meet
the individual needs and identity of the Lessee. Tenants are encouraged to develop a sign that clearly
and creatively identifies their business — using bold and easily readable fonts /typefaces, contrasting
colors, and logos or other graphic elements which visually describe their business and create an
appealing sign to attract customers.
IdentitySigns: Major Single Tenant— Identity Signs: Any future single -tenant occupying the previous
WalMart space shall conform to Town size requirements (currently this refers to Gert Sports, Office
Depot and Pier 1 Imports).
C SIGN TYPE C: Tenant Identity Signs—Arcade / Blade Signs (by Lessee/Tenant)
Tenants with storefronts set back under arcades will be allowed a maximum of one 11) hanging
arcade blade sign per tenant entrance. Blade signs should be 2 -sided (readable from both directions).
Maximum size of blade sign to be six (8) square feet Dimensions of sign to be eighteen (18) inches
high by forty-eight (48) inches wide/long. Bottom of sign shall hang above the walkway at a clear
distance of 8'-8'. Refer to Diagram C attached.
Blade signs shall be perpendicular to the tenant storefront and centered within the arcade width
between the tenant storefront entrance and the arched colonnade of the arcade.
The color of the sign face, individual letters, numbers or symbols within the sign face may vary to meet
the individual needs and identity of the Lessee. Tenants are encouraged to develop a sign that clearly
and creatively identifies their business— using bold and easily readable fonts/typefaces, contrasting
colors and logos or other graphic elements which visually describe their business and create an
appealing sign to attract customers walking along the arcade.
The color / finish of the hanging hardware to be metallic bronze.
D SIGN TYPED: Directional Signs - Banners (by Lessor, not Lessee/Tenant)
Directional signs will be the responsibility of the Lessor and may be implemented as fabric banners
(Tyvek or similar) mounted on light posts. Refer to Diagrams for Sign Type D and Drawing SK -1 for
detailed information about the fabrication and mounting of these directional banners.
Directional signs are intended to offer general direction to retail shops, restaurants and perking; these
signs are not intended to be tenant ID signs and will not display any tenant names or logos.
Lessor shall retain the right to change out the banners for special events end/or holiday seasons, the
design and colors of which shall require approval by the Town of Avon — Community Development
Department, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed; the banner designs submitted as a
part of this sign program package are otherwise intended for permanent year-round display. Seasonal
Christmas banners may only be displayed from November I" through January 31" each year.
I aat I Ind atod n3 m nd
SVNCS
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
I Sign Types A and B shall be internally illuminated. Sign Types C and D shall not be directly illuminated.
2 Electrical service to all illuminated signs will be off the Lessee's electric meter.
3 No exposed junction boxes, lamps, tubing transformers, raceways, neon or gas filled tubes of any type are
permitted.
4 All signs must be U.L listed and bear the U.L label.
5 Installation must comply with all applicable building, electrical and sign codes.
6 The Lessee's sign contractor must seal off and touch up all mounting holes and leave the premises free of
debris after installation. The Lessor will be authorized to correct all such work at the expense of the
Lessee.
7 Lessee is responsible for the removal and repair of the premises to its original condition at Lessee's
expense. If Lessee shall fail to the return the premises to its original condition, Lessor shall have the right
to perform such work, and upon completion, thereof, Lessee shall pay to Lessor as additional rent upon
demand the cost of overhead attributable to the making of such repairs.
I nor I Inrlufnrl M nn nl
CHAPELSQUARE
INFORMATION / COMMUNICATION HIERARCHY
IDENTIFICATIONAL Identify key tenants in Chapel Square
A 'renanr ID Signs
(to draw people from outer areas, and
oq Monument $igns help direct them as they approach ChSq)
IDEN11FICAHONAL
Fnant ID Signs (Ellipses)
tan 111 1 :�:"s i
V
Ban
WKM'1JQNAU"-"�1 Direct people to. restaurants, retail shops
ners on Light Poles and underground parking via banners
Directional Info
(mounted on existing lightpoles)
a
s;
Plan Sign Type Al
ALUMINUM
LIGHT BOX;
BRONZE FINISH
C
r
"NG
ELASTOMEKIC PAINT ON STUCCO TO
MATCH EXISTING YELLOW ON STOREFRONTS
UNDER BUILDING ARCADE
REMOVABLE
BACKLITSIGNAGE;
WHITE FACE WIN
1" COLOR Tw
ALUMINUM
LIGHT BOX
BRONZE FINISH
I F
I
I
rI-----------------------
-,
Elevation Sign Type Al (one
v4et No.
Project No.
03.101.CSQ
Issue Date:
11.10.03
AlRevisions:
Tills:
SIGN TYPE Al
41A- a 1'.M
Monument Signs
Chapel Square
Avon, CO .
CONCRETE FOUNDATION
WALL AND FOOTER
Edwards, CO 81832
Phone: 970.920.2194
Fax: 970.920.2189
r'
n
4
r
N �
r
B Plan Sign Type A2
ALUMINUM
LIGHT BOX;
BRONZE FINISH —
STONE TO
MATCH EXISTING LIMESTONE
BUILDINGS --\ 7— CAP
N.
mil
ELASTOMERIC FAINT ON STUCCO TO
MATCH EXISTING YELLOW ON STOREFRONTS
UNDER BUILDING ARCADE
Pier I I
ould
TENANT
TENANT
I
ri -------------II
---------------------
Elevation Sl
10'-B 314"
A2 (two sided)
°`+et No.
Protect No.
03.101.CS0
Issue Date:
11.10.03
/�
A2
Revlabna:
G
Title:
BION TYPE A2
Srala.
1140 a P4"
its
c
NT a
T �
T 4
HDP
TYPE HINGE
Monument Signs
Chapel Square
Avon, CO
CC Con Plan
- REMOVABLE
BACKLITSIGNAGE;
WHITE FACE WITH
COLOR TEXT
ALUMINUM
LIGHT BOX;
BRONZE FINISH
CONCRETE FOUNDATION
WALL AND FOOTER
97 Main SL
U1nk WI04
Edwards, CO 81832
Pion: 670.028.2104
Fax: 670.628.2186
Y
Plan Sign Type A4
LIMESTONE
CAP —
STONE TO
MATCH EXISTING
BUILDINGS �
1124'
G -2-21R "
ALUMINUM LIGHT BOX;
BRONZE FINISH.
AUMKK TO BE
PROVIDED BY VE51GNEK
)c
3D CUT LETTERS
PEGGED OUT FROM
BACK EACH SIDE
ELASTOMERIC PAINT ON
STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING
YELLOW ON STOREFRONTS
UNDER BUILDING ARCADE
SNOWFLAKE LOGO
CARVED IN EIFS
DIMENSIONAL LETTERS FINNED
OUT FROM BACK. FONT TO BE
SPECIFIED BY DESIGNER:
BRONZE FINISH TO MATCH
EXSTING SIGNS
NOTE:
LIGHTING FOR DIMENSIONAL'
LETTERS TO BE PROVIDED IN
LANDSCAPE AREA NEAR
BASE OF SIGN
' CONCRETE FOUNDATION
WALL AND FOOTER
If–– ––––– –– – – ––
1-------�
Elevation Sign Type A4
n`eet No.
Project No.
03.101.CSQ
1'-2 R'
Issue Date:
11.10.03
A4RaWlone:
C
=y
)�'
jL-1.1I
�
I—»3 EK—I .
Tills:
SIGN TYPE A4
CHAPEL
C
PLACE
I • •,. .v . I
—�Lry
CHAPEL. .
SQUARE'
PROFESSIONAL
-- `
BUILDING
DIMENSIONAL LETTERS FINNED
OUT FROM BACK. FONT TO BE
SPECIFIED BY DESIGNER:
BRONZE FINISH TO MATCH
EXSTING SIGNS
NOTE:
LIGHTING FOR DIMENSIONAL'
LETTERS TO BE PROVIDED IN
LANDSCAPE AREA NEAR
BASE OF SIGN
' CONCRETE FOUNDATION
WALL AND FOOTER
If–– ––––– –– – – ––
1-------�
Elevation Sign Type A4
n`eet No.
Project No.
03.101.CSQ
Issue Date:
11.10.03
A4RaWlone:
Tills:
SIGN TYPE A4
o,..:.•
qn•. 4-M
Monument Sign
Chapel Square
Avon, CO
97 Main SL
UnR WiD4
Edwards, CO 81832
Phare: 970.928.2194
Fax 970.928.2189
12'4r
OUTBACK
STEAKHOUSE
H GART SPORTS
bl Office VG� 1 ; `y
� I ' Pier ,.1 --Imports
I ! t I
REMOVE EM51ING
EIFS FROM STRUCTURE
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
----------------------
Elevation of
°heat 140.
Project No.
03.101.CSQ
Issue Date:
11.10.03
A5RavlsloM:
nue:
SIGN TYPE AS
Qe.l.•
1114.1W
A5
Monument Sign
Chapel Square
Avon, CO
6A- 1SrW6 11
EXI51ING LIGHTBOX
W/ TWO TENANT SIGNS
NEW LIGHT BOX W/ TWO
TENANT SIGNS; BRONZE
FRAME TO MATCH
1145TING; WHITE FACE
W/ COLOR TEXT
EIFS WRAPPED
LINTEL AND SIGN
BASE: MATCH 005TING
EXISTING ROCK
FACED COLUMNS
EXISTING FOOTING
AND STEM WALL
Edwards, CO 91832
Phom: 070.928.2104
Fax: 070.928.2189
STONE VENEER TO
MATCH EXISTING
BUILOING5
USE METAL TIES
AS REQUIRED —
BRONZE FINISH ON
FRAME AND LIGHT BOX
TO MATCH EXISTING
SIGNAGE
A Detail ®Column
1" =1'-0"
Qhset No.
Project No.
03.1014150
Issue Date:
11.10.03
A6R"Iws:
Title:
810N DETAIL
Scale:
1' ■ 1'4'
,rx6rtN6
FASTEN FRAME OF
CURVER STRUCTURE AND
LIGHT BOX TO CMU W1
3" EXPANSION ANCHORS
EVERY2'•O'
4" CMU 6' CMU
SIGNAGE LIGHTBOX
Monument Sign
Chapel Square
Avon, CO
Z' TUBE METAL
FRAME FOR CURVED
STRUCTURE PROVIDE
1' L CROSS BRACING
EVERY 2'-O'
SIGNAGE LIGHTBOX
HD PIANO HINGE
TO ACCE55INTERIOR
OFLIGHTBOX
EdwaNs, CO 81832
Phone: 070.820.2104
Fax: 870.028.2180
To Box
Elliptical Tenant ID Signa - Sign Type 8
6)dMMa
Elliptical sign cabinets to match existing sign cabinets: 2'-0' high by 10'-0' widellong. Sign cabinets to be fabricated
of 1/8' aluminum with metallic bronze finish. Sign assemblies to be UL rated and beer a UL label. Bottom of sign
cabinet to hang at 8' r above the finished walkway. Any elements that extend beyond the elliptical boundary of the
cabinet shall extend a maximum of it below the bottom of the sign cabinet (a minimum of 1'-6' above the finished
walkway. See Section 3-B of the Tenant Sign Design Criteria for general specifications.
Diagram B: SIGN TYPE B - TENANT IDENTITY SIGN - ELLIPTICAL
Bsgft
4'-0'
(48')
The total area of an arcade / blade sign to be six (6) square feet per face. Arcade / blade signs should be 2 -sided
(able to be read from either direction). Mounting hardware to be metallic bronze finish. Bottom of signs to hang
a clear distance of 8'-6' above the finished walkway of the arcade and shall hang perpendicular to the tenant entry
and centered in the arcade between the tenant storefront and the exterior arched colonnade. See Section 3-C of
the Tenant Sign Design Criteria for general specifications.
Diagram C: SIGN TYPE C - TENANT IDENTITY SIGN - ARCADE / BLADE
Benner M -A
Eastbound Traffic
West -Facing Side
of 2 -Panel Pak
Banner m -B
Westbound Traffic
East -Facing Side
of 2 -Penal Pak
Banner 02-A
Eastbound Traffic
West -Facing Side
of 2 -Penal Pair
Banner 02-8
Westbound Traffic
East -Facing Side
of 2 -Panel Pair
(� s r(AI&
Banner 03-A
Eastbound Traffic
Wait -Facing Side
of 2 -Panel Pair
I�
u
Banner 03.6
Westbound Traffic
East -Facing Side
of 2 -Panel Pair
• Banner size: 3r wide x V tall (finished face, each paneVside - add tube space at top and bottom)
Colors: White
Yellow- PMS 1225c
• Letter sizes: Upper case • 4'tall
Lower case - 2-117 tall
. Fnnt ITC Officins Sans Bold
Lt Purple - PMS 2726c
Ok Purple - PMS 2735c
Banner 04-A
Eastbound Traffic
West -Facing Side
of 2 -Panel Pair
u
Banner 04-B
Westbound Traffic
East -Facing Side
of 2 -Penal Pair
Sign Tips 0 - Directional Banners (01 -D2 -D3 -D4)
Banner 05-A
Eastbound Traffic
West -Facing Side
of 2 -Penal Pair
.i
Banner D5-9
Westbound Traffic
East-FacingSide
of 2 -Penal Pair
Banner MA
Wastbound Traffic
East -Facing Side
of 2 -Panel Pair
'I
u
Banner D5•B
Eastbound Traffic
West -Facing Side
of 2 -Panel Pair
Banner 137-A
Southbound Traffic
North -Facing Side
of 2 -Panel Pair
I'
u
Banner 07-B
Northbound Traffic
South -Facing Side
of 2 -Panel Pair
is rl $VOF
• Benner size: 37 wide x W tall (finished face, each panel/side - add tube space at top and bottom)
'Calors: White
Yellow- PMS 1225c
• Letter sizes: Upper case - 40 tall
Lower case - MIT tall
• Font ITC Officina Sens Bold
Lt Purple - PMS 2726c
Dk Purple - PMS 2735c
Burner MA
AcAbound Traffic
tNorth-FacingSide
of 2 -Panel Pair
`I
u
BannerD"
Northbound Traffic
South -Facing Side
of 2 -Panel Pair
Sion Type D - Directional Banners (MIC16-D7-De)
Banner D1- Side A
Benner 01- Side B
Benner D2 -Side A
Benner 02 • Side B
• Banner size:
32' wide x 90' tall
• Letter sizes:
Upper case - 4'tall
Lower case - 2-1/2' tall
• Font;
ITC Officina Sens Bold
• Colors:
White
Red - PMS 1795c
Lt Green - PMS 376c
Dk Green - PMS 364c
•These banners are shown
for seasonal color and general
layout; they do not show all the
variations of text and arrows
on all the faces for all 8 pairs
of banners (DI - 08)
Sign Type D - Directional Banners - Christmas Holiday Season
Imav be disolaved Novernwr 1 st tough January 31st each year]
Banner Dl -A
Hot Chrlstmas
Benner 01-B
Benner 02-A
Hot Christmas
Bannerl)2-13
VA
• Banner size:
327 wide x W tall
• Letter sizes:
Upper case - 40 tall
Lower case - 2-1127 tall
• Font:
ITC Officina Sans Bold
• Colors:
White
Red - PMS
Lt Green - PMS
Ok Green - PMS
PANIONE®
1785 C
PANIONE®
315 C
XANMNEP
364 C
RECEIVED
'PAR 0 2 2004
community Development
Sign 7Vps D - Directional Banners - Christmas Holiday Season
Vhere existing,
A where possible,
iorizontal metal
isrto move up to
is level and aligned
v/lamp holder on
)pposite side of pole;
see SK -1 for
nounting details
Sign Type D - Directional Banner on Typical Existing Light Pole
Letter heights:
Upper Case - 4' high
Lower Case - 2-1/2' high
Banner size:
32' wide x 8(' high
7'-B' off minimum
)'rfthis dimension can be
increased due to how it'
is mounted to the pole at
the top banner holder, we
will increase this dimensior
to the maximum able to be
achieved)
�tepjArc
Where existing,
horizontal metal
bar to move up to
level required to
achieve the noted
clearance below
the banner of 8'-30;
in some cases, the
metal arms may need
to move to the opposite
side of the pole from
where they now exist
to locate the banners
as shown on the site map
and as shown here (under
the light fixture); see
drawings SK -1
for mounting details
8'-3' aff
Letter heights:
Upper Case - 4' high
Lower Case - 2-1/2' high
Banner size:
32' wide x 80' high
Sign Type D -
Directional Banner on
Taller Light Pole
Banner D7 -A
E.
Restaurants
Underground
Parking..,
Benner D1 -B
Bannar D2 -A
Banner 02-B
Sign lypa 0 - Directional Banners
• Banner size:
32' wide x 80' tall
• Letter sizes:
Upper case - V tall
Lower case - 2-112* tall
• Font:
ITC Officine Sens Bold
• Colors:
White
Yellow - PMS 12250
Lt Purple - PMS 2726c
Dk Purple - PMS 2735c
FANlONO
1225 C
PAMONE®
2726 C
PANMNE®
2735 C
eetz'®mus :".4
VatZ'9Z6'OLS :QwUd
Z£9tB o3 ,tpieMp3
T
opeloloo'uonV
ejenbg jedeyo
,swqn�ev
W
tDdlz
M
8LL
to
z
4
(ORLON 9V 03HOVlLV
S
r
T1
319VNIV190 W(1W0(VW
99 Ol NOISNMa SIHL)
AVMA'IVM DNILSD3
02
OINY313'NIW.9-4
,swqn�ev
W
tDdlz
M
8LL
to
z
Id z
(ORLON 9V 03HOVlLV
A19w3sSvNaNNV9KIW
J
319VNIV190 W(1W0(VW
99 Ol NOISNMa SIHL)
AVMA'IVM DNILSD3
--�
OINY313'NIW.9-4
Id z
l
Staff Report
Sketch Desi
AVON
nC OLO R A n 0
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date June 15, 2005
Project type Commercial Building — Addition
Legal description Lot 22A&B, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver"Creek
Subdivision
Zoning Planned Unit Development - PUD
Address 245 Chapel Place, Chapel Square Building C
Introduction
Greg Gastineau of Timberline Commercial Management is proposing a sketch design
plan to add a canopy and drive through lanes for a drive up banking facility. The
proposed drive through would be located on the former "chapel" site, behind the City
Market grocery store. Materials and colors of the canopy would match the existing
building to the south (Building C), and the bank will be occupying the entire first floor of
the building. The bank has been actively pursuing demolition and construction to the
interior of the building and plans to open later this month.
Brief History
The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed (favorably) a similar application
three times in the past four months. On February 15, 2005 the Commission reviewed a
sketch design application for the drive up facility and at their April 19, 2005 meeting the
Commission unanimously approved a final design application for the project. The Town
Council called up the Commission's final design approval at their April 26, 2005 meeting.
Council remanded the application back to the Commission, and a revised final design
plan was presented to the Planning Commission at their May 17, 2005 meeting. The
Commission unanimously approved the remanded (revised) application. The Council
again overturned and effectively denied the Commission's approval with a 5-1 vote at
their May 24, 2005 meeting. These minutes are attached for your review.
Staff Comments
This application appears to be in general compliance with the Commercial Design
Guidelines, and appears to incorporate the design feedback and direction given by Town
Council at their May 24, 2005 meeting. As indicated in the attached Council meeting
minutes, feedback and discussion included comments on the following:
■ Mass and bulk of the addition were out of scale with the existing building.
■ Landscape plan inadequacies
• Minimum clearance requirements for a drive through facility
• Appearance of the project from the East (Village at Avon)
• Conflictions with Review Criteria 6
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 22A&B, Block 2, BMBC Wells Fargo Sketch Design — Drive -up Canopy Addition
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission mceting Page 2 of 4
■ Quality of materials
The applicant has made revisions and this application appears to have satisfied the
issues that were discussed with Council. One of the modifications made is the
elimination of the canopy over the third (northern) drive lane. The canopy sits
approximately one foot taller in order to incorporate arches on all elevations of the
canopy, while maintaining the required vehicle clearances. The arches now match the
existing arches on the building. Additionally, the vertical supports for the canopy have
been modified to match the width of the existing columns on the arcade.
The landscape plan remains unchanged from the previous review, and staff would
recommend that the applicant provide a full landscape plan for any affected areas.
During review by Council comment was made that the plan should do more than screen
the transformer, and the entire portion of the lot should be addressed.
While the applicant has addressed many of Council's concerns, staff has identified
issues that still need clarification including:
• Vacation of the property line between Lots 22A & 22B, and abandonment of 10'
Utility and Drainage Easement.
• A lighting plan must be submitted, as required by Section 15.30.050 of the Avon
Municipal Code.
• Construction staging and`erosion control must be demonstrated with a staging
plan prior to issuance of a permit.
Design Review Considerations
The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the
specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria:
A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Zoning Code.
B. General conformance with Commercial and Industrial Development Sections
A through D of the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial, and Industrial
Design Review Guidelines.
At the meeting the Commission will take no formal action on this sketch plan application.
Rather, direction on the design will be given to the applicant from the Commission to
incorporate Into a final design application. Full size plan sets will'be available at the
meeting to provide written comments and guidance to the applicant.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748-4413, or stop by our office.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielstick
Planner I
Aft: May 24, 2005 Town Council Minutes
Town or Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 22A&B. Block 2, BMBC Wells Fargo Sketch Design — Drive•up Canopy Addition
June 21, 1005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 4
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 749-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
IA)t 22A&B, Block 2, BMBC Wells Fargo Sketch Design — Drive -up Canopy Addition
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 4
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL
HELD MAY 24, 2005 <
A regular meeting of the Town of Avon, Colorado was held at 400 Benchmark Road, Avon,
Colorado in the Council Chambers.
Mayor Ron Wolfe called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. A roll call was taken and Council
members present were Debbie Buckley, Kristi Ferraro, Mac McDevitt, Amy Phillips, Brian Sipes
and Tamra Underwood. Also present were Town Manager Larry Brooks, Town Attorney John
Dunn, Asst. Town Manager Jacquie Halbumt, Town Clerk Patty McKenny, Finance Director
Scott Wright, Police Chief Jeff Layman, Town Engineer Norm Wood, and Community
Development Director Tambi Katieb as well as members of the press and public.
Approval of Agenda
It was noted that Council would discuss some remaining CIP Project business that was not
completed at the work session during Unfinished Business. Town Attorney John Dunn
requested that an executive session be held at the end of the regular meeting related to the
A.T.S. Join Venture negotiation.
Disclosure of Potential of Conflict of Interest
The Council would not hear any matters that
therefore no disclosures were made.
were considered quasi judicial in nature and
Citizen Input
Drew Dodd, President of American National Bank, presented a sponsorship check to Council for
the Salute to the U.S.A. July 3rd event. Rolena Richardson introduced herself as the recipient of
the Town of Avon Scholarship Award and thanked the council for this award.
Resolutions
Senior Planner Eric Heidemann presented Resolution No. 05-23, Series of 2005, A Resolution
approving revised Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review
Guidelines — Procedures, Rules and Regulations as adopted November 6, 2001 and amended
August 2004. He noted that this information has been heard at two public hearings and
approved unanimously by the Planning & Zoning Commission. He highlighted the revisions
made to the document as follows:
✓ Clarifying main components of commercial site design
✓ Adding a maximum Light Reflective Value ("LRV") of 60% for building color
✓ Adding language to the current "Building Massing" section
✓ Adding design standards for building located adjacent to or near pedestrian frontages
✓ Requiring a solar study for buildings in excess of three stories located in the town core
✓ Revising the residential fence guidelines to established review criteria for staff approvals
Numerous comments and revisions were suggested to the guidelines. Discussion ensued on
topics including building massing, "LRV", roof overhangs, parking and fences.
Councilor Sipes moved to approve Resolution No. 05-23, Series of 2005, A Resolution
approving revised Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review
Guidelines — Procedures, Rules and Regulations as adopted November 6, 2001 and amended
August 2004 with the modifications discussed and identified below:
Page Location
Section in Document
Revision
In Document
Page 1
#5 — First sentence
Change "should" to "shall"
"Minimum
Throughout
Heading
Change °Requirements' to
Document
Page 2
Letter A— Requirements
Requirements'
Change solar "use" to solar "access"
Page 2
Letter A - #6
Add to the end of the sentence —'and treated with
special design emphasis.
Page 1
#5 — last sentence of first
Change sentence to read 'These designs are no
paragraph
longer acceptable'.
"The
Page 4
Section Parking & Loading
Strike last sentence in that paragraph — more
vehicular oriented ........ for surface parking.
Page 4
#10 at top of page
Change "should" to "shall" in that sentence
Page 4
Minimum Requirement #4
Strike last sentence —"Snow storage ..... are
recommended
Page 4
Diagrams
Strike top image that is labeled °earfh'berms"
Page 7
Water & Sewer, Trash Storage
Make reference to recently passed wildlife
ordinance in #3.
Page 8
Letter B — Section on 'Building
First sentence — change word "vertical' to "large";
last of sentence add — "segmented forms and
Massing'
part
additive massing (i.e. the building should appear
to be an assemblage of smaller components
added together).
Page 9
Section on Building Height
Minimum
In line 6, strike "may have the potential to"
In second sentence, strike — "with the use of such
Page 9
Building Massing
Requirements #5
materials as stone and architectural concrete.
