PZC Minutes 09-04-2007 (2)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning. Commission
VON'�� Meeting Minutes for September 4, 2007
Avon Town Council Chambers
C O L V R A o o Meefings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. There was an on-site mock-up
visit for the Timeshare West in the Riverfront Subdivisions and all Commissioners were
present.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
No conflicts of interest were revealed.
V. Consent Agenda
Approval of the August 21, 2007 Meeting Minutes with revisions expressed by
Commissioner Green.
Commissioner Green motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda with Commissioner
Goulding seconding the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
VI. PUD Amendment I Hamel — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040
Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road
Applicant: Land Planning Collaborative / Owner. • Frank Hamel
Description: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The
proposal is to rezone Lot 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the currently
entitled 3 duplexes (or 1 duplex and 1 fourplex) to six single-family residences. The six
newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes and restricted to 5,000 square
feet. This application was tabled from the July 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Tambi Katieb, Land Planning Collaborative, introduced the architect for the project,
Gerald Miramonte. Mr. Katieb began his presentation with Meeting Goals for the review
of the site plan options and design constraints, review of policy framework and the
request of tabling for a re -submission of the application. Mr. Katieb continued with
comments made by the Wildridge Community that included more spacing between the
buildings, walls must be minimized and softened, tighter building envelopes -5 buildings
were too much on the western end, massing was key, down zoning was a precedent and
a deed restricted unit in Wildridge had little value. Three revised project scenarios were
presented to the Commission.
Gerald Miramonte presented to the Commission the least invasive approach to the
property with 5 units and a single access point in his opinion. Mr. Miramonte continued
with other options for the site that included representations with the same 4 homes on
the west, one on the east but alternative access points with some that create a 20 foot
retaining wall. Commission discussion revolved around alternative access points, the
retaining wall, building heights, potential purchase of Town property for access to the
east end home, what was the public benefit for the Town to sell the property, cost of the
road construction to the developer, and Fire Department access.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
, There were no comments made by the public.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Goulding commented that the approach was going in the right direction,
double entry was difficult, and all issues were being addressed in a positive step.
Commissioner Struve commented that the square footages were well done; retaining
wall may not be as dramatic with the intended landscaping, and questioned the
architectural style. Miramonte responded that it was stone bases and wood and the
homes would be individually designed with three car garages. Commissioner Foster
commented that the spacing between the houses was critical, and it was moving in the
right direction. Commissioner Smith expressed that they were going in the right
direction, too. Commissioner Lane preferred the model on the left. Commissioner
Green voiced appreciation for the models of the different site options and suggested that
the building sites envelopes as presented should be reviewed.
Mr. Miramonte discussed the employee housing unit. Commissioner Green agreed with
staff on the AMI in the report. Applicant would like to eliminate the employee housing
due to the down zoning to 5 units total.
Commissioner Goulding motioned to table Item VI, PUD Amendment / Hamel Property
Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road
East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road. Commissioner
Green seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved with a 7 — 0 vote.
VII. Site Tour Follow-up / Timeshare West
Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane
Applicant. Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner. Starwood Vacation
Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Timeshare West
project. This design was approved at the May 1, 2007 Commission meeting, and an on-
site mockup review for this item is now required.
Eric Heidemann commented that this was a condition of their Final Design Approval in
order to give feedback to the Applicant.
k,
Jim Mclntrye, Starwood, approached the podium to get feedback from the Commission
regarding the Mock up.
Commissioner Goulding voiced concern with the level of detail and quality of the mock
up; cap'stone and relief stone detail had two different examples; window caulk coloring;
hardi-board corner needed attention; two inch channel from hardy board to stucco
needed to be revisited; and the gutter detailing on north side needed to be reviewed.
Commissioner Struve added that the light tan needed to be addressed. Commissioner
Foster commented on the inconsistency of the elevations, horizontal banding, and the
difficulty on how it would look, some colors were confusing on the elevations and where
the seamed metal pieces would be located. Commissioner Smith mentioned that what
was presented as gray initially was presented on the mock up as a green color, and the
metal was more of a siding look. Commissioner Evans commented that the mock —up
should reflect the elevation plans.
Alexsandr Sheykhet, Applicant, approached the podium to address Commissioner
concerns. He began that plans called for a flat seamed metal panel and the mock up
reflected the look of siding. Commissioner Lane commented on the details 14, 21-hardi-
board goes to stucco and questioned the application, and 17 also did not match.
Commissioner Green voiced disappointment that what was presented was not what was
proposed and that the colors were not the level of sophistication and richness
anticipated; color of window frames were too light, colors needed to be more
complimentary, caulking needed better coloring; and reveal details, were poorly
presented. Commissioner Evan commented on the quality of workmanship, metal
panels looked like a lapped metal, colors on the elevation were not even close to the
colors on the mock up; and siding colors came across as pink based colors.
Commissioner Goulding motioned to table Item VII, Site Tour Follow-up / Timeshare
West, Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane.
Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. The motion to table was approved
unanimously by the Commission with a 7 - 0 vote. `
VIII. Master Sign Programs
A. Christie Lodge
Property Location: Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision / 0047 E. Beaver Creek Blvd
Applicant/Owner. Charles Frey / Christie Lodge
Description: A Master Sign Program Amendment to allow for two monument signs to be
placed on the south and west sides of the building.
Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Evans questioned the berm
and its heights.
Charles Frey, Christie Lodge General Manager, approached the podium for Commission
questions.
Commissioner Green approved of the sign design and would prefer the flower base be
eliminated and questioned lighting of the sign. Mr. Frey responded that there was
overhead lighting in the area. Commissioner Green commented that the lighting needed
to be tastefully done and appropriate, and presented to the Commission for approval.
Commissioner Goulding added that he thought ground cover was appropriate.
Commissioner Foster motioned to approve Item VIII, Master Sign Programs, A., Christie
Lodge, Property Location: Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision / 0047 E. Beaver
Creek Blvd, with two conditions: 1) Landscaping will be incorporated around the base of
the signs using shrubs and more significant landscaping, 2) Lighting will come back for
separate approval. Commissioner Green seconded the motion, and the motion carried
with a vote of 7 — 0.
B. Westin Tenants
Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 126 Riverfront Lane
Applicant: Andy Gunion / Owner: Riverfront Village Hotel, LLC
Description: A Master Sign Program Amendment to allow for tenant identification signs
around the public plaza and gondola area. The signs include blade signs, awning signs,
window signs, and freestanding signs.
Jared Barnes presented the staff report with criteria 11) revised to allow lighting that is
compatible and meets the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.
Andy Gunion, East West Partners, approached the podium to discuss the project.
Commissioner Goulding asked about the location of the awnings. Commissioner Green
questioned lighting and Mr. Gunion responded that they failed to provide it and will return
to the Commission. Commissioner Goulding suggested lighting within the sign.
Commissioner Green voiced concern with the window signage and displays.
Commissioner Struve voiced that Sign Code be followed. Commissioner Green
suggested that any signs or displays could not be within 4 ft of the window, logos or
signs of the business should not exceed 10% of the glass, and no glass advertisement
of the product.
Commissioner Goulding motioned to table Item VIII,Master Sign Programs, B., Westin
Tenants, Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 126 Riverfront Lane.
Commissioner Struve seconded. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion
passed unanimously.
IX. Minor Project Applications
A. 1" Bank Site and Building Modifications
Property Location: Lots 3&5, Sun Road Subdivision / 0011 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard
Applicant: Pamela Hopkins & Sherry Dorward /Owner: First Bank of Avon
Description: Design application for site and building modifications including: new curb
and gutter, landscaping, new entrance feature, new stucco color, and other architectural
elements.
Matt Pielsticker presented Staff's report to the Commission.
Sherry Dorward, landscape architect, approached the podium to address Commissioner
concerns. Commissioner Evans questioned the blue roof and bronze entry.
Commissioner Green questioned the gating of the parking lot. Ms. Dorward responded
that RV's and truckers park in it to go to Denny's. First Bank employees were
uncomfortable with the parking lot used for this purpose. The project would make the
circulation and flow of the one way drive easier, updating of the building to make the
building more prominent, greater amounts of landscaping, and the shift of the ATM
location for better pedestrian crossing. Commissioner Green mentioned that he would
4,
'like to see the roof redone to match the entry but understood budgets. Commissioner
discussion included the movement of the building signage to accommodate the new
entry, lighting, gate detail, roof being two different colors, match addition to the current
roof color, diagonal parking, flow, and roof detail. A detailed landscaping plan was
requested.
Commissioner Struve moved to table Item IX, Minor Project Applications, A. 1" Bank
Site and Building Modifications, with Commissioner Goulding seconding the motion. The
motion passed 5 — 2 with Commissioners Evans and Lane opposing.
B. Riverfront Public Plaza
Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 126 Riverfront Lane
Applicant: Andy Gunion / Owner: Riverfront Village Hotel, LLC
Description: Design review of the public plaza furnishings between the Westin Hotel and
the Gondola. Included for review are: benches, trash/recycling receptacles, dining
tables, planters, and ski racks.
Matt Pielsticker presented the staff report.
Andy Gunion responded to Commissioner concerns from the podium. George Pierce,
landscape architect, responded that the cigarette disposal can was incorporated in order
to retain points for the LEEDS program. Conversation continued with the Town's
smoking ordinance, the smoking in a public right-of-way, variety of metal colors to be
used, number of trash cans around the gondola area and bear proofing of the cans,
combo ski rack/bike rack with custom color and fabrication, umbrella coloration,
Commissioner Green motioned to approve Item IX, Minor Project Applications, B.
Riverfront Public Plaza, Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 126 Riverfront
Lane, with the materials submitted to included that 1) the original planter to be the
planter of record; 2) strike staff recommendation number one; 3) Keep recommendation
number two of the Staff Report; 4) The detail for the combo bike/ski rack will be provided
to staff and utilized; and, 5) Bear proof trash containers were required. Commissioner
Goulding seconded and all Commissioners were in favor.
X. Attainable Housing Guidelines
Description: Presentation of new Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines, including
"Inclusionary" Zoning Provisions, Commercial Linkage, Payment -In -lieu, and resale
restrictions. These Guidelines were reviewed by Town Council at their August 28, 2007
meeting. Staff is seeking comments and a recommendation related to Resolution 07-31
to forward back to the Town Council for final action.
Eric Heidemann gave the background for these guidelines and key provisions.
Commissioner response included that these guidelines slammed the door on
development; this will not make housing attainable in Avon; effective for commercial
rezoning only; pay in lieu options; word-smithing necessary; the word "shall" as opposed
to the word "should" within the context of a guideline -type document; and, the
applicability of the Guidelines to certain types of projects.
XI. Other Business
• Village Amendment Update: Ambulance and fire district sites are moving
forward. School site as commercially feasible, has not entered into an
agreement with the village, town and school district. Amendment to table to 9/18,
a development company out of Dallas may be forming a partnership with the
Village at Avon.
Lot C to return to next meeting.
Housing Meeting with Town Council on 9/11/07.
XII. Adjourn
Commissioner Foster motioned to adjourn. All Commissioners were in favor.. The
meeting was adjourned at 9:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
i�
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
AV
O�`Meeting Minutes for August 21, 2007
Avon Town Council Chambers
C O L D R A D O Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
WORK SESSION WITH TOWN COUNCIL
VAG, Inc. /Orion East Avon Concept Review
Description:
Pedro Campos, VAG, Inc, approached the podium to give the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Town Council an overview of the potential benefits for the Town of
Avon with this project. His presentation included diagrams and pictures of the project.
Brian Judge, Orion Development, discussed the overall plan with existing structures,
demonstrated the layout of the proposed structures, shadow casting, pedestrian
accesses, building heights ranging from,6 to _10 stories, application of the Comp Plan;
and various comparisons in height to Sheraton, Avon Center and the Westin.
Commissioner Evans asked for comments from the audience. Ron Wolfe, Mayor,
commented the housing proposal and urban renewal contributions, that the project was
creative, questioned Mr. Judge's comment that they might not be able to commit to the
courtyard, project was monolithic and inconsistent with the East Town Center Plan,
suggested taking a third of the building out of the picture, plus the flat roofs. East Town
Center in a pedestrian scale was the object for Councilor Ferraro. Councilor Carroll was
concerned with the heights and that this project set a dangerous precedent in height,
size and mass. Councilor Phillips expressed a need for a connection to the gondola;
and, building walls needed variations to omit the straight 'up and down'. Councilor
Dantas troubled about heights, worried that this would cater more to businesses than
guests, and more thought to use by locals was needed.
Mr. Judge responded that they were interested in preserving the plaza. Councilor
Underwood would like to see some of the architectural interest to get a handle on the
project. Councilor Dantas asked on the phasing and Mr. Judge responded that it would
be three phases, south first and then north. Councilor Sipes commented that height was
troublesome and not in balance with the public benefit.
Commissioner comments included that the concept was to enhance the town square
and not'tum our backs to it; north side pass breaks up mass, height an issue, drawings
give a downtown feeling, too much height, bulk and mass; comp plan did not envision
this on the east side of town; needed a town center and homey feel; more resident
useful; concern with how pedestrians are handled; character and nature of a town center
was a concern; too much volume, 10 —12 story buildings were inconsistent with Town's
plans; compared to 4 Westins being placed on this site. The Commission would like to
see a significant change in scope and. scale.
REGULAR MEETING
II. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:20 pm.
III. Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance.
IV. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda.
V. Conflicts of Interest
No conflicts of interest were revealed.
VI. Consent Agenda
• Approval of the August 7, 2007 Meeting Minutes.
