PZC Packet 092005Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
AVON
Meeting
September 20, 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 - Mountain Center
Property Location: 910 Nottingham Road
Review proposed building color and building detail.
5:00 pm Commission Work Session
(Discussion of Items on Agenda)
- REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -
I. Call to Order at 5:30 pm
II. Roll Call
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Consent Agenda: Approval of the September 6, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes. Approval of the September 14, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission
Comprehensive Plan Meeting.
VI. Comprehensive Plan Update (6:00pm - 7:00pm) - PUBLIC HEARING
Description: Discussion on the proposed Implementation Matrix.
VII. PUD Amendment/ Sheraton Mtn. Vista (7:00pm — 7:05pm) PUBLIC HEARING - Tabled
from August 16, 2005 Meeting — Requesting tabling to the October 4, 2005 Meeting.
Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision/140 West Beaver Creek
Boulevard
Applicant/Owner.Points of Colorado, Inc
Description: A request for an amendment to the Lot C PUD to modify the existing property rights and
zoning for Lots 2C, 3, 4, and 5 (Phase 1C). This application proposes to eliminate a 125 -room hotel
and restaurant, and increases the number of time-share units in the project's last phase of
development. The Commission tabled this application from their August 16, 2005 meeting.
VIII. Fence Application (7:05pm — 7:20pm)
Property Location: Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/998 West Beaver
Creek Boulevard
Applicant. Jeff Lineback
Description: Jeff Lineback is proposing a split rail fence on the property of Sunridge Phase I (also
known as 'Lift View Condominiums'). This application follows a meeting on site with the Town's Code
Enforcement Officer. Because this application fails to meet the criteria for residential fences as
outlined in the Design Guidelines, specific approval from the Commission is required.
Posted on September 16, 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://www.avon.oro /Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
IX. Sketch Design —10 Residential Units (7:20pm — 7:40pm)
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 10 unit residential project on
this lot. The proposed materials include a combination of stone veneer and wood siding with a
maximum building height of 58' and maximum lot coverage of approximately 35%. The subject
property measures approximately .69 acres and is currently undeveloped.
X. Sketch Design - Duplex (7:40pm — 8:OOpm)
Property Location: Lot 10, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/ Wildridge Road West
Applicant/Owner.Daniel Ritsch
Description: The applicant is proposing a duplex on this Wildridge property.
XI. Sketch Design - Duplex (8:OOpm — 8:15pm)
Property Location: Lot 78, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5691 Wildridge Road East
Applicant: John G. Martin, Architect/ Owner. Dan Dirksen
Description: John Martin is proposing a duplex on this Y2 acre property. This application proposes two
units; the western 4 -bedroom unit measures 4,078 square feet, and the eastern 3 -bedroom unit
measures 3,079 square feet. The structure is three levels with a south facing walkout basement level.
XII. Minor Project - Addition (8:15pm — 8:30pm)
Property Location: Lot 56, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision/2245A Old Trail Road
Applicants/Owners: Mark & Alicia Pribramsky
Description: The owners are proposing an addition to an existing duplex unit in Wildridge. Two
bedrooms and two bathrooms would be added above a space that will be converted into a family
room. The exterior of the home will be modified with the addition of new windows and wood siding.
XII. Other Business (8:30pm — 8:40pm)
Property Location: Applicant/Owner.
Description:
XIII. Adjourn (8:40pm)
Posted on September 16, 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.om / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
ATVO
PMinutes
D0 Se tember 6 2005
COLOtA DO
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 with the exception of Commissioner Buckner.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There was amendment to the to the Agenda for Item IX, Sign Design - Wells Fargo Bank
Property Location: Lot 22AB, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/250
Chapel Place, Applicant: Billy Huff - RMD Signs / Owner. Timberline Commercial
Management, to be placed on the Consent Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts to report.
V. Consent Agenda:
• Approval of the August 16, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes.
• Item IX, Sign Design — Wells Fargo Bank, Property Location: Lot 22AB, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/250 Chapel Place
Commissioner Smith motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda and Commissioner Green
seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
VI. Comprehensive Plan Update - PUBLIC HEARING
Description: Discussion on the proposed Goals and Policies. Discussion of regional land
use issues with Eagle County Senior Planner Cliff Simonton.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
Rebecca Leonard, Design Workshop, introduced Cliff Simonton, Eagle County Senior Planner,
to discuss the Comprehensive Plan being produced for Eagle County by Design Workshop. Mr.
Simonton commented on the housing portion of his plan and that the East end of Eagle County
is almost built out and he voiced interest in the Commissions viewpoint of redevelopment in
Eagle -Vail. He continued with the mean household salary, commuter workforce, and Baby
Boomer housing projections. Commissioner Evans questioned the baby boomer demographics
and Mr. Simonton commented on the 30 -year transition for the Boomers and the immigration
situation with its changing the scenario to workforce housing from affordable housing. Deed
restriction is the only way to cap the appreciation throughout the County. Mr. Simonton
expressed the need for intergovernmental interchange of development and communication in
the future. He continued with discussing the quality of life for Eagle County and how to address
its density problems and the need for a change in mindset to accommodate for open space. He
continued that Mintum was a missed opportunity with their railroad history and developing a
museum or such as a focus for R. He said that a sense of place for Avon was warranted and
would benefit to be captured in the Comprehensive Plan, as is the European style of Vail.
Commissioner Green commented on the reciprocal planning review between Avon and Eagle
County of future projects to develop in conjunction with one another rather than to isolate.
Commissioner Struve questioned the BLM and Forest Service and their involvement in the
future of Eagle County and the response from Mr. Simonton was that they were interested.
Rebecca Leonard approached the podium and commented that it is a cultural change to move
toward coordination with the County. Commissioner Evans commented on the 'why come and
live in Avon'. Ms. Leonard commented on the °small town" aspect and how is it quantified and
dealt with. She continued that it would require monitoring over time as the key to growth
management. Commissioner Evans questioned who is to determine the quality of life. Pulse
on the community, constant effort to be in touch with the community, variety of methods to get
return of dialogue, and the capability of making ongoing changes through time to the
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Evans commented on what makes Avon special to
capture population by appeal to tourism.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Leonard discussed some changes made to the Plan. She discussed the groups in the
community who will make use of the Plan and its concise comments. She continued with
discussing 'headings' which will impact policies and goals. Commissioner Evans commented
that more time was necessary to review the details of the plan through the eyes of a developer,
planner, visitor, tourist, property owner, etc. Ms. Leonard voiced that 4 more hearing may be
necessary either by hearings or commission meetings with Wednesday and Thursday evenings
as preferred. Tambi Katieb asked the Commission what times would work best during the
week, and informed the Commission that he would email them with dates for at least 2 special
meetings to conclude the Commissioner review of the plan.
VII. Sketch Design - Mountain Center
Property Location: 910 Nottingham Road
Applicant/Owner. Mark Donaldson / Lund Capital Group
Description: The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing Mountain Center building by
adding architectural features to both the north and south elevations. The proposed
modifications include: decorative crown molding, metal roof forms above storefronts, window
trim, columns, and arcade over the existing staircase on south elevation.
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Mark Donaldson, Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, approached the podium and introduced the
members of his staff and principals in attendance. Mr. Donaldson began that he is aware of the
need to bring back a sign program, more detail on the colors and texture, a formal landscape
plan and a complete lighting design for the exterior to include parking and' building lighting. He is
withdrawing the increase of parking for this project as calculations of parking reveal an excess
of approximately 7 spaces.
Commissioner Evans questioned the dumpster and its move to the alternative location. Mr.
Donaldson commented that landscaping and dumpster location is still under operational review.
Commissioner Green questioned the route of the trash trucks as going all around the property
for pick up. Commissioner Savage questioned why the redevelopment of the property and Mr.
Donaldson commented that the industrial commercial market has a need for this structure to be
revamped with offices and return of stairways that were removed by the Vail Recreation District.
Mr. Donaldson commented that they were directing the use of the building for retail, redesigning
the landscaping to enhance retail and looking to reduce the cloning detail. Commissioner
D'Agostino suggested a variation of detail rather than further detail. Commissioner Green
commented that design would drive rental. Commissioner Evans agreed with Commissioner
D'Agostino and voiced that variation of material with grouping of units or color changes from the
existing along with the roofline design alternatives could enhance the project.
VIII. Final Design —Walsh Residence
Property Location: Lot 10, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5730 Wildridge Road East
Applicant. Jim Jose / Owner: Karen Walsh
Description: The applicant is proposing a final 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. A sketch design plan for this project was reviewed at the
Commission's June 7, 2005 meeting.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report.
Jim Jose, applicant, approached the podium to answer staff concerns. Commissioner
D'Agostino sought clarification of the changes as proposed in sketch review. Mr. Jose
commented that the existing home would not be changed with the exception of some stone
removal and commented that the driveway was too deep even with the snowmelt feature. Mr.
Jose responded that the steep drive was driven by the elevation within the structure. The
discussion continued with Commissioner D'Agostino detailing issues with the boulder wall,
timber beams, the desire for additional landscaping, bump outs and fascia distinctions, stairway
consideration and entry design. Commissioner Struve voiced concern with the retaining wall,
the need for the existing structure to harmonize with the new structure, concern with drainage in
the back patio, overhangs on the existing structure were 6 foot and the new was 4 foot.
Commissioner Savage concerned with the drainage, impact to neighbors, and he agreed with
Commissioner D'Agostino's comments. Commissioner Green voiced a problem with the roof
and its elevation, tub location between plan sheets, and Mr. Jose responded that they were his
oversights. Commissioner Green expressed that the landscaping should mitigate the
construction edges thus softening it; commented that the hammerhead was too short for the
site, agreed with the stone removal on the existing structure, and he had concerns with the
south elevation and its stone; and suggested that the back patio be equipped with snowmelt.
Commissioner Smith voiced concern with maneuverability in the driveway. Commissioner
Evans preferred the vertical wall to be eliminated, commented on a window discrepancy on the
sheets presented, back patio could not be day lighted and suggested taking the drains to the
sanitary sewer with minimal expense, plus accessibility for wheelchair use could not be done as
the bathrooms are currently configured, and the unification of the two structures to include light
fixtures and to enhance the landscaping plan.
Mr. Jose commented on the staffs conditions.
Charlie Viola, neighbor to the east, approached the podium with concerns with the property line
and the vertical wall with children present. Commissioner Evans suggested that the two parties
speak in private to come to a common ground.
Commissioner Green moved for approval of the plans as submitted with the five conditions of
the staff report and with the following conditions: 1) The existing stone on the existing
residence, abet and above the balconies, including the existing fireplace, be removed and
replaced with stucco and painted to match the existing building; 2) all light fixtures are changed
out to match the new light fixtures, 3) the landscape plan as submitted is not approved and
must be brought back for re -review; 4) the stone walls at the east property line be reviewed,
negotiated with neighbor and brought back to with a solution to give more turning room and
landscaping plan, when it comes back, has some manner in addressing the hard hair cut edge
of the construction line limit on the back of the house; and 5) make sure the roof works with the
elevations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. All commissioners were in favor and
the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Green requested the changes be brought back
to the commission as soon as possible.
IX. Sign Design - Wells Fargo Bank
Property Location: Lot 22AB, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/250
Chapel PI
Applicant: Billy Huff - RMD Signs / Owner. Timberline Commercial Management
Description: The applicant is proposing two exterior signs for the new Wells Fargo Bank
location in Chapel Square. The two signs would be similar in design to the existing oval
shaped business identification signs in the Chapel Square PUD.
Moved to Consent Agenda.