Page 10
Building Materials and Colors
Strike 'asbestos cement shingles or siding"
Page 10
Minimum Requirements #2
Roofs Minimum Requirements
Revise second sentence to re adles and
fi
#3
metal roofs should be used In dull finish colors
that are muted and fit within the context of the
building design".
Page 11
Roofs Minimum Requirements
Fourtbe 36hinches for the primary sentence, add to the
roofs. Secondary
#
dormers and minor roof elements may have
overhangs appropriate to their scale & size.
Page 11
Roofs Minimum Requirements
Strike last part of sentence —'to avoid
uninterrupted flat roofs'. Sentence should read
#8
°Roofs shall be varied and articulated'.
Page 14
Doors and Entryways
Correct to read "buildings and" not "building sand"
on, although
Sentence add to nWildrriidge
Exhibit in the
Fencing and Screening
they are discouraged inrst
and W Idwood.
packet(Last
paket(Last
page )
Councilor Ferraro seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Staff was asked to provide
the final version to Council.
Norm Wood, Town Engineer, presented Resolution No. 05-24, Series of 2005, Resolution
approving the Amended Final Plat, a Replat of Lot 4 and Lot 5, Mountain Vista Resorts
Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. He noted that Points of Colorado, Inc.
submitted an application for amended final plat to make minor lot line revisions to insure that the
office building is within the appropriate lot lines. Lot 4 is the office building property and Lot 5 is
the parking and common space property. Staff recommended approval of these technical
corrections. It was noted that the applicant has failed to file this plat on prior occasions, but
appropriate refilling fees have been paid. Mayor Pro Tem Underwood moved to approve
Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 5
May 24, 2005
Resolution No. 05-24, Series of 2005, Resolution approving the Amended Final Plat, a Replat of
Lot 4 and Lot 5, Mountain Vista Resorts Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado.
Councilor Buckley seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with a roll call vote.
Ordinances
Tambi Katieb, Community Development Director presented on Second Reading Ordinance No.
05-04, An Ordinance Adopting the Updated Zoning Map. He presented the map and noted that
it reflects all ordinance, resolutions, rezonings and annexations that have occurred since 2001
that changed the zoning of property in the Town. Technical corrections were also included in
this amendment. Mayor Wolfe opened the public hearing, no comments were made and the
hearing was closed. Councilor Sipes moved to approve on second reading Ordinance No. 05-
04, An Ordinance Adopting the Updated Zoning Map. Councilor Ferraro seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously with a roll call vote.
Town Attorney John Dunn presented on Second Reading On Ordinance No. 05-07, An
Ordinance Amending Title 8, Avon Municipal Code, Relating to Regulations and Standards
Regarding the Protection of Wildlife and Providing Penalties for the Violation Hereof. Dunn
noted that at the last meeting Council requested amendments to Section 8.32.030 (B) and
Section 8.32.050 (A) AMC 1) causing the requirements for trash containers curbside to be
consistent with the requirements for trash containers that are not curbside and 2) providing for
upgrading of trash containers in connection with violations prosecuted in municipal court. Mayor
Wolfe opened the public hearing, no comments were made and the hearing was closed.
Councilor Sipes commended Avon's Police Department for its public relations efforts in
educating the public regarding this legislation. Councilor Phillips moved to approve Ordinance
No. 05-07, An Ordinance Amending Title 8, Avon Municipal Code, Relating to Regulations and
Standards Regarding the Protection of Wildlife and Providing Penalties for the Violation Hereof.
Councilor McDevitt seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with a roll call vote.
New Business
Mayor Wolfe noted that three appointments are required to make for the Planning & Zoning
Commission. Interviews were conducted at the work session and secret ballot votes were cast.
Councilor McDevitt moved to appoint Christy D'Agostino, Christopher Green, and Jim Buckner
as the new commission members. Councilor Sipes seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously with a roll call vote. The outgoing members were recognized for their outstanding
commitment, including Andrew Karow and Buz Didier.
Unfinished Business
Mayor Wolfe noted that there was "unfinished business to conduct regarding the Wells Fargo
Bank design. Town Attorney John Dunn noted that Council must call up this item and the
applicant must agree to consideration of this item at the meeting. Chad Smith, attorney for the
applicant Wells Fargo Bank, agreed to the Council reviewing the matter at this meeting.
Tambi Katieb, Community Development Director, presented the material related to the Council
appeal of a Planning & Zoning Decision on the Final Design of a Commercial Remodel for Wells
Fargo Drive -up Bank, Chapel Square. He provided a summary of the P&Z review of this
application as follows:
✓ April 1R 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved a Final Design Plan
for a remodel to Building C in the Chapel Square PUD. The exterior modifications included the
addition of a new drive through banking facility for Wells Fargo.
✓ February 15, 2005, The drive through bank use was approved at the P&Z Commission meeting
through a Special Review Use permit (Resolution No. 05-02).
Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 5
May 24, 2005
✓ April 26, 2005, the P&Z Commission's decision was appealed by the Town Council at their
regular meeting r*).
✓ May 10, 2005, the discussion took place at the regular council meeting that the applicant modify
the plans to better conform to the existing architecture and meet the design review criteria,
particularly noting Criteria 6 & 7. (Councilor Sipes distributed suggested elevations for the
applicant and project architect to consider utilizing a modified arch scheme on the drive through
lanes. The applicant was remanded back to the P&Z Commission for reconsideration
✓ May 12, 2005, the applicant resubmitted revised elevations and a revised landscape plan in
response to Council's direction.
✓ May 17, 2005, the application was approved by the P&Z Commission as meeting the design
criteria. Design was discussed at length between the applicant, staff and the P&Z. (See
Community Development staff memo dated May 18, 2005) for details of that discussion)
(") According to Section 7 of the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design
Guidelines, °decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission may be appealed to the Council at
the request of a majority of the Council at any time before the decision becomes final.° He noted that
the role of the Council at this time shall be to confirm, modify or reverse the decision of the
Commission within thirty (30) days following the commencement of review, or no later than mid June
2005. Any decision by the Town Council which results in disapproval of the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall specifically describe the reasons for disapproval.
Katieb noted that the principle changes in the plans included 1) the addition of arches at each drive
through lane, and 2) revised Landscaping around the transformer. Mayor Wolfe asked that since this
application is a special use for this property, did the, applicant's revisions meet the Council's
standards as outlined at the last meeting as well as their interpretation of the design review
guidelines. Councilor Sipes moved to call up the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission
which was to approve the Final Design Plan for the Commercial Remodel for the Wells Fargo
Bank. Mayor Pro Tem Underwood seconded the motion and it passed with a four to two roll call
vote (Buckley and McDevitt nay). Councilor Sipes noted that the applicant only made minor
changes and did not comply with his request to address the mass & bulk issue of the
appendages of the design — the appendages are out of scale compared to the building. He
noted that he had discussed the massing of the building at the last meeting as being a problem.
He spoke about the need to treat the design of the primary entry as an entry. He noted that the
landscaping revisions did appear better than the prior design. Mayor Wolfe noted that because
this application is an addition to the building, and that due to its status as a special use for that
property, the design should be far better than the original design. Councilor Sipes also noted
that the vertical supports of the canopy wall are not consistent with the supports of the other
building and that the problems are a massing issue. Some discussion ensued about what the
standards are for drive up banks. Chad Schmidt, attorney representing the applicant Wells
Fargo, provided information about the nature of designing these types of banks. He noted that
some difficulty was encountered with regard to the clearance of the drive through portion of the
banks — minimum requirement is at 12 feet. He noted that this has likely caused some of the
problems with the massing. Some suggestions were made to try and address the massing in
order to minimize the appendages. And again a request was made to try to make additions to
the existing building that are more attractive, especially the backside of the building (facing the
Village). It was noted that the requirements of the bank may not have anything to do with the
priorities or restrictions in the town's design guidelines; but that is the job of the designers to
provide the balance.
Councilor Sipes moved to overturn the approval of the final design plan for the commercial remodel
of the Chapel Square Wells Fargo Drive -up bank (as made by the P&Z) because of the following
reasons:
Regular council Meeting Page 4 of 5
May 24, 2005
✓ Primarily design review criteria 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. Application does not meet the speck
criteria of the proportion of massing relative to the overall building, height relative to existing
elements of the building, and basically the quality of materials and color of materials.
✓ Doesn't comply with land use provisions of the town — which addresses landscaping. The
landscape plan should require more than a screen around the transformer.
Councilor Ferraro seconded the motion and it passed with a five to one vote (Buckley nay). Mayor
Wolfe noted that the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission has been overturned and the
application has been denied.
Norm Wood, Town Engineer, presented the final capital projects for Council's review and
discussion ensued on the following:
✓ Nottingham Road Improvements —
✓ Public Works Administration Building / Equipment Storage & Work Area
✓ Wildridge Pavillion — requested that this be removed
✓ Wildridge Emergency — Access — requested that this be moved up in priority
✓ 3-D Zoning & Retail Plan — design for construction in 2007
✓ Tract J — determine whether or not this should remain in the long term plans
✓ Historic Preservation Fund
✓ 1-70 Sign Removal — move to higher priority
Town Attorney Report
John Dunn, Town Attorney, presented an update on the negotiations takingplace with A.T.S.
Joint Ventures, noting that the parties have asked to meet with him on May 31 .
Consent Agenda
Mayor Wolfe asked for a motion on the Consent Agenda below. Mayor Pro Tem Underwood
moved to adopt the consent agenda; Councilor Ferraro seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
a. Minutes from May 10, 2005 Regular Council Meeting
Mayor Pro Tem Underwood moved to convene into Executive Session to meet with John Dunn,
Town Attorney, to enter into a discussion pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(e), determining positions
relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and
instructing negotiators, i.e. reviewing negotiation options with A.T.S. Joint Venture. Councilor
Sipes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Ferraro left the meeting at
this time due to a conflict of interest.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 PM.
APPROVED:
Debbie Buckley
Kristi Ferraro
Mac McDevitt
Amy Phillips
Brian Sipes
Tamra Underwood
Ron Wolfe
Regular Council Meetlng
May 24, 2005
Page 5 of 5
Ybie`�h`�
C�.'9�0
Sy$'yyoyyg$$Y$�S'
Ys�H $w3�g
G]
C
�o
O
O
N
O
I I
� R
o
0
OZ918 OD `uonV
O Nuipitng
annbS iaduua
021183 silam
0
a
O
O
N
O
I I
o
0
o
a
a
�
M
�
w
Y
n
O
O
U1
Q
3 �
■
O Z
w
K UQ
Zw
0
a
O
O
N
n
w
o
0
z
a
�
N
Y
n
O
O
U1
Q
3 �
■
O Z
w
K UQ
Zw
1- K
\� to
* wh
J
O
O
N
0
eo
TIES
�
w
lu
I I 0
I- ?
n �
u, Q
♦- U
Q N
U n
O Z
w
K UQ
Zw
1- K
\� to
* wh
F
op16'IOIO J 'UOAV
UOAV
02-1193 SIIOAA
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Z
I O
H
I Q
I w
I J o
I W _1
I _
I Q
I W-
I T
I
a
�
W
■fir@4
'
o
� IggNI s
op16'IOIO J 'UOAV
UOAV
02-1193 SIIOAA
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Z
I O
H
I Q
I w
I J o
I W _1
I _
I Q
I W-
I T
0
a
I
a
�
- Q
'
.2i
O
N
O
[O
\
N
Q
■
0
a
I
a
�
c
'
I
O
N
O
[O
\
N
Q
■
'o
g N
y u
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Z
H
Q
W
J o
W _
c n
W m
VI
Sketch Desi
June 21", 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date June 10, 2005
Project type Duplex
Legal description Lot 7OA, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Zoning 2 Units — Residential Duplex
Address 580 Nottingham Road
Introduction
Jerald Wuhrman is proposing a duplex on Nottingham Road. The two units would be
stacked on top of each other, and would each be accessed from the first floor through a
central corridor between two single car garages. Each 4nit is proposed to contain 3
bedrooms and 3'h baths. Proposed materials include a textured stucco exterior and
concrete tile roofing. The proposed maximum height is 35' and each unit will be
approximately 3,000 sq. ft., with a shared "game room" on the first floor.
Background
In 1984 a variance for Lot 70A was approved for encroachment into the side lot setbacks
(Exhibit A). This variance lapsed in 1985 due to construction not commencing. The
current application borders the setbacks but does not propose any building
improvements in the side lot setbacks.
On three prior occasions design review applications have been submitted for Lot 70A. In
February 2002 a final design application was officially withdrawn, and in February 2003
a sketch design application was withdrawn (Exhibits B and C). in reviewing both
applications, Staff stated technical issues that should be addressed, such as concerns
with positive drainage and retaining walls, driveway grades, encroachment into the side
lot setbacks, and inadequate drainage to carry storm water runoff/debris flows that occur
from the slope located to the north of the proposed building.
The most recent application was a sketch plan application reviewed in November of
2004 proposing the same floor plan and massing as the prior two submittals. That
application was accompanied by a Variance application seeking relief from the platted
side yard setback and easement. The Variance application was denied by the Planning
Commission through Resolution 04-24 (Exhibit D). The design and architecture of the
current application is a departure from the 2004 submittal, which triggered a new formal
sketch application.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 70A. Block I. Beat, rk at Beaver Creek Sketch Design
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3
Development Standards
Front setback: 25 feet
Side setbacks: 7.5 feet
Rear setback: 1Of eet
Maximum Building Height: 35 feet
Maximum Site Coverage: 50%
M`'inWumndscm I Area: 25%
lusoIDwelling Units plus 1 caretaker apartment per dwelling unit
Staff Comments
Upon reviewing the current sketch plan application it appears the applicant has not
addressed many of the issues that Staff indicated in the previous applications (see
exhibits). Considering this design is very similar to the previous applications Staff would
request that the applicant review and address the issues stated in the attached letters
before submitting a final design application.
Drainage is a serious concern to staff as well as the ability to keep all required grading
and disturbance on the property. Positive drainage away from the structure must be
demonstrated with a final design submittal. The proposed grades shown on the site plan
at the rear of the structure are inadequate for positive drainage to be achieved. At final
design all existing and proposed grading must be clearly indicated and existing grades
must tie into the provided survey. Cross sections of the property from the street to the
rear property line would be beneficial to understand how the structure fits on the
property.
The proposed driveway is not located within the platted access easement, which was
approved and provided on the final plat for Lot 70 — Bristol Pines and Beacon Hill
Townhomes. A revised easement and agreement with both associations must be
recorded prior to this site access layout to function. Additionally, details for the drainpipe
underneath the driveway must be provided.
A retaining wall will be required extending towards the road from the easterly garage
door. It appears that this wall would reach seven feet in height. All site disturbances
must be contained on-site, which will be a challenge with the foundation walls and
retaining wall in close proximity to the property lines. Staging for this project will also be
difficult, and must be demonstrated with a final design submittal.
Design Review Considerations
The Commission shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the specific Design
Standards, and by using the following general criteria:
A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Zoning Code.
B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of
the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial and Industrial Design Review
Guidelines.
The Commission will take no formal action on the sketch plan application. Rather,
direction on the design will be given to the applicant from Staff and the Commission to
Town or Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Y
Lot 70A, Block I, Benc. ;k at Beaver Creek Sketch Design
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3
incorporate into a final design application. Staff will provide a full plan set for you to
provide written comments and guidance to the applicant at your June 21s, meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respe tfully submitted,
Matt Pielsticker
Planner I
Aft:
Exhibit A — March 8, 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and March 8,1984
Staff report to Planning and Zoning Commission
Exhibit B - letter dated January 7, 2003 and letter dated October 4, 2002
Exhibit C - letter dated November 7, 2001
Exhibit D - Resolution 04-24
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
3/8/84
Page 2 of
Coldwell Banker Sin Lots 29-3Z uiocx -• be
shortly dandhwill9then �remove tthe esign upon lot on hclosing ofich the 9lot ssale. edAny yd
further
signage'for those lots would come before the Commission for approval.
Cuny motioned that the Coldwell Banker sign met all criteria placed upon it in
the motion for approval of the January 12, 1984 meeting.
Watkins seconded.
Meehan was opposed.
Motion carried.
Lot 70A Block I B.S. - Sidelot Setback Variance
orm oo erector o u c or s, prese--'application.
Watkins stepped down from discussion due to financial interest in Int.
Tom Maron of Maron and Associates, represented applicant, Steve Erickson, owner of
lot. Maron stated that variance is to allow construction of the type of building
being presented, which is long and narrow.
Wood stated that Lot 70A is adjacent to Tract B, which is an open space tract.
Setdb ckfrequir mentssidare
25 feel fProposedtbuildingelot locatio10 fen isr25 feet backfom back lotlfrom
Oe front lot line, but balcony extends out over the setback line. Setback re-
quirements are that space be open from the ground upward.
Leon Lowenthal made public comment that he objected to the variance. He is
owner of western most unit in adjacent development to the east. Fie felt he would
lose his view and this -project Mould be too close to his property.
Bill Stroop made public comment that granting a variance would be detrimental to
the lot because there would be no control of building size.
Pierce and Commission reviewed and discussed Approval Criteria, 17.36.040 and
Pierce questioned if this was the smallest lot in
Findings Required, 17.36.050.
the general area.
Wood answered that it was.
Steve Erickson, applicant, mentioned that there was a 113 foot easement on origins
plat, but Town Council requested that it be removed at time of re -plat and the
variance request was in conformance with Town Council's intent at time plat was
approved.
Cuny motioned to grant the variance request of Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark u -
division to allow building construction to the easterly side lot line due to the
exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the site in accordance with Section
and3extraordinary9circumstancesuconsist offthere the Abeing von uai50pfoot al owide drainagenal
ot
beingeno drainagenand eutility easement n space tract jonethe nt tlot hadjacent ltolthe leasterly there
line.
Meehan seconded.
Landauer and Blair opposed motion.
motion carried.
.-�.Y�..' /.
v
J'
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING h WNING COMMISSION - 3/8/84 SAI Tr AS
Variance Request - `idelot. Setback Requirement 0R[GINAL
Lot 70A, Block 1, 9e114hmarb Subdivision
Lot 70-A, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision is zoned RMO. Setback requirements
for the RMD zore is 25 feet front, 7.5 feet side and 10 feet rear. This variance
request is for the elimination of the 7.5 foot sidelot setback requirement frail'
the easterly lot line.
Syecial Conditions Related to -Request:_
1. Easterly lot line borders Tract B which is zoned OLD;
2. The 50 foot wide area of Tract B, adjacent to the easterly line of Lot 70-A,
is designated as drainage and utility easement;
3. The easterly side of Lot 70-A does not contain the 7.5 foot drainage and
utility easement as provided on moat lots in the Town of Avon.
Prior to making its decision, the commission shall consider the following factors:
17.36.010-ApRIpyal- Criteria
Before acting on a variance, application, the Planning and Zoning Cormi•sion
shall consider the followinq factors with respect to the requested variance:
A. The relationship (if the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and ,trurturc , in the vicinity;
D. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforceients of specitied regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege;
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, tran,,portatiorn and traffic, fanilities, public facilities and
utilities, and lnrblic safety;
0. Such other tactors and criteria as the Corunission deems applicable to the
proposed varionr.e. (Grd. 21-9 S1(d)).
Further:
17. 250 Findings_ P;y±iTd
The Planning and Zoning Corurission shall make the followinq written findings
befrrc arantinq a variance:
A. That Lhe graol,iuo of the: 'M ianc.r: Trill not constitute: o grant of special
privilege incrnsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
in the save district;
V
STAFF REPORT TO
PLANNIr76 R
7nNING COMMISSION - 3/9/84
Variance Request
- SideiGt
Setback Requirement
SAME AS
Lot 70-A, Block
1, Berrchunrk
hAbdivisinn
OWGINAL
17.36.050 Findings Required, Crn't.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrivantal to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improve-
ments in the vicinity,
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
1. The strict, literal interpretation and entorcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title,
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone,
3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the arplicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same district. (Ord. 91-9 S1 (e)).
A motion granting or denying a variance should contain the specific criteria ar.d
findings upon which the action is based.
The granting of a variance may he conditioned on action by the applicant.
Respectfully Submitted,
Florin flood
Director of Public Works
Plannigj nd Zening_Fction:
'i L I
Approved as Reca nnended: _/_, �.--------..
Approved with Modified Conditions: ___..____-_---
Continued: _...._......... .... ................ - - — -- - --• .
Denied: -- _-•• _.__._,_...__.___ --..— _---
Dated:
rot ISOSecretary
i W/mml 3/6/2,4
:i
AV 0 N
C O L o R A D 6
January 7, 2003
Mr. Jerald Wuhrman
154 Commodore Drive
Jupiter, FL 33477
RE: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Sketch Design Plan submittal
Dear Mr. Wuhrman:
ME
Your sketch design plan application for Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek has remained incomplete and inactive since October 4, 2002 and is
formally being withdrawn.
It is the policy of this department that all incomplete zoning and design review
applications submitted and without activity for over 90 -days shall be withdrawn.
At such time as you are ready to resubmit this application or another application
for this property, please be advised of this policy.
Please contact me at 970.748.4004with any questions you may have.
Kind Regards,
/ r
Ruth O. Bo
Director of Community Development
Cc: File S-OR2002-15
Anne Martens, Asst. Town Engineer
ast Ofice Bos 975
400 Benchmark Road
Avon, Colomdu 8W(beslgn Reviow'9anchmark at Beaver CreekoBMBC Block 1IL70A 81 BMBC Withdraw Me=
970-748-4000
970-949-9139 Far
970-845-7708 TTY
AVON
C•0 L 0 R A 0 0
October 4, 2002
Mr. Jerald Wuhrman
154 Commodore Drive
Jupiter, FL 33477
Via Fax — 561.745.7347 (Mail -copy to follow)
RE: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Sketch Design Plan submittal
Dear Mr. Wuhrman:
Thank you for your submittal of sketch design plan for a duplex project on Lot 70A, Block
1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Unfortunately, we are unable to schedule this
application at this time due to the following issues:
Post 01lice Bor 975
400 Benckmerk Road
Avon. Cnlnmdn 81420
971-748-4000
970-949-9139 Fax
970-845-7708 TTY
1. The variance approving the side -lot setback has lapsed. The variance was
approved In 1984, and per the Town Code (as adopted under Ordinance #81-9)
at that time 'The variance shall lapse if construction Is not commenced within
one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion". It is this
department's determination that per this lode requirement the variance lapsed in
1985, requiring this design to conform to standard setback requirements.
Additionally, the building also appears to encroach on the western side -lot
setback when scaled.
2. Parking spaces proposed do not meet minimum size requirements of a minimum
width of nine feet and minimum depth of 18 feet Additionally, it appears that the
hammerhead does not provided adequate back out space for the parking stales.
3. A revised topographical survey stamped by a Registered Professional Land
Surveyor needs to be provided due to recent debris flows.
4. There is no scale on the elevation plans. The 'observation deck' appears to
encroach beyond the 35 -foot height maximum.
5. The west side lot boundary line in incorrectly labeled as N 010 30' 00" E. This
boundary should be labeled as S 010 39'00"W.
6. It appears that the drainage provided around the north portion of the building is
inadequate to carry the storm water runoff flows and debris flows that may occur
from the slope located north of the proposed building.
7. The proposed driveway for Lot 70A, Block 1, BMBC is not within the approved
access easement provided by Lot 70, Block 1, BMBC for Lot 70A.
8. Details need to be provided for the culvert size and invert elevations located
under Lot 70A's driveway.
9. The Drainage and Utility Easement, Building Setback Easement, and all
adjacent Town of Avon Right of Ways need to be shown and labeled on the site
plan.
10. The Drainage and Utility Easement shown adjacent to the west property
boundary is only shown to be 7 feet in width. This easement width needs to be
7.5 feet for the west property boundary.
11. It appears that proposed grading extends beyond the property line and outside of
the access easement.
12. Existing topographic grade lines should be dashed and the proposed
topographic lines should be solid. It is very difficult to read the site plan and
unclear which is topographic lines or other elements.
13. Top of Wall and Bottom of Wall measurements need to be provided on the site
plans for all retaining walls.
14. proposed grades cannot exceed 2 foot (horizontal):1 foot (vertical).
15. Positive drainage needs to be provided away from the building. This is of
particular concern for the north and northwest portions of the building.
16. Spot elevations need to be provided for the proposed garage slab elevation on
the site plan.
17. The boulder retaining wall shown on the South Elevation Drawing is not shown
on the site plan. The site plan and elevation drawings need to be consistent.
18. A graphical scale needs to be provided for the elevation drawing.
19. The proposed and existing grades need to the shown on the elevation drawings.
20. The Lot, Block, and Subdivision need to be included in the Title Block.
21. The driveway grades on lot 70 needs to be indicated on the site plan in order to
review how the driveway and grading ties into the existing conditions.
22. The driveway slopes exceed the maximum allowable slope of 100/0.
23. Window located on the east side of the structure appear to be below the
proposed grade.
Jerry, a number of these comments carry over from our review of your previous
submittal (November 7, 2001 letter) and appear to remain unresolved. At such time that
the above-Ilsted Items are finally corrected, and the plans revised to conform to setback
and height requirements, we will schedule the application for sketch plan review with the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
As always, please contact me at 970.748.4002 with any questions you may have.