Commissioner Struve moved for approval of the Consent Agenda and Agenda as
amended. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion and the motion passed 6 — 0 with
Commissioner Evans abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
VII. Duplex Final Design — CONTINUED
Property Location: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision /540
Nottingham
Applicant/Owner.Jerald Wuhrman
Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via an access easement
from Lot 70 off of Nottingham Road. The design uses stucco, stone and wood siding as
well as a mansard and gabled roof forms. This application was tabled from the August
7, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report.
Jerald Wuhrman, Applicant, approached the podium for his presentation. Mr. Wuhrman
began by discussing his changes to the project plans.
Commissioner Evans voiced that this project could not be approved as presented
because there was no consistency on the proposal. For example, shutters were only on
4 windows on one elevation and nowhere else and curved chimney caps did not match
other elements on the building. Commissioner Evans also stated that the building was a
giant box, a minimum of 24" overhangs on roof were required in the guidelines, and the
project needed to be completely reworked. Commissioner Lane questioned why the
building hadn't addressed the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Green commented that
the current design was not better than the original presentation.
Mr. Wuhrman voiced that his original application was far different from its current
presentation and discussed the changes he had made. Commissioner Evans voiced
that the Design Guidelines were not being addressed or taken into consideration.
Commissioner Goulding motioned to deny Item VII, Duplex Final Design, Property
Location: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision /540 Nottingham
with the findings that it does not meet the architectural interest section of the design
guidelines. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously with all Commissioners in favor of denial.
VIII. Walkin' the Dog Special Review Use Review - CONTINUED
Property Location: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 540
Nottingham
Applicant/Owner: Marisa Lehman
Description: Re -review of the Special Review Use Permit (approved by Resolution 06-
14), issued at the Planning and Zoning Commission's October 3, 2006 meeting. The
permit was approved for one year; subject to re -review no later than October 3, 2007.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission and began by giving a
historical review of the project. Mr. Pielsticker requested to amend the
recommendations of staff.
Commissioner Goulding asked for date clarification of preceding events related to this
SRU.
Marisa Lehman, applicant, approached the podium and apologized for not
understanding process and she would work more closely with the property owner.
Commissioner Green asked of staff if there was anything in place to return the site to its
original condition should the business leave this location and the response was
affirmative. Commissioner Evans voiced to the applicant the conclusions that were
available and that the Commission wanted the hillside revegetated. Matt Pielsticker
voiced the need for $18,000 cash surety on the project for its completion.
Commissioner Goulding commented that this SRU had 10 months of unresolved issues,
total disregard of deadlines and no sense of urgency; work should begin on 8/27 and
completion on 10/1. Commissioner Struve wanted action now, protection to the
overhanging Juniper, different style of fence and to be completed by 10/1/07, and the
direction of forgiveness and not permission will not work with this Commission.
Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Evans to get the work done.
Commissioner Green moved to extend the permit, Item VIII, Walkin' the Dog Special
Review Use Review, Property Location: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision / 540 Nottingham, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will supply cash surety of .not less than $18,750 to the Town of
Avon to cover the expense to complete all reseeding and irrigation work necessary to
revegetate and stabilize the results of clearing portions of Lots 20 and 21, Block 1,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, no later than 5pm on Friday, August 24,
2007. If the cash surety is not received by August 24, 2007 at 5pm the permit will be
revoked and the Town will pursue measures to reclaim the site to its natural state at
the owner's expense.
2. The applicant will complete all work indicated on the engineered drawings and
Landscape Plan, including revegetation and stabilization, no later than October 1,
2007. The fence will also be installed by October 1, 2007.
3. The application will be re -reviewed at the October 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting for compliance with these conditions.
4. Adequate surety will be supplied to the Town when the use vacates the property
in order to ensure the site will be restored to its original condition.
5. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations
made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this application and in public
hearings shall be adhered.to and considered binding conditions of approval.
The Planning and Zoning Commission placed the above-mentioned conditions on
your Special Review Use permit and cited the following findings:
1. There have been 10 months of unresolved issues regarding grading and
disturbances which were not approved.
2. The applicant has willfully disregarded the conditions of approval.
3. The condition approved at the July 17, 2007 meeting, which required a
Landscape Plan to be submitted prior to the August 7, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, was not met.
The motion passed anonymously with 7-0 vote.
IX. PUD Amendment — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Village at Avon PUD
Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG /Owner: Traer Creek
Description: Amendment request to reconfigure the planning area boundaries of
Planning Areas H, Neighborhood Center, I, Neighborhood Center, E, Village Residential;
and F, Village Residential, in order to create a larger buffer between commercial uses
and the adjacent existing Eaglebend drive residential neighborhood. Also part of the
request is a text amendment to the PUD guide that will result in a modification to the
current percentages and ratios of commercial -to -residential uses in order to permit more
residential density in areas that are presently planned for more commercial square
footage.
Commissioner Evans motioned to table the public hearing of Item IX, PUD Amendment,
Property Location: Village at Avon PUD, to the September 18, 2007, Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion and the
motion passed 7-0 with all Commissioners in favor.
X. Final Design Plan — Western Sage PUD/Wildridge
Property Location: Lot 3, Western Sage PUD / 5205 Longsun Lane
Applicant: John G. Martin /Owner: Ted Leach, Western Sage Partners, LLC
Description: Final Design for a Single -Family residence in the Western Sage PUD. Lot
is accessed from private drive off cul-de-sac on Longsun Lane. The Design features a
2 -car garage, European style design with wood siding, stucco/stone siding, and large
roof forms. Currently under construction in this PUD are lots 1, 2, and 6.
Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report.
Commissioner Struve questioned the height calculations and was advised that height
calculation was close to the maximum and that this figure will be verified during the
construction process.
Jeff Manley, applicant, commented on changes to the design from the original
submission highlighting the color differentiation and continued with a visual presentation
of the site with approved structure from Lots 1 and 2.
Commissioner Lane commented on the high quality of the architecture and good
elevation form. Commissioner Smith liked the design and Commissioner Foster agreed.
Commissioner Green asked if the entire project could be moved south on the project so
that the hammerhead could fit within the building envelope. Mr. Manley responded that
the height and driveway grades limited this project to its current spot.
Commissioner Green moved to approve Item X, Final Design Plan — Western Sage
PUD/Wildridge, Property Location: Lot 3, Western Sage PUD / 5205 Longsun Lane, with
staff conditions. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and the motion passed 7-0.
XI. Minor Projects
A. Shed Addition
Property Location: Lot 41-B, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road
Applicant. James G. Downs, Tuff Shed, inc. I Owner: Tony Prior
Description: Construct a shed in the side yard of the subject property. The shed exterior
finish will match the existing residence.
Jared Barnes offered the staff report to the Commission.
Commissioner Struve questioned if it would be on slab or piers and Mr. Barnes
responded.that it would be on slab, and all exterior colors and materials would match the
existing structure. Commissioner Green questioned where the site plan, elevations,
color, and materials were for review. Mr. Heidemann requested the Commission to table
this application to the next meeting and that the packet should be more complete. The
applicant could not be present.
Commissioner Foster moved to table Item XI, Minor Projects, A. Shed Addition,
Property Location: Lot 41-B, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road, with
Commissioner Smith seconding the motion. The motion passed 7-0 with all
Commissioners in favor.
B. Color Change
Property Location: Lot 32, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2643 Bear Trap
ApplicantlOwner.• Patrick McKenny
Description: Change materials and colors on one half of an existing duplex. Siding,
Stucco, and Deck railings will be modified by this application.
Jared Barnes offered the staff report to the Commission.
Commissioner Foster asked if better pictures were available.
Patrick McKenny, applicant, approached the Commission and distributed a packet. Mr.
McKenny stated that due to staffs verbal approval, he has already ordered the
materials. Mr. McKenny continued by giving historical detail of previous projects on the
duplex residences and of the discussion of this proposed color change with his duplex
neighbor, Mr. Casey Frehe.
Commissioner Green began that he no problem with the look but voiced that the
Commission was not in the position to mediate neighbor conflicts and suggested they
work it out. Commissioner Evans proposed that the two neighbors go out in the hall and
discuss the project.
Casey Frehe, neighbor, commented from the podium that his side of the duplex was up
for sale avid preferred that the new, buyer have the option of color choices, but Mr.
McKenny did not want to wait. The discussion continued with Mr. Frehe stating that both
neighbors were not in agreement therefore a color change cannot be approved. The
Commission once again stated that they had no problem with the siding or the pickets.
Commissioner Struve motioned to approve Item XI, Minor Projects, B. Color Change,
Property Location: Lot 32, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2643 Bear Trap, with the
following conditions:
1. Existing wooden pickets be changed to vertical black metal pickets;
2. The existing vertical siding be changed to horizontal siding with the color
to remain the same; and
3. The current color of stucco is to be maintained, upon agreement of the
duplex neighbor the stucco can be repainted to the proposed mocha color
and the siding colors can be changed as shown in the rendering added as
an exhibit to the file.
Commissioner Foster seconded the motion and it was approved 7-0.
C. Deck and Pavilion Addition
Property Location: Lot 12B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 12190 Saddleridge Loop
Applicant/ Owner: Chadd Ziegler
Description: Proposal to construct a 37' x 20' deck addition. Within the perimeter of the
proposed deck addition would be a 10' tall "pavilion" structure.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report.
Commissioner Green voiced that he does not have enough information to approve and
that the submittal was about 75% complete. Struve agreed with green and voiced
concern with the stilts and questioned the need for additional landscaping. Mr.
Pielsticker mentioned to the Commission that for a Minor . Project the submittal
documents were minimal and not subject to more detail.
Chadd Ziegler, applicant, approached the podium and commented that a rendering was
not offered until he knew what the Commission wanted to see. Commissioner Foster
commented that she could not envision what existed and what was being proposed.
Commissioner Struve could not imagine approving a structure on top of a deck. Mr.
Ziegler stated that the walls were there for protection from the wind and was looking for
direction from the Commission. Commissioner Green questioned what the existing deck
was and Mr. Ziegler commented -that the new deck would be part of the old, and being
on the side of a hill, therefore the need for stilts.
Commissioner Evans requested a section of the deck from the architect. Commissioner
Green voiced that it may not be the best way to address the issue of windblock for this
structure. Commissioner Foster revealed concern for the height and Commissioner
Struve questioned lighting.
Commissioner Struve moved to table Item XI, C. Deck and Pavilion Addition, Property
Location: Lot 12B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 12190 Saddleridge Loop, to the next
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting with Commissioner Foster seconding the
motion. All Commissioners were in favor
XII. Other Business
• Duplex Guidelines Revision — Community Development Commission approved
the guidelines at their last meeting.
• Snow Run Town homes (update) — discussed earlier in the evening with one of
the owners, Ron Tribelhom.
• Urban Renewal Plan and the Investment Plan were approved by Town Council.
XIII. Adjourn
Commissioner Smith motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Lane 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
Memo
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Matt Pielsticker, Planner IZf
Dae August 29, 2007
Re. Hamel PUD Amendment
Summary:
AVON
C O L O R A D O
After holding public hearings at the June 19, 2007 and the July 17, 2007 Planning and
Zoning Commission meetings, this application was unanimously tabled by the Commission.
In light of the citizen input letters received, and the comments and concerns raised by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant determined that a revised proposal would
be appropriate.
In response to the comments received, the applicant has revised the concept and is
requesting one additional review prior to either submitting a revised proposal, or withdrawing
the application. The applicant will present two massing models and additional studies at
your meeting.
For your reference, Staffs report from the original proposal is attached to this
Memorandum. To aid in your review of this revised proposal, the criteria in Section III of the
report shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating this application.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission TABLE this application
after holding a public hearing.
Exhibits:
• Staff Report, dated June 12, 2007 & Vicinity Map
Letter from Applicant, dated August 29, 2007
• Reduced Plans (Original and New Concepts)
September 4, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Page 1 of 1
Lots 38 & 39, Bb& 4, W ildridge - Hamel PUD Amendment
Staff Report
PUD Amendment AVO N
June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting C 0 L 0 R A 0 0
Report Date June 12, 2007
Project Type Planned Unit Development Amendment
Legal Description Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Current Zoning Lot 38 & Lot 110: 2 Units (Duplex)
Lot 39: 4 Units (2 Duplexes or 1 Fourplex)
Introduction
The applicant, Land Planning Collaborative, is proposing an amendment to the
Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge
Subdivision from the currently entitled 3 duplexes (or 1 duplex and 1 fourplex) to six
single-family residences. The six newly platted lots are proposed with building
envelopes that are restricted to 5,000 square feet in size. Design and building
standards would be tied to the new properties.
Steep existing topography typifies the subject properties, with most of the street
frontage and areas within Lot 39 containing slopes of over 40%. A shared driveway for
the six single-family homes is being proposed. For reference, the approximate driveway
location is staked in the field for review by the Commission.
In addition to the reformatting of Lots 38 and 39, the applicant is proposing to construct
a duplex and deed restrict one-half of it on Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision for a
'buyer qualification' unit. This unit is targeted to locals earning 200% of the Area
Median Income (AMI). As proposed, the unit would be unlike other existing deed -
restricted units in the Town by not carrying a price restriction. Rather, a 'buyer
qualification' would be tied to the property requiring sales to be limited to locals - not
second home owners.
This staff report outlines all of the mandatory review criteria in Section III for the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council to consider when reviewing this
application. Based on review of the criteria outlined in Section III of this report, staff
recommends CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of this application.
II. Public Notice Requirement
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARM
June 19, 2007 Planning 3 Zoning . ummission meeting Page 2 of 9
This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to all property
owners within 300' of the subject property. To date staff has been in contact with the
owner of Lot 5, Slock 3, Wildridge Subdivision. This property is across the street
immediately south of subject properties. As of the date of this report there have been
no written comments received by staff.
M. PUD Design Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zoning Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria
shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating this application. According to Code,
"It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the
proposed development plan comply with each of the following design criteria, or
demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular development
solution is consistent with the public interest."