X. Town Zoning Code Additions & Amendments - PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant: Community Development
Description: The Commission to review a proposed Ordinance to amend Section 17.08 of the
Avon Municipal Code as it relates to the definition of "Use" Section 17.08.820, "Accommodation
Unit" Section 17.08.050, and "Kitchen" Section 17.08.400. The proposed Ordinance would add
Section 17.08.285 to the Avon Municipal Code for the definition of an "Efficiency Kitchen".
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report.
Commissioner Struve suggested a change to the definition of 220 and 110 voltage and change
it to amperage. Commissioner Green suggested removal of the voltage altogether and use of
stoveloven/cook top or combination thereof. The discussion continued that the density was the
driver for the resolution and the definition of an efficiency kitchen.
Commissioner Struve motioned to approve Item X, Town Zoning Code Additions &
Amendments, Applicant Community Development, with the following corrections to the Zoning
Code Ordinance: Kitchen — a stove and/or cook top and/or oven powered by either natural gas
or propane or electric hookup; and on Efficiency Kitchen it will be stove, cook top or oven and,
leave 220 in and the accommodation unit will be 400 square feet instead of 600 square feet.
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. All commissioners were in favor and the motion
passed unanimously.
XI. Other Business
A. Lot C PUD Amendment scheduled for September 20, 2005 Commission meeting.
The applicant has requested a site tour and Mr. Heidemann will relay the comments
of the commission to the applicant.
n
B. The Gates project came to the last Town Council meeting and the Town Attorney
was not prepared to discuss. They plan on attending the next Town Council meeting
to present their case to reactivate their building permit.
C. The Folsom property may come in as an independent project.
D. The Confluence will be revising some of their modeling and should be presented to
the Commission around mid October.
E. The Ferret Lane Hotel is challenging the short-term rental situation as approved by
Town Council.
F. Commissioner Evans commented on the Metcalf Road parking issue and parking nj
the western shoulder of road.
XII. Adjourn
Commissioner Struve motioned to adjourn; Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. All
Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
ryu
gyp, Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
NComprehensive Plan Special Meeting Minutes
C " L " . A , O September 14, 2005
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm.
It. Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner
Buckner.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions to the Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts to report.
V. Consent Agenda:
There were no prior issues for Consent
VII. Comprehensive Plan Update
Description: Review the planning principles and recommendations within the
Low Priority Districts (Subareas) and work through Draft Plan Observation Summary
as it pertains to the Low Priority Districts.
Eric Heidemann outlined the remainingschedule of meetings. The plan is to get
through the rest of the plan in the two special meetings and one regular meeting. All
of the goals were collated into one document to simplify this portion of the review
process. Commissioner Green questioned Policy A1.2 and the literal interpretation of
this policy as it relates to (all?) development submittals. The language "as deemed
necessary by staff" will be added to Policy A1.2.
Commissioner Struve requested that the language "from town boundary" be added to
the reference to the Town's 3 -mile plan at the end of Policy A1.1. All Commissioners
were in agreement.
Policy B1.2 was discussed and whether this density discussion was limited to just the
Town Center West, or to Town Center East as well. It was commented that Avon
road bisects the east and west Town Center areas in the current plan draft. The
Commission discussed where the "critical mass" can and should be located. Town
Center districts were defined to include the area between Chapel Square and
Nottingham Lake. Building height allowance for the western portion of the Village at
Avon was questioned by Commissioner Green. Consensus was reached to strike
"underdeveloped" from Policy B1.4.
J
Policy B2.2 was discussed and it's literal meaning. The Eagle River Watershed Plan
was adopted by Town and this plan will be referenced in this Policy. Public access to
the eagle river was emphasized by the Commissioners, and whether or not there
should be a statement in B2.
There was brief discussion on Goal B.3 — Annexations. Quasi -governmental
agencies should be called out with a list of all agencies that may be affected. This
could help the Town and developers to understand who reviews annexations. The
Town's current referral policy was reviewed and Tambi Katieb explained when we
entertain referrals from the county.
Policies in CA were discussed. Commissioner Struve would like Policy C1.5 altered
with the deletion of the words "effective development". Policy C1.7 should be altered
to permit home occupation business "where no negative impact to the neighborhood"
is experienced. This reference to home occupations should also be added to Policy
C.2. Housing price ranges and the difference between 'workforce' and high end
housing was contemplated. Should the Town legislate housing prices? Or do we let
the free market dictate housing prices? Commissioner Evans felt that the burden
should not be on the developer to provide these units. Rebecca recommended that
the Commission revisit this portion of the plan.
Policy C3.2 and the word 'retail' was discussed. The Commission asked if this
definition should be broadened to include all commercial uses. Commissioner Green
asked if Policy C3.2 and C3.3 should be combined. Consensus was that Policy C3.2
should be moved to the specified subarea where "Main Street" is located so that if a
developer was doing a project on "Main Street" it would not be a burden to find all
relevant information. Policy C3.3 will stay in this section of the plan.
The LEED certification reference In Policy C.4.4 was brought up by Commissioner
Green. He felt that this policy was aimed at encouraging environmentally sensitive
building practices, and that new language be added to this policy to clarify the intent.
The LEED program might not be around forever and there shouldn't be this specific
reference.
Community Image and redevelopment as it relates to adjacent properties was
discussed. Lot 12 was used as an example for where these policies would come into
play, as well as Main Street. Rebecca Leonard suggested the addition of a new
Policy to the front of Goal D.1 to reference other adopted or community plans. The
Town should encourage creative planning and forward thinking development,
however, it must be somewhat compatible with the adjacent development.
The Town should not attempt preserve views from Interstate 70. Consensus was to
strike D2.3, especially since it seemed to conflict with Policy D2.6. The Commission
would like the reference to Bob the bridge moved to the subarea plan where this
bridge is located.
Policies for Town Center should be moved to the appropriate subarea of the plan
where it is located. Within Policy D4.5, pedestrian should be plural and automobile
should be changed to vehicle. The Commission agreed that Goal D.5 should be
U
stricken from the plan all together, since the Town does not have any significant
historical resources.
There was discussion on the Economic Development portion of the plan. Live/work
situations will go a long way if they are encouraged in this document. The parking
structure and its function were contemplated. A policy should be added to address
the potential for skier parking. Light Commercial land uses should be encouraged in
the Town where appropriate. Additionally, under Goal E.3, Policy E3.7 — the Town
should have links to websites where you can make hotel reservations from our
homepage. Within Policy E3.10, the specific examples (i.e. Snapple) should be
stricken from the plan. Policy E3.11 was discussed and whether this should
encourage live/work situations. The Avon Chamber of Commerce should be stricken
from Policy E3.14 since it does not exist.
The Housing element was discussed at length. To what degree should the Town
regulate 'work force' or 'affordable/attainable' housing? Eagle County and the
Confluence were discussed as examples for when these policies will or have been
applied. Pitkin County's example of a tax on new large homes over a certain square
footage was mentioned. Rebecca brought up the jobs/housing balance that the
County discussed. Policy F1.1 will be stricken from this section of the plan. A
detailed housing needs assessment will need to be reviewed to fully understand the
housing element portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Price control as it relates to 'work force' housing was taken out of the plan. The
minimum dwelling unit size (Policy F2.5) was discussed and there shouldn't be a
strict minimum number set in place. The policy should be one that establishes a
'dwelling unit size requirement', not a'minimum dwelling unit size.'
Existing streets that do not accommodate pedestrians should be required to when
redeveloped. Policy G1.7 should be more direct and concise to provide vehicular
access and a pedestrian connection between Metcalf Road and West Beaver Creek
Boulevard. Commissioner Evans felt that the language should be more action
orientated instead of words such as "investigate" or "develop" which do not get to the
goal of the policies.
Railroad Right -of -Way and crossings were discussed with respect to specific
references to properties. Conveyance versus Gondola connection between the Town
and Beaver Creek Boulevard were discussed. A Gondola is the preference for this
connection.
The environment and Policy H1.4 should be stricken since the Design Guidelines
already require a solar study for development in the Town Core. Noise issues and
how to deal with it was discussed. Vail and mufflers on Jake brakes was used as an
example for how to address this issue. Policy G4.2 can benefit with similar language
to what was used earlier in the plan with reference to green building.
The Commission struck Goal H.5 and all references to the historical natural features
to be recognized within Avon. The environmental awareness references should be
moved to the appropriate area of the plan. Land swaps within Avon should be
0
deterred, and the trails and trailheads should be created and maintained through
Forest Service lands.
XII. Other Business
None
XIII. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielsticl r
Community Development
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
Sep 09 2005 3:OOPM " LASERJET FAX
RUTH O. BORNE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 7833 AVON, CO 81820
(870) 748.1187 FAX (970) 748-1189
p.2
Adnfted m precece M FlMda and
Colorado
September 9, 2005
i12r. Tambi Katieb
Director of Community Development
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: PUD Application for Sheraton Mountain Vista
Dear Tambi:
On behalf of Points of Colorado, Inc. we are formally requesting a tabling of the PUD
Amendment application until the following meeting scheduled for October 4, 2005.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Kind regards,
RECEIVED
SEP 9 2005
Community Development
J
Staff Report
AVO N
Minor Project - Fence C U L e R A e U
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report Date September 13, 2005
Project Type Minor Project — Fence
Legal Description Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Address 998 West Beaver Creek Boulevard
Introduction
Jeff Lineback is proposing a split rail fence on the property of Sunridge Phase I (also
known as'Lift View Condominiums'). This application follows a meeting on site with the
Town's Code Enforcement Officer. Because this application fails to meet the criteria for
residential fences as outlined in the Design Guidelines, specific approval from the
Commission is required.
Attached to this report is an aerial photograph showing the (approximate) proposed
fence location and a letter from the applicant. A detailed full size (24" x 36") plan set will
be available for review at the meeting.
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 fence material is cedar and the fence would be less than four feet in height.
2. Split rail design with no more than 2 horizontal 'rails.'
The proposed fence utilizes two horizontal 'rails.'
3. Does not delineate property lines.
The proposed fence delineates a portion of the southerly property line.
4. Fenced area is less than 2,000 square feet.
Does not apply.
5. Wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed fence
design.
Does not apply.
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.
This application was approved by the association president. The fence would
connect the newly planted dogwood shrubs along West Beaver Creek Boulevard
Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
ti
Lot 9. Block 3. Benchmark at __,ver Creek, Minor Project— Fence
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 2
to an area south of Building C, where the grades drop off considerably towards
the recreation path and the Eagle River.
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.
Does not apply.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the application for the fence located on Lot 9, Block 3,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision because the fence appears to delineate a
property line (Criteria #3), and it is questionable whether the fence design is integrated
with the overall landscape design of the property (Criteria #6).
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,
Matt Pielsticker
Planner I
Att: Exhibit A - Aerial Photograph showing proposed fence location near Rec Path
Exhibit B - Letter from Daniel Misner, Land Concepts
Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Staff Report
Sketch Desi
zF
A Im V111
ON
nC0 L0 RA Do
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date September 14, 2005
Project type Multi -family
Legal description Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Zoning Residential High Density - RHD
Address 540 Beaver Creek Blvd.
Introduction
The applicant, Davis Partnership Architects, is proposing a Sketch Design application for
a 10 unit multi -family project. The proposal includes a single structure with a
combination of above and below ground parking. The maximum building height would
be approximately 58' with a maximum lot coverage of approximately 35%. As proposed,
all minimum zoning requirements have been adhered too (minimum setbacks, maximum
building height -60', and maximum lot coverage 50%.