Kind Regards,
Tambi Katieb, AICP
Community Development
Cc: File F-SR2002-15
Anne Martens, Asst. Town Engineer
FIDesign ReviewiBenchmark at Beaver CreekOMSC Block IV ot MA Bit SMBC Sketch 2002doc
November 7, 2001
Mr. Jerald Wuhrman
154 Commodore Drive
Jupiter, FL 33477
Via Fax — 561.745.7347
001412tt em
ILE
RE: Review Comments on Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Final Design Plan submittal
Dear Mr. Wuhrman:
The following are sufficiency review comments on your Final Design application for a
duplex residence 540 Nottingham Road, Avon, Colorado. Once these items are
resubmitted, reviewed, and deemed corrected by Staff, the file will be scheduled for the
next available Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Please address the following:
While you have attempted to correct and differentiate existing topographic lines
from proposed lines, the plan is still unclear and in certain areas, proposed
grades do not appear to work. Please redraw the plan so it clear that all
proposed topographic lines'finish' (such as proposed 7526 across the parking
area).
You are required to 'shade' areas over 40% that exist on this site plan. These
areas are to remain undisturbed, yet according to the plan submitted, this design
requires back of the homent grading in this area. appears to exceed a 2:1 slope int severalarrproposed grading at the
areas.
Please revise snow storage to provide the 25% amount required by the zone
district (Residential Duplex).
There still remain no inlet, outlet elevations, or sizing dimensions on the
proposed culvert at the driveway. Additionally, the culvert does not correspond
to the topographic survey of the existing asphalt driveway and will not work as
proposed. The exit of the culvert is not adequately designed to capture the
o
drainage flow, and will potentially result in flow sheeting across the access drive
for Bristol Pines and Beacon Hill.
The window proposed on the east side of the structure is buried below grade.
Additionally, drainage on that side is flowing right into the window.
p,,.rl ud;rr Bar Q75 . Drainage is towards the rear and side of the structure. We require positive
400 floic uwn'6' Ruud drainage away from the structure, even with the installation of a French drain.
. I Pup, Ced"n„b, :V b10
970-74N-41100
710-949-1137 FUS
770-843-7708 7TY
Y
i'
• The retaining wall at the east side of the structure will require grading beyond the
property line.
• The driveway grade will not be permitted over 10% in slope. it is currently at
13.5% in places. Heating the driveway will not be allowed to intersect the
existing access for Beacon Hill, since the poured concrete will not'pan' as
asphalt and cause vehicles to bottom out upon exit. Additionally, the driveway on
Lot 70 needs to be indicated on the site plan in order to review how the driveway
and grading ties into the existing conditions.
o The drainage swale on the west side of the building is. shown incorrectly. The
finished grades are pushing the water towards the side of the home and stairwell,
and there is no method to carry drainage across the driveway and below the
parking area.
The proposed stairwell on the west side appears to encroach into the 7.5'
setback and the 7.5' drainage easement. Please clarify and label and dimension
this stairwell and its associated retaining wall.
The extent of the use of moss stone Is unclear. Please clarify.
Mr. Wuhrman, there are yet a number of outstanding Issues related to this submittal that
will require modification of this design plan. Additionally, we will not'schedule this
application until we receive (in writing) a signed agreement from the Bristol Pines and
Beacon Hill Homeowners Associations approving the intent of moving the existing
access easement to your proposed location.
Additionally, should you receive design plan approval with the new access as proposed,
you will be required to vacate the existing easement and confirm the amended easement
via an amended plat for Lot 70 and Lot 70A prior to the Issuance of a building permit for
this project.
Thank you for your submittal. Please contact me at 970.748.4002 If you need further
assistance or clarification on what submittal items require correction.
Kind Regards,
Tambi Katieb, AICP
Town Planner II
Cc: File F-DR2001-35
Anne Martens, Asst. Town Engineer
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 04-24
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE LOT EASEMENT AND
SETBACK ON LOT 70A, BLOCK I, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER
CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO
WHEREAS, Jerald L Wuhrman has applied for a variance to construct a duplex which
would encroach into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement and 7.5' Building Setback
on Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, as described in the
variance application dated September 9; 2004 and sketch design plans dated August
26, 2004 as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant
and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain
information and reports regarding the proposed Variance application; and
WEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon has considered
he following:
A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity; and
B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcements of a specified regulations is necessary to achieve compatibility
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; and
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety; and
D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
proposed Variance.
FAPlnnning & Zoning Commimion%ResolutionsUOI)41Res 04.24 L70A 01 BMBC side [at setback variance.doe
s.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, Colorado hereby denies a Variance allowing encroachment into the
side lot casements/setbacks on Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision as described in the application dated September 9, 2004 and sketch
design plans dated August 26, 2004 as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal
Code; and based upon the following findings:
1. That the granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district;
and
2. Encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement on the western lot me
would be considered an obstruction within the easement; and
3. Other design alternatives exist that would not require encroachment into the 7.5'
Utility and Drainage Easements and Building Setbacks.
DENIED ON THIS 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2004
Signed: /
Date: 2 t ( o
Chris Evans, Chair
Attest:
Date:g cit ol00ti
Terry Smith, ecretary
F..\Planning & Zoning Commfssion\Resolulions\2004\Rcs 04-24 L70A BI BMBC side lot setback varianee.doe
............................................................
Qca
�
'
COL
«C3
LU
0
LU >
_
m
_ ......... ............ ....... ............... .—.......
}au•gsunnaods 1lou-a
E190 -121-98E 3xod
196E-E2Y-98E -auoNd
❑Qb60-103 'AlNfl❑3 31❑d3 'N❑AV JO NM❑1
01.12e„4OoagoUJwad
xOg
stsz xtlg •o•d 33N3QIS3d X3-idnC[ NdWHan/*1
saDInJas 6uluuold / u61sap
sa: opossy puo >lJo10 •E•21
E- 1
Z I
f _ Y:: -AoN
w
N
w I
w I C
g 0
s
i to
0-,02
14 tn On
in
10 In
,oDof 0- -, E_ 9 •SY1 M .0016E•i0 S
11
,09 ^ b
6
-
r
I� ,o dP l
J 30rNIraOOf
->
O
ID
J ^ ffi N L
Ln
' I o
g _
n
\ •°, > �nN1 q I J C
• h N tl L n n L N N O
n^ n L n Y N N i8 I 11�
l o 1 i r n n I m L
ON br) ^ ,mp x $ m qqq l a L
1 n a Y1 I I N r
o N a ,nof
^P L N .0-,2
^ »OrN raD--1 f-
/
t i
i.
OC • y/ 3 �tt
n / 8n S
o
e °N F T =
bti n CU a
o �
!b f t
-- - - ----------------------------------- - , , v` d• 1 U
ua • a d 1111 .0. loop ,C'G
-.Ts�si �:aa:aE• - - - � - — - — - - e F 3
r m
C 0
v� v }ua soa ,C}I114n 1 •+P .6L : 0 I
nOn ___-. a00u _____N P _ _______ ________ __ _ __ ____ ____ ______________ M tl
[U�KD
L t
11 O
L O rb N w tlI I O
x tf Pau YO••. II i Iv
V6 .0-,0Z LOY .0-109 • - a N I I q
01,
O > II
' t C a\ 1 z I I
'
i 0
�- II0
I
„\� �rj N I I;I Z
II
0+ v ti a I I ❑
a •I i•'• h
CU 11
NO n 11 Z
^[ cu
�D
O La,..
n L O Ul
o Lo
+ in a o,
cuc
u-0 0 -
al a + d•'
>oeo 0,y
L
3 aL
ul Cl° o
*�� im
a
'a
m 3. u a a
O a
L p `
N
0
L N
U
tl
tl
O
O
O i
i
I
4 t�
a
a a
w m m
C7
Z Z
3 i
13 F 1-
L L
tl tlo.
vj
N N
N a
w N N
N u N u N u
�" 84p� M
N Nµ(U4
4 w d w 4 a
E V) arms 10 CU
Y a+' a r tl
o u 0Y 0 Y
� L -` L 0 L
L a O a L a
O O- O O
4>!v > L, >
y J 6 J'G J
w NC C1
............ .................................................................................... .......................................................................... I.............. ....................
I
r _
o
i
m
-
u
_
E- 1
Z I
f _ Y:: -AoN
w
N
w I
w I C
g 0
s
i to
0-,02
14 tn On
in
10 In
,oDof 0- -, E_ 9 •SY1 M .0016E•i0 S
11
,09 ^ b
6
-
r
I� ,o dP l
J 30rNIraOOf
->
O
ID
J ^ ffi N L
Ln
' I o
g _
n
\ •°, > �nN1 q I J C
• h N tl L n n L N N O
n^ n L n Y N N i8 I 11�
l o 1 i r n n I m L
ON br) ^ ,mp x $ m qqq l a L
1 n a Y1 I I N r
o N a ,nof
^P L N .0-,2
^ »OrN raD--1 f-
/
t i
i.
OC • y/ 3 �tt
n / 8n S
o
e °N F T =
bti n CU a
o �
!b f t
-- - - ----------------------------------- - , , v` d• 1 U
ua • a d 1111 .0. loop ,C'G
-.Ts�si �:aa:aE• - - - � - — - — - - e F 3
r m
C 0
v� v }ua soa ,C}I114n 1 •+P .6L : 0 I
nOn ___-. a00u _____N P _ _______ ________ __ _ __ ____ ____ ______________ M tl
[U�KD
L t
11 O
L O rb N w tlI I O
x tf Pau YO••. II i Iv
V6 .0-,0Z LOY .0-109 • - a N I I q
01,
O > II
' t C a\ 1 z I I
'
i 0
�- II0
I
„\� �rj N I I;I Z
II
0+ v ti a I I ❑
a •I i•'• h
CU 11
NO n 11 Z
^[ cu
�D
O La,..
n L O Ul
o Lo
+ in a o,
cuc
u-0 0 -
al a + d•'
>oeo 0,y
L
3 aL
ul Cl° o
*�� im
a
'a
m 3. u a a
O a
L p `
N
0
L N
U
tl
tl
O
O
O i
i
I
4 t�
a
a a
w m m
C7
Z Z
3 i
13 F 1-
L L
tl tlo.
vj
N N
N a
w N N
N u N u N u
�" 84p� M
N Nµ(U4
4 w d w 4 a
E V) arms 10 CU
Y a+' a r tl
o u 0Y 0 Y
� L -` L 0 L
L a O a L a
O O- O O
4>!v > L, >
y J 6 J'G J
w NC C1
............ .................................................................................... .......................................................................... I.............. ....................
I
r _
..... .. ........................
II
a -i
II
..................................................................J
II
l0
II
lu
0
MEMO
N
M
~-1
Cl
W
,-
lzr
:3E
jl
v
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
01
ul
31
�I
NI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0)
C
0
0
L
_W
-'
0 I
u I
I
I
-r-__—_-I
4-
0
0
L
o -,se
co
0
a
0
u
3
-P
N
H I
p3�
N
d
4
0
u
u
3
41
N
L.....................................
II
a -i
II
..................................................................J
II
l0
II
II
�
II
II
_ �-
°o
jl
v
_0
d
d
�
I
Dl u
II
LLI l
II
N
D1
s
V)
0
I u
I -
N
S
I
�
I
a
0
u
3
-P
N
H I
p3�
N
d
4
0
u
u
3
41
N
L.....................................
..................................................................J
}au•gsu�nsods �llvu_a
LM-C21-98C
aqd
LS6E-E2Y-9BE �auoyd
OL12E l! 143oag vujRug Mary
SL82 xag '0'd
saDIA.4as (3uluuvld / u(31sap
sa}vl:)ossy puo )1,4013 •9•a
O(lVdO-103 'AiNnOO 3-l]d3 'NOAV 3❑ N/MO1
33N:IQIS3c� x3-icnd NVWHdnly\
I
a
a
II
I
a
I
b
Y
„
CYC
M
v°
p�
6
E`
9
a
II
I
�
a
I
\
p
I
�
�
I
a
I
-
�
I
I
J
quaI
�
0o
d
I
I m
\
d
�
0
Ul d
�-I LD
a
I
C3 If)
-Q
4
quaI
\
N
�
0
I
r
-
in
o
-P ODa
d
Qd1
i N
>
d
0
u
0
•
SOT
,9i
.E -,LT
4
N
v
� 0
n1
�
�
O •
V
L
4
o
S
U
r,
1 J
LLI
a8uo a
C
(�1�
lU
j
w0-109
�0-,OT MO
.Z
10-129
c
............................ ............ o
c 1
�
C- �
�.
.sl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:au•gsu:)naojs illou-a
E190 -121-98E -xoj
LS6E-62Y-98E au04d
01.12E -Ij 'NOoag I—Aws raN
9L92 xog •o•d
saDIAjas Buluuold / uelsap
sa: oDpossy puo >fuolo •cE•a
❑CIVK-103 'AiNnO3 333b'3 'N❑AV .10 NM❑1
:13N3QIS:lN X:i-id(1Q NVWH�inp\
O
I
I
V
c—�
f0
T
d
Q�
J
W
-F'
0
LL r
a
m
�
N
L
O
O
I
I
V
c—�
f0
T
d
Q�
J
W
-F'
0
LL r
O
-
I
LO
4
d-
O
_�
°'
ao
c—I
N
�
to
d
-
Oo
N
�
�
�
0
0
CL
0
00
u
i
N
0
I_
d
-----
N
0
(U
S 1
0)
J
-Q
TM-,zT I
w0-101
00
44�1
11�
.v0-109
w0 -10T
8. N)
.0-,Z9
'
.. .... ...................'..........I.........
CD
o 0
N
C3
Staff Report AV
ON
Minor Pro. ect - Fence C°L0RA El0
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report'Date June 16, 2005
Project Type Minor Project — Fence
Legal Description Lot 19, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision
Address' 5297 and 5325 Eaglebend Drive
Introduction
Deborah Gallen is proposing a cedar dog-eared fence (5 feet in height) to be placed along two
sides of the rear yard. Currently, there is a cedar fence located along the rear property line that
screens the railroad tracks. The request is for both properties referenced above and described
on the attached site plan. Because this application fails to meet the criteria for residential
fences, specific approval from the Commission is required. Attached to this report is a site plan
showing the approximate location of the fence and an illustrative detail of the proposed fence.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4.10, the
Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project:
1. Fence material shall be wood and no more than four feet in height
The proposed material is cedar pickets with a natural wood finish. The proposed height
of the fence is 5'.
2. Split rail design with no more than 2 horizontal `rails.'
The proposed fence does not utilize a split rail design.
3. Does not delineate property lines.
The proposed fence does delineate the rear yard property lines.
4. Fenced area is less than 2,000 square feet.
It appears that the proposed fenced would measure approximately 3,000 square feet
thereby exceeding the maximum allowable.
5. Wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed fence design.
Based on the location and extent of nearby development, wildlife migration would not be
negatively affected.
6. If part of a multi -family project approval must be received from the association,
and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design of the
property.
Not applicable.
7. If located on a duplex property, written approval must be received from adjoining
property owner and the fence design must be integrated with the overall
landscape design.
Not applicable.
j
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 19, Filing 2 Eaglebend subdivision, Minor Project-- Fence
June 21, 2005 Planning &'Zoning Commission Meeting
2 of 2
Staff recommends denial of the application for the fence located on Lot 19, Filing 2 Eaglebend
Subdivision because the application fails to meet criteria 1-4 of the Residential Design
Guidelines.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please do not hesitate
to call me at 748.4009 or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Heidemann, AICP
Senior Planner
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
lu
0
Lu
c
Ul)
CD
lV
co
•
Fencing and Screening
All fences require approval through a 'Minor Project and/or Modification' application. Although I.,
discouraged in Wildridge and Wildwood, in all instances fences should complement the property L,
landscape rather than contain the property. Fences that delineate property boundaries are not
permitted. Fences will be considered for approval by staff only when demonstrated by the applicant
that the design is consistent with the following criteria:
1. Fence material shall be wood and no more than four feet in height
2. Split rail design with no more than 2 horizontal 'rails.'
3. Does not delineate property lines.
4. Fenced area is less than 2,000 square feet.
5. Wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed fence design.
6. If part of a multi -family project approval must be received from the association, and the
fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design of the property.
7. If located on a duplex property, written approval must be received from adjoining property
owner and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design.
Applications that do not meet one or more of the above criteria can only be reviewed and approved by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Fencing should not delineate property lines. This type of fencing is no longer acceptable.
Erosion Control
Erosion control is essential at all building sites. Design plans must indicate the type, method, and
placement of erosion control structures on the property. A surety may be required to ensure proper
installation and maintenance of these items. Required erosion control techniques and Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for small residential projects are listed in the Pollution Control Plan
Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines Page 22
Adopted November 6, 2001 / Revised May 24, 2005
Q)
a
N%'
Alpo
-'iD
PC
L - -i
_ 83'
'yJ
S 249 22 2.
" W 1,30' 7
49. J
W Q (Z) a�
N' oo L1i
ZZ
3s 7
S 24'46'53" W 142. f f,.
o z7, Qk
C
� Imo.• CIO � I � •o; ; , a. ` ,-,; :. � � �.!
S 24'59 47 W 144.11
h'Vi
QJar, Jt
W
sCC
Q)
a
N%'
Alpo
-'iD
PC
L - -i
_ 83'
'yJ
S 249 22 2.
" W 1,30' 7
49. J
W Q (Z) a�
N' oo L1i
ZZ
3s 7
S 24'46'53" W 142. f f,.
o z7, Qk
C
� Imo.• CIO � I � •o; ; , a. ` ,-,; :. � � �.!
S 24'59 47 W 144.11
h'Vi
QJar, Jt
I J� Lq I lime
To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
From: Eric Heidemann, Commu�i evelopment
Date
June 15, 2005 4-
Re: Conditional Approval for Modification to Final Design of Lot 1, Chateau
St. Claire Subdivision
Background
At the December 7t", 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, the Minor
Modification application for the above mention project was approved subject to the
applicant providing an on site mock-up by June 21St, 2005. The purpose of the mock-
up is to illustrate what the proposed modifications (material and color) would look like.
Attached to this memo is a copy of the Minor Modification Staff Report, which outlines
the changes, the approved minutes from the December 7t~' meeting, and an 8.5 X 11
mock-up elevation. A representative of the property owner will be available to answer
question during the scheduled mock-up review which is scheduled for 12:00, June
21St, 2005.
SHAKE STYLE GONG. ROOF TILES,
5 COLOR BLEND
STAINED CEMENTITIOUS FASCIA,
TYP.
I" TH. BUILT UP FOAM BACKER
HEADER ACCENT
%"X6" HARDITRIM
FACTORY STAINED
%"X4" HARDITRIM
FACTORY STAINED
STAINED HEAVY TIMBER WOOD
BRACKETS
CUSTOM ACRYLIC FINISH (OMEGA
ACROTIOUE) OVER 5/6"
AKROFLEX FINISH MIN,
DIAMOND -WALL- HAND TROWEL
LIGHT TEXTURE, COLOR I
F.R.T. M. TOP RAIL, TYP.
F.R.T. HEAVY TIMBER NEWEL P05T
W/ DECORATIVE CAP, TYP.
CONT. F.R.T WOOD TRIM, TYP.
I X F.R.T WD. BALUSTER PANEL,
TYP.
2 X F.R.T M. BOTTOM RAIL, TYP.
4" DIA PRE -FINISHED (COPPER
FINISH) GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM W/ HEAT TAPE.
I" TH. BUILT UP FOAM BACKER
ACCENT
CUSTOM ACRYLIC FINISH (OMEGA
ACROTICUE) OVER 5/6"
AKROFLEX FINISH MIN.
DIAMOND -WALL- HAND TROWEL
HEAVY TEXTURE, COLOR 2
I" TH. BUILT UP FOAM BACKER
CORNER OUOIN ACCENT
MOCK UP ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-O"
Curtm C� iCt,@
j� rx x:s aa�.noa,
COPYRIGNT— ALL DRAWN AND WRITTEN
INFORMATION APPEARING WTRNN SHALL NOT
BE DUPUCATED, DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE
USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF
MNS DESIGN CROUP, P.C.
No. I DATE IssUm FOR,
1 04 19 OS PLANNING SUBMITTAL
SHEET TITLE:
MOCK-UP
PANEL
PROJECT No. SHEET No.
00032.1
S;A 4„ . MU -1
Staff Report
C O L O R A D O
December 7, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
Project type
Legal description
Zoning
Address
Introduction
December 3, 2004
Modification to Final Design
Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision
PUD
38374 Hwy 6 & 24
The Chateau St. Claire project (also known as the Geneva Crown Club) was initially
approved for final design on September 5, 2000. The original approval consists of 31
fractional -fee units, 6 employee housing units, 17 whole ownership units, 135 parking
spaces and a total of 4,127 sq. ft. GLFA of commercial space.
In July of 2003 the applicant received conceptual approval for a 'theme' change to the
exterior of the structure- from French Chateau to a Swiss Chateau. Some of the
conditions from that approval have been incorporated into this design submittal. Prior '.o
construction of an on-site mockup, the applicant is seeking approval of addition 11
exterior changes.
Some of the exterior site design changes evident on Sheet A1.1 include the following:
o ' Reconfiguration of stair access to an enlarged patio area on north (Highway 6)
side of the project. New patio design to include two gas -log fireplaces and
concrete pavers of a variety of colors. .
o New 'air handling' unit on the west side of the property to be screened with a site
wall enclosure.
o Size of transformer near garage entrance has been reduced and new enclosure
design provided.
o Relocation of outdoor hot tub from western property line to indoor pool area.
o New decorative steel fence added for security (visible on Sheet A4.1).
Various buildin., design esign changes are proposed including:
. o Removal of all window planter boxes.
o Window heads and sills changed from stained wood to built up cement stucco
detailing.
o Canvas awning removed from north outdoor patio.
o Baroque turret above main entrance has been modified.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
t
' t
Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivisi"Geneva Crown Club" Modifications to Final LL%;sign
December 7, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting . Page 2 of 5
o Main body stucco texture modified.
o New roof tile material with 3 color design.
o Building and site lighting.
It is important to note that some of the proposed design modifications are limited to
architectural elements, and details can only be approved with review of an on-site
mockup (as required by final design approval). The massing, building location, density,
and height remain unchanged with this application. This application was tabled from the
November 17th, 2004 meeting pending further design and grading details.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review
Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing
the design of this project:
1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Town of Avon Zoning Code.
• Allowed use: Fractional, timeshare, whole ownership, and commercial are all
permitted uses in this PUD.
• Density. The density approved was for a total of 54 units, which included 6
employee housing units. As part of a separate application, the .6 required
employee units would be eliminated and the final project density reduced to a
total of 49 fractional ownership units.
• Lot Coverage: Building lot coverage proposed is at approximately 22%, and
remains unchanged from the fult final design approval.
• Setbacks: The project complies with all setbacks.
• Easements: A new shared access design to benefit the neighboring property to
the east (Folson) is provided with this application. Several easements must be
executed by the Owner and the adjacent property owner to allow for this new
shared entrance and access configuration.
• Building Height The building height is restricted to 74 feet. The plans show
compliance with this height limitation.
• Grading: The proposed grading cannot be reviewed until a (revised) legible plan
set is submitted to the Town.
• Parking: Parking demand would be reduced with a separate PUD amendment
application by removal of the 'future restaurant' and 6 employee housing units.
Adequate parking is provided on-site.
• Snow Storage: A large portion of the entrance and main driveway is show -
melted. A significant portion of the remaining snow will be hauled from the site.
Drainage and associated pollution control structures are being provided to the
satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
Town of Avon Community Development . (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
r �
Lot 1, Chdteau St. Claire Subdivision,, "Geneva Crown Club" Modifications to Final i"osign
December 7, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 5
• Landscaping: The revised landscaping plan complies with the revised
landscaping guidelines with the exception of specifying the provision of a rain
sensor and the calculation of irrigated area. Another landscape plan will be
required in order to determine compliance with the current landscape guidelines.
I. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains.
The project appears to comply with the goals and policies of the Town.
3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements.
The project complies with existing development rights as approved in the PUD.
4. The final design plan is in compliance with all sketch plan approval criteria
and with all final design plan submittal requirements.
Site Development
o Site Design: Site design is unaffected by the proposed architectural
changes. Slight modifications to the site plan (Sheet A1.1) are bubbled in
on the reduced copy of the design plans. Please refer to the bullet items
above for specific changes to the site design.
o Site Access: Access from Highway 6 & 24 is being provided in accordance
with CDOT access requirements. Shared access to the neighboring
property is provided with this application.
o Parking and Loading: Surface parking is slightly modified to accommodate
an improved retaining wall scheme, a new front patio layout, and ADA
accessibility requirements. All parking -is in compliance with the approved
PUD and Town standards.
o Easements: As stated, several easements must be executed .with the
owner and property owner to the east in order to successfully complete
the project and design as proposed. At this time no easements have been
executed.
o Site Grading: A revised grading plan is required for review by the Town.