Please refer to Pages 4 -14 of Exhibit A for the applicant's responses to these principal
review criteria.
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and
Objectives.
District 24 Wildridcre Residential District (Comp Plan Page 98-99)
The subject properties are located in the "Wildridge Residential District." The
Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the limited number of existing trees and the
open character of the Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan states that "special
care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another
and in harmony with the natural surroundings."
One of the planning principles for this district• is to "site buildings of varying sizes
along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect views, be compatible with
existing surrounding development, and break up building bulk." This land use
proposal appears to be compatible with existing surrounding, development. The
building bulk would be dispersed with the building envelopes, and the new properties
maximize the south facing exposure.
Future Land Use Plan (Comp Plan Page 27)
The Future Land Use Plan envisions continued "Residential Low Density"
development. Residential Low Density development is intended to provide sites for
single-family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings at a density no greater than 7.5
dwelling units per acre. If the "non -developable" areas (areas exceeding 40%
existing slope) are subtracted from the net acreage of Lots 38 and 39, the density
would be 2.8 units per acre.
Goals and Policies (Comp Plan Pages 37 - 63)
The Comprehensive Plan contains several regional policy goals related'.to land use
and development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to all proposed PUD
plans in Town. Some of the Goals and Policies that pertain to this application as
follows:
Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARM I
June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning . ummission meeting Page 3 of 9 AM
Policy B.2.3: Encourage cluster style development in areas of less
density to promote creative and efficient site design that avoids
impacts on erfvironmental resources and augments open space.
Staff Comment: This application proposes a cluster style development in a low-
density neighborhood. While platted open space is a positive attribute, it is unlikely
this development application would result in a net increase of open space.
Policy C.1.1: Ensure that proposed development projects conform to
the Future Land Use Plan's designations and are a scale and intensity
appropriate for the planning district which they are located.
Staff Comment: If density were calculated per Avon Zoning Code. Lots 38A -38F
would be at a density of approximately 2.8 units per acre of "developable" land. This
density is appropriate for the Wildridge Residential District.
Policy C.2.2: Require new residential development to provide a variety
of housing densities, styles, and, types based upon the findings of a
housing needs assessment study.
Staff Comment: The housing needs assessment study was completed in November
of 2006. This study finds a lack of most price ranges, particularly units below
$450,000 value in Avon and Eagle County. As proposed, the 'move up' housing unit
would be targeted to locals making 200% of the Area Median Income (AMI), or those
who can afford a home priced at $570,000.
The price of the 'move up' unit would not be restricted except for the initial sales
price. While this specific type of housing unit does not exist in the community (i.e.
buyer qualified — not price restricted and buyer qualified), in order to ensure that this
unit remains affordable, staff recommends that the deed restriction agreement
guarantee the following general criteria: initial sales price targeted for families
making not more than 160% AMI, buyer qualified for full time Eagle County workers,
and with a deed restricted tiered price appreciation cap structure.
Policy F2.2: Require that workforce housing is integrated with, rather
than separated from, the rest of the community.
Staff Comment: The proposed deed restricted unit on Lot 110 would be connected
to another free market unit, and integrated with the rest of the subdivision.
Policy H.1.4: Require appropriate revegetation for all development that
requires grading and excavating.
Staff Comment: The applicant states that sagebrush and drought tolerant grasses
would be planted in areas receiving over -lot grading. Further, these areas "shall
require the use of temporary overhead irrigation systems until established." These
provisions appear to be responsive to the site's existing vegetation.
Policy H.2.1: Avoid development in environmental hazard areas such as
floodplains, steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards, wildfire hazard
areas, and areas with erosive soils.
Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN. A
June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning . ommission meeting Page 4 of 9
Staff Comment: Development is proposed within areas of steep existing
topography. The value of clustered homes and a deed restricted unit must be
weighed against tNs policy.
Policy H.4.3. Require the use of innovative and environmentally friendly
building techniques including water conservation approaches for new
development.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing 'green standards' to be incorporated into
this development.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the
sub -area design recommendations and Design Guidelines of the Town.
There is a conceptual site plan drawing included in the plan set. There is also a
sample elevation drawing on Page 7 of the applicant's submittal that demonstrates
the general materials and colors that would be utilized in this enclave type
development. While the elevation is not binding, it does represent a certain level of
quality,and architectural style.
In Section III of the applicant's submittal there are PUD Design Standards which
require the 6 structures to be limited to the same material palette and architectural
style. All walls are to be constructed of stone, timber, and/or wood siding.
Within each residence the applicant is proposing some fundamental "Green
Footprint" standards for conservancy including: 'Energy Star appliances, in -floor
radiant heat, 'Low -E' glass requirements, etc.
Where the PUD is silent to architectural standards the Town's Residential.
Commercial. and Industrial Design Review Guidelines would apply. The Town's
Guidelines put emphasis on the overall design theme for the Town. According to the
Guidelines, the theme for the Town shall be to establish an attractive appearance for
visitors and residents, and yet be flexible enough to allow design innovation.
The site design and corresponding development standards appear to be in general
agreement with the existing topography of the site. There would be a significant
amount of disturbance required to construct the proposed private access drive, and
associated retaining walls. Aside from the disturbance required for access, each
building would be limited to the building envelopes defined unless approved by P&Z.
Staff has some concern with the building envelope language and the possibility of
permitting disturbance outside of the envelopes. Specifically, "only minor grading,
landscaping, and retaining shall be permitted in the areas immediately adjacent to
building envelopes labeled 'no -build." Minor architectural encroachments
(overhangs, battered stone) may be permitted through the Town design review
approval process only." In addition to this language, "over lot grading incidental and
necessary for the preparation of and construction of home sites and landscaping
shall be permitted in these areas."
Unlike some other properties in Town that have platted 'non -developable' areas, or
areas that must be left in their present state, this proposal would permit some
disturbances. Staff would recommend that grading and disturbances be limited to
Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN, A
li-
June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning . ommission meeting Page 5 of 9
the building envelopes, except that which is required for utilities, drainage, and
disturbances related to construction of the private driveway and infrastructure.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, character, and orientation.
This proposal would be compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood,
and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, character and orientation. Please refer to the zoning standards on
Page 23 of 23 in the submittal. In terms of design compatibility, a clustered
development with uniform building and architectural standards should be compatible
with other development in the subdivision.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The single-family residential use and building envelope layouts provide an efficient,
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. There is a mix of single-
family and duplex buildings in close proximity.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
There have no been no geologic hazards identified on the subject properties. Rock
outcroppings are present, which is indicative of bedrock in the area. Preliminary
investigations report that steep excavations would likely be possible on these hill
sides.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The existing topography is steep throughout. Most notably, the grades adjacent to
Wildridge Road East, and the area in the middle of Lot 39 are exceptionally steep.
This portion of Lot 39 would remain free from development as proposed. As
proposed, a 1 acre "Tract 390" would be created in its place.
There appears to be a high degree of alteration to the existing site required to
enable this development to function. While the buildings would be linear in fashion
to avoid the hillside as much as possible, the site layout and driveway do not appear
to be particularly sensitive to the natural features of the site. The proposed driveway
runs directly through areas that exceed 40% slope. Extensive site retention and
mitigating measures would be essential for this development to function.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town
Transportation Plan.
There is a functional 20' wide driveway for the six proposed residential units. A
hammerhead turnaround is also proposed between Lots 38C and 38E. This
turnaround was designed with fire department vehicle maneuverability in mind. The
Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN( 1 ih
June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning . ummission meeting Page 6 of 9
turnaround could also be used for trash removal vehicles. It appears that visibility is
good in each direction entering and leaving the proposed curb cut location.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
As mentioned, the 1+ acre platted open space would remain non-developed except
for the driveway and associated retaining walls and infrastructure installations. The
applicant is proposing the minimum landscape area be increased from 25% to 30%.
The platted building envelopes further define open space and help to preserve
Views.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing
plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional
and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases.
The applicant has included a timeline for completion of the project on Page 10 of the
submittal. Construction of the duplex on Lot 110 would be the first phase of the
project. The driveway access and utilities would be constructed in the next phase of
construction. After construction of the driveway, the phasing plan indicates the
construction of approximately one house per year.
10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation
systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
Letters expressing the ability to serve have been included in the Appendices of the
applicant's binder from: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Xcel Energy, Holy
Cross Energy, and Comcast. Adequate services can be provided for this proposal.
11.That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry
anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed
PUD.
Wildridge Road East is. suitable to cant' the anticipated traffic, and the visibility
entering and leaving the driveway appears safe.
12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of
substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as
outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code:
A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning
entitlements cannot achieve.
Staff Comment: It can be argued that a public benefit is demonstrated with respect
to the overall quality of development, and the provision of a 'move up' housing
opportunity on a separate parcel. Staff would recommend that the terms of this
'move up' unit be strengthened by introducing a price appreciation cap. Without
control of price it is unlikely the unit "would maintain it's affordability for households
that earn the targeted 200% of the AMI.
Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN( A
June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning . ammission meeting Page 7 of 9
According to the Housing Needs Assessment completed last year, the largest gap
identified in Avon's housing stock is between 120% and 180% of the AMI. Staff
would recommend=a price restricted unit priced at a point affordable to a household
earning not more than 160% of the AMI.
B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or
social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse
impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights.
Staff Comment: Staff does not foresee any potential adverse economic impacts as
a result of the zoning change proposed. .
C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better
siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural
resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the
community master plan documents.
Staff Comment: The shared access and clustered home sites provide an organized
development. The platted building envelopes would guarantee some level of
certainty with regard to the siting of development.
IV. Preliminary Subdivision Plan
Pursuant to Sections 16.20 and 16.40 of Avon Municipal Code, the application for
Preliminary Plan has been reviewed by the Engineering Department for compliance with
the appropriate design and improvement standards. The following comments pertaining
to the applicant's Preliminary Plan (for subdivision) resulted from this review:
Due to the amount of cuts/grading required to construct the retaining walls and
driveway, it appears that a soils report should be provided according to
16.20.150 (7).
The retaining walls required to build the driveway require that cross sections be
provided according to 16.20.180(2).
It appears that a drainage study should be provided. It is unclear how drainage
over the retaining walls and onto the driveway will be handled.
V. Subdivision Variance
The lot configurations presented in Preliminary Subdivision portion of this application
require that a Variance to be granted from Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code:
Subdivisions. Chapter 16.40.330 of the Avon Municipal Code requires that each lot
have a frontage width on a dedicated street of not less than twenty-five (25) feet. As
presented, four of the seven lots included in the Preliminary Subdivision require a
Variance to be granted. Lots 38A, 38C, 38E, and 38F all have less than a twenty-five
foot frontage onto Wildridge Road East.
Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN r 'W
p
June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning commission meeting Page 8 of 9
According to Chapter 16.12 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Town Council may, at its
discretion, grantvariances from some or any requirements of the subdivision
regulations based up the following criteria:
(1) Whether a strict, literal application of these subdivision regulations would
result in an undue hardship to the subdivider due to the purpose, size, shape,
location and character of the proposed subdivision;
(2) Whether the provisions of the regulations from which relief is requested are
not materially important, in a planning sense, to the orderly controlled
development of the tract in question;
(3) Whether the granting of the request might adversely affect the use of the
land in the immediate area of the tract in question.
It is important to note that the Town Council shall hold a noticed public hearing, prior to
acting on this Variance request, and it is acceptable to run the notice and public hearing
in concurrence with the public hearing required, by the zoning amendment and
Preliminary Subdivision portion of this application.
The public notices that were sent to all owners within three hundred (300) feet of the
properties in question indicated that a public hearing would be held considering a
Planned Unit Development Amendment application, Preliminary Subdivision, and
Subdivision Variance request.
VI. Findings
Based on review of the mandatory review criteria outlined in Section III of this report,
staff finds the following:
1. The application is in general conformance with the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives.
2. The application is in conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of
the town, the sub -area design recommendations and Design Guidelines of the
Town.
3. The design is compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, character, and orientation.
4. The uses, activity, and density' provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
5. The site plan, building design, and location and open space provisions are
designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to
natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
6. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space is provided in order to
optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
7. The provided phasing plan and subdivision plan maintain a workable, functional,
and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. By
Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIH, -TAITI
June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning . ommission meeting Page 9 of 9
constructing the driveway and utilities in the first phase, each property can be
workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future
project phases=
8. The application provides evidence of substantial compliance with the public
purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code.
VII. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the Hamel PUD application for Lots
38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision and Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision with
the following conditions:
1. A deed restriction agreement will be executed for a 'move up' housing unit
on Lot 110, with price appreciation cap, targeting households earning
between 120% and 160% of the AMI prior to Final Design approval.
2. Grading outside of the building envelopes will be expressly limited to that
required for utilities, drainage, and disturbance related to construction of the
private driveway.
3. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations
made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this application and in
public hearings shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of
approval.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748-4413, or stop by. the Community Development Department in the Municipal
Complex.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielsticker
Planner II
VIII. Report Attachments
EXHIBIT A: Applicant's Proposal
EXHIBIT B: Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT C: Comprehensive Plan Excerpts
Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970).949-5749
LOT 110
Aug 29 07 02:31p LAND PLANNING COLLABORATI
August 29. 2007
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81621
RE: Hamel PUD Amendment
Lots 38, 39, Block 4, Wildridge PUD
Dear Commissioners:
970.328.4364 p.1
We would like to thank you for the consideration and specific input you
provided to us over the course of two meetings on the Hamel PUD
Amendment.
As a result of the last meeting and review of the most consistent PUD
design concerns voiced, we have struggled with meeting the largest of
items noted by the Commission within the context of retaining all stx units
as proposed.