As the Commission is aware, the previous design application, which included a multi-
family building with 10 dwelling units and a triplex building containing 3 units, was denied
by the Commission because the proposal did not adhere to the Residential Design
Guidelines. That denial was later appealed to Town Council whereby the Council
reaffirmed the Commission's decision. Before the Commission is a new Sketch Design
application, essentially beginning the design review process, which will later be followed
with a Final Design application.
Some of the prior comments from the Commission regarding the previous design
application included: (1) disproportionate massing in relationship to its neighbors; (2)
dominance that the project exhibits in relation to its neighbors; and (3) the apparent lack
of green space or open space surrounding the project (see attached minutes).
Staff Comments
The design of the proposed multi -family residence generally conforms to the Town of
Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines. The proposed
application differs in.several ways from the prior application in terms of the number of
residential units proposed, site design, lot coverage, landscaping, circulation design, and
architectural style. Staff supports the sketch plan as presented as it generally conforms
to the Town's residential design guidelines and is consistent with the underlying
development standard associated with the Residential High Density (RHD) zoning.
Although the applicant has not provided a complete description of all proposed building
materials, it appear that the building design would blend in well with the neighborhood's
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12, Block 2, BMBC Sketch Design
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3
"alpine" character with use of stone veneer with wood accents. It appears that there is a
tremendous amount of stone veneer proposed for the building. Staff would ask the
applicant to provide more of a description of the proposed materials and clarify the use
of stone veneer during the Commission's review.
The architectural style is both interesting and appealing with the inclusion of walkouts on
all levels; varied roof forms, interrupted wall planes, and a gradual reduction in mass as
the building nears the rear property line. It also appears that the orientation of the
structure and the building location compliment the existing topography of the site. These
are all features that are encouraged throughout the Residential Design Guidelines and
were also concerns expressed by the neighboring property owners.
The massing and scale of the structure has also been reduced when compared to the
prior application. Two of the proposed unit sizes are relatively large (5,401 and 3,270
square feet), and the average unit size is approximately 2,400 square feet which is
larger than the average unit size of the prior application (2,071 square feet). However,
with the overall reduction in the number of units from 13 to 10, the net square footage of
the entire building has been reduced by approximately 3,000 square feet, which
correlates to an overall reduction in mass and scale and a reduction by more than 10%
in the maximum lot coverage.
The proposed circulation design includes a drive that wraps around the east side of the
building and enters a below ground parking structure. The primary parking for the site is
located below grade — 19 spaces, with 3 above ground visitor parking spaces provided.
The access width and grades are in compliance with Town standards. The driveway
depicted varies in grade, but appears not to exceed 4% at any point and adequate
maneuvering for vehicles on site is provided.
The landscaping requirements in the RHD zone district require a minimum of 25 percent
of the site to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing to landscape- 37% of the lot.
Although a formal landscape plan in not required during Sketch Plan review, the
applicant has depicted some landscaping on the site plan for reference purposes. The
provision for additional landscaping and the setbacks provided for along the east
property line address the prior concern of creating a visual barrier and the lack of green
space.
Design Review Considerations
The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the
specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria:
A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Zoning Code.
B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of
the Town of Avon Residential_ Cnmmercinl nnrl inrincirinl nncinn
The Commission will take no formal action on the sketch plan application. Rather,
direction on the design will be given to the applicant from Staff and the Commission to
incorporate in the final design application.
Staff will provide full plan sets for you .to provide written comments and guidance to the
applicant at your September 20, 2005 meeting.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749.
Y
Lot 12, Block 2, BMBC Sketch Design
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748-4009, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Heidemann
Senior Planner
Attachments: September 12, 2005 Sketch Design application
June 21", 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Town of Avon Community Development • (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
September 10, 2005
Town of Avon
Planning and Zoning Commission
Post Office Box 975
Avon, CO 81620 RECEIVED
Re: Sketch Design Submittal Lot 12 SEP 12 2005
540 Beaver Creek Blvd. COtnmunfty Development
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of our client Daniel Ritsch with Creekside Development, Davis
Partnership Architects has prepared a new proposal for Lot 12, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The attached proposal is still proposed to be a
multi -family project on the existing high density residential zoned lot.
We are proposing to provide a multi -family project consisting of 10 residential
units in lieu of the 13 units allowed under the current zoning of RHD. The height
of the building is approximately 52 feet above the adjacent revised grade, which
places the height two feet under the 60 foot limit (as calculated against existing
grades). The calculation of building height is deceptive because the existing site
is depressed from the adjacent properties. This existing depressed site
contours result in the height as calculated by the zoning code to be misleading
as to the actual height of the proposed building. The setbacks for the proposed
project have all been met above grade and below grade. The proposed
development does not extend from setback to setback to avoid the potential of
creating a wall with the building. The building has been angled to match the
angle of the Alpinflora complex to the West of the site. This has allowed for
pockets of additional landscaping to be placed on the Western and Eastern
edges of the site. The minimum site landscaping requirement of 25% has been
met and exceeded. The site has 36% landscaped area. Parking has been met
by providing 3 exterior visitor spaces and 19 additional garaged spaces for the
21.5 spaces required (see calc. on dwg. cover sheet). The building site
coverage is 10,660 sf of the 30,033 sf of site area. This equates to the building
covering 35.4% of the site. The building under the current zoning is allowed to
cover 50% of the site. We are therefore proposing a building footprint 29%
smaller than that allowed under the existing zoning. The overall square footage
of the project is 37,696 sf including 8,230 sf of garage space. The total net unit
square footage is 23,888 sf. This new net square footage is 29% smaller that an
earlier proposal for this site.
Davis Partnership P -C., Architects Denver Office: 2301 Blake Street- Suite 100 Denver Calarada 80205-2108 303.861.8555 Fax 303 861,3027
Vail Office: 0225 Main Street - Unit C 101 Edwards Calerudo 81632 970.926.8960 Fax 970.926.8961
We believe the proposed development is compatible with the adjacent and
neighboring properties in massing, architectural style, height, orientation to
street, and quality of materials. We believe we have integrated the building with
the site topography, stepped the building with the sloped site, and stepped the
mass of the building from North to South in a way that reduces the overall scale.
We look forward to meeting with the Planning Board to review this new and
exciting proposal.
Sincerely,
Davis Partnership, P.C. Architects
Scott Nevin, AIA
Associate Principal
NEW Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
11
V
O1N�iMinutes
July 5, 2005
5:00 pm — 5:30 pm Commission Work Session
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:40 pm.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Green.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner D'Agostino voiced conflict with Item IX, Special Review Use Permit — Wildridge
TLC — Home Daycare, Property Location: Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2520C Old
Trail Road, Applicant: Jennifer Mach and Commissioner Buckner revealed a conflict with Item
VII. Final Design - Tabled at the June 21" Commission Meeting, Property Location: Lot 12,
Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540 Beaver Creek Blvd, Applicant/Owner.
Davis Partnership Architects/Daniel Ritsch.
V. Consent Agenda:
Approval of the June 21st, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Commissioner Smith motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda and Commissioner
Savage seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Evans abstaining due
to his absence at the last meeting.
VI. Comprehensive Plan Update — PUBLIC HEARING
Description: Review the planning principles and recommendations within the Medium Priority
Districts (Subareas) and work through Draft Plan Observation Summary as it pertains to the
Medium Priority Districts.
Rebecca Leonard approached the podium to begin discussion on the Medium Priority Districts.
Conversation began with moving the Town's Municipal Center and creating the area as an
amenity. Commissioner Evans mentioned that the area would be a western anchor to the Town
of Avon. Commissioner Struve mentioned the need to focus parking on the Nottingham area
and screening of the Beaver Creek parking lots. District 6: The "Gates" and Folsom property
were discussed and their direction of development. Ms. Leonard remarked that further
information on this site was necessary to format a use for the area. District 7: Commissioner
Struve commented that a portion of this site was designated as a school site. District 8:
Commissioner Smith questioned the multi use of District 8 and it was agreed that District should
begin by Post Blvd. Commissioner D'Agostino mentioned that the Comp Plan should reflect a
buffer area for any school site from commercial use. Commissioner Struve mentioned that East
Beaver Creek Boulevard should be developed as a boulevard with plantings and presence. It
was agreed consideration for this issue should be within the Comp Plan.
District 9: Conversation revolved around the need for commercial projects on the exit of Post
Blvd and the desire to keep said commercial to be screened from the highway and not to
exclude the high end residential already proposed in the area. The pedestrian bridge across I-
70 was to be removed due to its steep grades. District 10 discussion mentioned the need to
bullet point the access by bridge to the site. District 11 is located at the Metcalf Commercial
District and comments included future developments and redevelopment to focus on the issues
of access to sites, require proper on-site parking and circulation and to add a provision for a
bike lane or path on Metcalf Road that would tie into the current bike path system.
The next steps begin with the Design Charette for the Main Street Public Improvement. Lot C is
scheduled for July 19'h and the Confluence will be presented shortly thereafter.
There was no public input.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
VII. Final Design - Tabled at the June 21°' Commission 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.
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report to the commission.
Daniel Ritsch approached the podium to present his project. Scott Nevin, architect, presented
photos of the area to show the current development around Nottingham Lake, described each
building and their heights and distance to setbacks, and their relationship to this project.
Cody Engle, Buck Creek Condo owner, approached the podium to discuss the Buck Creek
Condominium Association's stance on the project. Mr. Engle continued that it is the scale and
height of the project that the Association rejects and that the view from Beaver Creek Boulevard
reflects the height of the project to be twice as tall as the Buck Creek and the Alpenflora sites.
Mr. Engle continued that the drainage in the area is a huge concern and the designated snow
storage site proposed drainage is not acceptable. Mr. Engle suggested the project shrink about
25% and it would then be acceptable.
Commissioner review began with Commissioner Savage commenting about right of use for the
site and the massive design of the proposed project. Commissioner Evans voiced that the
project has maxed out every limitation of the code regarding height, width, and parking; all
decks are clipped in order to keep this form within the property lines. As well, Commissioner
Evans voiced that this project sets a precedent for other developers in Avon and it is out of
scale with the surrounding structures.
Ferra Dendra, Alpenflora resident, commented that the project was crammed onto the site,
believed that they needed additional green space on the site and was concerned about the
project's impact on her green space area. Commissioner Smith agreed with the massive
structure on the site and downscaling would assist the project.
Commissioner D'Agostino agreed with Commissioner Evans comments, all minimum guidelines
are met, appreciated the development done with the design, but disclosed an inconsistency with
the goals of the guidelines. She continued that the intent was for the consistency of all the
structures in an area and encouraged the applicant to reduce the number of units.
Commissioner Savage motioned to deny Item VII, Final Design, Property Location: Lot 12,
Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540 Beaver Creek Blvd, following staff's
recommendation. Commissioner D'Agostino seconded the motion. Commissioner Evans
requested clarification to the design criteria so the applicant would fully understand the denial in
the event that an appeal is made to Town Council. Commissioner Savage commented that the
project does not conform to the adjacent property's size and mass, particularly mass.
Commissioner Savage suggested that the new proposal not stretch the limits of the legal use of
the property. Commissioner D'Agostino added that perhaps more green space, the project
demonstrates only hard-scape, use of open space to break down the scale and move the use to
open space. She continued that the secondary building on the site was there to meet the 13
residences permitted on the site.
Commissioner Evans paraphrased the criteria:
1- disproportionate massing in relationship to its neighbors,
2- dominance that the project exhibits in respect to its neighbors which conflicts with the
Design Guidelines, and
3- the apparent lack of green space or open space surrounding the project or for use by
occupants of the project.