The submitted grading plan is no legible and it appears to only indicate the
10 -foot contours. Two -foot contours will be required.
o Drainage: Drainage appears functional. Some of the proposed drainage
occurs on the neighboring property to the east.
o Snow Removal and Storage: Snow removal is accomplished by a
combination of snowmelt and off site storage.
o Water, Sewer, and Trash Storage: Trash is being screened inside the
parking structure.
o Sidewalks: Sidewalks are provided in compliance with Highway 6 CDOT
and Town requirements.
• Building Design:
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 1, Chftteau St. Claire Subdivision, "Geneva Crown Club" Modifications to Final �csign
December 7, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 5
o Design Character. The design of the project now consists of a Swiss
architectural theme rather than French.
o Building Height Building height remains the same as the original final
design approval.
o Building Materials and Colors: The physical samples of the colors and
materials must be reviewed and approved separately with the on-site
mock up.
Some material changes include: corner quoining from cast stone to built-
up cement stucco quoins, and window head and sill details from stained
wood to built up cement stucco detailing.
o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest The texture of the
exterior stucco walls has been modified with this application. This will be
reviewed in detail with an on-site mockup.
o Outdoor Lighting: New lighting cut sheets are provided with this
application for site and building mounted light fixtures.
• Landscaping:
o Design Character. The landscaping plan provides adequate screening and
consists of appropriate materials that compliment the architectural style.
However, a revised landscape plan must be submitted which includes the
required irrigation calculations.
o Retaining Walls: The facing material finish -for the retaining walls must be
provided with the on-site mock-up. It has been requested that the location
of the soil nailing and shotcrete walls be verified to insure that the location
matches the civil plans. The engineer of record will need to certify that the
shotcrete walls and exterior walls correlate and were constructed per the
Engineer design and in their approved locations.
• Miscellaneous:
o Signs: No signage is included with this application. A separate master
sign program application must be submitted and approved by, the
Commission prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
6. 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 project is compatible with site topography and complies with the site plan
previously approved.
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 modifications to final design of theme comply with the guidelines with respect to
massing, style, height, and quality of materials.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5/4a
Lot 1, ChAteau St. Claire Subdivision, "Geneva Crown Club" Modifications to Final Dcsign
December 7, 2004 .Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 5
7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the
vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
The close proximity to the entrance of Beaver Creek and the Swiss/Alpine Chateau
theme of the revised elevations will not impair aesthetic values and should be
appropriate for the area.
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 goals and policies of the Town of
Avon.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the modified final design for "L'Auberge" on Lot 1,
Chateau St. Claire Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. The Commission will separately approve materials and colors after review of an
on-site mock up.
2. A revised landscaping plan that provides adequate detail on irrigated area and
irrigation operation will be submitted to staff for final approval. Additionally, any
landscaping and associated irrigation proposed on or adjacent to the walls needs
to be reviewed and approved by the Engineer of Record.
3. A revised site and grading plan (legible) will be submitted that clarifies finished
grading. Two -foot contour lines must be provided.
4. A signed and recorded access easelient for neighboring property owner's
access must be supplied to the Town with permission to grade and perform
construction on the property prior to submittal of revised site/grading plan.
Please refer to all comments on Memo (dated 12/2/04) from Anne Martens.
5. A Master Sign Program must be approved by the Commission prior to the
issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
6. The engineer of record must certify that the shotcrete walls and exterior walls
correlate and were constructed per the Engineer design and in their approved
locations.
7. Lighting is not approved. A complete lighting plan shall be provided at the time of
on-site mockup and must comply with the Town's Lighting Ordinance.
8. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations
made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in
public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of
approval
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielsticker
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
C 0
December 8`h, 2004
Michael Stornello
Parkill-Ivins
1480 Humboldt St.
Denver, CO. 80218
` ( Post Office Box 975
400 Benchmark Road
Aron, Colorado 8/621)
RE: LOT 11 CHATEAU ST. CLAIRE SUBDIVISION
38390 Hwy. 6 & 24
FINAL DESIGN MODIFICATIONS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED
Michael:
970-748-4000
970-949-9139 Fax
970-845-7708 TIT
On December 7th 2004 the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission approved
your design modification ("Minor Project") application for the `L'Auberge on Beaver
Creek' project on Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. The Commission will separately approve materials and colors after review of an
on-site mock up no later than April 2004.
2. Arevised landscaping plan that provides adequate detail on irrigated area and
irrigation operation will be submitted to staff for final approval. Additionally, any
landscaping and associated irrigation proposed on or adjacent to the walls needs
to be reviewed and approved by the Engineer of Record.'
3. A revised site and grading plan (legible) will be submitted that clarifies finished
grading. Two -foot contour lines must be provided.
4. A signed and recorded access easement for neighboring property owner's access
must be supplied to the Town with permission to grade and perform construction
on the property prior to submittal of revised site/grading plan. Please refer to all
comments on Memo (dated 12/2/04) from Anne Martens.
5. A Master Sign Program must be approved by the Commission prior to the
issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
6. The engineer of record must certify that the shotcrete walls and exterior walls
correlate and were constructed per the Engineer design and in their approved
locations.
7. Lighting is not approved. A complete lighting plan shall be provided at the time
of on-site mockup and must comply with the Town's Lighting Ordinance.
8. Colored elevations indicating the areas of proposed color and material
applications must be provided no later than January 4, 2004.
9. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations
made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in
public hearings) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of
approval.
If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at 970.748.4030
Cordially,
Matt Pielstic er
Community Development
Cc: File: M-DR2004-59.
F. Oanning & Zoning CommissionWeeting Letters1200411116041L1 Chateau Sub FD Mod cations tabled.doc
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2004
Council Chambers
Town of Avon Municipal Building
400 Benchmark Road
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Evans.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There are no additions or amendments to the agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Karow stated a conflict with Item VI, Minor Modification — The
Gates, Property Location: Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision/38390 Hwy 6 &
24, Applicant: Parkhill-Ivins, P.C., Owner: CSC Land, LLC and Item VII, Sketch
Design —Duplex Residence, Property Location: Lot 106, Block 1, Wildridge
Subdivision/3055 Wildridge Road.
V. Consent Agenda
Commissioner Smith motioned for the approval of the Meeting Minutes from the
November 16th, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; Commissioner
Savage seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
VI. Minor Modification — The Gates
Property Location: Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision/38390 Hwy 6 &
24,
Applicant: Parkhill-Ivins, P.C., Owner. CSC Land, LLC
Description: Michael Stornello of Parkhill-Ivins, P.C. has applied for the following
Minor Modifications to the Chateau St. Claire PUD: provision for shared access
with adjacent property to the east, relocation of light fixtures, change in exterior
building color/material, and various alterations to the exterior of the building. This
application was tabled at the Commission's last meeting in order for more design
details to be provided.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Mike Stornello approached the podium as representative of the developer, CSC
Land, and presented the sample colors for the project. He commented on the
outstanding items requested by Staff and remarked that they would be provided.
P:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\120704.DOC
Pagel of 6
Commissioner Savage questioned where the materials presented were going.
Commissioner Trueblood asked regarding the name for the project and Mr.
Stornello said the name is now L'Auberge at Beaver Creek. Commissioner
Savage asked for visual understanding of the colors and it was agreed that Matt
Pielsticker would email a CD made for last year's approval.
Commissioner Didier questioned the fireplace vents and was replied that floors 2,
3 and 4 are direct vent fireplaces. Caps were discussed and mentioned that they
would be painted, but they would be difficult to hide. Commissioner Didier
continued discussing the change in the initial copper roof material to a factory
finished patina look and the necessity for a 3-D model.
Commissioner Savage commented that an on-site mock up was needed to
understand the visual presentation. Mr. Stornello voiced that a scale model
doesn't get to the detail that it seems the commissioners are requesting but
would prefer to provide a color rendering. Commissioner Trueblood questioned
staff if Town Council has had the first reading of the PUD Amendment. Eric
Heidemann responded that it occurred "last Tuesday" (November 30, 2004) and
is scheduled for a second reading by Town Council on December 14, 2004.
Commissioner Didier and Commissioner Savage requested a north elevation
color rendering with the new colors and materials displayed and requested for
the next meeting. Commissioner Savage questioned if the access easement
had been addressed with the neighbor and responded that they were awaiting
neighbor's sign"off.
Commissioner Savage motioned for approval on Item VI, Minor Modification =
The Gates, Property Location: Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision/38390 Hwy
6 & 24, Applicant: Parkhill-Ivins, P.C., Owner. CSC Land, LLC with the 8 Staff
Recommendations and a modification to Staff Recommendation Number One to
read: The commission will separately approve materials and colors after review
of an on-site mock up to be delivered no later than April 30th, 2005, and a colored
elevation to be provided by January 4th, 2005. Commissioner Didier seconded
the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
VII. Sketch Design — Single -Family Residence
Property Location: Lot 76, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5651 Wildridge
Road East
Applicant: Andrew Abraham Owner: Ray Verlinde
Description: The applicant, Andrew Abraham, is proposing a single-family
residence (duplex zoned, lot) on a .55 -acre lot within the Wildridge Subdivision.
The proposed residence has a maximum building height of 33' 8". The proposed
materials include a stucco finish, wood siding, cor-ten corrugated siding material
on portions of the garage, cedar shake and corrugated roofing material and stone
veneer. The proposed square footage of the residence is 5,476 sq. ft., which
includes garage space.
F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\120704.DOC
Page 2 of 6
Ken Kovalchik presented the Staff Report.
Andrew Abraham, representing the applicant, approached the podium for
commissioner questions and stated that he appreciated input from the
commission on the design.
Commissioner Savage questioned the footage and the back up distance of
driveway area in comparison to the Design Review Guidelines. It was
determined that 24 feet was the requirement. Mr. Abraham commented that due
to the contours of the lot, this should be easily remedied and that drainage issues
were a drawing error and would be corrected.
Commissioner Savage and Commissioner Struve were opposed to corrugated
metal and cor-ten. Commissioner Smith was not in agreement on metal siding
and voiced concerned with cedar shakes as a fire hazard. Commissioner Didier
asked if the cor-ten is rusted and Mr. Abraham replied that it rusts quickly.
Commissioner Didier opposed the cedar shakes. "Commissioner Trueblood
suggested modifying the driveway to make it even. Commissioner Karow
commented that the cor-ten brought a positive aspect to the project, shingles
should meet town requirements and the driveway seems to span the entire site.
He mentioned that the house could be moved to lessen the asphalt impact on the
site:
No action required.
VIII. Sketch Design — Duplex Residence
Property Location: Lot 106, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision/3055.
Wildridge Road
Applicant/Owner: Andrew Karow
Description: The applicant, Andrew Karow, is proposing a two level duplex on a
.51 -acre lot within the Wildridge Subdivision. The proposed duplex has a
maximum building height of 30'. The proposed materials include a stucco finish,
wood siding and stone veneer. This revised sketch plan submittal is due to
significant design changes to the previous sketch design. The first sketch design
application was approved at your July 6, 2004 meeting. Changes to the original
sketch design include: 1) driveway configuration; 2) elevations; 3) retaining walls
have been removed; 4) duplex connection has changed; 5) building footprint has
changed: and 6) the amount of site disturbance has been decreased.
Ken Kovalchik presented the Staff Report to the commission.
Commissioner Didier questioned the turning radius' in the driveway.
Andrew Karow, applicant, approached the podium to address commission
concerns. Mr. Karow replied on the turning radius issue, and drainage would be
FAPlanning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\20041120704.DOC
Page 3 of 6
addressed prior to building permit issuance. Commissioner Trueblood
addressed the bridgeless aspect of the duplex. Commissioner Didier questioned
the driveway and the potential difficulty of leaving the site without backing out of
drive.
No action required.
IX. Final Design — Single Family Residence
Property Location: Lot 5, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/5039 Wildridge
Road East
Applicant/Owner. Leslie Roubos
Description: Leslie Roubous is proposing a single-family residence on the
downhill side of Wildridge Road East. The unit would total approximately 4,000
square feet of livable space and would require tiered retaining walls to gain
access. The Commission approved a sketch design for a duplex on the same
property earlier this summer. Additionally, the Commission reviewed and
provided feedback on a revised single-family design at their October 5, 2004
meeting.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report.
Michael Poukas, architect, approached the podium for commission questions.
Commissioner Struve suggested spicing up the garage doors and moving the
wine cellar towards the foundation for cooler temperatures. Commissioner Didier
and Commissioner Trueblood complimented the design. Commissioner Karow
questioned height and elevations.
Commissioner Trueblood moved to approve Item IX, Final Design — Single
Family Residence, Property Location: Lot 5, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/5039
Wildridge Road East, Applicant/ Owner. Leslie Roubos, with five conditions as
presented in the staff report. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and all
commissioners unanimously approved it.
X. Minor Project — Fence
Property Location: Lot 80A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision/2465 Draw
Spur, Unit A
Applicant/Owner: Bill Vancuren
Description: The applicant is proposing a 3' tall split rail fence on his property in
Wildridge. The fence measures approximately 24'x 16' and was constructed
approximately 2 months ago. All fences require specific approval from the
Planning Commission.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report.
Commissioner Trueblood suggested to get the word out to the public that all
projects need to get approval prior to construction and does not support this
FAPIanning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\120704.DOC
Page 4 of 6
project. Commissioner Didier commented that the fence was okay.
Commissioner Smith suggested the grading needed attention. Commissioner
Struve voiced fixing the grading to return it to its original look. Commissioner
Savage commented that the public needs to apply for design approval prior to
construction and does not believe that this fence was warranted. Commissioner
Karow stated that the Design Guidelines discourages fencing and he cannot
approve this application.
Commissioner Savage made motion to deny Item X, Minor Project — Fence,
Property Location: Lot 80A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision/2465 Draw Spur, Unit
A, Applicant/Owner: Bill Vancuren, due to the fact that proper procedure was not
followed and its site disturbance. Commissioner Trueblood seconded. The
motion carried 5 to 1 with Commissioner Didier dissenting.
XI. Minor Projects - Staff Approvals
A. Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, BMBC — Outback Steakhouse
Applicant: Don Shipp, Const. Manager Owner. Timberline
Company
Description: Remove existing exhaust, replace with upgraded exhaust and
duct system.
B. Property Location: Tract Q, Block 2, BMBC — Benchmark Shopping
Center
Applicant: Kent Beidel, Nova Entertainment Owner., Stoltz
Management
Description: New door for future business to match existing doors in
building.
C. Property Location: Lot 86, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Applicant/Owner. Frank Hamel
Description: Lengthening of non-structural retaining by approximately 87'
on downhill side of duplex.
Conversation continued with an item in the Vail Trail regarding the
Confluence parking as over flow for skiing this year. To date, Staff is not aware
of this issue. The. next issue discussed regarded the method to enforce penalties
for illegal zoning, design, construction plus those that have been denied.
Jonathan Levine and Chapel Square lighting fixtures issues were addressed.
IX. Adjourn
Commissioner Trueblood made the motion to adjourn. Commissioner Smith
seconded and,the motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at
7:25 pm.
FAPIanning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\120704.DOC
Page 5 of 6
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Andrew Karow
Vice Chairman
Terry Smith
Secretary
FAPlanning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\120704.DOC
Page 6 of 6
1
5°
ww w w
____
co cn W co
w
LL
�g
a
W=>-
Z:LLJ ?
wp_jL-
ww
d
8prtt=
C)F-acn
I
AA
fi
fi
o
h
Fp
o
/ ; • :.,
O
A
�
I
• , 1
• I• a
A O
�i
�
p
• I , ' I •
� '� «
N e
:i soa e� a
r
• I •, , , • , " r
� �
N
9'{I
I
5Z , I
W
is
iK;
o
_
5°
ww w w
____
co cn W co
w
LL
�g
a
W=>-
Z:LLJ ?
wp_jL-
ww
d
8prtt=
C)F-acn
I
AA
fi
o
h
Fp
o
/ ; • :.,
O
A
�
I
• , 1
• I• a
A O
�i
�
p
• I , ' I •
� '� «
N e
:i soa e� a
r
• I •, , , • , " r
� �
N
9'{I
I
5Z , I
W
is
iK;
o
_
—
SzL
r I ,
"
/
R
WA A A
W �F�
co Y Y
5°
ww w w
____
co cn W co
w
LL
�g
a
W=>-
Z:LLJ ?
wp_jL-
ww
d
8prtt=
C)F-acn
I
fi
o
h
Fp
o
�
g e
Ippp
� '� «
N e
:i soa e� a
�
j3�{r �CqE
9'{I
I
5Z , I
psi �op�♦p�
iK;
o
0
big
SzL
^•
SSoo-Ut (oi6)xtj .9699
;6LV(OL6)
9 03'111A ocrvuoqoo "
Z5
9kimoo alova
got qnS Ailikk
IsIMPEOSGIMMA41 SCS MOA V JO NMOIodo;fpe—po :IWI ONI"I'110 3s ae awlio
:)Il Tu!AaiunS aDGMGrIIAk ' ZXDOrI9 ' tt JLOrl gooell l/go Ud YO DIV ua mrbV
asues 9109 cTVW DIMMIDOdOl
00
0
Z.
oll.
L)
Ca
z
zi
:elZOZ
ol
o
a A a u 10
Ln
j
A
m
yW Nil
U-
C!
it i
�����
L)
<
PY
j
A
m
yW Nil
C!
it i
�����
o $ R C
���� 1 5 v
__ z ..
s E �✓ 5z sig= �-,
fiLL
O
§983 9 [S. N -12; IJ
u! c p °
00 0.11W O.
s $ob
.0 IEV ' 8 1 , h
s5 Ob`o33 o mbvc�i
jB
a1- b= g1O3 Oj07c
g Zg$ �c
K, E 5,9-. S$ o
� ci
OoNt'm4�3
bi' M. lo FW°S°d OO u
SsXJ.t
= v 410 8 5 $ x••14 O "! �X
Q i
F
n�
$ O
sm
a �5
a `� �. P
�
O �cc
E a3 �
+--I E
�E S Dov
08 3t
.its
` 2 _ _ _ N
W 0 r l Cs x
W .i N 0 0 0 y
m K F` H H N
arimUa
o2 �.GS 000 G
FuSI Cd N N N
/—
CO
FSI *—yam 0. ;� » >
r-
'� wJ cois�� �� < M3 a O
u Cdy L EEE y
FSI 1�T\1 U Q W la0 0
U
N
O O }�' c� s. .. LI ' "1 U u u O C
r^is
o O Occ '3 E O
Z F e
1$o�r i q E
0 c
3cE
U ° < mN f) N
O n= no �8oa g E 000 c
n °u
. O r
W
JN
W ..cr
NMI
J a OO O
1� O a 6 t-
CO
O
0
20 le
1-no E �
6 u
Is $gffi��°
N �{
3 u�qS� SN�'••O� G
N =y of
00
o ��'� x�
o g
s° N� s�m $
N Ha S� �o� ayyb
SOtf nNyx ' SO
Ldg1
Lu p:s4
Q O
LO N N �� Eo E"t Y
Md vrc o� i$; �o
.row jivam
5; �g
z r
°s 'm$' �5
N o�'n` "`g3 E•�� � n s s..
(n
0 s � � 2 Sp
48s
0
Id
Cd
0
0
,
W W W W
o
17 0 v N b
Mvi
a
w
w
J
pqQ
W
z =
J �
J J J
W
Z
J
Q
J
"'o a II
\�6 t0.gl I� -jo N 'I I;
yam/ vo /2 j� % y� 10.0' —{I I 'I
/ oO
a
N
[ /
N m ISS � S{tl II O -
EEE 10.0' -�I
36 -
II Rtl ��
b
o &41
I \
�•e SZOO g � �11 SII \ r� \ II b
,00.041 rn n n z c Y
p _ I ZZ.ck: O ¢ h- U m
•.0.01 Q
_ J O
$� < _
Z _ � O
J
mgO O
I �
gli
i
Cd'od-U0 I,'Y(d WWI, COOU[L►'bnp'1gQ-YIOSOVWMl�DUlOSO4d
bLZO-84G—OL6 Oa`d d0100 'NOAV d0 NMO.L
Z >I001e '36alaa'um r g F-
OZ9LS oadao-100 'NOAV w
Z90L xoe o d 'a*n*ci >i33a0 kaa = d'
£ aNV 'Z 'L S101
011 ONIMMNION3 N102db'WN`d1d 311S ` N
Ae 9NDSNa1 Wo 'ON
•Aluo 62eod+nd w8*,j..M ml •m alU+dlool 6WDN08 'lZ
'•ay At H-62 Amlluot
041 m1 $PDA m/Puo oWl W SDBW40 Ip +ol MOM 8q I1040 8ImUO•1D •pL 2
M08 ,OS
Yot to .dole uinwlului o to :e ICN a No umi;�o o •Dojo mic Ddun -al Qb08 llb2)1 Ol0 0
U
'qq•p 6Wpo+6 ON -0410 "041oolun •sodols pquold No to mmol Duo sdo li) J
W
t llo Pum+ AIrorNO+oel Q_`T]nl 3lOHNvry Z
•M/eu 62l-410 e..pn )ualpom a3M3S ONLLSIX3 1Nva0AH
YS•Z wnunUw D Spinom Duo Alelomaw S•Ul Moe 115 g0>laod
3ald ONUSIX3 0
A godm mol R004R1s 010- to Ilouru pm10u ml mpinad I1040 cepa6 M4OIWi IN 'Ll 111SI03d O9' -• .. , N
•qm- 411.. 6ulpooaad Ol mlm puo A16101pa" 1001140+Y 'Si r j� 318YO ONLLSIX3 ` ['BLO9P `� t f,� ,y.Ogoq
041 to UORWI)D -41 01 146' .q Iloys sOPou6 411x, .91—doinip m .p lDuoo '9l `t �/ ri � IX ... W Z
puo 62lou puou06 neo oauopnm+d o4ol sbulx,o+p OUlamd. uo $11016P P 062&•ION of '91 _ _ V
,; i
• ROM -41 411- NP-s"Id 01 "lid )ogl4o+Y s41 10 pxo+ddo 041 UOIQO IroW PW $•mey 1Y1SIO3d
puo .pod 'collo- 'gDawmDd 4gloM 6UpnpW '$Dom Ilo Ino 01010 11o4. (s)mjDo+luOO '+l r1 ) 7 3NOHd ONUSIX3 ,fd
•$.WI yo- Ip 4$Ilggem 01 mAonms p-mo011 o Aoldun 11048 (S)m)a0+luO3 '[t ~/ 1 - 1 � � J' Y 0 C Y"�+' 3Nn mou O
•mnuoulpm Duo .0p0a olgoaliddo I10 411- Alduma Iro4• 4+0- NY 'Ll 1 _ ` 1 ;^'b . ,'/I HO110 ONLLSIX3 O
•.ny)o Puo allgnd SVR Ymlx+luoO /I ,'^I+ ' 0
+•410 '+su-0 041 10ryo+d Ol o6j""m Puo .uq)omdo Allo2 jue—ldOM puo I-ilp 1 I u w,'<'-^' i Z
0l Allnvauodsu op$ �mj..,j000 •47 Oq Iro4. 11 'A)ndad puo .uo0md lagoud q
'6upu•n0.. m spo4low luswdlnDO •9pinlow Almlo. Ale»d6 lou op .6ulMOup 62041 'It
looquoa .141 Io w1jo+np 041 "l afro- Nw 4 ulD)uloI 1
puo )agoud Apmdo+d 01 poyn0-+ so sdq. A"ms0osu NO n1q HOW (•)ao12CAU03 •lel 1 • ' a
•gamwtxo+dul I t
olp p.sodoud pm BUlolxm uS--loq sopuods+o.lp Ip l0 w1looUllou u•11U- opy,o+d g lOVa1 1' I / �',••'
.0
.4°•0°' <
•eylwmW6u3 1001u4"1000
041 Aq po"doud lmdoN 01106 041 411M Swop"= W coq Naw WiloodwoD In
•uonY21-41-
tu-ol mVl Puo Alu-0 -1603
4RI- w,00-3 1104$ 40--10-14011P-1U uoparu).uoa +a4lo Auo puo Una pooa •L
•uollorulawo o) +q,d -.p,-+ 8J62u16u3 041 ml IVIS103d
muopaouuoa OD1xmS ARINIn PO.odoud 6u1 -o48 6ul-op epy,ad 01 ")aoquo3 IDAu0o '9 3NOHd ONLLSIX3 j •/ y� ' ! �,. .'".-+�.• �]
•m0u16u3 641 Aq MM•pu •q ol uopoaol 4119 / II I I. `.