At the same time, planning staff has voiced strong concem with down
zoning of existing dwelling units in Wildridge, since it does not provide
incentive for the development of local housing opportunities.
While the owner would like to retain all sic units and provide the town with
a local housing partnership opportunity, to do so would not allow us to
best respond to the site planning constraints of the property and meet the
Commissions primary concerns as clearly stated at your last meeting.
Land Planning
Collaborative
RECEIVED
AUG 2 9 2001
muntty Devatowanc
P.O. Drawer 3722
Eagle, CO 81631
Voice/FcDc 970.328.4361
Aug 29 07 02:31p LAND PLANNING COLLABORATI 970.328.4364 p.2
Therefore, we would like to review a revised site plan option- including
different scenarios on access condtions required- for input and dialogue
with the Commission.
We are hopeful that after conferring on the most significant policy and
site planning issues between the original application and the revised
option presented to you, we can request to table the application and
proceed to invest time and energies on higher level details of the project.
Warm Regards,
Tombi Katieb, AICP
Cc: Eric Heidemann, Matt Pielsticker
Att. Project Site Studies
Land Planning
Collaborative
P.O. Drawer 3722
Eagle, CO 81631
voice/Fax 970.328.4364
�
d
N
?
W
cr
a
14.
J
11,1 I l(`. �\, I �� ♦ iii/�i /�
AA
_
1 III IIII /III III ////i//,
1 11 III I / / I III 11 1 14
(j 1 1 1 I l l 11 1 1 \1
\ 1 l l I I 11 \\
Ji
11 111 I I II I I II
Al\
\\\\1,\\ \\\\ \,11 1,11 II II I
\�\,AAA\ \\,\\ \ \\1\ \\1\ \\1`;
�\ \�
\ IM
I t i 1 1 11 j l
^n \y \\\'\\\\\\`\\ \\\` 1`\` III IIII I
\\'\ `\\\\\\\\\\\A, 111\ 1w III II I 1 III
\\ "\\\111\\11111111111 IIII II
\\V� \\\ 11111 11111 I;II IIII IIIIIiII� II II
\\�\\\ 1\\I\I 11111IIIII I IIII IIII IIIII
\\\\\\\1\\\111j11111 jIIIIIIIIIII II I�I�II MI
\\\\\\I 111 11j11111 III III II III I I II
\\ \�; \\\\\ 111 111I111111ilt 111,111 III 11111 111
I \\111111\11\ I1Itill111,1111ill Ii II IIII 111
�� \\ \ 1111\1` 1 I I III I, Il,ll III Ill I I I
\\ 1`II \111 ►\► l � III l,l 11 II I Ili I
11111i A, ILIlit I Ill, II IIIIIIIW
�!s
a X1141 �I\ 1\111
i II�III II 11111\1\ lilt II Ill I
III SII I IIII IIIll111111 1111111 t
111 I I 11111 X111 IIII II II 1111 II1lli1 1111 lilt II ll I I
iliill llllll��llj1►1� III „l,l
1111I�II II IIII II,� Ill II 11 h
1
It IIll lllll 11111111 It Ill Iltl,lll ,1111 II II
IIII IIII 11111111'11 Ill l Il►I ill II II ► Ill I
1/1 Pit 1111 11111111 t111 „Il lilt 111,1111 IIll I 1 1 I
111, 11111111 11111111j1111111, Jill 11 II
Ill ISI lIll11,I)Iill11111`I1 II Ill li 11 II
111 I Ill 1111 1111 1111 I I ll I I� I III 11
/ // 11 % 1111 11111111III I IIII I Id II III l 1
'Ill It IIII- 1 I
C /1, IIII 11111 11
II Ili' 1111
�,�11 I/i�l�lllllll�ll Illj Illljlll jIII
/ /ii //
///Ali/ii
10,
j//
A
9 / - J�/,— / /� � / �� // ✓ / /iii i /i ,5�
/.
ole
ii/3� ��i /i�
/
)1
_I
1
1
1
1
1
z
\l
I
it
I
Q V,
IY Z
11.1
o
luLU
Q v
!L
w
j
�
m z
m LL
J �
O
I
i
m
M
Q NM
LU
W
N
Q I
IL
Q
I
I
Al
17= ,
j
�/ii/�/� �/�_ ��•+ � � i �'/
$ I'III III � —\ � � i i /ice//i / //��' i ��%�'�•• �%� � �
I IIIII I I ' / � s � /i //ii / ' / / // ���■ —_ %� — �
Tj\� B
\
�
\ 1 \\\
1 \\ 1 1 1 \\� b
4-I I I o Him
7• a
\`\
1
\` \ \�\\ \ \ \ \`\\ 1`\I 111111 I 1 I I I IIII \ P
�\ \\ \\\ 1 11 1 I II II I Y
\I 111 \ III III I I I I
1111 I I \\ I I ,
f l I I l
IIIIl j/
II/I\�
0\k\ 1111 I III IIIIIII IIII %/ /�\
`\\\III\ 1n 11► I I 1111 I�I� �///%/ //� V ; � �
�Illlllllll �� �B � •
11\11 1 111 III I II III I II II 1
�\ \ \ll\1II II IIII 111 IIII I11111111�1 Y
�\ \IIII 11 III 11j1 1111 IIII 1111 II I III II w ■
II111 I IIIIIII 11 III 11111�111�11IIII
IIIIIII III III I I 111 III I lI t
\\ \` \\\ \\\\ \ 1 Il 1111 III II I II 1 I II 1111 I 8=�
3
\j ,\,1\;\ \\\\\ \\I II11,,I ,I,I 1111IIII,I g11lll l� 1,11,
11111111 III IIII III I pill IIII IIII II b
N\ `\\\\\ 111`\1 I\IIIIII Ili IIII IIII II I I IkIIIIIlUl111 Mlllllr
� I 1`\`111111 Illllil Illlllli Ijlllll1111111�111\�'�� _
�� \\ IIIjI 1111 11 i i Illlj III IIIII 11�111111II1111Ij [I'll
ilk
v
\\ 111111\ III i III II I IIIIIII
I,1 111 Illi IIII IIII Ill ,I 1 IIII IIII
I I 1 1 1 III I I II 1 II UI I I u11� ,, _
IIII 11111\\\\ ,llllllllllil III I�IIII1111 I,�re ,�!'=.—._
II I � IIIII 'I II1 II�• _._
\\111 \ 111 I Ii1 IIt
III II 1` 1111111 I II I ,ll�,=�""`•—• —•-
fI�JII IIII 111'111111111 11jj111 IIII
(I11111 1'iillli
:111 III 111111 I,IIIIIIIII IIII l 11 IIII 11 III � _ �'
IIII, I \,\j11 I III 111 111111 111111 1 111 II I IIt`I IIIII 'r•�•� "�
I \i 11111 II II 111 1 IIIII 1 I ► , y;,,,,a
I �I I I I I I ul„I 1 ,1,1 I ,► u I
/ I f1 111 11l IIIII I 1 II I I -
I I I I IIII IIII IIII IIII II 11 �
1
�I,1111
I I III 1 11111 111 III I III
lI1�III11111I1111111111j1IIII III ll IIII11111j111111111�1111^\
I It 111 1 III I III II111111111111j 11
rl1,l j�jj jlll I�I�fllllllllllj�lliJill
� jl IIII II IIIII 11,11111111111111 11Jillv` g
// // II IIII IIII IIII II,I I jl
till I 1111111'1III11� 6
)11 III I I III I 111 ,II IIII \Y
/ III// /////'►111111111 I I►III/// //11)11/1„►Ilrrf
/l/llllllllllll I Illlpll I 11j1 �1\�\\\\11\
l/
�,�/ 1///l/l/l// llrl 1111 III►Iln III a 11 I 1 \\\111,IV�`Ill�i�l�lll V ��i
r / /l,%IIIII l/lllfl/ IIII IIII�IIIII \\ 1\111\\\1111111
1 \ni IIII
ll�/�/lil lillllli% lllnl'►IIII \\\ \\\\\i\I�n�
II
i/ II I I II \ \ \
lil //ri//r/irl/I�II I II
/ / //// //// //N I I I I I I1 IIII 11\\\\\\\\\I\`\ `\11 ;
II11
II1111\\\\\\�llllllllll�l ti+
/ Al
/l l/ll \ \\\\ii 11I1u1 n�li�
1' I
Illllil IIIIIII °Illi Q��
NJ
I/rr/rr 11 I Illllllllli iii OI IIN y` .
IIII 1 �\
11111111111 IIIII Illllj
llllll 11 IIIII IIIII \
/4I IIIII I n \
III IIII IIII
/�',�/1/r //// /r/ / , , // / -�•%/ / /� IIII IIIII IIIII lg
/V!/
1t !
! , q
111
/ / '//• / J N Id
llllll ` r
/p//
/�it,�/ / /iii//• / /// //' //// //// j i / % r%�/r// d // i ti�
1 U55
x �
z
Memo
To:
From:
Date
Re:
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Matt Pielsticker,
August 29, 2007
Planner I�
Timeshare West, Riverfront Subdivision
Site Tour - Follow-up to Condition of Approval
Introduction
At the May 1, 2007 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Final
Design Plan for the above-mentioned design application. An on-site mockup review
for final approval of materials and colors was required as part of the approval.
Attached to this Memorandum is a Memorandum from. the applicant, which responds
to the conditions of approval.
Also attached to this Memorandum is a colored elevation drawing from the Final
Design Review. The Mockup details are included, as well as design details for
reveals, windows, stucco, etc. It is important to note that the Key Note numbers that
are indicated on the Mockup detail match those found on the attached colored
elevation. For example, Keynote 9.1 represents the cement plaster (Greige #6073) for
portions of the building body and roof chimneys on both the colored east building
elevation and the Mockup elevation.
The review for this item is scheduled for 5:00pm — 5:15pm on Tuesday, September 4,
2007. Staff would ask the Commission to meet on site for review. Formal action will
take place during the regular meeting. The Riverfront Design Standards are also
attached to this Memorandum. Please refer to Section III.C. of the Design Standards
for specific guidelines relative to colors.
Discussion
The Final Design plan for the Timeshare West building was approved subject to the
following conditions to be resolved prior to submittal of a Building Permit:
1. Final approval of materials and colors is subject to on-site review of a
mockup. The mockup is to be physically Integrated with the existing
Westin and Riverfront Lodge mockups. The mockup will show
detailing representative of 2 stories of the building for material and
detail transitions.
Timeshare West Riverfiont Subdivision September 4, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
2. At least 3 designated handicap parking spaces total will be provided in the
two levels (P1 & P2) of underground parking.
3. A revised lighting Plan in accordance with Town Standards (Avon Municipal
Code 15.30.050) will be submitted for review. The revised plan will clearly
show all existing approved fixtures and their type, luminosity, location, height,
etc. in the vicinity. The type and cut sheet for the balconies must be
demonstrated. "Bysted" 50 Watt bollards will be utilized for path lighting.
4. All building encroachments at grade on the Path Easement on the west side
of the building will be removed.
5. Please provide the rationale for extending the 8" DIP waterline further to the
south for servicing the building. Also, please provide details of connection to
the curb stop and service line and/or approvals from ERWSD for any
deviation from their standard specifications.
6. Sheet SL1.01 appears to show site access crossing over curb, gutter, and
sidewalk. Access to the site should be shifted to eliminate the need to cross
the curb, gutter, and sidewalk. In addition, the proposed ramp, if used to
access foundation over -excavation, may interfere with the storm drainage
facilities located along the western boundary of Lot 3.
7. The Planning Commission strongly encourages the applicant to study
the East Elevation and at the time of mockup review, the applicant will
reveal studies and if changes are being proposed that they will be
presented at that time.
8. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material
representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this
application and in public hearings shall be adhered to and considered
binding conditions of approval.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission TABLE action on the
colors and materials for the Timeshare West. The colors do not appear to be
complimentary to those of the already approved colors of the Westin and Riverfront
Lodge projects.
Attachments
• Riverfront Design Standards
• Memorandum from applicant, dated August 22, 2007
Riverfront lodge Modap Follow-up February 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meebng
RIVERFRONT VILLAGE
Avon, Colorado
DESIGN STANDARDS
February 14, 2006
I. Vision Statement for Riverfront Village
A. Scope of Design Standards
1) The following Design Standards for Riverfront Village have been established to
ensure the overall quality and compatibility of the Village with the Town of Avon
and its riverfront site. In general these Standards shall apply to all buildings and
plaza areas within Riverfront Village, with the exception of the Hotel building, or as
otherwise noted.
2) An important aspect of the Riverfront Village vision is responsible care for the
environment and sustainability of the architecture and landscape. To this end, best
efforts will be made to meet the principles set forth in the LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building System for the Hotel. In
addition, all other buildings within the Village will be designed with sensitivity to the
sustainability aspects of site and architectural design.
B. Architectural Theme
1) Riverfront Village represents an important interface between the Town of Avon
and Beaver Creek Ski Resort It is envisioned as a lively gathering place connecting
the river, mountain and town- a pedestrian friendly environment where townspeople
and guests can stroll from Avon's western Town Center, through the resort retail
plaza, to ride the gondola up to the mountain or to step down to the river.
2) The village is situated on the seam between the town and the mountain
landscape and should therefore strike a balance between the two environments,
creating an architectural expression that captures both alpine and townscape
traditions. To achieve this balance, the architecture shall take advantage of materials
inherent to successful mountain resort architecture—such as stone, wood, and other
natural materials, combined with more contemporary materials such as stucco, metal,
and recycled products.
3) The Architectural Theme will also feature the use of large areas of glass, clean
building forms based on pure geometries, strong, simple but honest detailing (not
overly rustic, "heavy," or overstated), and the bolder proportions appropriate to the
larger scale of the Town.