Commissioner D'Agostino continued that open space might meet drainage issues as well.
All commissioners were in favor of the motion for denial and the motion passed 5 to 0.
VIII. PUD Amendment I Preliminary Subdivision Plan Review I Subdivision Variance -
Dry Creek - Tabled at the June 21`t Commission meeting - 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.
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.
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report.
George Ruther, representative, approached the podium to respond to the Staff Report. Mr.
Ruther began that the home size has been reduced from 5,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet
for one lot and two lots at 4,000 square feet. He continued that the originally designated site for
a four-plex would have had greater square footage, 4 parking spaces per residence with the
hope of providing a three -car garage, and a re -design of the access to accommodate
emergency vehicles.
Commissioner Evans questioned Mr. Ruther on the down zoning of the lot from 4 residences to
3 residences. Mr. Ruther responded that a public benefit was created by the 25% reduction in
residences plus the ability to provide half -acre lots.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
Trent Hubbard, Wildridge resident and developer, approached the podium to comment on
changes made since the last meeting. Intent for diversity for other locals and square footage
reduction to the three residences was addressed.
Eric Heidemann quoted the average square footage home per NWCCOG in order to keep locals
within the market prices. Commissioner Savage commented that local housing's intent was to
be affordable and not million dollar homes as these properties fetch. Mr. Heidemann mentioned
that consideration for the housing policies was requested of this project.
Commissioner Evans questioned the ability for these units to be owned as a deed -restricted
unit. The response was that a four-plex would need to be built. Commissioner Evans continued
that the housing policy was at issue. Mr. Ruther stated that compliance was for the Comp Plan;
he had identified 24 policies that were applicable to this project.
Andrew Karow, Avon resident, approached the podium, to discuss the housing policy. He
continued that one development right for one housing unit really doesn't matter, but a four-plex
would probably attract second homeowners as single-family homes would probably attract
locals. Mr. Karow voiced that the precedent of down zoning already exists in Wildridge. He
stated that the previously presented application was trying to maximize the site and this
application was to minimize site impact. The precedent of down zoning exists in Wildridge with
shared access and this application provides for greater green space and less asphalt, as well as
neighbors working together, voiced Mr. Karow. He continued that no Variance was required as
the PUD for the access covers it.
Commissioner Struve commented that the applicant has addressed the Commission's original
concerns, Wildridge has the most diversity of any community in the Valley and additional
diversity is not an issue, Wildridge has become a local community, and cannot make the
applicant responsible for housing prices in the valley. Commissioner Buckner did not believe
this development would depreciate his home, felt this project was more of a cluster home
situation, local housing in the master plan was done prior to the development of Barrancas and
Buffalo Ridge, and the who the buyer would be is not applicable for determination of this
application, and Wildridge is well diversified. Commissioner D'Agostino commented that it isnot
a matter of a one -unit reduction, but the perception of three large single-family homes on the
hillside, expressed the need for single-family homes in Wildridge. Commissioner Smith agreed
with comments made, commented on the good job done on the modifications made, and
supports the downsizing. Commissioner Savage expressed that approval by the Carol Mulson,
Eagle River Fire Protection District, for the access proposed would be criteria of approval for
this application.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
n
PUD Amendment: Commissioner Struve motioned for approval and Commissioner Smith
seconded. The motion was for a Resolution recommending approval of the PUD Amendment to
Town Council for the application as presented with 4,500 square footage on lot 3, 4,000 square
feet on lots 1 and 2; square footage is inclusive, gross buildable area and a letter of acceptance
in writing for the access from the Eagle River Fire Protection District. All commissioners were in
favor and the motion passed unanimously.
Subdivision Variance Request: Commissioner Smith motioned to approve with the three
conditions outlined by staff for Lot 44, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2510 Old Trail Road,
Commissioner Struve seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
IX. Special Review Use Permit — Wildridge TLC — Home Daycare - PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision/2520C Old Trail Road
Applicant: Jennifer Mach
Description: Jennifer Mach is requesting a Special Review Use (SRU) permit to allow for a
children's daycare at a single-family home on Old Trail Road. The applicant has held a permit
for this use since original approval on March 5, 2002 in the adjacent duplex property.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. For the record, letters were received from Jody and
Mark Andrews in support, and Ann Emmert and Rachelle Boe, also provided letters of support
for this SRU.
Jennifer Mach approached podium as owner of Wildridge TLC to comment on this SRU and the
letter from an adjacent homeowner, Andre de Lucinges. Ms. Mach mentioned that she has a
license for 8 children who include her own 2 children, her own separate driveway for drop off,
and child safety.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
Andre de Lucinges, Lot 45A (west side of duplex), neighbor prior to the Mach family moving to
their single family home, reiterated that he did count 9 children in Ms. Mach's care, checked the
record of the Town of Avon for this permit and that it is licensed by the Town of Avon for only 6
infants and not 8 children. He commented that 6 vehicles were parked in area and the camper
should be housed in the garage per Wildridge guidelines. Commissioner Evans questioned the
impact of the childcare now that it is housed in a single-family home. Mr. de Lucinges
commented that he has had to wait for space to access his lot due to this home business.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner review began with Commissioner Buckner that there should be a discussion on
the impact caused on their neighbor. Commissioner Struve was concerned that this is an after
the fact issue and Mr. de Lucinges' concerns should be addressed, and agreed that childcare
was necessary. Commissioner Smith voiced the concerns with the children in the driveway,
questioned the type of license in possession and number of children permitted. Commissioner
Savage mentioned the after the fact issue of this application, voiced his concern with her
neighbor not able to access his property, staggered pick and drip off was required in ten minute
intervals, children should be contained in a fenced area, recommended that the neighbor
document excess children numbers, toys should be monitored, and stringent conditions of
approval for the SRU should be dictated. Commissioner Evans commented that the neighbor
needed to communicate with the childcare provider if any issues exist.
Commissioner Savage made motion to approve Item IX, Special Review Use Permit — Wildridge
TLC — Home Daycare - PUBLIC HEARING, Property Location: Lot 45C, Block 2, Wildridge
Subdivision/2520C Old Trail Road, with a condition that this permit will be reviewed in 12
months time and to include staff recommendations 2 thru 5. Commissioner Smith seconded the
motion with the criteria for yearly review and memo of staffs consent regarding the review. All
commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
X. Other Business
Eric Heidemann mentioned the open houses for this Thursday and Friday regarding the
Confluence. Commissioner Buckner questioned the Forstmann development of a 150 -room
hotel on his property. The Design Charette will be next week. Condemnation of the Al Williams
property was still being sought and not finalized. Lot 61 was anticipated to submit a PUD
amendment. The Gates construction will be revisited.
XI. Adjourn
Commissioner Savage motioned to adjourn; Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. All
Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Terry Smith
Vice Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
Staff Report
Sketch Desi
IF,
AVO N
inCOLORADO
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date September 14, 2005
Project type Duplex
Legal description Lot 78, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning PUD — 2 Dwelling Units
Address 5691 Wildridge Road East
Introduction
John Martin is proposing a duplex on this 1h acre property. This application
proposes two units; the western (Unit A) 4 -,bedroom, 41/2 bathroom unit
measures 4,078 square feet, and the eastern (Unit B) 3 -bedroom, 3 bathroom
unit measures 3,079 square feet. The structure is three levels with a south
facing walkout basement level. There is a vacant duplex lot to the west and a
developed duplex property to the east.
Site Development
The lot is downward sloping from Wildridge Road East and the proposed building
footprint is pushed as far west as possible on the site in order to capture the
views to the south. Decks and roof overhangs would approach all three
setbacks, and the site design for this property is somewhat limited due to the
irregular shape of the lot as well as the twenty-five (25) foot setback which
borders the entire road frontage. Site coverage (building coverage plus
impermeable surfaces) for this design is 33%, in compliance with the 50%
maximum coverage requirement.
Site access is through a perpendicular curb cut off Wildridge Road East and most
of the driveway grades equal 4% except for an 8% section of driveway leading to
Unit B. On site parking is proposed with 5 internal spaces, and up to 3 outdoor
spaces. It should be noted that on-site maneuvering is tight with the proposed
site design and driveway configuration.
Existing and proposed grades are clearly indicated on the site plan, and the
grading and drainage on the site plan appear functional. A drainage swale is
proposed to take water off the driveway and around Unit A. One four (4) foot
retaining wall would be required extending from the east side of the structure.
Building Design
The building is oriented to take advantage of solar gain and the view corridor
towards Beaver Creek. The height of the structure would be 34.6 feet at the
highest point, requiring a survey to guarantee compliance. Proposed building
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 78, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Martin/Dirksen Duplex Sketch Design
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 2
materials include: cedar shingles, copper chimney cap/roof, aluminum clad
windows, stucco, redwood decking, timber trusses, stone veneer siding, and
cedar vertical board and batten siding. Colors will be reviewed in detail at final
design. The building massing is broken up with varying roof planes, materials,
and architectural interest.
The Residential Guidelines state that duplex developments must be designed in
a manner that creates an integrated structure and "the design intent should be
one that creates a unified structure with enough variety and architectural interest
to distinguish a duplex from a single family home." The applicant has created an
integrated structure that appears to conform to this design guideline.
Staff Comments
This design application appears to be in conformance with all Zoning Code
requirements. The design as presented appears to comply with the requirements
and guidelines outlined in the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and
Industrial Design Review Guidelines.
Design Review Considerations
The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of this application utilizing
the following 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 Desitin Review Guidelines.
At the meeting the Commission will take no formal action on this sketch plan
application. A full size (24" x 36") plan set will be available for you to provide
written comments and guidance to the.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please
call me at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielstici er
Planner I
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
oO
M N
CD LO
cD
�
O � g
00 zzg O
EL a zzogga N
Q O MI-Z550mmw
M O O
Q wFUM 00W00-1 O
W aOJ JO OJw LL
x m g w z LL W J W W W O O
W>Ow°»>��JQQ 4-
Z >lY 0l--11WO00 w W m N Q
OOUfA�fAUN i C9NMJOW W D LO CL N") r �iI
J W p r O r N M V I n C Oyy t ryy LU 0 p W W 0 W
N J J Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q N O Q o M
O ca 0 U) 11 M o U W
W
U �it 4 a_Z(JgqCD W
� � C � � Y Q O II =
<ap�o
Z Cl)z U' W LL E N a .11
W co A� CO pW�Wp� II Z
p M LL d W U O! N
O ; c): v Z& �WZwr� g
= II O m d 0=)-->L' W MZ W 0
o J� O z c c w-n'UdV� O
J F -fn O 0 W N O W �U)0L) LL w
C`' O J W U CO oJ0:)CO zC
Z �� LJL fn m O W d W 0Ul zU)(q Q
` Q V Z:5 O
C \j g M Z W LL N 0)�� Q° J ° Z a w -j > U) o
W rn LLI J Q u) F_ Q
W Z W wUNpNN�of d' LLQ F- W O' MMFDMM Q
t ONco W- NQ 0 L LL LL LL LL U-LLW Mw 2 QZLL.U- O
IL ZA LL,�co8Coco LLtntntncncntncncncnco0 C7 aY0000o W
0 co 0O d'OO II II 11 LU z 0 LLO �p Ni�pp ��ppOOO < M J
J ON �NrJ 11 LL,JD �O�LC7 L01A lw7Mhtn� W W Qo 0 0 o q W
.� Z lia IL wm Q J J 00 � O N N N N LN Q is LY W ZZ Z Z W �
W W W Z 0 0 � LL Q n u u u u u u u u p Z � O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Z
O W W 0 J IYrNMctt�LOhOO)r� � W W W W
H F » D���Z�00 �ZZZZZZZZZZ0 O LLLL<wwwwt 5
N N UZ U- Nm -i LLDDDDDD»DDLL m 00<<<Qfn m
0
z
O
W L
Q
1
j I NNt M !NINi
I i O vl Ni
N W ! N
O r M M M�
H D ( i
E W ' j
i I ui ZZ n...l i
r N C!� € aa"'
o i (
N ice; •C �!N � f
j! f77 iZj 0 { i
i W
�i N N r LOO Imo; M iW �
Z 'O p
N ! r Q > 01
M!>
Z W Q'!