)nm ue•la nM•S 0py ad '.9-,S /o mnoa wn-411 - -4 1104. matin. n -.S ••ay m$ A �+•-7
n)o- pueomnpun 10 nnoa wnullulw too) woo ulolWOW •s.dld **"a puno+6npun 3SnOH ONLLSDf3
Am.. Puo isp. u.SMpq uoRDmOu wnuq.M. 1••1 of qupyj •uollaNl.uoa n -S. d0 NOLLY001 31rrvIX0addY
pW
uo n1D- ml .uolleapp0d0 ReDR10 uallDl;uOS puo AIDM nolo 81603 01 wD;UD3 'S /•./ /^\ I '
•nu -0 041 touollao�.11o. •4l of Smwquo
dxm emlaop 041
10 •q p04$ m100+1u00 W7 Aq P•6owoD. u111N)n uo )o uapomlcSa •umyeum4R ssI+KW </ \p ' I I„�`„'rr ' •. '' , R _ d
Auo puo ssm)angs m s011IN1n of o6oump Auo ml Olgleuodes+ eq 11049 m)awluoO n�•�
04) to s620yd No Dump WIJAD"l 641 u101Uow puo .olItNin Ip go0ol 11042 "Raoquop / \ nI Qp 1 �` ,�•'•• I
•qL •1o0+)uoo 0410 uo AD MlrolsW Duo p•pq•p m uso4s lou " oSmI)anul$ /♦ �� / -"•.. \ / b
A ..111d1n punom+Spun to ug10a01 041 "1 olgl.uod0u IOU q mU6u3 m4` •uglo0el / / / _ "C'`.
laoxm -040 01 P0D0o)W lou Duo Aluo wllouimpl "I pmloalpW sm olllNln u1Plx3 Y / �� // �..\ \ -�_ // ..._._. I I (•F=: '� I .'1: 71
uglaruls 6W 621 qm
)04) 'sn1ID6 po 'puo 'ASDMpo10 81101 '$OWI
A+oPdoo-d tYOO1IN0R15n. -0c4u1g1n1l-s ABeUwpnpU 'uepouuolU011. \/ \ . _.//...... // / '`-III-..._ , •I' t I Y �:;!\1p"`t
Y
6U1gxe Alien q mlaoquoO •lp
•uoeY l0 a-ol 841 PUG ib Mo SUI Io pnaddo )Mgll- OWI,
WI \\ /\\ /./ \\ /'.. -,. -.. ..-... II �' `ti'' ;;i• R
Ilu'll W1,10 5000 oVl Io oplelno Pgpaol m ul0wo+ q pgou6pop uopolmBm m 62q) n / / . • ' I
BURN-- uo W0)OIP lou 00 'SWI 11011 laorluoa 841 N -WI 11-11 uo0an+puoO -4L 2
/
a3Wa0dsNral
—412-1dg•�: '
glaoud ♦\ / v ONLLSIX3
n6o
)usuuan lo08 411m nuowio;wo W lo+luoa uolson opyo+d 1104. mlaoquoO 04L •t /
1N3W3SV3 A1nan aNr
SS300Y NOWWOO M3N
IN
• ��� •� .��. _ ..�..� +fit
3
1N3rv3SV3 Alnlln
— • .... -• / f ) 9 ioi �j`'
Cut B ON SS303Y
I l'10l . .... ,.� NOWWOO ONUSIX3 MW
( I (dAl) A3rv3SY3"
I I 30VNIvas
O ONY �// v Sr- \
I I ._ 'Al11LLR SS300r ,OZ
.I I I 3arund( r -'//
LOVal I - I i a soeoad - I : "v"" _ JJ /'. +sore ":7 ,P<.'• t �% \
��.._...r ./p I/r
i41ra6 F \��
01 3arao
Ir-----
(dAl) 83O1n01iS / I
L` • 'r + 13AYa0 .l ..-... I 3$003 ONILSIX3ND(OU !0
(dAl) 3ONjo sump .,.^-'-• �// NOLLYOOI 31rWIX0addtl
(du) )love // / L------
I�13s ONMOS .Ol t---+
31,1I1 AlWd0ad
II C
`'(dU)'3Nn
lol
A1N0 S3SOdafld I '..tie s Y:..._.._._ •�
.39.1.151, - ��--
3ALLraLsn111 150!
-(dU) 1NIad 1001
ON1011n8 ,osx,0Y _I .. �..• : J
• I 1N3W35Y3..l1nLLR' _.-•
- _. _. ... ... aNr '30VNlraa ,s•z I 31YOS 1113A
_ 1-- oz -J
\/ 31vOS ZaOH
£ 107 .....lp. • 1 { / /.... 09.10+1 00+1
\ • ` \ r/
/�. V.
Otte
� lOba1 '• � :-
- I I
i r
8 NOIL33S-SSOS3 area
Sb 101
S_.l
31vos 1a3�
oz+.I
31rOS ZaOH
¢9r++) 00+1
v NO1103s-SSO83 OVON
Otte
F
Staff Report
PUD Amendment
June 21,
Report date
Project type
Legal description
Current zoning
Address
Introduction
Commission meeting
June 10, 2005
AMENDMENT to the WILDRIDGE PUD
Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
PUD (4 units - Four-plex)
2510 Old Trail Road
Blue Bird Meadows, LLC is proposing an amendment to Lot 44, Block 2 of the Wildridge PUD to
create 3 single-family residences. The subject property is currently zoned to allow a total of four
(4) dwelling units (one fourplex building). The new lots would be accessed off Old Trail Road
via a shared common access easement located on Lot 45. The details of the proposed access,
site design, and compatibility with adjacent land uses are discussed later in the report. It is also
important to note that the PUD application is being reviewed in conjunction with a preliminary
subdivision plan, and a subdivision variance application.
The proposed PUD amendment would change the existing access conditions, increase the
minimum landscaping requirement from 25% - 35%, reduce the overall density by one dwelling
unit, and decrease the maximum lot coverage from 50% - 40%. Some of the features of the
amendment include:
Proposed: Lot #1 — 29,098 square feet, Lot #2 — 20,560 square feet, Lot 3 — 19,384
square feet.
5,000 square feet of building area per lot (15,000 aggregate) illustrated building
footprints of approximately 2,400 square feet.
Maximum 40% building lot coverage (for example Lot 1 - 29,098 @40% = 11,639)
• Setback 25' front, 7.5' side, 10' rear
Lots 1,2, and 3 accessed by common access easement on lot 45.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends DENIAL of the proposed PUD amendment, subdivision variance application,
and the preliminary plan for the following reasons: (1) the application fails to meet or advance
land use and housing goals/policies (Policy A1.5, C1, C1.4 of the 1996 Comp Plan) relative to
establishing or maintaining an appropriate mix of dwelling unit types for both lower and middle-
income seasonal and year-round residents and their families; (2) the proposed development
may be compatible in design, scale, and use with the types housing in the area, however a
multi -family building would also be compatible with multifamily developments in the area,
particularly the enclave of multi -family developments along Draw Spur; (3) although the
Town of Avon Community Development
(970)748-4030
Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge Su. -ision, PUD Amendment r
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 8
applicant proposes to reduce the allowable lot coverage by 10%, the extent of total site
disturbance for 3 single-family residences may exceed the extend of total site disturbance of a
clustered fourplex development; (4) the use of the proposed shared access between Lots 1-3
may be problematic when compounded with traffic generated from the duplex and single-family
residence that currently operates a home occupation (child daycare facility); and (5) based on
the memo from Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief ERFPD dated June 15, 2005, the design of the
shared access easement lacks sufficient emergency service provisions such as adequate
turning movements (see attached memo).
Housing Policy.
According to the purpose statement of the Housing Element of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan,
.as the community grows, demand for housing of all types is increasing. While there is an ample
supply of housing for second homeowners and upper income residents, there is a shortage of
housing for lower and middle-income seasonal and year-round residents and their families."
The following goals and policies are intended to help meet the variety of housing needs: provide
for affordable housing for permanent and seasonal residents that is attractive, safe and
integrated with the community; and there shall also be an appropriate mix of dwelling unit types
for both residents and tourists. It is debatable whether a multi -family development directly
correlates into "affordable or attainable housing" for this segment of the population. However, a
multifamily project, in general, provides greater housing opportunities for lower and middle-
income residents and their families.
Despite these objectives, it appears that the balance or mix of dwelling types in Wildridge has
slightly changed as a result of market demand for single-family residences. This is evident with
the approvals of several PUD amendments (down zonings) that have occurred over the last
several years. The most notable are the originally platted lots 4346, Block 2 (4 units each) that
were approved as a PUD amendment, particularly on the adjacent property (Lot 45). While
there may be less market demand currently for multifamily housing development, the long term
demand for housing types may shift, leading to a broader public policy issue and need for a
formal housing strategy.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Use:
The adjacent land uses include Wildridge Road to the north, Tract F (5.15 acres of Open Space)
to the east, single family to the south, and single family/duplex to the west. The property to the
west also includes an approved daycare with a maximum of 6 children allowed at one time
(including the 2 children of the applicant's). The operating hours are from 8:00am to 5:30pm
Monday through Saturday. The drop-off of children is intended to be staggered.
The application states that one of the positive impacts of approval will include "... maintaining
and enhancing the existing residential quality, character, design, and scale of the
neighborhood." Staff agrees with this statement, but must point out that a multifamily
development would also be compatible with several nearby developments. The following multi-
family developments are within close proximity (Draw Spur Road) of the proposed amendment:
Villamonte Fourplex, Romanin Triplex, Draw Spur Townhomes, Sage Villas, Wintergreen
Townhomes, Mountain View Townhomes, Coyote Creek Townhomes, Buffalo Head
Townhomes, Elk Run, Eagle Ridge Townhomes, Sunset Townhomes, Orchard Townhomes
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Y Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge S4__ivision, PUD Amendment
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 8
The following is a zoning summary for Wildridge Blocks 1 and 2:
Current Zoning: Single -Family Duplex Multi-Familv
Total Lots Block 1
27
47
21
Total Lots Block 2
26
24
4
Site Design:
The site contains moderate topographic conditions with a gradual upward slope from Old Trail
Road. There are two relatively small areas (a portion of Lot 1 and Lot 3) of slopes 40% or
greater. The applicant has provided a survey depicting these areas (see attached).
The site design features a shared access easement partially located on Lot 45. This would
require widening the existing drive for Lot 45 from 12' to 16' and adding a 1' gravel shoulder.
The first 190' would be located on Lot 45; from there the access easement would traverse
across the subject property splitting proposed Lots 1 and 2 and terminating at Lot 3. A draft
copy of the shared access agreement between the property owners of Lot 44 and 45 is included
in the packet.
Due to the nature of the shared access, careful consideration should be given to provisions for
emergency services and the impact of not only the average daily trips (ADT) generated from the
proposed 3 single-family units, but also the ADT generated form the duplex and single-family
residence located on Lot 45. According to the data provided by the applicant, each single-family
residence generates 6 ADT. Therefore, the aggregate ADT for both Lot 44 and 45 would be 36
ADT on the proposed private drive (excluding the ADT generating from existing day care). A
memo provided by Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief of ERFPD also points to the lack of design
consideration relative to emergency service and recommends that the site plan demonstrate
sufficient vehicle access and turning movements based on their turning radius analysis.
The application also states that the minimum setbacks are 25' — front, 7.5' — side, and 10' —
rear. However, this is inconsistent with the setbacks illustrated on the preliminary plan. The
applicant has since clarified that the minimum 25' front setback would only apply to Lot 1. The
Commission discussion should include whether the minimum 25' setback for Lot 1 satisfactorily
addresses appropriate building separation for Lots 1-3.
The building footprints depicted on the preliminary plan are for illustrative purposes only. Staff
has asked the applicant to provide building envelopes describing the location of all possible
building and accessory use disturbance. The applicant's preference was not to provide building
envelopes, instead preferred to demonstrate potential building footprints. The rationale behind
this request was to analyze the impact of a "clustered" development (fourplex) compared to
single-family detached development. Although the applicant's proposal includes reducing the
maximum lot coverage by 10%, the location and extent of that disturbance is important to
understand. It appears that there may be a greater opportunity for larger contiguous areas of
non -developable or undisturbed areas with the fourplex development compared to 3 detached
single-family units.
Background & Discussion
Benchmark Properties created Wildridge Subdivision in 1979 shortly after the incorporation of
the Town of Avon on February 28, 1978. According to the Wildridge Final Plat application for
Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions, the overall development concept was for "abundant open
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge Su. _ ision, PUD Amendment Y
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 8
space recreation areas around lots" with a density of "barely one dwelling unit per acre". The
land was identified with no particular hazards for development except in areas with slopes of
40%. The development plan recognized that lot sizes are a function of land slope, buildable
area and road access; smaller lots are concentrated on lesser slopes with easy access and
larger lots are on steeper slopes where buildable area and access are more restricted.
In 1981, the Wildridge Subdivision was completely replatted with a- total of 849 planned
development units and is the foundation of the current zoning in Wildridge. Over the years,
there have been several PUD Amendments and transferring of development rights.
Recently, there have been several PUD Amendments in Wildridge Block 2 wherein
development rights have altered and replatted - the most recent of those include: Lot 10/11,
Block 2, WR; and Lot 43, Block 2, WR.
PUD Design Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zoning Code, Section 17.20.110, the following shall be used as
the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate
that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following
design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular
development solution is consistent with the public interest. It is important to note that this
application was received prior to the adoption of the effective date of the Public Benefit Criteria
for PUD amendments (Ordinance 05-03, May 20n'•2005).
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives.
The fundamental reason for having a Comprehensive Plan is to generally communicate
where and how land uses may and will occur in the Town. The land use plan is based upon
these goals and polices. Implementation is through annexation, subdivision and zoning
regulations.
This proposed PUD Amendment satisfactorily complies with some of the policies, but fails
compliance with the following goals and polices of the Town Comprehensive Plan:
Policy A1.1 Development and redevelopment will be of a scale and intensity
appropriate for the neighborhood in which it is located.
The current Wildridge subdivision did not contemplate development of
single-family dwelling units on the subject property. In fact, the original
Wildridge subdivision appears to have specifically created larger lots on
steeper slopes, because the buildable area and access was identified as
being more restrictive. The subject property has approximately 35' of
roadway frontage that is insufficient to accommodate the creation of 3
single-family lots.
Policy A1.3 Flexible zoning such as PUD should be encouraged where it results
in more effective use of land. However, such flexible zoning will
only be allowed where it provides a benefit to the community and is
compatible with surrounding development. Variations from
standard zoning must be clearly demonstrated, and will be permitted
only as needed to achieve effective development.
The applicant states that the proposal would be beneficial to the
community and compatible with the surrounding development. The
Town of Avon Community Development • (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
F Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge SL_ ivisiOn, PUD Amendment
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 8
proposal calls for a reduction in density (25%), reduction in the number of
vehicle access points, additional landscaping requirements, and a 40%
maximum site coverage. Staff agrees that some of the proposed
standards (landscaping and lot coverage) would enhance the overall
design of the project. However, staff maintains that the overriding concern
with this application is with the reduction in density and the maintenance
of mixed dwelling types, which was the basis for the zoning of the
Wildrige PUD.
Policy A1.6 Land for open space should be preserved throughout the
community, particularly on steep slopes and other environmentally
sensitive areas.
The Wildridge PUD created a residential subdivision that focused on the
preservation of open space, and avoidance of development on steep
slopes and natural drainage patterns. Tract "F" is a 5 -acre parcel of
natural open space located immediately to the east of the subject
property. By maintaining the existing development rights and developing
one single structure, there is a greater opportunity to create larger
contiguous areas of undisturbed natural area adjacent to this tract with
the potential of enhancing the existing open space area.
Policy A3.7 Steep slopes in and around the community should be designated
and preserved as open space wherever possible.
A portion of the subject property contains slopes in excess of 30 - 40%.
Of particular concern are the 40% slopes located along the border of the
building envelop depicted on Lot 3. Careful design consideration will
have to be demonstrated in order to construct the size of home proposed.
Goal C1, Provide for diverse, quality housing to serve all economic segments
and age groups of the population.
The application contends that it will provide a single-family residential
development that will maintain and enhance the character of the
surrounding neighborhood. It appears that the application emphasizes
compatibility issues and fails to address the broader issue of providing
diverse mix of dwelling types that serve all segments and age groups of
the population. Furthermore, the application fails to offer or provide any
assurances or guarantee that the single family homes provided will meet
the stated goal of providing "for middle income and year-round residents"
Without any assurances or price guarantees, staff would consider the
construction of multifamily to more adequately meet these needs in
Wildridge.
Policy C1.1 Maintain and enhance the character of the residential
neighborhoods of the Town.
Because of the diversity of housing types within the immediate area, both
the proposed single-family and multifamily developments would be
compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area
design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge Sub....sion, PUD Amendment
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 8 '
The application may meet the design guidelines of the Town, however, on the roadway
cross-sections, it appears as if the driveway has a negative superelevation value at the
horizontal curves shown in Section A and Section B. A supplemental plan correcting the
driveway cross-section and including a centerline profile and curve data of the proposed
driveway would be required per Avon Municipal Code Section 16.20.180 (3).
3. Design compatibility with the Immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent
properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones,
character, and orientation.
Though there may be merit in the application of single-family homes in this block of
Wildridge in place of multifamily dwellings, the requisite changes to traffic patterns, bulk and
massing, existing buffer zones, and character of the area are not positively affected.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
As noted previously, the function of the proposed shared access relative to the
anticipated ADT may create access and circulation problems for future residents of these
properties if approved as submitted.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that
affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
The application does not appear to negatively affect a known geologic hazard (no
documentation has been provided)
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The site plan and location of buildings appears to be far less responsive to natural
features of the existing topography than a single fourplex structure per existing PUD.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
offsite traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan.
Please refer to previous transportation comments.
B. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
The landscaping will be reviewed through the design process should the -PUD be
approved, but it appears as though it can be designed to preserve the views and function of
the subdivision as proposed. However, single-family units would likely increase site grading
and disturbance resulting in less natural area.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall
clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without
relying upon completion of future project phases.
The PUD amendment application is predicated on approval of a preliminary subdivision
plan and subdivision variance application, which has been submitted in conjunction with the
application for review by Town Council. Staff has recommended denial of the variance
application because the rationale for the request fails to meet the hardship guidelines
necessary to recommend approval.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
e Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge Suo_.vision, PUD Amendment
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 8
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems,
roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
With the exception of inadequate design of the shared access relative to fire protection
considerations, adequate facilities are available to service the proposal and the applicant is
requesting no extension to municipal services.
11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated
traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD.
The proposal appears to comply with capacities originally contemplated in the first
Wildridge PUD approval. However, the shared private drive appears to be inadequate given
the existing and proposed uses of both Lot 44 and 45.
12. Development Standards
As noted previously, development standards have been submitted for the PUD amendment
and summarized within the report.
Subdivision Variance Criteria:
The variance requested is from Section 16.040.330 which states that "each lot shall have
frontage width on a dedicated street of no less than twenty five feet." As proposed Lots 2 and 3
do not have street frontage onto Old Trail Road.
(a) Upon application by a subdivider, the Town Council may, at its discretion, grant
variances from some or any requirements of the subdivision regulations based upon the
following criteria:
(1) Whether a strict, literal application of these subdivision regulations would result in
an undue hardship to the subdivider due to the purpose, size, shape location and
character of the proposed subdivision;
Staff considers this request to be a self-imposed hardship and fails to meet the
hardship guidelines necessary to recommend approval. Although the lot contains
only 35' of frontage onto a dedicated right-of-way, the width provided
accommodates a multifamily lot, which was the intended use when the
subdivision was platted.
2) Whether the provisions of the regulations from which relief is requested are not
materially important, in a planning sense, to the orderly controlled development
of the tract in question;
Although the site design contains alternative access to accommodate ingress
and egress for Lot 2 and 3, the use of the shared access may be problematic for
reasons previously discussed. Therefore, the provision for which the applicant is
seeking relief is materially important in a planning sense in order to the orderly
controlled development of the tract in question
3) Whether the granting of the request might adversely affect the use of the land in
the immediate area of the tract in question.
As proposed, the development might adversely affect the use of the adjacent
property given the shared access with the adjacent property.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge SuL_ ision, PUD Amendment
June 21, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 8 '
Recommended Motion
" I move to approve Resolution 04-17, recommending to the Town Council to deny the Dry
Creek PUD, subdivision variance application and preliminary plan for Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge
Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, as more specifically described in the
application dated April 29", 2005."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-
4009, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
i mann AICP
nc Hee
d
Senior Planner
Report Attachments:
A. PUD Application dated April 29, 2005
B. PUD Development Plans for "Dry Creek PUD" dated April 29, 2005
C. Variance Application
D. Preliminary Plan
E. Memo from Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief ERFPD dated June 15, 2005.
F. Maps, Photos
G. Resolution 05-07
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
DRY CREEK P. U.D.
LOT 44, BLOCK 2,
WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION
. nIQ► .-Z� v P t
a ' n
ti 1 `a
•t
SECTIONS:
I. Introduction
H. Development Applications
III. PUD Amendment Review Criteria
IV. Subdivision Preliminary Plat
V. Subdivision Variance Review Criteria
VI. Reduced Plans
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
I.
The applicant, Blue Bird Meadows, L.L.C., is proposing an amendment to the
Wildridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the residential property located
at 2150 Old Trail, which according to the Town of Avon, is legally described as
Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision. According to the Wildridge PUD, the
residential property is currently zoned for one four-plex for a total of four (4)
multiple -family dwelling units.
The proposed amendment will have a significant positive impact on the
neighborhood surrounding the development site by;
• down -zoning the properties and .permanently reducing the residential
density in the neighborhood,
• eliminating a street curb -cut and approximately 3,000 square feet of paved
driveway surface,
• providing additional landscape buffer areas between adjoining properties
that would otherwise not exist,
• preserving existing views from adjacent properties and increasing the
amount of open space in the neighborhood, and;
• maintaining and enhancing the existing residential quality, character,
design, and scale of the neighborhood.
Of greatest importance, however, through the approval of the PUD amendment,
the goals and policy objectives, as outlined in the Town of Avon Comprehensive
Plan, will be achieved to the benefit of the community.
The specific amendment includes re -subdividing Lot 44 and creating three (3)
new single-family residential lots. The new residential lots will each be
approximately one-half acre in size. . Future, development of single-family
residences will be restricted to a maximum of 5,000 square feet of building area
with a minimum landscape area requirement of 35% of the total lot area and
maximum building lot coverage allowance of 40%. These development standards
are more stringent than existing allowances, and as such, ensure the least amount
of impact to the existing natural landforms and vegetation of the site.,
The new single-family residences will be developed in the traditional -style of
mountain architecture. The new homes will be complimented with a mixture of
stone, wood siding, and stucco in natural or earth tone colors, sloping roofs with
gable ends, dormers, and deep eaves and overhangs, exposed beams, and subtle
outdoor lighting. Two and three car garages will be carefully located on each of
the lots to minimize the unintended consequences of providing vehicular access to
the home sites.
1
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
The key elements of the amendment include:
• Compliance with the goals and policies as defined in the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan
• A permanent 25% reduction in residential density as a result of the down -
zoning
• Preservation of the existing residential scale and design of the
neighborhood
• Elimination of nearly 3,000 square of feet of paved driveway as a result
of the creation of the shared access
• Preservation of the existing residential character of the neighborhood.
2
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
II. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
> The applicant has submitted the following applications to the Town of Avon
Community Development Department for review and consideration:
• PUD Amendment Application
• Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application
Subdivision Variance Application
t
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
AVON
C O L O R A D O
PLANNED UNIT
.1
DEVELOPMENT
Planned Unit Development Fees:
1 - 3 units residential $ 500.00
Any commercial, multi -family, or
mixed use development $1,000.00
Applicant: BLUE BIRD MEADOWS, L.L.C.
Mailing Address:6515 RAINBOW AVENDE CitYSHAWNEE MISSI6hate: RS
Phone #: (913) 236-6732 Fax #: (913) 722-4833 Cell #-
Owner of Property: _Mg- ROB RyMEg
Mailing Address: SAME City:
Phone #: SAME Fax #:
Cell #:
Zip:66208
State: Zip:
Consultant-, GF.ORr,E RTITRER
Mailing Address:p.0. BOR 6516 City: VAIL State: CO Zip: 81658
Phone #: 970 748-9037 Fax #:
Lot: AA Block: 2 Subdivision: WILDRIDGE
❑ Metes and Bounds legal description is attached
Project Street Address: 2190 OLD TRAIL ROAD
Project Name: BLUE BIRD MEADOW SUBDIVISION
Current Zoning: FoTrR—p7.Ex
Cell #- 970 376-2675
I (we) represent that all information provided to the Town of Avon in connection with this application
as true and correct, that I (we) understand the Town of Avon regulations applicable to this project,
and understand that incomplete submittals will delay application review. Owner designates Appli-
cant as indicated to act as owner's representative in all application submittals related to this project.
Applicant: gT. B Rn MF.AT1ni7S T._T—r-
(Print Name):
Date:
Owner: Rog RyMER
(Print Name): Name): Qh P,,,b ism
Date: -2-1-3/ 2ibrj
Community Development. P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 (970)7484030 Fax (970)949-5749 (rev. 12/27101) Pagel of 3
AVON
C O L O R A D O
SUBDIVISION
[Subdivision Fee: $
Applicant: BLU BIRD MEADOWS L L C
Mailing Address:6515 RAINBOW AVENUE City: SHAWNEE MISS &ate: &S Zip:66208
Phone #: (913) 236-6732 Fax #: (913) 722-4833 Cell #:
Owner of Property: MR. ROB RYMER
Mailing Address: SM City: State: Zip:
Phone #: SAME Fax #:
Cell #:
Lot: 44 Block: 2 Subdivision: WILDRIDGE
Project Street Address: 2150 OLD TRAIL ROAD
Project Name: BLUE BIRD MEADOW SUBDIVISION
*Note: If the parcel has not previously been platted, please attach on a separate sheet a
Meets & Bounds Description.