C. Design of Public Spaces
1) A public plaza will be used to link the Town of Avon to the Eagle River. This
link should be reinforced in both a physical and perceptual way through the use of
Riverfront Village February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 1 of 6
paving materials, landscaping, and sensitive spatial planning. Spatial planning shall
include components that reinforce the connectivity of the Town to the River, and
avoid elements that act as barriers to this connection, such as planter walls that block
pedestrian flow, landscaping that screens the visual connection between Town and
River, etc.
D. Pedestrian orientation
1) A pedestrian corridor, connecting the town to a retail plaza with gondola, will
gracefully transition from the plaza to the riverfront promenade by way of a staircase
and stepped terraces merging with the natural landscape. This transition will avoid
barriers from the Town to the River, and include elements which reinforce this
connection, including similar paving materials, wide pedestrian ways that encourage
movement, active signage and wayfinding, and a gracious grand stair with oversized
treads and minimal risers.
2) Pathways shall also create a network within the Village itself, linking the different
buildings along the length of the site and providing pedestrian access to defined
access/gathering points along the River. The Plaza and pathways within Riverfront
Village should encourage a pedestrian -friendly environment.
E. View Corridors
1) A primary southern view corridor to the mountains shall be maintained from the
eastern railroad crossing through the public plaza to help reinforce the connection
between the Town and the ski mountain.
2) An east -west view corridor along the Eagle River willalso be maintained through
the preservation of a 75 -foot river setback throughout most of the site, with limited
minor encroachments as allowed in the development plan. In addition, the
Riverfront Park will act as a natural corridor along the river edge portion of the
Village and act to enhance this view corridor.
F. The Natural Environment
1) The Eagle River is a primary amenity for the Town of Avon and Riverfront
Village. Links to the River shall be developed as special pedestrian ways to help
activate this wonderful amenity.
2) The 75 -foot river setback will be largely left in its natural state, and certain
defined river access and gathering points should be created along the linear riverfront
path.
3)• In general, additional plantings within the river setback will be riparian in
character and relate to plantings indigenous to river edge environments. More
formal planting areas -- such as small sections of lawn, however, are encouraged at
special gathering and access points to highlight these more formal features. Formal
plantings featuring annuals are not permitted within the 75 -foot setback.
4) In an effort to enhance the natural environment, site walls and site walkways,
should become more "organic' as they approach the river edge portion of the
Riverfront Pillage February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 2 of 6
Village. Any -walls installed south of the bike path shall be limited to boulder
walls. Accessibility shall be considered when designing walkways.
II. Site and Village Guidelines
A. Primary Building Entries '
1) Primary building entries shall be emphasized as welcoming portals through
careful attention to massing, scale, and materials. This will ensure that Riverfront
Village will not turn its back to Avon. Portals will be scaled to encourage pedestrian
movement through them—and avoid overwhelming or diminutive massing—and
they will be treated with materials that enhance this experience. The front doors of
buildings should be treated in interesting ways, either through the use of glass or
special designs and materials that provide interest to these special areas of each
building.
2) Massing of entries shall relate to the overall massing of the buildings but be
presented as special forms different than typical building bays. Sensitivity to scale
should be considered when transitioning from the overall larger building mass to the
more intimate scale of the pedestrian visitor. Designers are encouraged to use
materials in interesting ways at primary building entries to reinforce their unique role
as part of the building and as part of the overall Village streetscape.
B. Solar Access
1) A solar access study shall be required for buildings exceeding 3 stories in height.
These studies will convey shading impacts at summer and winter solstice Gun 21 and
Dec 21), and at vernal and autumnal equinox (Mar 21 and Sept 21).
C. Site Materials and Colors
1. Plaza materials
a) Rustic materials common in mountain towns and/or a more contemporary
interpretation of these materials such as cut stone pavers, colored concrete pavers,
and stained or colored concrete slabs are appropriate to the Village. Colors shall be
complementary to the site and its architecture, avoiding bright or brilliant hues that
distract from the pedestrian experience.
2. Site walls
a) Site walls shall make use of more contemporary materials such as colored
concrete masonry, stained concrete, board -formed concrete, and similar materials, in
colors complementary to the site and its buildings. Site walls shallrelate to plaza
materials and building bases to help visually merge the ground plane around the site.
D. Site Signage — Design, materials, and colors
1) Site signage shall be designed to help animate the plaza and be consistent and
compatible with the design and materiality of the buildings. Site lighting will also be
used to enhance the pedestrian experience at the Plaza level.
Riverfront Village
Design Standards
February 14, 2006
Page 3 of 6
III.Architectural Design Guidelines
A. Building Form and Massing
1) In general the form and massing within Riverfront Village will follow the intent
of the Town of Avon Design Guidelines by incorporating forth articulation to avoid
the monolithic. However, specific buildings within the Village shall be subject to less
or more stringent requirements relative to building form and massing as identified
within this document to form a coherent, pleasant composition for the entire
neighborhood. 2) Smaller masses, such as portions of the building or elements such
as porte cocheres, etc, will be used to break up the apparent size of larger building
forms. Smaller masses positioned in front of large masses will be used to reduce the
visual dominance of the Luger forms.
3) The development of building bases .vill help to tie together individual buildings
within the Village and will also tie the Village to its riverfront site. Site walls, and
other site features shall relate to building bases in a way that reinforces visual
connectivity to the ground plane. The plaza and gondola terminal, with its
cantilevered structure will stand out as an elevated element from the south, drawing
people up from the river.
4) In general the middles of buildings will be more visually subtle, but broken by
primary and secondary elevation features and material accents that help to avoid
monotonous facades. On any given elevation at Lots 1, 3, and 4, 80 percent of the
vertical wall area will be permitted to be within the same plane, with a minimum of
2 -foot offset for plane changes. Vertical forms comprised of stacked decks and
balconies will be considered plane changes. At Lots 5, 6, and 7, 70 percent of the
vertical wall area will be permitted to be within the same plane.
5) The roofscape of Riverfront Village is also critical to the success of the
neighborhood and its relationship to the Town of Avon. The visual coherency of
the Village should be reinforced through the use of similar roofing materials and
colors throughout the Village, helping to knit the individual buildings together when
seen from the Gondola or Beaver Creek above.
6) Pitched roofs expressive of an alpine tradition and the incorporation of dormers,
shed roofs and chimney forms, should be employed. Primary roofs will have pitches
ranging from a minimum of 4:12 to a maximum of 8:12. Secondary roofs—such as
at dormers, porte cocheres, building protrusions, and similar additive forms—may be
flat, but only if they are finished in materials similar in quality to roof or wall
materials on the building, such as pavers, colored stone, etc. When secondary roofs
are pitched roofs, the minimum pitch required shall be 2:12. Flat roofs are not
permitted for primary roof forms. Ideally flat roofs should be developed as terraces
and other functional spaces.
7) Given the modem alpine character of the architecture at Riverfront Village,
relatively small roof overhangs are encouraged for buildings on Lots 1 and 3, which
are visually and compositionally related to the Hotel. At these locations the
minimum roof overhang permitted shall be six inches. At other locations within
Riverfront Village the minimum roof overhang shall be 24 inches for primary roofs
and 12 inches at secondary dormers.
Riverfront Village February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 4 of 6
8) To help ensure that roof ridges for the Village remain interesting and contribute
to the overall success of building massing, uninterrupted tidgelines shall be avoided.
To this end, roof ridgelines are limited to 150 feet before a change in height
(elevation above sea level) is required. These breaks (elevation changes) shall run
horizontally for at least 101/6 of the overall building ridge length before returning to
the prior elevation. Overall building ridge length is defined as the sum of all primary
ridge lengths for the entire building.
B. Building Height
1) Building heights for the Riverfront Village will be restricted to the heights
described in the approved Development Plan, as measured according to the Town of
Avon Code. Architectural features such as chimneys, cupolas, and other similar
elements will not be included when calculating maximum building height
2) In addition, the percentage of ridge height allowed at the maximum allowable
building height for any given building will be limited to 25% of the overall building
ridge length. Overall building ridge length is defined as the sum of all primary ridge
lengths for the entire building.
3) The maximum height for building facades fronting the Public Plaza will be
limited to 75 feet from the Plaza elevation. The only exception to this facade height
limitation shall be for the western facade of the central tower of the hotel, which
shall be permitted to be as tall as 100 ft. from Plaza elevation. This central tower
facade may run horizontally for up to 60 feet along the plaza.
4) The minimum horizontal setback required for building facades exceeding the
maximum height for building facades fronting the Public Plaza will be 2 feet from
the building fa4ade fronting the Public Plaza. This shall only apply to the central
tower portion of the Hotel.
5) The minimum setback required for maximum allowable height per the
Development Standards from the Public Plaza will be 60 feet from building fagade
fronting the Plaza
C. Exterior Materials, Detailing, and Colors
1. Materials and colors for walls and roofs at Riverfront Village will have a Light
Reflective Value gaV) not exceeding 60%.
a) Materials inherent to the mountains, including stone and wood, will be used at
lower levels of buildings in areas of direct pedestrian interface, as well as metals.
These materials should be used in refreshing ways within the Village, reinterpreted
for the urban nature of Avon towards a "mountain modern" character.
b) Stucco conveys mass in a subtle, "quiet" way and is therefore a recommended
material for building middles and tops. However, building accents comprised of
non -stucco materials, such as metal, wood and cement materials replicating wood,
shall be allowed in building middles and tops to help provide interest, except as
prohibited by Codes. When used, stucco shall be carefully detailed to ensure
longevity when it comes near the ground plane at building walls.
Riverfront Village February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 5 of 6
c) Roof materials will include rubber shingles, asphalt shingles and other materials
suitable for mountain environments. Standing seam metal shall not be used for
primary roof planes, but may be used for small and/or special roof features such as
shed dormers, retail roof forms, Porte cocheres, and other selective roof elements.
d) In general, colors used within the Village should be complementary to the site,
and be comprised of greens, grays, golds, browns, and other earth -tone hues.
However, due to the desire for a highly activated retail experience at the Plaza level,
the colors used along the retail edges of the Public way may be more vibrant and
active in nature.
2. Minimum window area at plaza level
a) At a minimum, 50% of the 1" level of building facades facing the plaza from the
east and the westshall be glass. For this calculation the plaza shall be deemed to
begin at the northwest comer of the hotel and the northeast comer of timeshare
west and shall terminate at the east -west plane where the staircase down to the river
begins. This calculation shall exclude the gondola terminal, control booth and public
restrooms.
Riverfront Village February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 6 of 6
MEMORANDUM
Studio Obermeier Sheykhet Inc.
1580 Lincoln Street Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80203
phone 303.327.4600 fax 303.327.4605
To: Mr. Matt Pielsticker
Company: Starwood Vacation Ownership
From: Aleksandr Sheykhet
Subject: Riverfront Timeshare West Final
n
Date: August 22, 2007
Project: Westin Riverfront Resort Time
Share West
Project #: 90606.01
Design Review: response to File #: 2.1.2
conditions
Attachments: Via: FedEX
Dear Matt,
Following are our responses to the eight conditions contained in your letter of May 3, 2007
approving the Final Design of the building.
1. Mock up shall be ready for viewing by day's end 8.24.2007.
2. The most current construction documents submitted to the Town of Avon for permit
show 3 handicap -accessible spaces (one of which is van accessible).
3. A revised lighting plan and exterior fixture cut sheet are attached.
4. Per excavation permit conditions, all encroachment issues are resolved between Town of
Avon, East West Partners, Starwood Vacation Ownership, and the Confluence Village
Metro District.
5. 8" DIP line is designed to meet grading requirements and is within recorded easements.
Other requested information is provided in the most current construction documents
submitted to the Town of Avon for permit.
6. The staging plan has been revised, re -submitted and approved as part of the excavation
permit by the Town of Avon and the Confluence Village Metro District.
7. The east elevation has been revised from approved drawings dated 04.20.2007. Metal
spandrel panels were added between windows on the east elevation.
8. Acknowledged.
END OF MEMORANDUM
CC: Jim McIntyre (SVO)
I P:V0606.01WRR\Adminisuation\Correspondence\Outgoing\Lctter&MMO\TOWN OF
AVnMWRR Mnn Pi loiArc W cR 7? A1.