Z O i J Jj
M 0 cm
D co O
: r
0 HiH
Z1 m m
Poll
�N.j�
�NiN
N'N�d
QI.0
!
i
J;J
J:J
p
l
ZM
HOSAU 131NVG
NOAV
U iol
S3[iU3dOUd
NId1NnON 3GISN33UO
W
avA33f108 A33Z18 2J3AV38
f
r
� �
`�E il�•��{Ulss.
e
♦ aVI
t� �\WE
�\''� •, .rte
d
\�"""'��FF
�.— �_ .-
-..� � __.�� �•rt_..al.�.,ra....x�b._:'Ws►.,!'-"'-
.,.dam
avA33f108 A33Z18 2J3AV38
f
HOSIN 131Nd0
NOAV
Z l iol
S3UN3dO2Jd
NI` INnoh 301SN332iO
T—
r
J
HOS11a 131NVO
NOAV
Z 6 101
S311a3dOad
NId1NnON 301SN3380
I
� IIIII�I �
a i
K O
O
0
W sa Q
N s�2a�
all
HOUIN 131Nt/0
NOAV
Z 6101
S3112RcMd
NIVINnoV4 301SN33a0
• a,
A
_ r x
r
r
„+ S -
G'
T—
HOSIN 131NVO
NOAV
Z4 iol
S311N3dMId
NI`d1NnoN 301S)33aO
J
j
o�ui
N
Z
g
€ .
p�
C7 LL
mlµ—
�'�dO
s:
As
•
c�'41"
o
Asa„o•_..s*mv.._.�•
J
HOSIIIH 131NVO
NOAV
U lol
S3UN3dONd
NI` iNnoV4 301SN33aO
ACM
00
N
8
a'
N O
LL
C
8
8
J�1
b
FFa
L W
yy
C
a�
o
I
N
b
I
1
l
I
�
t
I
-F
•1
�
Y
W
O
I
W
I
O
I
_
1
W
o'
I
Y
n N
co
Y
N
�
II
l
W
IL
K
LL
>J
W
�4
NS
•
HOSlIN 131Nd0
NOAV
Z6 101
S3MJ3dONd
NIt/1NnoVI 30IS)133UO
•
1
a �
I
�
l
b8
n
a
ui
a.
if
0
9
WO
m LL
4
0
•
1
a �
I
�
l
•
1
a �
HOSiN 13INVO
NOAV
Zl iol
S3W:J3dOMd
NId1NnOV4 3GISN33a0
.o+. rr 1 40 .a6
I
r.
a
0
LO
�o
F
ear
00
7
■ Q
I
r.
e77A
p".
S
N.
Y
0,
P
Z=
z
LU
1h,
$\
m qA-
va!
oPMOICO 411unOD olk Aaoey
It )POIR 18L m
i(al'1T, a UvQ
"�ll Ali u
( V
Y
IOU-pkuougjwugo[0$PLIP11M
16SKE-W Tl 11918CAk
16SKI-OL6 009 IOL►n8'o'd
Booz -so-so I!Wgns ala
:ajgjonssI :suoSsua�
:pullmoo
oil 'm ADuqof
dannS
:ao3PafOJdTMtmP?P)IkwPuO325/hm.MAWN V
zagmnN;oolS
Y
0,
P
Z=
z
LU
1h,
$\
va!
zt7
u'
Y
0,
P
Z=
z
LU
1h,
$\
h U
a
.O -.ZS
- - - -----
® r,w
OPUOIOD `AUROD olg%'aoeY
It SIH `BL lcq
ll
]�/
V V
.0-,91 ,O-,4
I
.O-,4
.0-,9
lan�al inyuaa�aq�rm�gofa2P!jpuAl
f6S0 E -U6 ml 119110Mu3ga
iMM6 =V 1011�90'd
soot—so—ao : 1!wynS eaa
;alzQanssi ;suo.sAO)j
slutl!nsuoD
p
311 Pa;�R UPW'Dgo
da�S
«to3PafojjMu�P?s ULmPuooaS/�Ltem!tdmaHd
aa9mnHloolS
.O -.ZS
- - - -----
.O -.OZ
.O-.4
.0-,91 ,O-,4
I
.O-,4
.0-,9
.O -,OI
I
I I
cc vvv��V
I I
L L t
O \\
H \
\\
J
d
IL
\
NNN NN
n
\
m
4
LL
LL
I
_
� NN
c
U
N
V
I
ON
�
� '�^
Q
UI
W
LL
QQQ
I3
Q
All
QLU
�
vim
I
I
�
�
I
I
XI
J
a01
s II
I �
_
W
m�
a O
U n
n
Ow
r O
V
P
(D -
I Im 3i
J
L
jo
C
LP I
fl sl
c
x
I
I
�
m 4
O
I
$
I'T'
nW
l\
'Tf
v
h
Gad
1350'I7I'M
\\\
El
-----
-�
:o W j
I
z w
in 3 U
I
I
I
I
Q
omm
I
N
I
(Y 4
I
OI-.Ei
t9 uj
IQ
I�
I
N
O
*V � � � II
\ Ir
•{ Ib �
OO
O
U
O m
I1 2
.O -,b .0-.4Z .O -,b .O -,OI .O•.OZ .0•19
tine II-
.%-,B
.0-191 0-.1,.0-.1,—'-0-9
22P?�PpM It 3poI$ 18L 101
uas��tQ ura
-1 �u U
EV
=
►an �a tyuao aq�em agof
io-
=
E6S(r81E�16 If918�J�1
i6SP8if•0(d a�qd lOLtmA'0'd
suoz-eo-eu ewys eao
:a;e(j anssl :suotsuag
:s>,uinjnsuoa
oil �oa)N. 31VIIgnwq uqo f
dmtlS
trod P2fOJa IMOPlag SaPIIosaS/tea ALaH V
jaqumH aaagS
.0-191 0-.1,.0-.1,—'-0-9
=
io-
=
I I
I
d1
I 1
I
1
I
n
I
�
1
I
U-
�)
r
1\
b I
I
O
c
I
I
y
I
1
I
w
I
d w ! U i
d I ,
I
lel..
0
r----
■
-sl
i
lu
I .I
\
1
I
1
N I
I
IL
Q
N
-- ---
--- z
W
1 ■
/
L ---
--
m
r
I I
f
I
v
---------, z
I I W
----1._._..____.._7...
.
I
I
\\
I m
—
\\
I m
I o :o I�
;� I I \\
� m
F N
♦\
I
lW7
\♦ I
\\\
U
Jol � I 1
U (k _
;;, �Nuv35 zroa
�
I,
I
I 4
cV
n
I
1 I /
N3NIl
e•
I
I
I
I O m
I
I
I
Ep
----�
/x\I
-
O O
I
I
_y
I
.£-.OI
.to -a,
I
FNN
El
!Z
I
W
I
--n
I
ly
II
it
g
�
I
cv V
a
F-
• !k
A2l1Ndd
-----
Q
J
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I I
1
-
I
I
I 1
z
in
-
I
Q i
I
�_
I
________________--------------
I
I
I
I
J,
-..I
\
�
7.f--_______ I z
I
I
II
II
II
II
I
I
z
I
I
I I I
I
m
. ILu
II II
it II
02.
2
II II
e--
1
II II
n
i
I
F-
d)
1 1 30V1d32119 I I
co
L ------------
I
I
I
\
I W
IQ
\
§ I
/I
IVQ I
I
I
I �
I
p
i
I
I
c -o
11.0-.c
m d'i►
opuoloa'Aunoo olha hoed
93PUPPA ` 3POI9`SL 101
uasj, aUva
�l ��t ll
�j�
Y
laa'pl (mlaao agiem aqo(
f6S0BlE0E6 �1 IE9R�J�l
000lw IOltiofl'0'd
soot-�o-ao : 1 wgriS e8(3USP8iE'Olb
:aleQ anssl :suolscnag
:s;u> lnsuo�
377 altl3� ,g qol
d S
a03 Palotd P4uaplaag XMu"/,(M<l rd baH y
aagmnN POTS
Ir ---------
— — — —
-----�
I I
I
I
I
�
• I
I I
I----------
----
�
-- ----
----�
I
I
uj
J
1
U-
I
�I
N.:
�IW
L
b I
JI
ZIS
F-7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
I�
I
I
I
�
I
O T
I /
-------
IUSF-----
:o
I I
I
I
---------- -----a
I
I I
I
am
i
I I
I
I
I
I
I 397ZIO1S I --
I
�
I
I
§ ry
I
I _
AH 91Y'ld .9-d
I
_
8
i
I
_
\
I
/ I \
=
O I �J\
BY'15'O'1 WOTJJ
S W I \
-r-----�
-
I ---T
vL----------------
--------
--�
I
I \
I \ I \
I � \
1 I
II
LLJ
P
-
lS
p
y
I
II
I
------------------------
L_---
/
--
----
_
9400NIM H9IH
-- ------
J
I I
I
I \\\
II
I I
II
i
I \\
\
I 1
\
II
\
II
\ I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---- --
--
----
I
-------�
Z
d
U.
S
cc
m o &"
oPuoldJ'Aunco glgq'aoeV
02PUPPAO TMIH'SL VdI
ga�j, a jr(j
_ It ��uuU
./
V
la°�o�Gtya��mPcm rtq°f
f6S0SlE�I6 ! 1I914�Jy1
i6S0BiEOl6 IOUOY IOOROI
90OZ-60-60 : 'I!wgns 8210
:a;eQanssi :suoisUay
;s;a* insuo�
� `a�aat���` t,Duqofdaa;S
:10JMfoijiM.MPj"HLePuooaS/h=qmaNti
I tagmnNaaauS
Z
d
U.