Type of Subdivision: ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Condominium Subdivision
❑ Duplex Subdivision )a Land Subdivision ❑ Timeshare Subdivision
Type of Plat Approval Being Requested: ❑ Amended Final Plat
❑ Sketch Plan Xt Preliminary Plan ❑ Final Plat
*Note: All subdivsions other than Minor and Duplex Subdivisions are required to receive
Preliminary Plan approval prior to Final Plat.
I (we) represent that all information provided to the Town of Avon in connection with this application
as true and correct, that I (we) understand the Town of Avon regulations applicable to this project,
and understand that incomplete submittals will delay application review. Owner designates Appli-
cant as indicated to act as owner's representative in all application submittals related to this project.
Applicant:
(Print Name): BLUE BIRD MEADOWS, L.L.C.
Date:
owner:—r2
(Print Name):
Date: a hl 2ot75
Community Development, P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 (970)748.4030 Fax (970)949-5749 (rev. 12/27/01) Page I o(2
Lot: 44 Block: 2 Subdivision: WILDRIDGE
Project Address: OLD TRAIL ROAD
Project Name: BLUE BIRD MEADOA SDRDIPISION Review Fee(s):
All Applications:
3E9 Four (4) sets of 24" x 36" plans
Three (3) copies of the completed subdivision application form - submit separate
applications for preliminary and final plats
30 Fees
Condominiums and Duplex Subdivisions:
❑ Three (3) copies of any applicable Master Declarations, Condo Declarations or Party Wall
Agreements
Recording Requirements:
❑ Two sets of mylars and Master Declarations, Condo Declarations or PartyWall Agreements
which are fully executed and signed, including recording fees.
Additional Requirements:
Preliminary Plat Applications - 4 Units or more:
lb Master List of all property owners within 300 feet with adequate legal descriptions
provided by a title company
Original Copy of Public Hearing Notice
iM Stamped and addressed envelopes for all property owners within 300 feet - metered
mail cannot be accepted
Reviewed by:
❑ Complete ❑ Incomplete Date:
This checklist is used to review subdivision applications for general completeness. We strongly
recommend that you contact the Community Development Department prior to submittal to
discuss specific submittal requirements for your project. Due to time constraints we can only
accept complete applications. Help us avoid delays by giving us clear, complete plans and
applications. If you have any questions, please call us at (970) 748-4030.
Community Development, P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 (970)748.4030 Fax (970)949-5749 (rev. 12/27/01) Page 2 of 2
CD
C
z
ALEXANDER, ERIC V. - MALMSTEN, AMEDEE, ROY F., JR & PATRICK M. - JAMES
J
NSONBE,
AMY C. -JT LAUDUMEIY, FERNAND L., IV BE BOX BOX
327
V 81 ]T AVON, CO 81620-0327
VAIL, CO 81658 6620 VICKSBURG ST
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70124
BERKMAN FAMILY TRUST - BETZ, JAMES F.'& MARNIE K.
HERBERT R. & JT
JONNEAN B. BERKMAN TRUSTEES PO BOX 648
9110 E 139TH CT OCEAN BEACH, NY 11770,
BRIGHTON, CO 80602
BRUNO, HAROLD R., JR &
MARGARET E.
3414 CUMMINGS LN
CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815
DE LUCINGES, ANDRE J. &
JOSEPHINE C. - JT
PO BOX 5230
AVON, CO 81620
DUONG, THANH QUY
10663 HWY 6
GYPSUM, CO 81637
GUERCIO, VINCENT J., AMY S. - JT
PO BOX 3415
VAIL, CO 81658
JOE & WINNIE SANDEL LP
16 ELKINS LAKE
HUNTSVILLE,TX 77340
CLANCY, HARRY JAMES
PO BOX 1848
EDWARDS, CO 81632
DEAN, MARTHA & JENNIFER
JT
PO BOX 2001
AVON, CO 81620
EDGEVIEW VILLAS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOC
PO BOX 2492
AVON, CO 81620
HEYMANN, A. DOUGLAS
35 E 75TH ST APT 9C
NEW YORK, NY 10021-2761
JONES, LINDA S. & JIM -JT
2121 N FRONTAGE RD W 138
VAIL, CO 81657
v
MMER)ARLENF & BENNETT H.
` ieSS ST
SOUTH V j FL 33143
-vv 0104
CUNNINGHAM, KAREN F.
1007 OYSTER COVE DR
GRASONVILLE, MD 21638
DODGE, MAGNA L. & DAVID A.
JT
5 LANGDON TERRACE
BRONXVILLE, NY 10708
GROSS, LAURA F. & ROBERT C. -JT
7030 FIELDHURST CT
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22315
HIGHLAND RENTAL PROPERTII
LLC
PO BOX 502
AVON, CO 81620
JONES, SHARON S.
PO BOX 7685
AVON, CO 81620
MACH, ROBERT A. & JENNIFER ANN MARSHALL, NANCY M. & RON -]T
TT 5835 LONG BREAK TRL BECKER-PEREZ, STEPHANIE M.
PO BOX 18195 EDINA MN 55439 PO BOX 7332
AVON, CO 81620 AVON, CO 81620
PEPRASH, JOSEPH.BLAIR - KELLIE PETROWSKI, DAVID S. & HILARY W. - PINES OF WILDRIDGE TOWNHOME
'JT JT ASSOC INC
PO BOX 9041 PO BOX 1178 PO BOX 2944
AVON, CO 81620 AVON, CO 81620 VAIL, CO 81658
REYNOLDS, ALBERT D - CHIECO,
/ 'RED V -
N _.TENT, RICHARD M
PO BOX 738
AVON, CO 81620
RICE, HELGA P. & RUSSELL M. ROMSA, SCOTT
PO BOX 6548 PO BOX 9594
AVON, CO 81632 AVON, CO 81620
SNOWBERRY OWNERS ASSOC INC STERLING, SAMUEL A. W. - WOODS,
E VANS, THOMAS A. % GENTRY MGMT HOLLY K.
PO BOX 6622 PO BOX 1017 -JT
AVON, CO 81620 VAIL, CO 81658 PO BOX 3699
VAIL, CO 81658
SUNDAY, DANIEL F.
PO BOX 133
AVON, CO 81620
VOGEL, MARK A. & BARBARA D.
-JT
901 S FULTON
DENVER, CO 80231
TANAVON CORP
C/O OSCAR TANG
600 5TH AVE, 8h FL
NEW YORK, NY 10020
VOSS, GEOFFREY E. & JENNIFER L. -
JT
PO BOX 3612
AVON, CO 81620
TOWN OF AVON
PO BOX 975
AVON, CO 81620
ZONING ANALYSIS
Existing Conditions Proposed Development
(Residential Low Density) (Residential Single Family)
Square Footage
Breakdown of
Proposed Uses: N/A 5,000 square feet per lot
Parking: 3 spaces per unit/2 spaces per unit 3 spaces per unit
plus required guest parking (min. of 2 enclosed)
Maximum
Densities: Lot 44 — 4 dwelling units 1 dwelling unit per lot
(4 dwelling units total) (3 dwelling units total)
(2.5 dwelling units per acre) (1.9 dwelling units per acre)
Minimum Lot
Size: 0.25 acres or 10,890 square feet 0.40 acres or 17,500 square
feet
Maximum
Building Height:
35 feet
35 feet
Minimum
Building Setbacks:
Front:
25 feet
25 feet
Side:
7.5 feet
7.5 feet
Rear:
10 feet
10 feet
Maximum
Site Coverage:
50%
40% per lot
Minimum '
Landscape Area:
25%
35% per lot
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
III. PUD AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
The applicant is requesting a final review of an amendment to the Wildridge PUD,
pursuant to Section 17.20.11 OK, Amendment Procedures. Avon Municipal Code, to
permanently reduce the residential density of the PUD by allowing three (3) new single-
family dwelling units on the development site in place of four dwelling units which are
currently permitted on the site.
According to Section 17.20.11 OH, Design Criteria. Avon Municipal Code, the following
criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD amendment:
Conformity with the Avon Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives
Applicant's Response: The PUD amendment is consistent with the Town's
Comprehensive Plan. According to the Town's Comprehensive Plan, the development
site is designated as "Residential" on the•Overall Land Use Plan. Pursuant to the Town's
Comprehensive Plan,
"the Residential land use is an area intended for permanent and seasonal
residential land uses, including single-family houses, duplexes, multi family
dwellings, apartments, condominiums, and mobile homes. The density of
development and unit type vary within the Town in response to market conditions,
site constraints (such as topography and accessibility), compatibility with existing
and proposed development and zoning regulations.
Residential areas should be located in convenient proximity to areas of
employment, recreation, and open space. Neighborhoods should be within
walking distance to daily shopping needs and employment centers, and near a
public transit stop to offer a convenient alternative to automobile trips.
Vehicular, bicycle, and public transit routes should be easily accessible, yet
residential areas should be separated or protected from heavy traffic. "
The PUD amendment to allow for the development of three (3) single-family residential
dwelling:units on three (3) individually platted lots is consistent with the prescribed land
use designation of the Overall Land Use Plan. The allowable maximum density of one
(1) dwelling unit per lot and the single-family residential unit types are consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the
existing single-family, duplex, multiple -family residential development surrounding the
development site.
Furthermore, the various elements of the PUD amendment are consistent with the
adopted goals and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. According to the Town's
Comprehensive Plan, in part,
"The goals and policies of the Plan will be used by the Town to:
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
• Establish the standards and regulations necessary to define the limits and
conditions ofprivate sector development; and
• Provide a clear focus for coordinating public, priPgte, institutional and
individual efforts in the development of the community. "
Upon review of the adopted goals and policies of the Plan, the PUD amendment achieves and
addresses the following goals and policies of the Town of Avon:
A. LAND USE A fundamental reason for having a comprehensive plan is to clearly
communicate generally where and how land uses may occur in the Town.
The Land Use Plan is based on these goals and policies. Implementation
is through annexation, subdivision and zoning regulations.
Goal A.1 Ensure a balanced system of land uses that maintains and enhances
Avon's identity as a residential community, and as a regional commercial,
tourism and entertainment center.
Policy Al.I Development and redevelopment will be of a scale and intensity
appropriate for the neighborhood in which it is located.
Applicant's Response:
Development within the PUD amendment will be single-family residential
dwellings. The maximum allowable square footage of each unit shall be
5,000 square feet. Single-family residential dwellings are compatible with
the scale and intensity of the neighboring uses.
PolicyAl.3 Flexible zoning such as Planned Unit Developments (PUD) should be
encouraged where it results in more effective use of land. However, such
flexible zoning will only be allowed where it provides a benefit to the
community and is compatible with surrounding development. Variations
from standard zoning must be clearly demonstrated and will be permitted
only as needed to achieve effective development.
_Applicant's Response:
The PUD amendment is beneficial to the community and is compatible
with surrounding development. For example, as a result of the PUD
amendment, overall residential development on the site will be reduced by
25%, the number of vehicular access points onto Old Trail Road will be
reduced, the amount of unpaved area within the neighborhood will be
increased, additional landscape buffers between adjoining uses will be
provided, and the bulk and mass of the proposed single-family residences
will be compatible to that of the adjacent structures.
PolicyAI.S The community will include a wide range of residential uses including
large -lot single family and duplex, small -lot single family and duplex,
multifamily, and vertically integrated residential uses.
2
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May I, 2005
Applicant's Response:
The requested single-family residential uses will add to the already wide
range of residential uses existing within the Wildridge PUD.
PolicyAL6 Land for open space should be preserved throughout the community,
particularly on steep slopes and other environmentally sensitive areas.
Applicant's Response:
While not open space in the Town's intended use of the term, the PUD
amendment provides additional open space and buffer area between
adjoining uses. Through coordination and communication with the
owners of Lot 45 to the west, the applicant has secured an access and
utility easement agreement to allow for shared access to Lot 45 and Dry
Creek PUD, Lots 1 -3. As a result, nearly 3,000 square feet of unpaved
area will remain in the neighborhood. This unpaved area provides
increased opportunity for landscaped buffers and separation between
adjoining uses.
Goal A.3 Maintain a compact urban form that respects and preserves the natural
beauty of the valley, river and surrounding mountains, and maintains
distinct physical and visual separations between Avon and surrounding
communities.
Policy A3.1 Development should first be directed in areas within and adjacent to
established neighborhoods and developed areas.
Applicant's Response:
The PUD amendment is an infill form of development within an
established. neighborhood and developed area.
Policy A3.7 Steep slopes in and around the community should be designated and
preserved as open space whenever possible.
Applicant's Response:
According to the Town of Avon Development Standards, development of
single-family residential structures is permitted on slopes of 30%.
Pursuant to the stamped Topographic Map, dated 11/16/2004, prepared on
behalf of the applicant by Gore Range Surveying, LLC, no areas of slopes
in excess of 40% exist on the site.
B. Community As the community moves into the future, striking a balance between a
And Economic healthy, diverse economy and a livable residential community becomes
Development both increasingly challenging and increasingly important. The following
goals and policies are intended to achieve that balance.
3
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
Goal B.1 Enhance the Town's role as a principal, year-round residential community.
and regional commercial center.
Policy B1.1 Residential neighborhoods should be maintained to a high standard of
quality through effective maintenance of streets, utilities, parks and other
public facilities, and through consistent application of design standards.
Applicant's Response:
All future residential development on the development site shall be
reviewed and approved by the Town of Avon for compliance with the
Town's design standards and applicable code provisions.
C. Housing As the community grows, demand for housing of all types is increasing.
While there is an ample supply of housing for second homeowners and
upper income residents, there is a shortage of housing for middle income
and year-round residents and their families. The following goals and
policies are intended to help meet the variety of housing needs.
Goal C.1 Provide for diverse, quality housing to serve all economic segments and
age groups of the population.
Policy C1.1 Maintain and enhance the character of the residential neighborhoods of the
Town.
Applicant's Response:
Future single-family residential development of the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town of Avon for compliance with the Town's
adopted design standards. Single-family residential residences are
compatible with the existing character of the surrounding residential uses.
Single-family residential development of the site will maintain and
enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy C1.2 Infill residential development should be compatible in design, scale and
uses with existing neighborhoods.
Applicant's Response:
The single-family residential development on the site will be compatible
in design, scale and uses existing within the surrounding neighborhood.
The design of the homes will be two and three-story tall structures with
two or three -car garages. The architectural style of the homes is intended
to be reminiscent of traditional mountain design (ie., mixture of stone,
stucco, wood siding, stucco, and timbers, natural or earth tone colors,
sloping roofs with gable ends, dormers, and deep eaves and overhangs,
exposed beams, and subtle outdoor lighting).
4
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
The maximum allowable size of the homes shall not exceed 5,000 square
feet. However, it is more likely the homes will be constructed to be
japproximately 3,000 — 3,500 squarefeet in size. The square footage will
be spread over two and three levels, depending upon the topography and
orientation of the particular lots. Maximum building height shall not
exceed thirty-five (35') feet with the height of the home conforming to the
existing topography.
Existing uses in the neighborhood are residential with a mix of single-
family, duplex, and multiple -family homes. The proposal to construct
single-family residences on the development site is compatible with the
uses in the neighborhood. Overall, the PUD amendment results in
compatibility with the existing design, scale and uses of the surrounding
neighborhood.
F. Environment Avon is a very desirable place to live and work largely because of its
exceptional natural environment. In a very real sense, the economic and
social health of Avon depends upon the protection and enhancement of
these resources.
Goal F.1 Make Avon's unique natural setting and its open space system central
elements to its identity and structure.
Policy Fl.l Future development and redevelopment shall minimize degradation of the
environment, particularly in sensitive natural areas.
Applicant's Response:
The layout of the 'three (3) single-family residential lots is particularly
responsive to the environment. As designed, degradation to the site and
environment will be minimized. For example, the lots have been designed
to create the most desirable site planning and building placement
outcomes. The building envelopes ensure that all future residential
development is oriented parallel to the existing natural contours versus
being oriented perpendicular to the natural contours. A paralleled
orientation results in a building design that relates to the natural
topography of the development site instead of a building design that
'fights against" the contours of the site resulting in excessive cuts and
substantial retaining of the slopes, as recommended in the "Town olAvon
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Desien Review Guidelines".
PolicyFl.2 Development should not be allowed on steep hillside areas vulnerable to
environmental and visual degradation.
Applicant's Response:
The layout of the three (3) single-family residential lots was designed to
avoid steep hillsides and minimize visual degradation. One of the design
5
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
intents of the future development is to minimize excessive cuts and fill
conditions and to prevent unsightly grading of the property which results
in unnatural scarring of the land forms. Thp home sites have been located
away from areas of steep slopes.
Policy F1.4 Development and redevelopment will accommodate wildlife habitat,
including deer and elk migration routes, or otherwise mitigate loss of
habitat.
Applicant's Response:
Future development on the site will accommodate wildlife habitat,
particularly deer and elk migration routes. The development site is
confined on two sides by Tract F. Tract F is an open space parcel owned
by the Town of Avon. Besides protecting steep slopes and natural
drainages from future development, Tract F also serves to connect other
pieces of open space to one another to form a vital north/south wildlife
corridor through the Wildridge Subdivision. Tract F remains unchanged
as a result of this application.
H. Community Community image is a combination of natural setting, architectural design,
Image and density, design of streets and walkways, signage, public art, community
Design facilities, and the care and maintenance of neighborhoods and businesses.
• An attractive community image not only fosters a sense of identity and
pride in its residents and businesses, it is critical to its long-term success as
a tourism destination.
Goal H.1 Establish and maintain a high quality visual image of the Town.
Policy H1.1. The Town's streets and walkways shall be designed and maintained as
safe, attractive public spaces.
Applicant's Response:
The applicant, in cooperation with the property owners directly to the west
(Lot 45, Grandview at• Wildridge Subdivision) will eliminate a street curb -
cut by combining the access driveways to development sites. Rather than
constructing two parallel driveways in the respective "pole" portions of
the two developments, a common access driveway is proposed. By
combining the two driveways, approximately 3,000 square feet of
additional landscape area is provided in the neighborhood and an
enhanced visual buffer can be created to screen the driveway from the
view of the owners of the Victorians and the Snowberry Townhomes.
I. Communication While most citizens are finding less time to attend town meetings, review
development proposals, and generally communicate with the Town
government, the need for citizens to be informed participants in the
community has never been greater. Avon's small size, high land values,
6
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
well-educated population and seasonal economy means that development
and other local governmental decisions are often complex, and generally
have greater impacts on the community than they would have in a larger
metropolitan area. For these and other reasons, effective communication
systems are fundamental to sustaining Avon's high quality of life and
economic health.
Goal I.1 Establish and maintain clear communication between the Town and its
citizens, business community, visitors, and other public entities.
Policy I1.1 The Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission will actively seek
broad public involvement on key issues and decisions.
Applicant's Response:
In addition to fully complying -with the Town's requirement for public
notice pursuant to Section 17.12.100, Hearings - Setting Date, Avon
Municipal Code, the applicant has sought input and comment on the PUD
amendment from the surrounding neighbors and residents of Wildridge.
In keeping with the goals of Policy I1.1, prior to submitting the PUD
amendment application to the Town of Avon Community, an introduction
letter was sent to each of the adjacent property owners. The purpose of
the letter was to provide a written introduction of the property owner to
the neighbors, inform the neighbors in advance of the property owner's
intent, and to provide contact information to the neighbors so that they
could share their thoughts on the project with the property owner's design
team.
As a result of seeking input and comment from the surrounding neighbors
and residents of Wildridge, the applicant made various revisions to the
PUD amendment application. For example, driveway access has been
combined to reduce the number of curb cuts on Old Trial Road and the
amount of paving in the neighborhood. Additionally, the lot configuration
was modified to increase the amount of separation between the adjoining
uses to the south of the development site. In the end, the PUD amendment
has improved due to communication and cooperation amongst adjacent
property owners and neighbors.
Policy I1.3 Public meetings, access to documents and development proposals, and
other interactions with the Town will be open and as accessible as
possible.
Applicant's Response:
Regardless of the Town's established procedures for public meetings and
sharing of information, the applicant contacted and attempted to inform
the neighbors surrounding the development site and residents of Wildridge
to gain their input and comment on the amendment. In those instances
7
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
when meetings could not occur, every attempt was made to facilitate an
exchange of information to ensure that the development proposal
remained accessible to all those seeking knowledge.
In addition to being in compliance with the goals and policies above, the PUD
amendment request is consistent with the recommendations for Sub -area 18, Wildridge,
as outlined in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. According to the recommendations for
Sub -area 18, integrated design themes for development that achieve a more unified
overall appearance and the continuation of developing roadways as rural -type roads
without curb and gutter, roadway lighting, or sidewalks will be achieved as a result of the
PUD amendment.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, sub-
area design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town.
Applicant's Response: The future development of three (3) single-family residential
dwelling units on the development site will be reviewed and approved by the Town of
Avon Planning & Zoning Commission for compliance with the overall design theme of
the Town, sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town.
One of the design intents of the future development is to minimize excessive cuts and fill
conditions and to prevent unsightly grading of the property which results in unnatural
scarring of the land forms. This goal will be achieved since the private access driveway
design takes full advantage of the existing topography of the site.
A second design intent is to ensure the creation of building envelopes that result in
structures designed to match the contours and topography of the existing site. As
proposed, the lot layout has been designed to maximize the orientation of the structures to
the contours of the landforms. This design intent and lot layout will minimize the amount
of grading and retaining on each of the lots and ensure compliance with the adopted
design guidelines. Specifically, each individual residence will respond to the topography
of the site to ensure that the residences become an integral part of the site rather than
structures which are out of character with their surrounding landforms.
While the applicant is not proposing specific design guidelines for this development,
future development on each of the individually platted lots will require that a
development review application be submitted to the Town for review and approval of the
residential plans for compliance with the Town's adopted design guidelines. That said,
future development on the lots will be treated like all other residential development in the
Wildridge PUD.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, character and orientation.
Applicant's Response: Future development will be designed to be compatible with the
immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural
8
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation. All future
development will be reviewed and approved by the Town of Avon Planning & Zoning
Commission for compliance with the adopted design guidelines. To that end, the exterior
design of the individual residences will be a mixture of indigenous materials such as
stone, wood siding and timbers. All residential development within the PUD will be
limited to 5,000 square feet of building area to prevent the construction of residences out
of scale and character with the neighborhood. A request for a deviation from the
maximum allowable building height as permitted by the Residential Single -Family (RSF)
zone district is not requested, and therefore, residential structures shall not be permitted
to exceed thirty-five (35') feet in height, as defined by Title 17: Zoning Regulations.
4. Uses, activity and design which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Applicant's Response: The uses and activities within the PUD will provide a
compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activities. The
development potential of the PUD shall be similar to that permitted by the Residential
Single -Family zone district. No deviations from the "allowed uses" of the zone district
are proposed. As such, pursuant to Section 17.20.050, Zoning Regulations, only 'one
family dwelling" and "accessory buildings and uses" shall be permitted with the PUD
without consideration of a special review use permit.
According to the Official Town of Avon Zoning Map, the areas adjacent to the PUD are
zoned:
• East — Wildridge PUD/Open Space
• West — Wildridge PUD/Residential
• North — Wildridge PUD/Residential/Open Space
• South — Wildridge PUD/Residential
The single-family development of the PUD is compatible with surrounding uses and
activities and results in the permanent down -zoning of the property.
As previously mentioned, the adjoining uses are low density residential uses. The
applicant is proposing to further reduce the residential density in the area by eliminating
the ability to construct a four -unit multiple family structure.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property upon which the PUD (amendment) is proposed.
Applicant's Response: No natural and/or geologic hazards affect the property upon
which the PUD (amendment) is proposed, therefore, no mitigation or avoidance of the
hazards is required.
9
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetfq quality of the community.
Applicant's Response: All future residential development on the site shall be required
to comply with the adopted Town ofAvon Residential. Commercial and Industrial Design
Guidelines, and as needed may be amended from time to time.
The design of the future residential development will be oriented to take advantage of
solar gain and view corridors to the south and west of the development site.
The lot lay out of the PUD has been designed to ensure compliance with the prescribed
residential site development guidelines (ie, site design, site access, site grading,
easements, drainage). For example, the lots have been designed to create the most
desirable site planning and building placement outcomes. The building envelopes ensure
that all future residential development is oriented parallel to the existing natural contours
versus being oriented perpendicular to the natural contours. A paralleled orientation
results in a building that relates to the natural topography of the development site instead
of a building that 'fights against" the contours resulting in excessive retaining of the
slopes.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town
transportation plan.
Applicant's Response: The circulation system has been designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians and is compatible with the Town's transportation plan. As designed, a private
drive will be constructed across the development site to provide vehicular access to each
of the residential lots. The private drive shall be constructed to comply with minimum
Town standards for driveway construction.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
Applicant's Response: Landscaping and open space have been provided within the
PUD to optimize and preserve the natural features, recreation, views and function of the
development site.