0 E D I C A T E D T 0 0 E 9 1 0 N E x C E L L E N e r
w � S
?� Z
z Qa o Wr�� u K Q O_6wZ mNIZ
OUd ww w U O r0- 8a > aN w
_ W Z- J> J O Z Y w z i ❑ O W-2 ❑ > W J O >
p > q� pzw p V z rx pU��N O m$ awJ r
wiz Q ¢" z N O ONS' ZLL_z m O O>>O Q
�y Q >O O> ❑ W m W W U❑ U o J K oN� Q U X0 o U' mwm W r x OU >O 21
LL >' amm K z LLm wH>d > m F LL W h_Q0Q QaQm W x Z ^IZim LLZ KZ K O�O0�y
O W! r F ~ w 7 r YaOO JVJ Z T JJOYS Y gI,' Aoz �~K N�a�O W d U.3: �U W 0❑
ZZZ ZO LLWWa'OaQWwQUON O KIN mN Z M wa WU 3>U U
LL —1 www ww ammxmOamzomf� y'.zmNWo pKw8puriQcv m QoO�0QtO��'ma�p w
�/l�� 222
W www WW NU U'rQ¢QOa¢o`n❑Wm Z,,N W0 WmWw OZW p3NOW Z NwNCNNm Wert N JW
V/- r< 0 QQ W J w E- Z p J C W tp W p W ap p Q J
W i LL w w w 0 0 : Z S Z W x W z Q x 3 Q r r Q a'r p l K p N Z Q m Q m > W r w r Qq
w a' K R r r U N N o N r U o 3¢ Q 3 Z Z W O Z W 3 J r W N W Mw NQ m ¢ N = g ZQ j N F Z W Z_
r O
000 0 0 N N N W 6 Y U O Y ZW W J r a LL W p U W W W U' Z V J J 4 J g F 2 Q Q
O_ y ui<< �wYw w U _m m Zg a -w alll a �aaw r
y5000 m J J LL 0 J U Q U �c� N U m x U V5 W W J J O Q p O� O O W N x w W m W p W W r
ZZz ZQQQQ J J� JN�OE=gc�r Q W r NU W 2I- Qm V NZF-32ra' W r'UKm~r Kr W fY Or a' (7
IL K O' Z Q LL O Q O >> Q i 2 N O- N❑ = z W p Z W z m U Z W J
Z W O O D O O] a Q K Q K K W - m Y fL r R r m a J z o 2 W LL W W W
'j J J J N r r r r m r r r m r m U m d m w 3 m O w O W N y pa r rc r ❑ p u X N 0 3
W wp a' OwZJ�Z6 W W >w U
W
» > aQQa wwww wgwgwUw�0 X00 O>m�mwR M< OIJ QOJQa 3w03w W3u� w$'u5 rw3w WO
W' x C1 m m m f Z 2 i� m i `t LL m LL m Q m r a a� T LL NIL ❑ r r W W p'Q w 7: <0 N
W' X _ _ _ N
Y. W O V C N N 0h N 1 N N 1b t0 f0 t0 Ip 11 mm m W m mm 0 0 W W O O O
C\f
Z
I—
W
W
N ell
oavaoioO'Nond
3ni80 1N08:183nia 92
lHOS3d 1NOaJa3A1a NIlS3M
- - - - ii1i1i1i1i1i1i1i�■ —_ � ��,I����I
.: i ; 1111111111111111 = il,�l ���
NJ
FE
sm
111111111
R . _ R _ 1111111111■ _ .
" n n a n n .. r, n . _ _ 1.1�1111■ � II''lllll�l
1�1�1�1�1�111111��� = I�I�Illil�
4
4 L
L
i
A
i
• X111111111/1 _ ___ ■ ■,I ■ ,�
111111 � ► ►ISI ��'L�Iij�1 p� '
. ►111111 '�:e ,,�
R
1111►1, �1 � I, . �
►111 �1�;�, - ,
®r rr■■r■■r■�
_ + i
p
oico
a
04 FOOVHOI0O
l �
G �f
`Nond
3NVI iN0�1J113A1H 8�Z
o
.. .. g
toy �_ m�
idOS381NOHJH3AId NUS3M
p31Q-
3
g O a
co
I w
ui
LLI
UJ
Z
° a
I
Z h
:. o
r�
C/)
-
c
$
SIR
w
SIR tui
cn
W
b c b b i F
Q
... ... U
z
LL
i b i
3twm A W
CD
z
3lMGDM A =
Z
Cn
C/—)
LEE
C h
4
CC D
V
NCL
go
Z
25 Z
gi Iia
LU$
{t�C�
o
3
w
w
Z
u
m
OFj
22 ui
mm (.7m
J
g
M1r
a
b c L bbi I
w
Z
XAA
LU
N
coLO
T
1 _
T
LU
\\
g
.s
cm
h
d
. r •, O
N
N
N
N
F l i v
$
W
00d80100 `Nona
3Ndl 1N08JU3n1� Ole
�g o
o $ W o
-Sig d�
1HOS381N0IJJ83A1IJ NUS3M
g a
��CAH
r
U3
WCC
\ \ \\ \\\ \ \ �\\\\\ a
1 8k
SSS rapg
t. Si �� L ! Z
•�
3
'S dib a. Y'�iSdCr Z
Q
Cs>\\\\
C/3 i
\\�. \ \\ \ \.\\\. @J
\\ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\\ w
\ \W
cn
\\
W
LU
U
W in
g
a
IN��71���
rq 3
LSA
CBJ
NOW Uj
Y� 8 Y b 131Y Sr
Sit
a. 8 �i b
\ \
in
U
4
U=
\\ \
Cn
U !+
3903
J
�
C
O
CO
L1')
6.1 11go
to
c L iS
\\\. \_ \\\\\ \.\ \. \\.\
i b
R b '06LU
\ \ \ \ \
CD
LLJ
\\ \\\ U
W
LUL
bi
C
S
CC it
T
T
Ci
y+
yj'" �� + >p5aiFKp
� ���
�
fps, a3Iy Q6¢�
� ��F�LN
Z
Q
'�� ■ �a �i� P ■ �
i2�0a3 o�i■
uj
\
a
LU
o
U
a
�
=
Z 7I
� I
� � k
C12.
T
T
a z g
�i
a
g
r
3
10 V,
o
L.L.
/ i.9
zLU
V
...: •.• Y
CC
b
i
o
a
cn
O
U
CC
LU
w
Q
O77771
` \ [C
w
Z
¢
OV
=7i U
pp
O
an
cn
1,
� t�
cn
U
LL-
LL
N
N
N
N
0adE101009Nond
3Nb'11N0liA13AN 82
1a0S38 1NOHA13AltJ NIlS3M
Erl I
a
04
fo t I
z
gig CL
6
CO
00
0 0
C) f9
U
J
Y
I
�
N
o
w
7
o
O
i� S i73c
O�i
a�i
h
_j
Lm I
W
M�
SW
L
^� L
y
1h
T LO rF co
T V
poT T
Z
z
O
z U
O'
�5TAL z
UI
�IEARro "ti,c VALLE
I
Staff Report
0 R A D 0
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
AMENDMENT
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date August 30, 2007
Sign type Master Sign Program - Addition
Legal description Lot 25, Block 4, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address 47 Beaver Creek
Introduction
Charles Frey, representing the Christie Lodge, is proposing Master Sign Program
Amendment on Lot 25, Block 4 of the Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The
amendment is to allow two monument signs, one on the south side of the building and
the other on the west side of the building. The signs measure seven feet in height and
have 42 square feet of area. Both signs are to be placed 10 feet from edge of the
property line and right-of-way.
Background
A Master Sign Program (MSP) Amendment was approved for the Christie Lodge on
January 11, 1993. It replaced the older sign program and was intended to create a
comprehensive program for individual tenants that complied with the Town of Avon's
Sign Code. The program regulated individual tenant identification signs in location,
size, color, materials. It is important to note that this MSP does not include provisions
for any commercial signage in the public plaza.area of the project.
Master Sign Programs
Sign Programs are encouraged by the Sign Code for larger projects. Section
15.28.080.16 from the Avon Municipal Code states "sign programs shall be compatible
with the site and building and should provide for a similarity of types, sizes, styles and
materials for signs within a project."
Town of Avon Community Development
(970)748-4030
Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 25, Block 4, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Christie Lodge Monument Signs AI11
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 4
Design Review Considerations
According to the Town of Avon Sign Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing this design application:
1. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is
to be constructed and the site upon it is to be located.
The monument signs are to be identical comprised of a Colorado Sandstone Slab, a
sandblasted and painted logo, and a stone base. Each sign is to be set back ten
feet from the property line as required by the Town of Avon's Sign Code. The logo is
of a green color compatible with the colors of other tenant identification signs on the
building. These signs are suitable for the site upon which they are located.
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements.
The area is mixed-use with commercial, residential, and office land uses. While sign
construction varies on adjacent and neighboring improvements, the proposed signs
do fit in well with the current MSP. No lighting is proposed and staff agrees there
should be no lighting.
3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement.
The Sign Code encourages "quality sign materials, including anodized metal;- routed
or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual
plexiglass -faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect
lighting, are encouraged." The proposal does not utilize any of the above mentioned
materials, but the program does propose quality materials. The signs are to be
made of a stone base and a Colorado Sandstone Slab that is sandblasted and
painted for the logo. Staff feels that these materials do meet the intent of the Sign
Code.
4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent
or neighboring property.
The proposed signs should not have any negative impact as viewed from adjacent
properties. The signs would be visible from Avon Center, First Bank, Benchmark
Plaza, Avon Road, and Beaver Creek Boulevard. The improvements should not
have any negative impact on adjacent properties.
5. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other
signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired.
It is Staffs opinion that there will be no monetary or aesthetic' values impaired with
these signs.
6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with
the Sign Code, and are appropriate for the ,project.
The Sign Code states in Section 15.28.080 that the Planning and Zoning
Commission may allow larger signs than what is permitted by code and goes on to
define that increase as stated below:
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
JW
Lot 25, Block 4, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Christie Lodge Monument Signs AIM
' September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 4
"Generally the increased total sign allowance shall not exceed one (1) square
foot of sign area per lineal foot of the portion of building front that is contiguous to
the interior space occupied by that individual business."
The building has three hundred and fifty-six (356) feet of frontage on the south and
west sides of the building. Currently, there are eight (8) awning signs that total a
maximum of one hundred and twelve (112) square feet as allowed in the current
MSP. The addition of two, forty-two square foot signs still does not exceed that one
square foot of signage for each square foot of building frontage.
The proposed signs generally comply with the Sign Code in terms of location, size,
height, landscaping, and materials. The signs are seven feet in height and proposed
to include landscaping. The landscaping area is not defined but staff suggests that
the program be revised to include at least a five foot radius of landscaping around
the sign. The materials used are of a high quality as described earlier in this report
and meet the intent of the Sign Code. According to the definition of sign area in the
Sign Code, the actual area of each monument sign is approximately twenty-four
square feet, not the forty-two square feet represented on the MSP Amendment.
This meets the intent of the code.
7. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and
whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation.
The primary orientation of the proposed signage. is toward vehicular traffic, which
appears to be appropriate.
Staff Review and Discussion
The goal or intention of an MSP is to have consistent signage on a property in terms
type, size, and construction. This application appears to match the colors of the
monument signs to those of the building. The quality materials used should fit in well
with the neighboring properties and their signage. Although these signs are tall, they do
not appear to be dominating in size compared to signs in the immediate vicinity.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Conditional Approval of the Master Sign Program (MSP)
Amendment application for Lot 25, Block 4, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the Master Sign Program (MSP) Amendment application for Lot 25,
Block 4, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following condition:
1. The Master Sign Program Amendment be revised to require a radius of at least
five feet of landscaping area around each monument sign"
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748.4023 or stop by the Community Development Department.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Tw
Lot 25, Block 4, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Christie Lodge Monument Signs AIII
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 4
Respectfully submitted
Jare Barnes
Planner
Exhibits:
• Vicinity Map
• Application Contents
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
I I
46
Ak
0
UcZq
dge
47 E Beaver Creek Blvd
P.0.8=1196 Avon, CO 8 16 20.1 196
Phone 970-949-7700 Fax 970-949.7765
August 23, 07
Amendment to:
RECEIVED
AUG 2 8 2007
Comprehensive Signage Program
The Christie Lodge
0047 East Beaver Creek Blvd. Avon, CO 81620
January 11, 1993
Page 2, Allowable building identification signs:
Current language:
Extreme west facade 26 square feet
Extreme east facade 26 square feet
Front entrance awning 14 square feet
Color and style to be in harmony and compatibility with the existing building color
scheme and existing signage.
New language:
Extreme west facade 26 square feet
Extreme east facade 26 square feet
Front entrance awning 14 square feet
South Side: One free standing monument sign constructed of Colorado Sandstone
with sandblasted and paint filled Logo of The Christie Lodge to fit into existing
landscaped berm. (As exhibited in attachment C)
Stone base size: 3' x 6' =18 square feet
Sandstone size: 4' x 6' = 24 square feet
Height from berm grade 7' tall
Total square feet 42
Reference Exhibit B Attached
West Side: One free standing monument sign constructed of Colorado Sandstone
with sandblasted and paint filled Logo of The Christie Lodge to fit into existing
landscaped berm. (As exhibited in attachment C)
Stone base size: 3' x 6' =18 square feet
Sandstone size: 4' x 6' = 24 square feet
Height from berm grade 7' tall
Total square feet 42
Reference Exhibit B Attached
Color and style to be in harmony and compatibility with the existing building color
scheme and existing signage.
0 ti
LLL o
N >
r -c CS
UJ aj
�o
........ CY) t .....
--------------------
a-
o 0
C
Z Q � -0�Ot� a�
w�0o
L�0��E �mo �
Z m OND oo
Z Q U --0 cc T6�
�U:L--
r)
A
IN
o- z
a
_a ,
Ea
o Wle.
FA
Vo
a
i
G
70
i
o
(D
CO
Zry
C
m
-`—"
0
(11 6 c
O
w
o
-C
Q
o
U
N
m
Ea
o Wle.
FA
Vo
a
N Ld
�- O
.� O
1
04.
Z
W
d"
It
N
CO
.. LO
Fa-.
wf�
0
J�v}
Oj.I`r
CM' �...... ro
-4)1
`rn �t
cn
c..