S
cc
m
m q.—
h Z
opetoEOD S4mto:) 012%'UOAY
ospup m `t roIS `8L101
uaga Ufa
L u
I �,,
L V
O
I—
x
=
E6S081f OLb "�1 If919aJyl
US0 1.01,6 NOW lolti lord
90ot-60-60 1!wgnS 8a0
mt(ionssl moisuag
:s)uglnsuoD
0, 3011 IV,M ouqol
dtu S
:JOJP;fOljjepaaptsog,LcepuoaaS/,taemwdmaHy
lagtnnH;aagg
m
h Z
ui
O
I—
x
=
0
uj
a4
W
k �1�=����� l : . .
me\
ems-
, i_
9 c
9 g`®qCllq+9
kI
gauga
��
§k\
laulgkw@'4=-aqo[Ospurpn'tgym
EMI�■m MIS
s R ,e @o
a s �
q� ea
AN IV`s
dmqs
. p|OMp4� �jT�2�ILMR
z q■ i g
me\
ems-
0
9 c
k|(
k§}
§k\
Yƒ
,\
2
O
�
>
LU
-j
L
e
m
LU
<a)
<
2
O
�
>
LU
-j
L
e
m
LU
mmyeuiu
oPUolco'AunoD 213q'aonv
aspup m It ipo1H `8L m
([aGjj�(j A�Q
� t �u a
OW V
Y
;aa p;Gtyaaa agma19110
f6S0'8iE'016 at] 1E91BoJy1
NSME'96 PMY IOL1�8N
90OZ-60-60 : '1!wgns 8210
:a;eQanssl :suo.. 11
;s;u InsnoQ
p
O( aITl[��(! '9 U{Ol
dMIS
:Ioi; ofoijpgmp!R Lrtpuoaas/h=.M&2xv
tagmnNpaq
v
Z
O
U
w
U)
m o(xau�
opeiolCO'AUnOJalk'¢oed
22PUPPAA `t T"IH t 101
>jja@1T,j[�T Q�Q
S �U u
I I V
Y Y
laa�al inyaaa ag aqo(
16S0'B 116 n 119I1�JyI
USKI'm IN IDIt�H'0'd
soot—so—ao a Ways ado
:a;eQ onssl :suolsleag
:quigjnsao3
p
OTI (a331N, 3 V (�W 'D U[ol
JM14S
:J03 Pa[wd IMUOPmg �LMPuoaaS/,%teazlad MONY
ia9umH �aagS
v
Z
O
U
w
U)
a
m d euu�
oPvjol(yj 14=3 algq'uonY
a$PuPpm It 1301HIH 18L mi
Qa��Q Q�Q
"`l ill ll
I
Y
-
i
lau�a�(tiyaa� ttq�t
W
r m
w
f6S0'BlE16 -74 loll
E9I9�Jyl
16S0.8iE'OL6 a°a9d IOL►�fl'0'd
9DOZ-60-60 a Wass eao
:aazQ anssl :sao. IU
�'�1�OA� RON �q. i> W'D m[Or
dmgS
:joj Imfoid ImmP? ali LmpuoaaS/Lnwua maH Y
as tan as
q H � t{S
a
N
-
-
i
W
r m
w
o
z
w
e
U
c
Z b
4 II
•D
Z
Q
111
m
u
111
ID
N
N
ill
N
N
OR,
a�
m
0-
0 3
01,811,
-u
coal
DI
dttl
q
N
i
W
r m
o
z
w
e
U
c
Z b
4 II
v
Town of Avon
Minor Project Staff Report
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date September 14, 2005
Project type Addition
Legal description Lot 56, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address 2245A Old Trail Road
Introduction
Mark and Alicia Pribramsky are proposing an addition to their duplex unit on Old
Trail Road. The addition would relocate a bedroom/bathroom from the main level
of the home to a newly created upper level, and would add an additional
bedroom/bathroom to the new upper level. Exterior modifications include: new
wood siding, new windows, and a raised gable roof to accommodate the
additional 528 square feet of living space.
General Approval Criteria
to the Commission's Review and Approval Criteria, Section 7,
I. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Guidelines. the Commission shall
review this application according to the following criteria:
1. The project complies with the Town of Avon Zoning Regulations.
This project would remain in compliance with the Town Zoning Code.
2. The project has general conformance with Goals and Policies of the
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains.
This criteria does not apply.
3. There exist adequate development rights for the proposed
Improvements.
This criteria does not apply.
Design Standards
According to Section 7 from the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design
Guidelines, the Commission shall review all design plans utilizing the following
Building Design Standards:
1. Building Height.
Building height is unchanged with this application. The new gable roof would be
approximately 5 feet lower than the existing high point of the current structure.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
2. Building Materials and Colors.
The Guidelines encourage the use of high quality, durable building materials.
This application would introduce wood siding and metal roofs to the project.
Currently, the duplex is entirely stucco, with asphalt shingles. The Design
Guidelines require indigenous natural or earth tone colors. The stain for the new
wood siding would be dark brown and the new metal roofing would match the
existing asphalt shingles.
Currently, there are white vinyl windows throughout the duplex. New metal or
aluminum clad windows would be added to the unit, and the architect has stated
that the window trim on the new windows will be a dark bronze color. The white
window trim on all of the existing windows would be treated to match the new
windows.
3. Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest.
Exterior wall colors "should be compatible with the site and surrounding
buildings." No changes to the stucco color are proposed unless the neighboring
unit owner(s) is in agreement. The limited areas of new stucco required with the
addition would match the existing. Fenestration has been articulated with the
additional materials and bump outs.
The new gable roof has a 4:12 pitch on each side, which is consistent the
existing 4:12 and 4.5:12 pitch roofs. The guidelines require a 4:12 minimum
pitch for primary and secondary roofs, and a 3:12 minimum pitch for metal roofs.
The three 2:12 metal dormers would be a departure from the Guidelines. The
color of the standing seam metal roofing is proposed to match the asphalt roofs
that exist and this should be appropriate.
4. Outdoor Lighting.
No new lighting is proposed with this application.
5. Duplex Developments.
The Guidelines state:
"Duplex developments must be designed In a manner that creates an
integrated structure on the site. Two single-family residences 'bridged' by a
breezeway or other non-structural and non -habitable connection does not meet
the intent of a duplex design. Un•Ifled design shall include, but not be limited to,
the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, massing,
detail, roof forms, and landscaping. While 'mirror image' duplexes are not
supported, the design intent should be one that creates a unified structure with
enough variety and architectural interest to distinguish a duplex from a single
family home."
It is staffs opinion that this duplex would remain in compliance with this guideline
after the proposed improvements. The stucco ties the two units together, and
since the white trim on the vinyl windows would be treated to match the new,
proposed windows on Unit A, staff recommends that all windows on the building
be treated to help unify the design of building.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Ae
Approval Criteria
According to Section 7 from the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design
Guidelines, the Commission shall review all design plans utilizing the following
general approval criteria:
A. That the final design plan is in compliance with all sketch plan approval
criteria and with all final design plan submittal requirements.
This criteria does not apply.
B. The'compatibility of proposed improvements with the site topography,
to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope,
and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing
topography.
No alterations to the building foot print or existing topography are proposed.
C. 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 proposed design changes would be visible Old Trail Road. There should be
no negative impacts with respect to architectural style, massing, height,
orientation, quality of materials, or colors.
D. The objective that no Improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others
In the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
It is staff's opinion that no monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the
proposed design changes.
E. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the
adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
The proposed changes are in general conformance with the adopted Goals.and
Policies of the Town of Avon.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed design changes to Lot 56, Block
1, Wiidridge Subdivision.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the design changes for Lot 56, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
with the following conditions:
1. All window trim on the duplex (both units) will be treated to match the
new proposed dark bronze window trim color.
2. 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."
Tam of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please
call me at 748.4413, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielsticker
Planner I
Attachments:
A - Letter from Architect
B - Reduced 11" x 17" plan set
Toxin of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
rowland+broughton
architecture and urban design
12 September 2005
Town of Avon
Attn: Matt Pielsticker
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Project: Pribramsky Remodel
Subject: Sketch Design Plan Submittal and Review
Enclosures: (2) 24" x 36" sets
(7) 11" x 17" sets
Sets consist of:
Cover sheet w/ existing photos
Proposed floor plans
Proposed exterior elevations
Existing drawings- site plan, floor plans, elevations
CC: Alicia and Mark Pribramsky
Dear Mr. Pielsticker,
Enclosed please find material pertaining to the proposed addition for Mark and Alicia Pribramsky's
duplex unit at 2245 A Old Trail Road, at Lot 56, Wildridge Subdivision. We are submitting this material
for a Sketch Design Plan review.
Proposed Design:
The proposed addition consists of an additional bedroomtbathroom and a relocated
bedroom/bathroom from the Main Level. In place of the relocated bedroom/bathroom will be an open
family room. Exterior improvements include providing for additional fenestration and detailing to help
break up the overall mass.
The footprint of the house is not proposed to change. The 528SF addition is planned for above the
existing one-story volume over the Garage. The eave (spring point) on the north elevation will not
change and remains 26'-9" above the driveway grade. The addition has a gabled roof with a ridge
lower than the existing ridge of the adjacent shed roof volume.
The existing house is one of the few more contemporary forms in the Wildridge Subdivision and is one
half of a duplex. As originally designed, which Is represented in its current construction, this duplex
does not conform to the Town of Avon Residential Design Review Guidelines. The proposed addition
and exterior improvements seeks to better conform to the guidelines however stays aligryp
original design and remains contextual with. the adjacent duplex unit. PfC(:&ED
1 of 2
SEP 12 200
Community Development
rowland+broughton
architecture and urban deatgn
The roof over the addition is a 4:12 gable to remain consistent with the existing 4.5:12 and 4:12 roofs
and consistent with the Design Review Guidelines. This roof will be asphalt shingle to match the
existing roofs. Three (3) 2:12 dormers allow for consistent fenestration in the addition and are further
articulated with stepped stained wood planes that break up the existing large wall planes.
The current duplex is all stucco. By introducing significant areas of stained wood we believe that the
exterior will be more compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. We are also seeking to meet
the minimum building materials and colors requirements for use of at least two exterior materials in
Indigenous natural or earth tones. The other duplex owner may not be interested in painting their unit.
If that is the case, the current stucco color will remain on both units, however Unit B (Pribramsky's
unit) will have additional wood stained elements, most likely in a dark brown color.
We are excited about this proposal and feel that we have designed an addition that responds to the
existing design features and allows for the duplex unit to become better aligned to the Town of Avon
design compatibility goals.
We welcome any discussion or questions regarding this proposal.
Thank you,
Sarah Broughton, AIA
2of2
RECEIVED
SEP 12 2005
Community Development
1.1
a
O O
�
Q
rowland+broughton
F g
architecture and urban design
'aa
12 September 2005c:a
io
Wim'_
a
Town of Avon
'mm
b a p
Attn: Matt Pielsticker
3 = m
Town of Avon
<y
o
P.O. Box 975
m 0,
Avon, CO 81620
o N m
W
p N
W+i
6(p
Project: Pribramsky Remodel;
o
Subject: Sketch Design Plan Submittal and Review
Enclosures: (2) 24" x 36" sets
O
(7) 11" x 17" sets
$ w "
Sets consist of:
a + +
Cover sheet w/ existing photos
g o
Proposed floor plans
o p
Proposed exterior elevations
m'
Existing drawings- site plan, floor plans, elevations
N W
CC: Alicia and Mark Pribramsky
Dear Mr. Pielsticker,
Enclosed please find material pertaining to the proposed addition for Mark and Alicia Pribramsky's
duplex unit at 2245 A Old Trail Road, at Lot 56, Wildridge Subdivision. We are submitting this material
for a Sketch Design Plan review.
Proposed Design:
The proposed addition consists of an additional bedroom/bathroom and a relocated
bedroom/bathroom from the Main Level. In place of the relocated bedroom/bathroom will be an open
family room. Exterior improvements include providing for additional fenestration and detailing to help
break up the overall mass.
The footprint of the house is not proposed to change. The 528SF addition is planned for above the
existing one-story volume over the Garage. The eave (spring point) on the north elevation will not
change and remains 26'-9" above the driveway grade. The addition has a gabled roof with a ridge
lower than the existing ridge of the adjacent shed roof volume.
The existing house is one of the few more contemporary forms in the Wildridge Subdivision and is one
half of a duplex. As originally designed, which is represented in its current construction, this duplex
does not conform to the Town of Avon Residential Design Review Guidelines. The proposed addition
and exterior improvements seeks to better conform to the guidelines however stays alignpsLtothsVED
original design and remains contextual with the adjacent duplex unit. BB��CCCC::tt��
1 of 2
SEP 12 2005
Community Development
rowland+broughton
architecture and urban design
The roof over the addition is a 4:12 gable to remain consistent with the existing 4.5:12 and 4:12 roofs
and consistent with the Design Review Guidelines. This roof will be asphalt shingle to match the
existing roofs. Three (3) 2:12 dormers allow for consistent fenestration in the addition and are further
articulated with stepped stained wood planes that break up the existing large wall planes.