Individual plans for landscaping will be submitted to the Town for review and approval
as part of the approved plan set for development on each of the lots. The individual plans
shall be designed to fully comply with the minimum requirements for residential
landscaping as prescribed in Section 4C, Town of Avon Residential. Commercial and
Industrial Design Review Guidelines. At this time, subsequent to Town approval, the
design intent of the landscape plans is to create harmony between each of the building
sites and the natural topography and existing vegetation on the site. This intent will be
achieved by selecting plant materials that are adaptable to the area and are compatible to
10
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
the various climatic zones found in the Valley. Plant materials such as Colorado Blue
Spruce, Rocky Mountain Juniper, Pinyon, Quaking Aspen, Serviceberry, Snowberry,
Mountain Mahogany, Alpine Currant, Potentilla, Western Sage, Rabbitbrush, and other >
similar hardy species are proposed. The applicant is not requesting deviations or
variations to any landscape area requirements.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efficient relationship throughout the development of the (amended)
PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be
workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future
project phases.
Applicant's Response: A workable, functional and efficient plan for development
within the PUD will be achieved. As proposed, -the first step in the development of the
site will be to construct all necessary infrastructure on the site. The applicant has received
preliminary approval from each of the public utility_ service providers for access.to
services (ie, ERWSD, Holy Cross, Public Service, etc.). This includes the extension of
public utility services (sewer, water, gas, electric, cable, telephone, etc.) with stub outs to
each lot, and the installation of the required fire hydrants. With all the necessary
infrastructure construction complete, each of the residential lots will be ready for future
construction and no reliance upon the completion of future project phases is necessary.
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation
systems, roads, parks, police and fire protection.
Applicant's Response: Adequate facilities are available to serve the three (3) single-
family residential lots. Old Trail Road provides vehicular access to the development site
with a new private road providing access to the lots from Old Trail Road. Old Trail Road
is a platted public street maintained by the Town of Avon. As an infill development
within an existing platted subdivision, no annexation request or requests for expanded
municipal services are required.
Adequate infrastructure and platted easements exist on the development site to ensure the
provision of necessary water, sanitary, and utility services. Two, ten -foot wide utility
easements traverse north -south across the development site. The easements along with
the creation of additional easements for utilities and drainage will serve the needs of the
residential development on the site.
The present impacts of Residential Low Density (RLD) zoning on public facilities and
services, including but not limited to fire, police, water sanitation, roadways, parks,
schools and transit are based upon the allowable development potential granted by the
existing zoning regulations. Pursuant to the existing PUD, a total of four (4) multiple -
family dwelling units are allowed on the development site. The proposed development
potential will have no negative impacts on the above-described criteria as the
development potential is decreasing in density by 25%. Similarly, the future impacts of
single-family development on the public facilities and services, including but not limited
11
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
to fire, police, water sanitation, parks, schools and transit will have no negative impacts
on the above-described criteria. Most importantly, because of the net reduction in total
development potential as a result of the proposal, a reduction in demand on services is
expected.
11. That existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry
anticipated traffic within the proposed (amended) PUD and vicinity of the
proposed (amended) PUD.
Applicant's Response: The existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry
anticipated traffic within the PUD and the area surrounding the PUD. Old Trail Road is
already designed to accommodate the average daily trips (ADT) generated by residential
development. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, 4th Edition, one (1) single-family residential structure generates six
(6) average daily trips. An average daily trip is defined as the average number of vehicle
trips generated leaving from and returning to a designated land use for the purpose of
transportation planning. As a result of the PUD amendment, the number of average daily
trips to the site will be reduced.
12. Describe the proposed development standards. Provide justifications for the
proposed standards and describe the benefits to the Town if they deviate
from Town standards.
Applicant's Response: The proposed development standards for the PUD are:
Underlying
Zone District: Residential Single -Family (RSF)
Allowed Uses: 1. One family dwelling;
2. Accessory buildings and uses.
Special Review
Uses: 1. Home occupations;
2. Aboveground public and private utility installations;
3. Church.
Development
Standards: 1. Minimum lot size: twenty-seven thousand, seven
hundred & fifty square feet (27,750 sq ft);
2. Maximum building height: thirty-five feet (35 ft);
3. Minimum building setbacks:
Front: twenty-five feet (25 ft)
Sides: seven & one-half feet (7.5 ft)
Rear: ten feet (10 ft)
4. Maximum site coverage: forty percent (401/6)
5. Minimum landscape area: thirty-five percent (359/6)
12
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May I, 2005
6. Maximum density: one dwelling unit per lot
`I ** Unless noted otherwise on the Approved Development Plan
Note: All other development standards and development requirements not
specifically listed above and as prescribed by the Zoning Code of the Town of
Avon shall apply to development within the PUD.
The proposed deviations to the development standards are justified by the public benefits
they provide to the Town of Avon. As previously stated, approval of the PUD
amendment will ensure that the goals and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan are
achieved. As a result of the amendment, development on the site will be responsive to
the topography of the area and future development on the site will be compatible with the
surrounding existing and potential land uses. Specifically, the increased minimum lot
size ensures that the character of the built environment of the area remains unaffected by
the proposed development and the increase to the minimum landscape area requirement
and the decrease to the maximum allowable site coverage allowance assures that an
ample amount of natural landscaping and open space remains in and around the
development site.
13
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
IV. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT
Pursuant to Chapter 16.20, Preliminary Plans, Avon Municipal Code, the
applicant has submitted a preliminary plan for the re -subdivision of Lot 44,13lock
2, Wildridge Subdivision. The purpose of the re -subdivision is to facilitate the
future development of three (3) single-family homes on the development site. A
reduced copy of the proposed preliminary plat is included in Section V. of the
submittal documents.
1
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
V. SUBDIVISION VARIANCE CRITERIA
Pursuant to Title 16 Subdivisions, Section 16.12.020, Variances. Avon Municipal Cdde,
upon application by a subdivider, the town council may, at its discretion, grant variances,
as provided in Chapter 16.44, from some or any requirements of these regulations based
upon the following criteria:
1. Whether a strict, literal'application of these subdivision regulations would
result in an undue hardship to the subdivider due to the purpose, size, shape,
location, and character of the proposed subdivision.
Applicant's Response: Yes, the strict, literal application of the subdivision regulations
would result in an undue hardship to the subdivider due to the purpose, shape, location
and character of the proposed subdivision.
Pursuant to Section 16.40.330, Lot and Block Design. Avon Municipal Code,
"Each lot created in a subdivision shall be physically capable of accommodating a
structure devoted to the intended rise of the lot. Each lot shall have a frontage width on a
dedicated street of not less than twenty-five (25) feet. Additional area may be required if
determined necessary by the shape of the land or contours. "
Lot 44, Block 2, was platted as part of the original Wildridge Subdivision in 1978. As
presently platted, Lot 44 maintains a thirty-five (35') foot frontage width on a dedicated
street (Old Trail Road).
The applicant is proposing to utilize an existing private driveway presently located on Lot
45, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, to serve as vehicular ingress and egress to Lot 44.
Over the past several months, the applicant has worked closely with the owners of Lot 45
to formulate a mutually acceptable easement for common access and utilities to Lots 44
& 45. According'to the terms of the easement agreement, the first one hundred -ninety
(190') feet of the existing private driveway on Lot 45 would be encumbered by a
Common Access and Utility Agreement. To ensure adequate traffic circulation to and
from the Lots, the applicant has agreed, and at his sole expense, to widen the existing
driveway to sixteen (16') feet and add a one (1') foot wide gravel shoulder to each side of
the driveway. Upon recording the agreement with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's
Office, provisions for access and maintenance of the shared portion of the driveway will
be formalized.
While it is possible to provide vehicular access to Lot 44 via the existing "pole" portion
of the Lot, it is the opinion of the Lot owners that doing so would negatively impact the
character of the subdivision, the neighborhood and surrounding area. For example, if a
second paved driveway surface was added to Lot 44, an additional 3,040 square feet of
existing landscaped area would be lost to paving and further encroach upon the
residential units to the east. Due to the limited width of the "pole" portions of the two
"flag" lots and the need for adequate snow storage and landscape buffers, there is little or
no opportunity to meander the driveways. As such, the resulting appearance of two paved
1
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
driveways extending parallel to one another for one hundred -ninety (190') feet would be
similar to that of a "divided highway design". Lastly, the applicant is not proposing to
prevent or restrict vehicular access to the Lots within the Dry Creek PUD. Instead, the
applicant is seeking a more creative and aesthetically pleasing means to achieve vehicular
access to the development site. For these reasons, the applicant believes that to apply the
strict and literal interpretation of the minimum street frontage requirement would result in
an undue hardship.
2. • Whether the provisions of the regulations from which relief is requested are
not materially important, in a planning sense, to the orderly, controlled
development of the tract in question.
Applicant's Response: Relief from the Section 16.40.330, Lot and Block Design, of the
Subdivision Regulations is materially important, in a planning sense, to ensure the
orderly, controlled development of the proposal. In this variance request, the applicant is
not proposing to •prohibit access to Lot 44. Instead, the applicant is merely requesting
relief from the minimum street frontage requirement of the Subdivision Regulations to
aid in the implementation of the Town's adopted goals, objectives and policies for land
development.
Upon review of the Town's adopted subdivision regulations, it appears that the purpose
of the minimum street frontage requirement is to ensure that vehicular access is available
to all platted lots thereby preventing instances of "landlocked" property in the subdivision
process. While it is true that proposed Lots 1 & 2, Dry Creek PUD will not have direct
frontage on a public street, the presence of the perpetual common access easement fulfills
the access obligations that the street frontage requirement contemplates.
In a planning sense, there are numerous public benefits arising from this proposal. The
public benefits include:
• Compliance with the Town's adopted goals and policies as stated in the
Town's Comprehensive Plan;
• Future development on the site that is consistent with and compatible to
adjacent and surrounding land uses,
• Down -zoning of the property and permanent vacation of existing development
rights,
• Preservation of existing unimproved landscape area; and
• Infill development versus sprawl development.
3. Whether the granting of the request might adversely affect the use of the
land in the immediate area of the tract in question.
Applicant's Response: The granting of this request will not adversely affect the use of
land in the immediate area of the development site. In fact, the granting of the requested
variance ensures the continued use and enjoyment of land surrounding the development
site. As proposed, the residential uses most directly impacted by the construction of a
2
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
second driveway are afforded an additional buffer that otherwise would not exist. Future
development on the site will be consistent with and compatible to adjacent and
> surrounding land uses.
3
Dry Creek PUD Amendment May 1, 2005
VI. REDUCED PLANS
In accordance with the submittal requirements for the PUD amendment and the
preliminary plan request, the applicant has submitted copies of the plan sets.
Additional full-sized plan sets are available from the applicant upon request.
1
Dry Creek PUD Ameadment May 1, 2005
V1,
ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT
This Access Easement is made effective as of the —day of , 2005, by and among
Andre' and Josephine de Lucinges, owner of Lot 45-C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision ("de
Lucinges"), Robert and Jennifer Mach, owner of Lot 45-B and Lot 45-A, Block 2, Wildridge
Subdivision ("Mach"), and Blue Bird Meadow, LLC, owner of Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge
Subdivision ("Blue Bird").
1. Recitals. de Lucignes, Mach and Blue Bird, (collectively, the "Lot Owners"), are
seised of an estate in fee simple of those parcels of land located in Lot 44 and Lot 45, Block 2,
Wildridge Subdivision according to the plat thereof, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, as set
forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Properties").
The Lot Owners desire to create a thirty (30) foot wide access and utility easement across Lot
45 as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Easement Tract') for the benefit of one
another, all in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Easement.
2. Grant of Access and Utility Easement. Now therefore, in consideration of the above
stated recitals which are incorporated herein and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, each of the Lot Owners does
hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL AND CONVEY to each of the other Lot Owners, their
lessees, licensees, successors and assigns, and all employees, customers, guests and invitees of
same and in common with all others having like right, a permanent, perpetual, and non-
exclusive access easement for purposes of passing and repassing along and over the Easement
Tract from and onto the Properties or any part thereof and installing necessary utilities under
such Easement Tract. The easement granted in this paragraph shall: (i) be permanent,
perpetual and non-exclusive; (ii) be for the benefit of the Properties or any part thereof, for all
purposes connected with going to and from the public roads and rights-of-way to and from the
Properties, including housing which may be constructed on the Property owned by Parcel
Owner, (iii) be for the benefit of the Properties or any part thereof, for all purposes connected
with the installation of any utilities to and for the Properties; (iv) shall serve to restrict each of
the Lot Owner's respective right to erect, maintain, place or leave any obstruction, fence, wall
or barricade or to take any other action, that would in any way obstruct or hinder the access
granted hereby; (v) shall not restrict the use of any of the Lot Owners to use the Easement
Tract in any manner not inconsistent with the covenants and conditions contained herein; and
(vi) shall constitute a covenant running with the land in perpetuity and shall inure to the
benefit of the Lot Owners and their successors and assigns. The Easement Tract is not a
public road dedicated to the use of the public, and its use shall be limited to those parties
described herein, their transferees and respective invitees.
3. Enforcement of Rights. In the event any party hereto fails to discharge its respective
obligations hereunder, any other party hereto shall have the right to enforce this Easement by
an action in law or in equity (including a suit for specific performance) without thereby
waiving the right to also recover in an action for damages any such sums expended by such
other party at its discretion in performing such obligations. In the event that any party hereto
institutes a legal proceeding against the other party to enforce the obligations arising
hereunder, it shall be entitled to recover and the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees
(including those incurred on appeal or whether or not suit be filed) and costs if the court
determines such party has prevailed in the legal or equitable proceeding.
4. Repair and Maintenance. The Easement Tract shall be repaired and maintained in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Repair and Maintenance Agreement among
the parties of even date herewith, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
5. Covenants:Running with the Land. All rights and obligations arising hereunder are
covenants running with the land, binding upon and inuring to the benefit of the respective
parties and their respective successors in title.
6. Governing Law and Venue. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govem this
Agreement. Any legal action instituted hereunder shall be brought in Eagle County, Colorado.
7. Signature. Each party hereto represents and warrants that the person or persons
signing this Easement on behalf of such party is duly authorized to do so. Each party is hereby
estopped from asserting that it or any party signing below did not legally execute this
Easement with all necessary or required authority.
8. No Partnership. None of the terms and provisions of this Easement shall be deemed
or construed to create a partnership between or among the parties hereto in their respective
businesses or otherwise, nor shall they cause the parties hereto to be considered joint ventures
or members of any joint enterprise. Each party to this Easement shall be considered a separate
entity and no party hereto shall have the right to act as agent for any other party hereto unless
expressly authorized to do so by written instrument signed by the, authorizing party.
9. Amendments. Except as otherwise specifically set forth herein, neither this Agreement
nor any provision may be waived, modified, amended, discharged or terminated except by an
instrument in writing signed by all of the parties hereto and recorded in the Real Property
Records of Eagle County, Colorado.
10. Counterparts. This easement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have read and executed this Easement effective as of
the date first above written.
LOT 45-C Owner:
2
,
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires:
Notary Public
LOT 45-B Owner:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires:
Notary Public
LOT 45-A Owner:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
r
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by
3
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires:
Notary Public
'LOT 44 Owner:
BLUE BIRD MEADOW, LLC
By: Robert A. Rymer, Manager
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by Robert A. Rymer.
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires:
Notary Public
4
EXHIBIT A
REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS
Robert and Jennifer Mach
Lot 45A, Block 2, Wildridge
Subdivision according to the
Avon, CO. 81620
plat thereof, Town of Avon,
County of Eagle, State of
Colorado.
Robert and Jennifer Mach
Lot 45B, Block 2, Wildridge
Subdivision according to the
Avon, CO. 81620
plat thereof, Town of Avon,
County of Eagle, State of
Colorado.
Andre, and Josephine de Lucinges
Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge
Subdivision according to the
Avon, CO. 81620
plat thereof, Town of Avon,
County of Eagle, State of
Colorado.
Blue Bird Meadow, LLC
Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge
500 S. Frontage Road East, Suite 112
Subdivision according to the
Vail, CO. 81657
plat thereof, Town of Avon,
County of Eagle, State of
Colorado.
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT TRACT
lb
r T
tA
----------------
M j yI
I r � e � � 'Yr' S4`-. ire - �' by p_ W r•' { .,: Y � �
J � �l ` �� �� ` � I a., <. r � � •f yr' - .[ c {-°rY�d � .oa•� y�f�IC w•�
F' � / i ✓�✓5t n •. -nI � R,3E,
.y� f llU r t <a TRANSFORMER
i .,j i 9 �r ' n '• d' ?1 ! '�'jt I� �t • ,dry {�' - i!�' �, /
la1 ti�.q�, '�ji v1 av{" 4-r r..)� hrr �� � •r�.Y .r" a �'
w +i . as •P, ` f •� �- tt � d +rt # a �`• ! 1 d �•� l eri�t 5�.3'•S''�t '�� 1�5 � ,I ,� r� 1 � �
r 6"Y' � ( t 7 I ii. �•v 44 ��'�j�1,.,p l6Y a c�wv�.r- �� r \ � .v i'1 si-
IzL' ktx ,7lT• `; $ ��1 fh't�'I'.ld� i^.'� Yy�,�'r�i '+rhl idle• /rS,q �ilf er 'b* I r` _
✓ 2 , Jar �4n � s � :�'% rIC Y,• vly � bv�.�ii''i r rh a r �`!S*Y�jn .V. -+t � �"`a^} 1�F-aw/.
•,ri yw.yT I i• ! I • I' rT Qp..�. °,:i }+ a.-�``<A' �}. N ',erg
r a t Y .xr ! • e.r.L+::3'xr �`� .n �y�p�r� 'f���,y.5;, ( \.
syd h +C�d1 r 4 9r/ If h/r�Q �r Ik�'v'1,795L�1�+�`��i�eV�l`C'a'lv�y�i'�r ")t'Y �11rdq•+ )Yr/.
i� \ I� i I . k 1 �/� ..�}� 'L� .1 d'+ S'�9- �.�.<. r•�� 1�� Z'�! I � �dr°J / ri.
y�,� . � �i'Y / f t)• IJy/ J � y i+[3ef tb a� r �XAtS1fo
4i'� t .
4 'ar _ q .s 7 ! '• �I r �'t' � �rY. ', I %i17 -. 1,. 5`KP) •� �+5
s df;. � 1. i `� ( ; 1 •' r i'/ `)c �` 3 r} r 1' Fr a/.
SP. •i' `; c l_. 1 P� 'f Jj� I ,v r t
Lexi aS If ` �'rt n•
�J, 'y�s• 1 II t PN
10,
t �. ''•�iIdjQ rr`1�'rfi\GdJ +�
A i16� �'r'f1s. ail -.e4 L
(er i r
�+t ,a EXISTING PHONE
Jr
r ��� r, a �` If'''s►; ,
(s& Y M �>, `/! f($ i.', /// L..� � • y' t•�ir .4 < y +.. Fy , 1
�7 �+/ �+ Lify it � �rl� )y?'w o-,1 ir•... r -s, ..�y� it 4„+
! f l tL f T
q. I { 1// � t , � +' l '.:' J r ` �.7 M1•b+'• Vit{ }��.. i',�. 'w � .e �'��
� .� ) :I � ; �, t � I I r, �G d 3, �..Cr2 �nro � ,7 ��,f i •'�' r � ,.
a ' . 1 ✓ \ r7. +e ix d •�,y4 ^ ei .4 Y � 7 - i > .r '
' i �+ I - ,. + �r / •,y�v .4.r .H aM1L1`t"i,e: `me \ 'r t5 `� x fir �7
i4 I '�•_ I YI ,r . t R=. >t: � ��<,{ F. )yr .s f+� ry 74`.+,cE {r .e I r il
�G^ I r" '�� � r / I � S F; �iP � •' f r IN I Jyti' DRi ,
`.+ .rl.� �'I //� r 7� >Ed •I j rr �y {f 1 rr+ Yrr J i b. c Y7.
1 Ir n • a � +. x Pi��SR\yM�4ii� +p r
b• V.i I/ 1 I I �� I r r 2 r id AI� - �
14 S' � (....a v� [r'1' yo 6 ! f d✓Sti9 .e r ,;- ..Y '� _ S j� ��, .•.. s 1 rl_ i 4 YTi tra % �'t
� i d. ��� r��. �y l +< _. �a/ .., � aF�I �•SR-: +. tt mar S"„i�a��d �f'� -i
a. (', ��',>: ,�''>'f' �/" c.4s sr �, ta1�4•�,S rp1""il�:�a� alt}t+. f��
�, :' "� '� ! . I b�.�' ✓r,1 + •{�' /•+� 1`Y - of .? "r j - i ' ) _
r f
pw 77
�sEXISTING PHONE
PEDISTAL• y . tr ixY d'Y> ii�f c
�1 9 t
EXHIBIT C
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION
This Repair and Maintenance Agreement and Declaration (the "Agreement and Declaration')
is made effective as of the _ day of , 2005, by and among Andre' and Josephine de
Lucinges ("de Lucinges"), Robert and Jennifer Mach ("Mach'), and Blue Bird Meadow, LLC
("Blue Bird"). -
1. Recitals. de Lucinges, Mach and Blue Bird (collectively, the "Lot
Owners") are each seized of an estate in fee simple of those parcels of land located in Lot 44 and
45, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision according to the plat thereof, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, as set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (each a
"Property," and collectively the "Properties"). The Lot Owners are parties to an Access and Utility
Easement ("Easement") of even date herewith under which the Lot Owners created a thirty (30)
foot wide access easement across Lot 45, as described on Exhibit B, for the benefit of the Lot
Owners (the "Easement Tract"). The Lot Owners desire to set forth their rights and responsibilities
with respect to the construction, repair and maintenance of the improvements to the Easement
Tract in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein.
2. Construction. The construction to be performed pursuant to the
provisions of this Section 2 shall be referred to as the "Improvements". Blue Bird shall be
responsible for all costs associated with:
(i) the surveying, engineering, designing, and grading required to widen
the existing driveway within the Easement Tract on Lot 45 to a width of
16 -feet with a 1 -foot wide gravel or aggregate shoulder on each side of
expanded asphalt driveway;
(ii) repaving any asphalt roadway disturbed by construction relating to
expansion of the driveway;
(iii) complying with all drainage and landscaping requirements of the Town
of Avon.
3. Repair and Maintenance. Repairs and maintenance shall be made
from time to time to the Improvements as Blue Bird shall determine from time to time. Upon
completion of the Improvements, Blue Bird shall be responsible for the cost of repairing and
maintaining the Improvements, including plowing and snow removal. Blue Bird agrees to maintain
the portion of driveway located outside of the Easement Tract that lies within the boundaries of Lot
44 in a similar condition to the Improvements located within the Easement Tract. de Lucinges and
Mach agree to maintain the portion of driveway outside of the Easement Tract that lies within the
boundaries of Lot 45, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision in a similar condition to the Improvements
located within the Easement Tract.
7
4, Liability Insurance. Each Lot Owner shall be responsible for carrying
liability insurance on their own individual Property as defined in the respective Party Wall
Agreement or Townhouse Declaration associated with the Property. The creation of the Easement
shall not effect the responsibility to maintain liability insurance for each respective Property.
5. Governmental Compliance. The construction of the Improvements and
the repair and maintenance of the Improvements shall be done in 'full compliance with all
applicable federal, state and local laws.
6. . Enforcement of Rights. In the event any party hereto fails to discharge
its respective obligations hereunder, any other party hereto shall have the right to enforce this
Agreement and Declaration by an action in law or in equity (including a suit for specific
performance) without thereby waiving the right to also recover in an action for damages any such
sums expended by such other party at its discretion in performing such obligations. In the event
that any party hereto must institute a legal proceeding against the other party to enforce its rights
hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover and'the court shall award reasonable
attorney's fees (including those incurred on appeal or whether or not suit be filed) and costs from
the non -prevailing party in such amounts as the court deems proper.
7, Covenants Running with the Land All rights and obligations arising
hereunder are covenants running with the land, binding upon and inuring to the benefit of the
respective parties and their respective successors in title.
g, Governing Law and Venue. The laws of the State of Colorado shall
govern this Agreement and Declaration. Any legal action instituted hereunder shall be brought in
Eagle County, Colorado.
9. Signature. Each party hereto represents and warrants that the person or
persons signing this Agreement and Declaration on behalf of such party is duly authorized to do so.
Each party is hereby estopped from asserting that it or any party signing below did not legally
execute this Agreement and Declaration with all necessary or required authority.
10. No Partnership. None of the terms and provisions of this Agreement
and Declaration shall be deemed or construed to create a partnership between or among the parties
hereto in their respective businesses or otherwise, nor shall they cause the parties hereto to be
considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise. Each party to this Agreement and
Declaration shall be considered a separate entity and no party hereto shall have the right to act as
agent for any other party hereto unless expressly authorized to do so by written instrument signed
by the authorizing party.
11. Amendment Except as otherwise specifically set forth herein, neither
this Agreement and Declaration nor any provision may be waived, modified, amended, discharged
or terminated except by an instrument in writing signed by all of the parties hereto and recorded in
the Real Property Records of Eagle County, Colorado.
12. Counterparts. This Agreement and Declaration may be executed in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
13. Further Assurances. Each party to this Agreement and Declaration
agrees to execute and deliver other documents, instruments and certificates which are reasonably
necessary to implement fully the provisions and intent of this Agreement and Declaration.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have read and executed this Agreement and
Declaration effective as of the date first above written.