M't
W
4
00
0)
'Q
F-
V)
F-
M
�` • ,�` •. `�� M
AL
h
(811 '103S) Z 3dA1 2Oiln0'-•'8 abp '3'l! `9 'x,038 \: I
(101 ONI�1Wd) '18 18+866 OAS: 95+995 'd1S
(811 '103S) Z 3dA1 '2J311no '8 e8n0 '3' -t\8 -V lz t,032+` I �-
(103 0NI>18Vd) 'll 19'90+9919 01 C'26+\-999 'VS
dVW8 e8nO 31380NOO 'A'S C.Z''
'8 (81 '103S) Z 3dA1 '8311n9 '8 e8n0 '3'l 80l '0,03 1 0l
(ONblS1 NV103W) 80+666 01 19+866 't11S ., NI
�I
A
;i•
619+
dwdd ednO 3136ONOD 'A'S wQ
0
�AIVM301S 313?10NOO 'A'S O�k
Of
(811 '103 ',2
� %
3'l 29L ',03?�`�,
3dA1,:�311nO '8 BdnO " a
`i
o
a Z-OH'j LV-VZ+L99 01 56'Z19+1999 *VJ,- `
•
m
Q
�(
ap"
Z
co
ui
cq
LO�
l
N
'f
dvwb j e8nO 31380NOO 'A'S LL-•,
0°
j,
iN3W3AVd 3138ONOO „9 'A'S 8,%
Lo
M
(1003 -b) Z 3dAl '8311no '3'l' Lf
r-
�
c� i
3S)-�L
3dAl 'N311no '8 eNn0 "3'l '0,03N'�
�
<
�
y 'll
3Al8G 19679+19919 01 99*LL+1 919 '`d1S�>
tD
V)
A
;i•
619+
Staff Report
HEART of the VALLEY
I
C O L O R A D O
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
AMENDMENT
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
Sign type
Legal description
Zoning
Address
Introduction
August 30, 2007
Master Sign Program - Addition
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
126 Riverfront Lane
Andy Gunion, of East West Partners, is proposing a Master Sign Program (MSP)
amendment on Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, for the first -floor retail and office tenants of
the Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa. There are fourteen proposed signs varying in
size and type. The signs would include window signage, blade signs and awning signs.
The signs would be placed on Retail Space 100 (Slifer Smith & Frampton), Retail Space
101 (Ski Shop), Retail Space 102 (Starwood Vacation Ownership), Retail Space 105
(Watermarket), and Retail Space 110 (Watermark Restaurant). Blade signs are
intended to°be placed on the west elevation of each tenant space with the exception of
Unit 110 (Watermark Restaurant) and have a maximum size of 8.75 square feet.
Awning signs are to be placed on the east and west elevations of Unit 100 (Slifer Smith
& Frampton), Unit 101 (Ski Shop), and on the west elevation of Unit 102 (Starwood
Vacation Ownership). These signs will range in size from a maximum of 56.6 square
feet to 65 square feet. Unit 110 (Watermark Restaurant) is being proposed to have a
sign hung from the canopy on the west elevation with a maximum size of 15 square
feet, and a freestanding sign in front of the building that has no proposed maximum
size. All the units are allowed to have window signage subject to landlord approval as
proposed by this application.
Background
A MSP was approved for the Riverfront Subdivision Chapel Square PUD at the
Commission's November 21, 2006 meeting. The program regulates project
identification signage, building identification signage, as well as directional signs that
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, Plaza Area Signs i
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2'of 4
serve both vehicles and pedestrians. It is important to note that this MSP does not
include provisions for any commercial signage in the public plaza area of the project.
Master Sign Programs
Sign Programs are encouraged by the Sign Code for larger projects. Section
15.28.080.16 from the Avon Municipal Code states "sign programs shall be compatible
with the site and building and should provide for a similarity of types, sizes, styles and
materials for signs within a project."
Design Review Considerations
According to the Town of Avon Sign Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall consider the following criteria in reviewing this design application:
1. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is
to be constructed and the site upon it is to be located.
The materials approved in the 2006 MSP for signs are painted metal sign faces.
The only material proposed for this MSP is a fabric awning to which the awning
signs are to be affixed. The color of this fabric awning is to match the color used on
the deck railings of the building. Staff is of the opinion that this MSP should be
revised to limit the materials used for faces of the blade sign to ones that are
compatible with the 2006 MSP for the Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa or
compatible with those materials outlined in Section 15.28.060 of the Avon Municipal
Code (as stated below in Criteria 3).
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements.
The area is mixed-use with commercial, residential, and office land uses. Staff feels
that these signs are similar to adjacent and neighboring improvements.
3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement.
The Sign Code encourages "quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed
or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, .individual
plexiglass -faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect
lighting, are encouraged." The proposal does not include materials for the blade
signs. Staff believes that these materials should be compatible with the materials
approved in the 2006 MSP for the Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa or compatible
with those materials outlined in Section 15.28.060 of the Avon Municipal Code (as
stated above).
4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent
or neighboring property.
The proposed signs should not have any negative impact as viewed from adjacent
properties. The signs would be visible from the Westin Riverfront building,
Timeshare West building, the Gondola, Lot 61, and the Transit Center, but should
not be large enough to affect the neighboring properties. The MSP does not include
any lighting and that will help reduce the visual impact from neighboring property.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
K�
4'
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, Plaza Area Signs
September 4. 2007 Planning & Zoning Commis
5. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other
signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired.
In Staffs opinion, there will be no monetary or aesthetic values impaired with the
installation of these signs.
6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with
the Sign Code, and are appropriate for the project.
The Sign Code states in Section 15.28.080 that the Planning and Zoning
Commission may allow larger signs than what is allowed by. code. It goes on to
define that increase as stated below:
"Generally the increased total sign allowance shall not exceed one (1) square foot of
sign area per lineal.foot of the portion of building front that is contiguous to the
interior space occupied by that individual business."
The proposed signs generally comply with the Sign Code in terms of both location
and size. The blade signs are proposed to be at least eight feet from the bottom of
the sign to the ground and only 8.75 square feet in size. The awning signs comply
with the sign code in that they have a defined material and size as indicated on the
second to last sheet of the attached plans. The window signs do not comply
because they do not cap the overall window area coverage. Staff is recommending
that no more than twenty-five (25%) percent of the exterior window area may be
covered in signage.
The final sign type is a freestanding sign outside of the restaurant entry. This
proposed sign has no limit on size or style. Staff is recommending that this sign be
removed from the proposed sign program due to the lack of description in the MSP
referring to the subject sign.
7. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and
whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation.
The primary orientation of the proposed signage is toward pedestrian traffic which
appears to be appropriate.
Staff Review and Discussion
The goal, or intention, of an MSP is to have consistent signage on a property in terms of
type, size, and construction. This application appears to limit the types and areas of
allowed signage while still allowing the individual tenants flexibility in colors and styles of
fonts. These signs do not appear to be dominating in size compared to signs in the
immediate vicinity.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Conditional Approval of the Master Sign Program (MSP)
Amendment application for Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the Master Sign Program (MSP) Amendment application for Lot 2,
Riverfront Subdivision with the following conditions:
Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, Plaza Area Signs AIIA
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 4
1. The applicant revise the Master Sign Program (MSP) Amendment prior to the
application approval, and installation of any sign regulated by this amendment to
include the following:
a. Revise allowed window signage for all tenants to a maximum sign area of
25% of the exterior window area;
b. Revise the approval requirements to include the Town of Avon's approval
as a requirement prior to installation of a sign;
c. Revise allowed materials for blade signs to those materials that are
compatible with the approved MSP for the Westin Riverfront Resort and
Spa or compatible with those materials outlined in Section 15.28.060 of
the Avon Municipal Code;
d. No lighting be allowed for any signs being proposed by this MSP; and
e. Revise the allowed sign types for Unit 110 to remove the freestanding
sign.
2. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations made
by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public
hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748.4023 or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted
,are ames
Planner I
Exhibits:
• Application Contents
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Staff Report
HEAof the V':LL LEY
I
I
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
AMENDMENT
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date August 30, 2007
Sign type Master Sign Program - Addition
Legal description Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision
Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address 126 Riverfront Lane
Introduction
Andy Gunion, of East West Partners, is proposing a Master Sign Program (MSP)
amendment on Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, for the first -floor retail and office tenants of
the Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa. There are fourteen proposed signs varying in
size and type. The signs would include window signage, blade signs and awning signs.
The signs would be placed on Retail Space 100 (Slifer Smith & Frampton), Retail Space
101 (Ski Shop), Retail Space 102 (Starwood Vacation Ownership), Retail Space 105
(Watermarket), and Retail Space 110 (Watermark Restaurant). Blade signs are
intended to be placed on the west elevation of each tenant space with the exception of
Unit 110 (Watermark Restaurant) and have a maximum size of 8.75 square feet.
Awning signs are to be placed on the east and west elevations of Unit 100 (Slifer Smith
& Frampton), Unit 101 (Ski Shop), and on the west elevation of Unit 102 (Starwood
Vacation Ownership). These signs will range in size from a maximum of 56.6 square
feet to 65 square feet. Unit 110 (Watermark Restaurant) is being proposed to have a
sign hung from the canopy on the west elevation with a maximum size of 15 square
feet, and a freestanding sign in front of the building that has. no proposed maximum
size. All the units are allowed to have window signage subject to landlord approval as
proposed by this application.
Background
A MSP was approved for the Riverfront Subdivision Chapel Square PUD at the
Commission's November 21, 2006 meeting. The program regulates project
identification signage, building identification signage, as well as directional signs that
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, Plaza Area Signs
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 4
serve both vehicles and pedestrians. It is important to note that this MSP does not
include provisions for any commercial signage in the public plaza area of the project.
Master Sign Programs
Sign Programs are encouraged by the Sign Code for larger projects. Section
15.28.080.16 from the Avon Municipal Code states "sign programs shall be compatible
with the site and building and should provide for a similarity of types, sizes, styles and
materials for signs within a project."
Design Review Considerations
According to the Town of Avon Sion Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall consider the following criteria in reviewing this design application:
1. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is
to be constructed and the site upon it is to be located.
The materials approved in the 2006 MSP for signs are painted metal sign faces.
The only material proposed for this MSP is a fabric awning to which the awning
signs are to be affixed. The color of this fabric awning is to match the color used on
the deck railings of the building. Staff is of the opinion that this MSP should be
revised to limit the materials used for faces of the blade sign to ones that are
compatible with the 2006 MSP for the Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa or
compatible with those materials outlined in Section 15.28.060 of the Avon Municipal
Code (as stated below in Criteria 3).
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements.
The area is mixed-use with commercial, residential, and office land uses. Staff feels
that these signs are similar to adjacent and neighboring improvements.
3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement.
The Sign Code encourages "quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed
or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual
plexiglass -faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect
lighting, are encouraged." The proposal does not include materials for the blade
signs. Staff believes that these materials should be compatible with the materials
approved in the 2006 MSP for the Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa or compatible
with those materials outlined in Section 15.28.060 of the Avon Municipal Code (as
stated above).
4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent
or neighboring property.
The proposed signs should not have any negative impact as viewed from adjacent
properties. The signs would be visible from the Westin Riverfront building,
Timeshare West building, the Gondola, Lot 61, and the Transit Center, but should
not be large enough to affect the neighboring properties. The MSP does not include
any lighting and that will help reduce the visual impact from neighboring property.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, Plaza Area Signs IrIK
Septcmber4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3'6174
5. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other
signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired.
In Staffs opinion, there will be no monetary or aesthetic values impaired with the
installation of these signs.
6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with
the Sign Code, and are appropriate for the project.
The Sign Code states in Section 15.28.080 that the Planning and Zoning
Commission may allow larger signs than what is allowed by code. It goes on to
define that increase as stated below:
"Generally the increased total sign allowance shall not exceed one (1) square foot of
sign area per lineal foot of the portion of building front that is contiguous to the
interior space occupied by that individual business."
The proposed signs generally comply with the Sign Code in terms of both location
and size. The blade signs are proposed to be at least eight feet from the bottom of
the sign to the ground and only 8.75 square feet in size. The awning,signs comply
with the sign code in that they have a defined material and size as indicated on the
second to last sheet of the attached plans. The window signs do not comply
because they do not cap the overall window area coverage. Staff is recommending
that no more than twenty-five (25%) percent of the exterior window area may be
covered in signage.
The final sign type is a freestanding sign outside of the restaurant entry. This
proposed sign has no limit on size or style. Staff is recommending that this sign be
removed from the proposed sign program due to the lack of description in the MSP
referring to the subject sign.
7. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and
whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation.
The primary orientation of the proposed signage is toward pedestrian traffic which
appears to be appropriate.
Staff Review and Discussion
The goal, or intention, of an MSP is to have consistent signage on a property in terms of
type, size, and construction. This application appears to limit the types and areas of
allowed signage while still allowing the individual tenants flexibility in colors and styles of
fonts. These signs do not appear to be dominating in size compared to signs in the
immediate vicinity.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Conditional Approval of the Master Sign Program (MSP)
Amendment application for Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the Master Sign Program (MSP) Amendment application for Lot 2,
Riverfront Subdivision with the following conditions:
Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, Plaza Area Signs MHill
W
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4' of 4
1. The applicant revise the Master Sign Program (MSP) Amendment prior to the
application approval, and installation of any sign regulated by this amendment to
include the following:
a. Revise allowed window signage for all tenants to a maximum sign area of
25% of the exterior window area;
b. Revise the approval requirements to include the Town of Avon's approval
as a requirement prior to installation of a sign;
c. Revise allowed materials for blade signs to those materials that are
compatible with the approved MSP for the Westin Riverfront Resort and
Spa or compatible with those materials outlined in Section 15.28.060 of
the Avon Municipal Code;
d. No lighting be allowed for any signs being proposed by this MSP; and
e. Revise the allowed sign types for Unit 110 to remove the freestanding
sign.
2. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations made
by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public
hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748.4023 or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted
Jare ames
Planner I
Exhibits:
• Application Contents
Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Staff Report
HE.\ Rt ohFe VALLEY
I
„
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
AMENDMENT
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
Sign type
Legal description
Zoning
Address
Introduction
August 30, 2007
Master Sign Program - Addition
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
126 Riverfront Lane
Andy Gunion, of East West Partners, is proposing a Master Sign Program (MSP)
amendment on Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, for the first -floor retail and office tenants of
the Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa. There are fourteen proposed signs varying in
size and type. The signs would include window signage, blade signs and awning signs.