The current duplex is all stucco. By introducing significant areas of stained wood we believe that the
exterior will be more compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. We are also seeking to meet
the minimum building materials and colors requirements for use of at least two exterior materials in
indigenous natural or earth tones. The other duplex owner may not be interested in painting their unit.
If that is the case, the current stucco color will remain on both units, however Unit B (Pribramsky's
unit) will have additional wood stained elements, most likely in a dark brown color.
We are excited about this proposal and feel that we have designed an addition that responds to the
existing design features and allows for the duplex unit to become better aligned to the Town of Avon
design compatibility goals.
We welcome any discussion or questions regarding this proposal.
Thank you,
Sarah Broughton, AIA
2of2
RECEIVED
SEP 12 2005
Community Development
gl�
�8o O
5 i$ iQ? S x o i ® °g Y ry U L §eiill
w
€ m
2 �W
Wvvi 3_z +Zg go
O pZ-Gm
KW
W ip��pg Ott
� �mpmFF�m�
rc a��s�wwxo
a 3 Owz
W
9 n,
W C
cc v
99§§944
t2 QYe
SMg
wr
8 c��uuu
ywop�m_m`m
� OK 1'I(XX��
U6iW WWW
:l
e
I
n
4
v
�z
�o0
w tp
LL�s
°o
ooro
Mzoo
w
z
Om
n
C
r
LL
6
W
t7
Z
r�
0 �$
5 }!/■ R�
2h» §§Q ! �®
�)� /§§ 2 w§��
- > | e co £. Hill
ca RIX | �» 2� fK/ (([§R r
7 §k| | |k§ 2 �§$ |||| ■ a d� Q 2|�
%
a
�R
wee>�
§ U) � |
\.1300 co 011 §
` 0) 2K� 9 Co
. |E<�
f
k ■
2 I? EEO.
E||% �I | j
g
lip -
!28 t t f *
)\(§ _
| §G& __ __
ko2 |/
■
■
|k§| §2|
k� 2 7
§k §\
I I
$§!
a_ _ _ _
a_ q __
.&A _
!E■Q|
■
§�
|
i
k}
) §■
lip -
!28 t t f *
)\(§ _
| §G& __ __
ko2 |/
■
■
|k§| §2|
k� 2 7
§k §\
I I
$§!
a_ _ _ _
a_ q __
.&A _
!E■Q|
may' t S {y,R �J1,• s ) ''ti! < 9.11 y��yr .`,� ' t
—f � 4 �. F.' `n'.1����4.> }.r R ♦ l C J + �� "Rf�"S 1'T% � ¢1R ur ?5[- I:1 1 M
a'1 .� •. ��r��iu�� -�? e} 1 tL }. .+ ntyF r./„ i� a9' �fai�itd3l x�f,\u . v' s.
c'
Too1 1 ♦ Nay - + r
ll I
� # i
t } p
t4
w. �+ � ��IIxKP '' � �� �. �y u� r7r '' v> } •Y �, x'*/ii ~/�
�rn t a'l�J.+ ��i. t[ Yl ? Y�� ! P _tir at^ 5 d v a 1 � T`•V
; SIJ 1 � _4}• � ,µh A fr\ L �*! a& �y' ..
Ll a +1 ri jyjj �r Rr..
ri. rpt flxyl. L�.y' iii \'}•, .. � }� R �+ 1, { »� 5 - sr ;'
�� >+!r'r v� �x �✓Yiau t ' - ii � M v \ a. V1 _ ,''� .� � �'S* �.
W��I,Y i*' r�� r"ry��Y r t5 ° -.Tltw R•- -0-'l+s",a, i u $ y� � 't t w1:.,
WWI
Yt�SWj.r•.l ry i�..rry •ly`�rt r Vf{-t a�a.h j[.�t .rx4 s. �t r'L :� If tY .ra. t,
[�.xt"1' �,,0.pv,., a'1a •G.����tt�}e�+°P,y;x•r5$ � -.. � A rT [ �'Oi S "'t'� k i a - +. 1 {,} t•'..
- +.N+„r �-"kL';�u'L Yr[fiYIdR" ��`L`j` 'yi [ S. 1 h p.,s ¢� iR �- �+• ar r . s v'i.ai°ts 'Y�:
fp � if. ♦ jf ap�iy. a,(, 1:' � " r '' �t ip ` � .,' J Y,y� K'
-TI•¢r �+ `�w��l tZ �� 1i � 1� 1 ,}p� .:._ J ''` \ ♦ �, dAT (d ' :� -. f''.A�. .�J.if n.��a F�~4 `
YM fa rYa�_F -+ - t� //2._.1t�lYk Wz �•{'.:..
uJ
`�5 l ! aif J ti S i Ft6'Ry f J Il.i yl �
Ir-,ps ,� rj c 'r M7 e fh v t♦p S
��'x ��• it F. �"x. ;ttj4 �_-:Z %ayi+i �'r 'tby a
��
y v' i •.ki A�FyL r Sr.�i`�.s F7 5 i f � N sal � �t I E'F >)r 1 i _ /y a [ t e �r :•[�.f a `�'. f: ? :i
1 E yt I�.,,�J•r},r yl,/'. 1 r J . - �� v ,�'.w..x. ' : •.7 __ - ,.] .. _.�Ye:� . 7 � .. ;' �'� »� � � � �"
1.t }
F
lz-t..Y"
tr Lt r�ur rt> -'r• 1 "r... J .+ ; .rt ,.,
X
�}.. t i. .�� ,�� •-\ 111 f�'S i 1 F�y�eu
� .i �;\ a , ;1 1� ].'" �. 1 .{x. .r'i 'r �• � Ai' +?uI �x�yjFS�Hy'
'r Y
{au
\ ! i tr � .t• .� _ /j _ � / M7aj'�iC. 'ut. i'M1,Y ��21 "jki
yi,:'+ r�Z' - • I Jj / 1 Y r5".r 2 .n.F r +�1} � 4>l' -`V
�y+� itt t"�°wti+,�s-ir J 1 ''!+ �� ''.c� 1 'S. i.; jS3.4 •_3� 1 r -! �. t Iii, y \^in �'». �i 13 Ic rt�. r t'l -a
,
i jy d+
.
M L,,,.�• a Y.' 4SI'�v "r�ir14/�.h.:.�i
r`vetr�, /'../. ///�/// �r, y�r eF°{ AEr�Fv,�rr'�•:
�•' /I �y :4 .,W1'�fYj vi"� +mei:.
9�
f v5 1 ^y, '. a till 4J GS :' R r tv u f= -•T' -7! D + J 'rY"LR'?iF � ,
rb vx t,�! �•C'.- �J f # , a
�2� �hly,l
t rR! ': + . , _ / .. � � "- r _.:r, "•1'�-.may
1 sl
r
1 r
■� 1 n
....
�-,y
'
,-
wd
A hot
lots
'
,-
wd
OWES
-..g >l�. „•t�Jrf$�-4.L,vtF. � pE J! �5-..� .� '.
� fir,.
F
! M i
OWES
-..g >l�. „•t�Jrf$�-4.L,vtF. � pE J! �5-..� .� '.
� fir,.
F
........ . .
� � � � � \�� �
� ��
���������\
� �
=!Wlwls `-". 7a�
���������\
� � �
� � � � � � \
���������\
10
Lot 10, Block 3, Wildridge Duplex Sketch Design
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 2
The Residential Guidelines also state that duplex developments must be designed in a
manner that creates an integrated structure and while 'mirror image' duplexes are not
supported, the design intent should be one that creates a unified structure with enough
variation in style. The proposed building structure appears to be inconsistent with this
design guideline. With the exception of several small architectural features, the overall
form and mass of each unit appear to resemble one another. More variation and
architectural interest would be helpful to distinguish the two halves of the duplex.
As presented, staff does not support the sketch plan application because of the
concerns noted above. Staff has identified several issues that need further clarification
prior to submittal of the final design plan. These issues include: 1) proposed building
materials; 2) clarification of grading and the use of retaining walls with all structural
retaining walls designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer; and 3) more
variation in architecture that address the similarity of the two units.
Please keep in mind that staff may have additional comments regarding the design
application once the information and clarification of the issues raised have been
satisfactorily addressed by the applicant.
Design Review Considerations
The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the
specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria:
A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Zoning Code.
B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of
the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design Review
Guidelines.
The Commission will take no formal action on the sketch plan application. Rather,
direction on the design will be given to the applicant from Staff and the Commission to
incorporate in the final design application.
Staff will provide full plan sets for you to provide written comments and guidance to the
applicant at your January 18, 2005 meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please tall me at
748-40009, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Heidemann
Senior Planner
Attachments: Application dates September 13, 2005
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Sketch Desi
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date September 15, 2005
Project type Duplex
Legal description Lot 10, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning 2 Units — Residential Duplex
Address 4010 Wildridge Road West
Introduction
The applicant, Stephen Richards, is proposing a Sketch Design application for a 9,080
square foot duplex residence. The subject property is a relatively steep uphill lot that
would be accessed from Wildridge Road East. The property will be a challenging lot to
develop primarily because of the nature of the topography and therefore careful
consideration should be given to all grading and treatment of exposed slopes.
Approximately 28% of the lot contains 40% or greater slopes, which is depicted on the
survey provided.
Staff Comments
The design of the proposed duplex residence appears to be inconsistent with the Town
of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines. Although
the level of details required for Sketch Design submittal is limited, the amount of detail
provided particularly with regards to the proposed grading, the use and extent of
retaining walls, and proposed building materials makes it difficult for staff to support the
proposed application.
The proposed grading in the area located on the north side of the driveway entrance
appears to exceed our maximum 2:1 slope requirement. It is debatable whether
proposed grades in this area would function as drawn. The same could be said about
the functionality of the boulder retaining walls located below the driveway. These walls
will most likely be engineered walls and depending on the height may require an
additional tier. The applicant should be prepared to address the use and extent of both
the proposed grading and retaining walls and how they relate to drainage.
The application requires a description of the proposed building materials, however it is
unclear to staff what the proposed materials for the building would be. What is also
unclear is how the site plan is to accommodate the 7 proposed parking spaces.
According to the site plan, a total of 2 garage spaces per unit are provided which leaves
a total of 3 outdoor spaces. However, the on-site maneuvering may be difficult with the
provision of these outdoor spaces.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
�i
fly
n
/:%`f es'.:• ..'•x
Z
OL
0
.I
`J
�o E� • ���o re�W►• ►«<.�'o'd
Ilk
t`roi1h' �Q i � I I'1 ` 12 -7-107q of
3 0i'dO l91'''I 01cpf,...... _ ,
r--•.
5»><s�Q zvanti� H� H►7I"'�
Q T.
sWD4al21 ueydalS
°o
�i
fly
n
/:%`f es'.:• ..'•x
Z
OL
0
.I
`J
r
R
<C -
NJU2�3N
_Z
9'z<
W O 1<k1 ZN IA ZW w4W 8Y
O�<mZW<3�8N 2i
O•' ZU� o<c aZgZ
N00 SPS J<NFENPK F
Ea
8 O�7U C w6 Lj
5 m
3Ln
I %
\ \
Xl
D.