LOT 45-C Owner:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires:
Notary Public
LOT 45-B Owner:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF 1
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires:
Notary Public
LOT 45-A Owner:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF---------)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires:
Notary Public
LOT 44 Owner:
BLUE BIRD MEADOW, LLC
By: Robert A. Rymer, Manager
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF.
10
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by Robert A. Rymer.
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires:
Notary Public
11
To: Eric Heidemann, Senior Planner, Town of Avon
From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD
Date: 6/15/2005
Re: Lots 1, 2, 3, Dry Creek PUD, Wildridge, Avon
The above project was reviewed for fire department concerns with the following
comments:
- Existing water supply is adequate for the proposed density.
- Based on the current submittal with 3 additional residential units and the
proposed day care operation, the existing access does not meet fire department
requirements. The road will need to meet fire code requirements or the Town of
Avon road requirements, which ever is more restrictive.
- Additionally, a site plan showing vehicle access and a tum around, based on the
turning radius analysis for the Pierce Quantum, is required. I've attached a copy
of the analysis data.
Please call me at 748-4741 if there are any questions.
f
y�"J•Mrf�' 1��- y iu��'a• 7N1%V.`y�• w+:WVrl+ �r+b
Turning k' formunccAnalysis':.
Eag1r., Aivr_r F. P. D. Quantum(::)
ltll400+1 a+mp.r
1...— .
f--
1Oomponents PR1DE9 DescrIption
pmmelen:
ilmml
. , ,
In" Cmn p Mole:
45.00 ,
Me Track
8A.42 in.
WhW Offset'
5.25 i1L
NO Wds:
15.60 in.
ChaL* Overharq:
8244 in.
Ad krw BMW Depdh
10.00 In.
vomlbasa:
1ffi.00 in
Calculaled Turning MR:
Ineide Tum: AIL 1h
Cwb to Curb: 28 R 0 in.
we0 to wa0: ; :3.21L Bin.'
Comments:
FronlMe
0000272
l)do, Fant, MeulorFL-W..8,74Dk, wlassdst, Qbn
FWTiiras
D001611
Tires,6fitWim385165lM5018ply XZYuead
02 --as
0060015
Quantum -Side door Chassis
Froat Swnper
0012242
Burger, l0" ax wKW -ag dm is
.noes:
' Adud Inside Cramp Mille maybe less dun to hkNy spedalzed cp6ons.
Oub m Curb Yrmin0 radus cdcdalad fora 9.00 Inch cwb.
Redroe Ilrnh0 radsdsby 33°%ilvahkle is equlppedvrl9r dt•wheel slew
Iof2
SAME AS
ORIGINAL
_ rr
Figure I - view facing south
.,r 1'd'A&L
ev .
;Ct �. � '�'�:� .. , ,r �'� � ,aylez��e•.:a6iiws,•�+, x.,.,.' �.
Figure 2 - view facing north
. , ,
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 05-07
SERIES OF 2005
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A PUD AMENDMENT TO THE
WILDRIDGE PUD FOR LOT 44, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE
COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Blue Bird Meadow LLC, has applied for an amendment to the Wildridge PUD
to create three (3) single-family lots on Lots 44, Block 2 known as the "Dry Creek PUD",
as more specifically described in the application dated April 29, 2005; and
WHEREAS, after notices required by law, a public hearing on said application was held by
the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon; and
WHEREAS, said application fails to comply with the PUD criteria set forth in Section
17.20.110, which include the following:
a. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives
has not been met as required by 17.20.110H (1).
b. The current Wildridge subdivision did not contemplate development of single-family
dwelling units on the subject property. As proposed, the development of single-family
residences requires a subdivision variance for which the applicant has not met the
hardship guidelines necessary to recommend approval.
c. The function of the proposed shared access relative to the anticipated average daily
trips (ADT) creates access and circulation problems for future residents of these
properties if approved as submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby recommends denial of the application for an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to
rezone Lot 44, Block 2 from fourplex zoning for an existing total of four (4) dwelling
units to three (3) dwelling units on three (3) single-family lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3),
reducing one (1) development right, as more specifically described in the application
dated April 29, 2005.
,k
ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF June, 2005
Signed:
Chris Evans, Chairman
Attest:
Phil Struve, Secretary
Date:
Date:
I
MEMORANDUM
To: Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Blue Bird Meadows, L.L.C.
Date: June 21, 2005
Re: Dry Creek PUD Amendment/Response to Staff Report
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a written response to the Staff Report on
the Dry Creek PUD Amendment, dated June 21, 2005.
Applicant's Response
According to the Staff Report, the Staff has recommended denial of the PUD amendment
applications for five reasons:
1) failure to meet or advance the housing goals/policies,
2) compatibility of multiple family developments along Draw Spur,
3) single family development may exceed the extend of total site disturbance of four-
plex development,
4) shared access may be problematic with surrounding land uses, and
5) insufficient emergency vehicle turning movements.
The Staff Report suggests that the PUD amendment fails to meet or advance the housing
goals/policies adopted by the 1996 Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant
believes otherwise and, in fact, believes that the Staff Report fails to acknowledge the
numerous other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Town's
Comprehensive Plan contains over 100 stated goals and policies. Of which, the
Applicant has identified more than twenty goals and policies which are applicable to this
PUD Amendment application. A written response to each was provided with the
application submittal packet.
With regards to compliance with Policy A1.5 and Policy ClA, small -lot single family
(less than 3/4 acre) development is listed as one of the many different residential uses
deemed acceptable to achieve the housing goals of the community, and while the
proposed single family homes may not be purchased by a first time, local home buyer
they may be purchased by an existing local family thereby allowing them the opportunity
to remain in the community versus moving down valley to Edwards, Eagle, or Gypsum; a
trend that is clearly present today.
The Staff Report states that the Applicant's PUD amendment allowing for three single
family homes is compatible in design, scale, and use with the type of housing in the area.
Furthermore, the Staff Report also acknowledges that multifamily development is also
compatible with the type of housing in the area. The Applicant agrees. The Applicant
has never stated that multifamily development is not compatible. Instead, like the Staff,
the Applicant agrees that single family homes, like multifamily • development, are
compatible with the neighborhood. Unfortunately, the Staff Report then goes on to state,
Though there may be merit in this application of single-family homes in this block of
Wildridge in place of multifamily dwellings, the requisite changes to traffic patterns, bulk
and massing, existing buffer zones and character of the area are not positively affected. "
Upon review of these two differing statements, it appears the Staff is uncertain of there
opinion yet one things remains consistent; single family homes will not negatively affect
the neighborhood.
According to the Staff Report, the Staff suggests that single family development may
created more site disturbance than multifamily development. In fact, on page 6 of the
Staff Report it states, "The site plan and location of buildings appears to be less
responsive to the natural features of the existing topography than a single fourplex
structure per existing PUD" and "single family units would likely increase site grading
and disturbance resulting in less natural area. " While stated in the Staff Report, neither
statement is substantiated by study, data, or fact. The Applicant would argue that single
family development or multifamily development left unregulated can result in negative
impacts to the existing topography and vegetation. For that very reason, the Applicant
has agreed to place a self-imposed restriction on maximum site coverage and minimum
landscape area. Additionally, the Applicant has agreed to reduced setback requirements
on the interior of the development site only to ensure adequate buffers between adjacent
uses.
The Staff Report suggests that "shared access may be problematic'. In making this
statement Staff concludes that a prior special review use approval allowing for the
operation of a day care facility on Lot 45 and a 16 foot wide common access to six
dwelling units results in traffic congestion and circulation issues. To safeguard against
any possible traffic issues, the drop-off (and pick-up) of children was intended to be
staggered. Ironically, however, in 2000, a special review use permit for a day care facility
was approved at 2455 Old Trail Road. In that case, a 16 foot wide common driveway
accessing nine dwelling units was to be used for access to the day care with no
requirements for staggered drop-off or pick-up. More importantly, however, the
Applicant is agreeable to abandoning the notion of shared access and will utilize the
"pole" portion of Lot 44 as originally intended. In this particular instance the Applicant
brought forth the shared access idea to the neighbors in an effort to work within existing
conditions of the neighbor and increase the amount of landscape area. If instructed to do
so, the Applicant will revise the site plan and replace the landscape area with asphalt.
Lastly, the Staff Report states that according to the Eagle River Fire Protection District, a
site development plan needs to be submitted to the District for review and approval. The
Applicant had communicated with the District during the design stage of the project and
it was indicated that since this was a private asphalt drive, 16 feet in width that a turn
around was not required and that a minimum inside turning radius of 14 feet was
required. The proposed drive has a minimum radius of 20 feet. The Applicant will
submit plans to the District for review and approval.
2
Message
Eric Heidemann
From:
Tambi Katieb
Sent:
Monday, June 20, 2005 9:28 AM
To:
Eric Heidemann
Subject: FW: Dry Creek PUD
Eric:
Please print and submit for the record to P&Z. Thanks
-----Original Message -----
From: Dominic Mauriello [mailto:mauriello@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 10:26 AM
To: Patty McKenny; Tambi Katieb
Cc: Ron Wolfe
Subject: Dry Creek PUD
Dear Town Council and Planning Commission Members:
Page 1 of 1
I am writing this letter in support of the Dry Creek PUD being proposed by Greg Amsden and
company.
I am familiar with this proposal to reduce density from four dwelling units to three dwelling units in an
area of Wildridge that is predominately single-family and two-family in nature. The proposal will result
in more landscaping and open space than if developed as a multiple -family complex.
I believe proposed single-family homes in this area will improve property values, improve the aesthetics
of the neighborhood, and is more compatible with adjacent low-density residential uses. As a
professional planner it is my opinion that the proposal results in better land use planning based on the
changes that have occurred to market forces and the changes in development patterns that have occurred
in the area since this site was originally platted in the 1970's.
I believe this project provides a great opportunity for locals seeking to move up within the housing
market.
I would encourage you to approve this project.
Thanks,
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Nlauriello Planning Group, LLC
PO Box 1127
5601A Wildridge Road
Avon, Colorado 81620
(970) 748-0920 phone
(970) 748-0377 fax
(970) 376-3318 cell
m1UrielloCa comcast.net
6/20/2005
C,J , a
2-00r3 Go��sfve �.,./ e
f} O I-' , Co ?/"o
ADOPTED THIS 1st DAYOFJune, 2005
Signed:
Date:
Chris Evans, Chairman
Attest:
Date:
Phil Struve, Secretary
June 20, 2005
Town of Avon Community Development Department
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Avon Town Council
Dear Staff, Commission and Council Members:
The purpose of my letter is to ask you to support the proposed resubdivision
of Lot 44 from a multifamily zoning into 3 single family lots. I am a
neighbor that directly borders the property and 1 believe that changing the
zoning will positively impact the residential character of our neighborhood.
I really don't want to see a fourplex on the site and believe three single
family homes is a much better fit for the site. Most of the bordering homes
are single family and building of a fourplex would have a less favorable
look given the character of the neighborhood. I ask that you unanimously
support the request to rezone lot 44 into three single family buildings.
lJnda Jones
Owner of Victorian Tll family home bordering lot 44.
June 20", 2005
Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
Avon Town Council
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
Dear Commission and Council members,
I am writing you to express my support for the proposal to subdivide Lot
44 to create three single family residential lots. I have reviewed the plans
and believe that the proposal will be a better use of the lot by fitting
better into the existing neighborhood and offering a more desirable type
of housing that Wildridge needs. I understand that the applicant is
requesting approval of a plan that reduces density by eliminating a
dwelling unit. I do not support requests that increase density. I also
understand that the proposal will allow for the construction of single
family residences instead of a multiple family structure as currently
allowed.
Again, I am in support of the proposal and encourage you to support the
proposal as well by approving the applicant's request.
Sincerely,
Jason Perez
Owner of a single farnily home on Lot 43 bordering Lot 44
Ty -
ER u
Y
4
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
Town District Planning Principles
A. Districts Priority Classifications
While the Goals and Policies of this plan generally apply to all
areas of the town, the system of district designations provides
specific planning and urban design recommendations to distinct
geographical areas within the town. The district descriptions and
principles are a result of a combination of input from the
community, intent of the landowners, and the existing
development rights of the property.
As part of the comprehensive planning effort, the Steering
Committee undertook an effort to assess the appropriateness of
the previously assigned district boundaries and to make any
necessary changes to ensure that each district still comprised a
logical, cohesive geographic entity. Then the committee
conducted an evaluation of these districts to ensure that the
planning guidance and implementation recommendations of the
previous plan were still current and appropriate.
The next step was to assign to each district one of three relative
priority designations — High Priority, Medium Priority, or
Static/Low Priority — based upon the perceived level of
significant issues and/or changes confronting a particular district.
The priority levels do not understate the importance of any
particular area of the town. Instead, it was done out of the
recognition that the town needs to prioritize where and how it
expends its energy and resources to most effectively realize the
community -wide vision and goals expressed within this plan.
Because of this classifications effort, the Steering Committee
produced a new map identifying the town's districts updating
boundaries where appropriate and classifying each district by its
relative priority level. The final step in this effort involved re-
evaluating each district with particular emphasis upon the high
and medium priority areas in terms of the appropriateness of
these districts' role and specific Planning Principles given the
context of this Plan's Vision, Future Land Use Plan, Community
Framework Plan, and Goals and Policies.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page I an
The heart of the
community.
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
B. High Priority Districts
The following districts are high priority for the town:
olawammwu lr_
District 1: West Town Center District
in
The role of the West Town Center District is to be the heart of
the community. Social, cultural, intellectual, political, and
recreational gatherings occur in this district. In addition, it acts as
the common ground between the full-time residents, part-time
residents, and destination tourists through its diverse retail and
entertainment opportunities. All this activity and fusion will
make it the center of society and the true heart of the community.
The West Town Center District will be an intensely developed
mixed use, pedestrian -oriented area that serves as the primary
area for residential and lodging development within the overall
Town Core.
Currently, this district provides a diverse mix of land uses in
vertically mixed-use buildings. Uses include retail, office,
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 2 0
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
residential, government services, civic facilities, and parks
loosely grouped around a 50 -foot pedestrian mall right-of-way.
In 2001, the town completed a specific area master plan
(Appendix A: Town Center Plan) for this district that articulated
how the district could enable Avon to ensure its role as a
regional activity center. Key components of that planning effort
identified the following elements:
• The creation of a new "Main Street" in the existing
pedestrian mall right-of-way;
• The realignment of West Benchmark Road in order to
improve the circulation of the area and enhance the
development feasibility of key remaining vacant parcels;
• The linking of pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile
circulation to and through Avon's Town Center, Nottingham
Park, the Confluence site and the Eagle River;
• The development of a multi -modal transit center; and,
• The development of a parking structure associated with the
expansion of Avon's Recreation Center.
Develop a mix of uses that provide a strong residential and
lodging bed base supported by a mix of community and
guest serving commercial uses.
Create inviting storefronts with retail, restaurant, and
entertainment uses on ground levels and offices, lodging,
and residential uses above.
Plan for public plazas and other gathering spaces for
community interaction.
Provide entertainment opportunities for residents and guests
to enliven the area and extend retail hours.
Implement key recommendations such as the Main Street
concept from the Town Center Plan.
Enhance both pedestrian and auto connections within the
West Town Center District and link to the East Town Center
District and the Confluence District.
Use signage, streetscape design, landscaping, points of
Town of Avon Comprehensive Pian ^
Page 3 R� Q N
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
the district and the large Town Core area.
Use architectural detailing on ground level/first floor to
create an enhanced pedestrian environment.
Site buildings of various sizes along the street edge to
maximize sun exposure, protect views, and break up
building bulk.
Develop and incorporate a new/expanded transit center and
joint privatetpublic structured parking facilities that provide
well -lit, pleasant pedestrian circulation throughout the
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 4 0
A key
revitalization
prospect.
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
Potential Redevelopment Sites
OSeries of Public Plazas
�)
Roundabout
®
Vehicular and Pedestrian Crossing
It1
Anchor Retail
Diagram rot to sate.
District 2: East Town Center District
The role of the East Town Center District is that of a key
revitalization prospect for the community. Significant
redevelopment opportunities exist for many properties in the
district, and should be considered comprehensively and with
concem for the community's greatest needs and desires. This
district also abuts on the east to the Village at Avon project and
its anticipated future development. Strong, cohesive pedestrian
and street connections should be established to ensure that these
districts together create a consistent and cohesive community
experience.
The scale of the parcels provides an opportunity for
incorporating a variety of uses including those that require larger
lots and ample parking. The challenge will be to overcome the
confusing street layouts, indirect pedestrian walkways,
diminished sight corridors, and entice people to get out of their
car and experience the entire Town Center. Wayfinding will be
essential to the success of this district's commercial spaces.
A mix of uses with a primary orientation toward major retail
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 5
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
establishments, smaller retail shops, personal service
establishments, offices, and supporting residential/lodging uses
will be suitable for the district.
Develop a mix Of uses consisting of commercial useswith
supporting residential/lodging development.
Reconfigure key parcels and/or redevelop older,
underutilized buildings adjacent to Avon Road to make them
compatible with existing and future development in the West
Town Center District.
Implement a modified street grid pattern that functionally
extends Main Street across Avon Road.
Plan for public plazas and other gathering spaces for
community interaction. 1
Develop publiclprivate structured parking facilities to make
parking less obtrusive to the pedestrian.
Accommodate anchor retailers without large expanses of
parking to ensure individual buildings and their uses are
integrated into a larger, unifying framework.
Create a cohesive physical framework and community image)
(compatible building orientation, scale, massing, sitting,
street alignments, streetscape furnishings, signage, lighting,
etc.) between the town and the Village at Avon.
Use architecturally interesting detailing on ground level/first
floor for enhanced pedestrian environment.
Site buildings of various sizes along the street edge to
maximize sun exposure, protect views, and break up
building bulk.
Strengthen the pedestrian environment by ensuring
convenient pedestrian and auto access to the entire Town
Core.
Building height should not exceed four stories above grade
to maintain a strong visual connection to Beaver Creek.
Encourage a scale of development (i.e. 80' maximum j
Town of Avon Comprehensive PlanIf p
Page 6 A V Q N
The key
community
connector.
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
District 3: Confluence District
The Confluence District is the key community connector. Not
only a place where a river and creek converge, the Confluence
District represents one where roads, the railroad, regional trail,
and future gondola brings the community together and enlivens
the Town Core. The intent of the district is to facilitate an
extension of the Town Center with a significant residential/
lodging component, limited supporting commercial and services
uses, and direct gondola access to Beaver Creek.
The district is comprised largely of undeveloped land, with the
exception of the area's district wastewater treatment facility and
employee housing. The district has direct access to the railroad
right-of-way, the Eagle River, and Avon Road. The planning and
development of this district should appropriately incorporate
these three key assets.
Develop a mix of uses consisting of bed -base development
with supporting commercial development.
Develop a gondola (or other state-of-the-art conveyance)
linking the Confluence District to Beaver Creek Village as
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 7
0
Gondola to
Beaver Creek
Roundabout
®
Vehicular and Pedestrian Crossing
T
Transit Center
R]
Redevelopment Opportunities
District 3: Confluence District
The Confluence District is the key community connector. Not
only a place where a river and creek converge, the Confluence
District represents one where roads, the railroad, regional trail,
and future gondola brings the community together and enlivens
the Town Core. The intent of the district is to facilitate an
extension of the Town Center with a significant residential/
lodging component, limited supporting commercial and services
uses, and direct gondola access to Beaver Creek.
The district is comprised largely of undeveloped land, with the
exception of the area's district wastewater treatment facility and
employee housing. The district has direct access to the railroad
right-of-way, the Eagle River, and Avon Road. The planning and
development of this district should appropriately incorporate
these three key assets.
Develop a mix of uses consisting of bed -base development
with supporting commercial development.
Develop a gondola (or other state-of-the-art conveyance)
linking the Confluence District to Beaver Creek Village as
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 7
0
Gondola to
Beaver Creek
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Paso 8 RV 0 B
• Orient buildings to capitalize upon the river as an amenity byl
generally stepping down with varying heights across the site
to create a more natural scale.
• Parking areas, trash dumpsters, and loading or service areas
should be screened and/or buffered from the river corridor
and from Highway 6 to minimize impacts upon the river
condor and sustain compatibly with the river environment.
• Create a seamless vehicular and pedestrian connection to the
Town Center.
I
• Preserve and enhance public access to the existing linear
path/natural park running along the riverbank. Connections
from this path to both the Town Center and Nottingham Park
must be created in an ecologically sensitive manner as a key
natural amenity.
• Encourage preservation of all trees in wetland areas.
Encourage development efforts to minimize the loss of trees
and impact to the riparian area while still achieving the
urban design goals of this section.
• Use signage, streetscape design, building fomes,
landscaping, points of interest, and other wayfinding
elements to help orient visitors and lead them toward
important destinations within the district and Town Core
area.
• Anticipate and provide for transit facilities between the
Town Center and the Confluence in anticipation of a
passenger train on the railroad ROW.
• Plan for public plazas and other gathering spaces for
community interaction.
• Develop a whitewater park to broaden the spectrum of
recreational opportunities in town.
• Recognize the Confluence District as the most valuable
property in Town limits and should be developed at its most
optimal level.
• Building height should not exceed eight stories above grade
and maintain a strong visual connection by preserving
prominent view corridors to both the river and Beaver Creek.
• Limit buildings to no more than four stories in height to
ensure that development is subordinate to the town center
and compatible with the river environment.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Paso 8 RV 0 B
A showcase
for the best
of Avon.
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
Vehicular and Pedestrian Crossing
0 Avon Road showcase
District 4: Avon Road Corridor
The Avon Road District's role as a showcase for the best of
Avon is derived from the part it plays in the experience of the
community. Being the major connection between I-70 and
Beaver Creek Resort, Avon Road is the first (and occasionally
only) area many people see in the community. It is important that
this generally vehicular experience is significant enough to peak
the interest of the vehicle's occupants and get them out of their
cars and into the Town Center. The artwork and immaculate
landscaping helps this cause, but the surrounding architecture
and streetscaping must also be affecting.
Avon Road is the most traveled road in Avon, providing direct
access to Avon's Town Core areas, I-70, Highway 6, and the
Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch base areas. In 1997, the town
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 9
Town District Planning Principles
High Priority Districts
completed a major improvement project of Avon Road that
replaced all five of its signalized intersections with roundabouts
and provided significant streetscape enhancements. Though
these improvements and enhancements are widely recognized as
having achieved their primary objective of congestion relief, two
significant challenges still confront this corridor. First, the ease
and speed at which vehicles traveling through Avon's Town
Core area between the I-70 interchange and the entrance to
Beaver Creek and other U.S. Highway 6 destinations is such that
travelers are not enticed to venture into the Town Core's two
major mixed-use districts. The second significant issue is that
Avon Road functions as a barrier for pedestrians attempting to
walk within the Town Core between East and West Town Center
Districts.
Integrate Avon Road into the Town Core development and
redevelopment efforts by incorporating wayfinding,
pedestrian planning, and other streetscape enhancements to
ensure that Avon Road provides a sense of arrival to the
town.
Site buildings of various sizes along the street edge to
maximize sun exposure, protect views, and break up
building bulk.
Use signage, streetscape design, landscaping, points of
interest, and other wayfrnding elements to help orient
visitors and lead them toward important destinations within
the district and Town Core area.
Create a pedestrian connection across Avon Road to fully
integrate the Town Core and link the East and West Town
Center Districts.
Limit building heights fronting Avon Road to existing
heights to avoid a canyon effect and to preserve Beaver
Creek views.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan FORM
Page 10 � 1 I'
O N
V
N y
OL
m `�
C N L
U�oo
C C U M
F F 7 Cf
Lu
N 0 C O
a
co
o m m m m
mmda�
a`
) > > 7
(� U) UJ f n
z
Q
J
a
w
z
w
w
w
IL
2
O
U
z
O
a
LL
O
LO
r
U
_N
L Q
O T
O m
LO .` U
U L m
V1 N
vmoOU�
in rMo
0,?a)N 0 0 0 O 0 U U_
(p C C C 0-0 0 Z
ya To o o > oin(n�
m m¢>Q¢>.. U•
c m 3 m�-o d a22
M L L MM m a3 � m 0 0 0
a0) O) a) a) a) a U OL LL LL LL
TOfn__—_>Z»
= z :3 > > 7 .. N_ M V
. C)
a` m m m m m m m m
E a m m m m m m
naaa��nn
U
L
N_
� U
a) �
V U Uco
W
❑ U a
U U 'OO -p E p) `
C C
m0aa))aa))0 ma wtm
_o �o
❑Da'aU u c 00
Co m o o d m 3 z m
mmm v�ym a
aa)) G)) W W W >,d C"o o 0
m �L
a3 a)LL L y7 �C JL m C
O3 0) (m m 'O O) a) a)
C C_ C_ U' C C cm L
w O C) 7 't •= MV
an d> o o o K- 0 3 0= o
-OD 12zzz_2U)z>z
N (O m ap W C. N Ci 7i ui (o 1-
w
O
a
O
J
P-4
N
u3
O
0
a
DD 1