\ • \ \
�._.., .\
10
\N01'46 26 W \ 162.15
3HLdo wAOHs sv)
f boil p \ amy iNp'Mu 30VA. R urlun
J \\ O
3 J
a �•
Q T.
T T
�7 55- 6L�
� zZ N W�d1 4TQ
�
Q N to d K i
r
R
<C -
NJU2�3N
_Z
9'z<
W O 1<k1 ZN IA ZW w4W 8Y
O�<mZW<3�8N 2i
O•' ZU� o<c aZgZ
N00 SPS J<NFENPK F
Ea
8 O�7U C w6 Lj
5 m
3Ln
I %
\ \
Xl
D.
\ • \ \
�._.., .\
10
\N01'46 26 W \ 162.15
3HLdo wAOHs sv)
f boil p \ amy iNp'Mu 30VA. R urlun
J \\ O
3 J
1-
Wg.=(DZS) . tCqLqopo*p3,eg)o3 - A�VMM
pmtllv - vt 0-7
PRINZ
SPJDt4ojdu9qdejS El
La
wwu3=m3m" HMH
101
VON.- 3,�26
SPJDt4'0'ld U9094S
La
W-]
Jul
t. ,
_G 3m CIVO�f 010-
1Lazo-ecccocc�0 7pm'4�,-,"
wam.
W-]
Jul
spio40l?J U644delS
None......... 29,1
N�do
AA
ao
Ld
Ad
Ld
all
11111 2, -1 LtIMI-I � a
igz�"WON) - IM90PDX)POVAD3 - AoMPOOMPM41Y • VMw9'O'd AM
rl
E:l
..........
spjoqcp)lG8'(Lup'evqde{S
all
11111 2, -1 LtIMI-I � a
. .......................................... . ................. . ............ .....
S,Vol
w
noxxuvnu H n
C o y aC Ei< i-+=
u .25 O o E nN O �: LO ii iia
V,
W4 �S a
ag r�dco o, €9+
-P og6no .io€a ca a 'pd
m • � —•�°• in°c�Q. �3Eg Euc� 1m
g� F FY po Lo��Tu ono'o�
u0 ¢ • Jp°�
vV °nsYgps
py o��S
c"
° yuan p°;oS,
nro°ted �,yF ooc
O • ALM T Un5V ;Pwf7 9L .
`Ob3 gi€c� u�€o '6 of
u c c
�U Pow uNa9nO'6 Lhh NC aF <�5� y
. c; a�5y riN G !
O Y'C P r t 0^ 6 1 y Y% C J Y p y E Y
C 4C T`§
JN —m5� _-10 3h z°uua I -IS a
23 ill 11.
Hal
p � 1
of
E
w o
6
IM
8
E.
ij a "
S$
S°g
>€gsgayy$�
2
e
'
N
�
IQ:
'aS
z
O N
�z
rn
m
i•l
O��
W'
F
m �
Wy 8
a
0.
ccm
g
iso
o13
is
WwO
g
Vl
14
A U m
Y
m
W
�rnj
Ny*,�NO�W
zO8gmN
fg� Om
3i ZF
O W J z 9 Z
Z O ?'N v r. -h Ng,
Zd
a ZpWZp <30 ZUpN
Z 0.. ZUW _a-
.
'SW�,g
W O.)(. U.< va'g¢ -O'z
F
OW
ZZwm ¢p �
O<O<FSN 'm
J f��z YNW
> w
\\ \\ X12 \'. `S�\.\ N N
S D
\'\:\\. N O m 0 O
IN
\\NtIA
NX.�i
\ \ \ � �:�:•\oma �'�:.
00
\� N\c-
r� 0at
stiRUMWG
I b
e
N
II
z
LLJ
J
Q
N
b
Y
\ MR,
iv,a ,vw3 3ru no wawa sv) g p
E s<i r m a lN3rosv3 3Bvwvva A urian 2 F
\ d J
[Bmm(aw • mmop—lam3 • A-poa9Rmwr • VML- •o•a
SpjDgo eqdejS op
YmY
a
e
ri
�s3i'1 a �o� 3� lei i11'1 010 N,
arc
0
falilt
„
lilt '6
_CO u V
r
F--
0
J
1
N.
•0 ` \ .�, \ BUttDMIa SETBACK : " •.
� �.: \.
\N01'46 26 `"J 162.15 �: \:.4
Al'LN3rM- 30V
BOX aema
gg6¢<I�c
\\ 3
T
op
AJX,-
Aa-)
f . d,1- ._ _fie .. A p P
Town District Planning Piniciples
Goals and Policies
K. Implementation Matrix
A key function of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan is to prioritize the policies
for implement of the vision and goals. Many of the policies are on-going actions that
should be considered regularly when decision-making (reviewing development
applications, developing capital improvement plans, etc.). They are each a priority
and can be used as a checklist for decision -makers. Nevertheless, several of the
policies indicate "next steps" to the plan. These are either short-term or long-term
priorities.
The matrix lists only those policy statements that require specific actions and has
them broken into short-term (within the next year or two) and long-term (within the
next two to five years). All other policies not listed within the matrix are viewed as
having ongoing characteristics that are applicable on a sustained or continual basis.
Short Term Priorities:
POLICIES
PROJECT
PRIORITY*
TIMEFRAME*
West Town
Center
West Town Center Implementation
District
East Town
Center
East Town Center Plan
District
C.4.1
Nottingham
,
Park
4
District
Park/Open Space Plan' and Nottingham Park District
1.1.6
Plan .
B.2.1
,..
B.2.5
G.1.15
G.5.1
Parking and Pedestrian Circulation Plan
G.5.2
E.3.8
D.2.3
Signage, Wayfinding, and Streetscapes
G.1.2
D.2.5
Community Gateways
F.I .l
Housing Needs Assessment
F.2.4
A.1.1
Three -Mile Plan
D.1.5
Update Land Use Regulations
B.3.3
E.1.1
Retail Analysis
H.4.1
Energy and Environmental Resources Plan
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan IMM
Page 57
Town .strict Planning Principles
Goals and Policies
G.2.3
Pedestrian and Vehicular Connections between West
PRIORITY*
TIMEFRAME*
G. 3.3
Town Center District and both East Town Center
D.2.3
District and the Confluence District.
D.3.5
Public Art Plan
Long Term Priorities:
POLICIES
PROJECT '
PRIORITY*
TIMEFRAME*
C.1.4
Master Plans for Each District
D.2.3
U.S Highway 6 Streetscape
D.2.4
Buffers from I-70
D.3.4
Venue for Cultural Events
E.3.6
Joint Visitor Center with Beaver Creek
G.1.9
Connection from Metcalf Road to Beaver Creek
Boulevard
G.1.10
G.1.13
Transit Service Plan
G.1.12
Traffic Calming Measures
•
G.1.14
Transit from Village at Avon to Town Center
Districts
G.2.4
Railroad Right of Way Preservation
G.4.1
Alternative Road Development
H.3.5
Educational Campaign Regarding Noise
I.1.7
Riverfront Park
J.2.4
Cost of Growth Analysis
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
�Y 0 N Page 58
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan (DRAF7)
J. Implementation Matrix
A key function of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan is to identify the policy actions that the
Town will undertake to implement the community's vision and goals. The following
implementation matrix provides a priority timeframe checklist for use by Town staff, the Planning
and Zoning Commission, and Town Council to ensure that these policies are implemented in a
timely and orderly manner within the annual realities and constraints of budget and personnel
limitations. The matrix lists only abbreviated policy action statements that require specific actions
prioritized within a timeframe extending from the immediate (within 6 months of the
Comprehensive Plan's adoption) to those to be acted upon within the next five years. All other
policies not listed within the matrix are viewed as having ongoing characteristics that are
applicable on a sustained or continual basis.
* Priority Timeframes: 0.5 = within 6 mos.; 1= within 1 year; 2 = within 2 years; 5= within 5 years
POLICIES
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
PRIORITY*
COMPLETION .
Inventory, analyze and prioritize lands adjacent to the
developed portions of the town, particularly steep slopes,
drainage corridors and other environmentally sensitive areas,
A.3.3
for possible acquisition and/or preservation as open space or
2
1 YEAR
for other public purposes, or restrict these lands to very low
density development in order to maintain Avon's visual
identity.
Develop a subarea plan for the Town Center Commercial
Shopping District identifying more appropriate parcel
A.6.1
configurations and corresponding new automobile and
1
6 MONTHS
pedestrian circulation alignments in order to increase the
district's commercial viabili .
POLICIES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PRIORITY*
COMPLETION
Conduct a retail analysis to identify specific opportunities to
B.1.1
increase guest -related retail expenditures within Avon to
1
6 MONTHS
reduce sales tax migration to other nearby communities.
Review methods for better meeting Avon's parking needs
B.1.11
within the Town Core, including the possible creation of a
1
1 YEAR
Town Core parking district.
58 2/2/05
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan (DRAF7)
59 2/2/05
Investigate methods to encourage investment in Avon
through such tools and strategies as Tax Increment Financing
for specific development proposals; General Improvement
District Bonds; expedited review processes; public/private
B.2.3
financing mechanisms; applying for development and
1
1 YEAR
redevelopment grants; and participation (cost and revenue) in
delivering infrastructure and services as appropriate and
advantageous to the Town and its economic development
efforts.
Investigate the potential costs and benefits of establishing a
B.2.7
vacancy assessment to discourage long-term
2
6 MONTHS
commercial/retail vacancies.
Develop a joint visitor center with Beaver Creek on the east
day parking lot or other suitable location to increase the
B.3.6
effectiveness of providing information about the Avon
3
2 YEARS
community, its businesses, and the various special activities
and events occurring within the communi .
POLICIES
TRANSPORTATION
PRIORITY*
COMPLETION
Design and adopt a comprehensive town pedestrian
circulation plan in conjunction with an east Town Core area
C.1.14
specific plan and require all development proposals in the
1
Town Core area to include it graphically on their plans,
1 YEAR
specifically addressing ways each proposal contributes to the
concept and its implementation.
Investigate transport technology options that could
C.4.2
accommodate transit passenger as well as skier and boarder
2
use to directly link the Town Core with Beaver Creek
1 YEAR
Villa e.
POLICIES
HOUSING
PRIORITY*
COMPLETION
Initiate a housing needs assessment to understanding the
housing needs of the community and establishing policies
and programs that would address these needs. Ideally, a
E.1.2
housing strategy would result that takes into consideration the
2
unique opportunities and constraints found in the community
1 YEAR
and Establish a minimum dwelling unit size requirement for
designated affordable housing units that effectively meets the
residents' livability needs.
59 2/2/05
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan (DRAFT)
AVO N
COLO ! A D O
POLICIES
PARKS, RECREATION, TRAILS AND OPEN
pRIORITY*
COMPLETION
SPACE
Conduct a survey/feasibility of Nottingham Park to identify
G.1.5
and program enhancements to potential art, cultural, and
2
recreational facilities to better activate and enhance this area
6 MONTHS
as Avon's major recreational and cultural center.
G.1.6
Develop a river front park that connects the Eagle River to
2
the Town Core and 2ossibIX to Nottingham Park.
1 YEAR
POLICIES
COMMUNITY IMAGE AND DESIGN
PRIORITY*
COMPLETION
Instigate a specific area plan for the development and
redevelopment of the Town Center Commercial Shopping
District to inventory, analyze, and prioritize suitable sites for
1
H.4.2
potential infill and redevelopment, to define a new modified
1 YEAR
street grid, and to enhance the district's wayfinding elements
and overallpedestrian-orientation.
60 2/2/05