The signs would be placed on Retail Space 100 (Slifer Smith & Frampton), Retail Space
101 (Ski Shop), Retail Space 102 (Starwood Vacation Ownership), Retail Space 105
(Watermarket), and Retail Space 110 (Watermark Restaurant). Blade signs are
intended to be placed on the west elevation of each tenant space with the exception of
Unit 110 (Watermark Restaurant) and have a maximum size of 8.75 square feet.
Awning signs are to be placed on the east and west elevations of Unit 100 (Slifer Smith
& Frampton), Unit 101 (Ski Shop), and on the west elevation of Unit 102 (Starwood
Vacation Ownership). These signs will range in size from a maximum of 56.6 square
feet to 65 square feet. Unit 110 (Watermark Restaurant) is being proposed to have a
sign hung from the canopy on the west elevation with a maximum size of 15 square
feet, and a freestanding sign in front of the building that has no proposed maximum
size. All the units are allowed to have window signage subject to landlord approval as
proposed by this application.
Background
A MSP was approved for the Riverfront Subdivision Chapel Square PUD at the
Commission's November 21, 2006 meeting. The program regulates project
identification signage, building identification signage, as well as directional signs that
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, Plaza Area Signs rift
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 4
serve both vehicles and pedestrians. It is important to note that this MSP does not
include provisions for any commercial signage in the public plaza area of the project.
Master Sign Programs
Sign Programs are encouraged by the Sign Code for larger projects. Section
15.28.080.16 from the Avon Municipal Code states "sign programs shall be compatible
with the site and building and should provide for a similarity of types, sizes, styles and
materials for signs within a project."
Design Review Considerations
According to the Town of Avon Sign Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall consider the following criteria in reviewing this design application:
1. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is
to be constructed and the site upon it is to be located.
The materials approved in the 2006 MSP for signs are painted metal sign faces.
The only material proposed for this MSP is a fabric awning to which the awning
signs are to be affixed. The color of this fabric awning is to match the color used on
the deck railings of the building. Staff is of the opinion that this MSP should be
revised to limit the materials used for faces of the blade sign to ones that are
compatible with the 2006 MSP for the Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa or
compatible with those materials outlined in Section 15.28.060 of the Avon Municipal
Code (as stated below in Criteria 3).
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements.
The area is mixed-use with commercial, residential, and office land uses. Staff feels
that these signs are similar to adjacent and neighboring, improvements.
3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement.
The Sign Code encourages "quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed
or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual
plexiglass -faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect
lighting, are encouraged." The proposal does not include materials for the blade
signs. Staff believes that these materials should be compatible with the materials
approved in the 2006 MSP for the Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa or compatible
with those materials outlined in Section 15.28.060 of the Avon Municipal Code (as
stated above).
4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent
or neighboring property.
The proposed signs should not have any negative impact as viewed from adjacent
properties. The signs would be visible from the Westin Riverfront building,
Timeshare West building, the Gondola, Lot 61, and the Transit Center, but should
not be large enough to affect the neighboring properties. The MSP does not include
any lighting and that will help reduce the visual impact from neighboring property.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 - Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, Plaza Area Signs 1WIK
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 4
5. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other
signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired.
In Staffs opinion, there will be no monetary or aesthetic values impaired with the
installation of these signs.
6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with
the Sign Code, and are appropriate for the project.
The Sign Code states in Section 15.28.080 that the Planning and Zoning
Commission may allow larger signs than what is allowed by code. It goes on to
define that increase as stated below:
"Generally the increased total sign allowance shall not exceed one (1) square foot of
sign area per lineal foot of the portion of building front that is contiguous to the
interior space occupied by that individual business."
The proposed signs generally comply with the Sign Code in terms of both location
and size. The blade signs are proposed to be at least eight feet from the bottom of
the sign to the ground and only 8.75 square feet in size. The awning.signs comply
with the sign code in that they have a defined material and size as indicated on the
second to last sheet of the attached plans. The window, signs do not comply
because they do not cap the overall window area coverage. Staff is recommending
that no more than twenty-five (25%) percent of the exterior window area may be
covered in signage.
The final sign type is a freestanding sign outside of the restaurant entry. This
proposed sign has no limit on size or style. Staff is recommending that this sign be
removed from the proposed sign program due to the lack of description in the MSP
referring to the subject sign.
7. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and
whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation.
The primary orientation of the proposed signage is toward pedestrian traffic which
appears to be appropriate.
Staff Review and Discussion
The goal, or intention, of an MSP is to have consistent signage on a property in terms of
type, size, and construction. This application appears to limit the types and areas of
allowed signage while still allowing the individual tenants flexibility in colors and styles of
fonts. These signs do not appear to be dominating in size compared to signs in the
immediate vicinity.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Conditional Approval of the Master Sign Program (MSP)
Amendment application for Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the Master Sign Program (MSP) Amendment application for Lot 2,
Riverfront Subdivision with the following conditions:
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, Plaza Area Signs A7ro
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 o 4 !
1. The applicant revise the Master Sign Program (MSP) Amendment prior to the
application approval, and installation of any sign regulated by this amendment to
include the following:
a. Revise allowed window signage for all tenants to a maximum sign area of
25% of the exterior window area;
b. Revise the approval requirements to include the Town of Avon's approval
as a requirement prior to installation of a sign;
c. Revise allowed materials for blade signs to those materials that are
compatible with the approved MSP for the Westin Riverfront Resort and
Spa or compatible with those materials outlined in Section 15.28.060 of
the Avon Municipal Code;
d. No lighting be allowed for any signs being proposed by this MSP; and
e. Revise the allowed sign types for Unit 110 to remove the freestanding
sign.
2. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations made
by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public
hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748.4023 or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted e
Jare ames
Planner I
Exhibits:
• Application Contents
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
m
C
0.
W
CL
7
r
W
r,
air
m
C
CL
C
N
cla
C
o
m
o
^ ,
W
O
O
O
M
O
`C
l�
L
O�
v
Y0�
L
e�txo
M
R
Q
r
i
C
C
C
C
O
O
O
O
W
W
N
d
W
d
N
N
N
N
N
N
3
3
3
3
C
c
C
c
O
O
O
O
c
.3=
ct�
lt'
O
C
C
dr
Ci.
>
J•+
N
N
Ln
N
m
Lr+1
m
m
to
m
m
m
n
>
n
>
>
n
>
r,
n
>
>
00
>
o
av
m
o
od
O
ao
Q
o
ar
v
v
a
v
y
n
o
v
c
a
y
a
3
n
La+
m
•!_
W
m
N
L
O
m
L
m
C
m
c
m
c
°
'a
o
o
o
v
v
1
v
n
m
v
o
to
v
°
v
w
W
F.4
N
N
N
r•+
N
N
CM`�
Q
N
W
vN
`
N
m
n
11
M
E
c
E
N
E
m
E
O
N
n
a
O
v
-
a
C
s
N
r-
-0
o
n
m
o•
c
ar
,
m
c
c
a
c
v
a
N
C
a
N
N
m
m
a
N
U
a)
6a
°
o.
N
a
�°
D
3
a
C-
a
m
c
E
'
°'
m�
y
a
a
u
n
<°
`^
'^
aC_a
'�
m
.0
c
Nc
It
'N
N.
c
II
'h
O
C
II
'N
C
'H
i
ap
N
'°
al
0
0
at
•
'O
c
c
>
'D
Cm
a
'm
C
N
Y
c
L
V
0
oma3
E
E
)
y
Io
ji
ci
m
to
u
3
fu
s
ci
;;
cc
a
w
a
3
3
N
N
In
N
N
m
V
lf1
B=
- i + y ljj
'3
`
LU
a e {la J Qp
p y e aao� Oso
SO I
L I ,
I I
I
I I I
I I I
1 1 1
CL
r
T
rn
w
3
CL
E
O
c
�
1 i i 1
m
o
L
U.
�-
¢ q
AV
x
ml;
o
J,
I
i
-
SO I
L I ,
I I
I
I I I
I I I
1 1 1
I 'I�
T
L
ml;
J,
I
i
'
I
I1
I
1
1
1
SO I
L I ,
I I
I
I I I
I I I
1 1 1
sitLU
R41 SO w Q
91 O'Hamigul lilt
5.
�NIIIII�I ®�®IIIIIIII❑ [
i
N 8
opeaoloo `uony
o
PosaIJ IUOAIJOAIH UIJSO
Cr
rq a
a �
o u H
N
a
O
L
um
2z
1�
X
❑
a_
a
a
x
L3 L J
W
W Cl 3 tI
a=¢M
aJicaxx
w v,
J[`1W=
H F-1 -
N
w
xx
l7
q Fr
W
ly3
0x
rL ¢
wx
0
zpq
J
L
_O
w
J
w
w
0
0
w
U
CO
Ji
w
OPBIOJOO `uony
CM
IaosaIJ :IuoaPan'H U11SOM:
0
/�
i.i
E
m
L
UL
ad
E,
c
L '
oW
�r-an-
¢f-C3Jy
waw¢
V J v
ZdWQ:5.¢
LLJ
Lrn-)ZM
...
PEI ¢w
WR (L
ti a•
z
0
QQ
W
W
Z
F—
CC
0
z
0
0
T
U
. Q
IL
CO
Q
LU
[I:
0
m
R
9
W
014.
OP1310100 `UOAV
Posa uoa ani ui sa
z
F GI
c
O
—A
CLL
E
L
i
■E
co
L
/mow'
I
C:
a)
W�
J
IL
R
R
w
C
O
E
m
L
UL
c/
L
/mow'
r
n
cm
W
ILZao
(3
Z
Z
LUrL
n
cm
op'eJOlOD `uony
rosea jUOJP9AlH U11SOM
N
X
X
0
m
a
a
w
Ri q
w W
0
0m
L3L.3 J
1Z7
¢7JzNJ
D
R W
w3iD
m3
wM I
R wX:..
2X
J -:tX
�g
Ri q
w W
0
0m
-j wM=
¢7JzNJ
D
W Wo,
Z 0
3
a'Q'N(U
¢U7
\ O J w
W F- Q Cl)
ZUM
d'J
w
a
yc:oma -
VJ q
¢Zo
'�aZ
C.) Q
R
6
_ o �
F y�
2M cn
z
0
w.
F—
LU
J
W
F—
Q
W
T
C)
ITW
U
vJ
J
F --
W
m
0
M� l
OPE101o0 `uony
1�/J OSGU, U0.1 a aAl u l sa/■///■■■\\\\v//`�■\
. �.r�
,.
0
�os
�o
0
W
J '
U
CL
O
.0
I
U)
1
N
_ OPIWO100 `uony
0
0
c�
W d
GZ'l N
Q��J
ZJCD
C/)
CL
O
.0
I
U)
1
N
W
0
��U O
W d
GZ'l N
Q��J
ZJCD
J
W
U
W
T
0
T
W
c
a
U
Q
W 8 R
^
m ��J
�/ )
�/
�C=-g
J_
x
N
S
w
I
iV
W
W
MZao
C9
aLU
cn
Z
LU
a
(L
�a y 11 ��•
■,I
...G
fikit
� t
n
W
MZao
C9
aLU
cn
Z
LU
a
(L
Rl
�I
m
a1JOS08
opeaoloo'uony
ul
IUOJPaAlco
A'
z
0
w
F--
0
CO
F
N
O
w
U
Q
a:
C/).
.. J
W
'i
.I
0
H
00
Ln
J
U
W
OPBJOIOO `uony
POS81 IUOaPaniIJ UIjSGM
IN R
z
0.
w� Q�a
CD
>
W
j
s5a W
V
W
N
O
LU --
W
U
Q
1 Cl)
ZW�� R W� .
J
NS��
LJ Q
a=E o=
�in �o w
� OM 2O
N X�
2 Q
iV
00
v�
opIaJOIOO `uony
POSOIJ IUOJ JJanitj O!ISaM
9
u
� rn
LLhu)
z
.O
i
`<`
w
F-
0 z
N
0
T
w
CL
Cl?
h- O.
w
rr U
y
T
w
11
aZ�z
w¢oa
[o
I
® I
��j I
`mG i
H
ople10100 `uony
POSOU IUOIPOAIH U11SOM
z
0
w
w
cn
W
J
W
D
W
1L
Q
U
U)
O
T
w
U
d
U)
O
w�
U
V)
W g�
x¢
a
CZ7 F
ip
0 CD fm
z i' o
o�a
o10
i
g
LO m
9
ZE
z
0
w
w
cn
W
J
W
D
W
1L
Q
U
U)
O
T
w
U
d
U)
O
w�
U
V)
r.
m
LU
J
p
`:
[r
M
MW
OD
I
u
m
m
0
0
u o
m r
h
yc
b
z
M
A
P41
W
o
0
Qi
0
a ��
OPWO100 `uony
UPJ
DS mrL
•' N
,ito
1�TU
oN
o
11
In
W
URM <1
oo�
as
UPJ
DS mrL
Z=�
Nim~
¢ CL
oN
In
W
z
0
Q
w
J
w
I—
U)
LU
C�
LU
m
t „o I t
cd I o all I o 1=)I
w
CO
(a
„0 ll „0-191 I „0-.91 I „0 llCl-
1
3
„ti -,9Z I
„0-, I l l .0 -.[ED[ 1 „0-, I l „0-.11
Co 0 0 0 0 0
U �jjI�jj�
J ^ J n J n J
3 � Fi cn
„0-191 „0-.91
CD
o�i�
ori
Cl-
MEE
MEE
awe=®
MSE
®®Molli
loom=
IIM
l �'
llk7z
1
CD
o�i�
ori
Cl-
u I
[FVu
J N'.
?
—
_ -
I
��: eta �' •�
Y
!I.
is
�
.•�� .f /
'}
'i
. x
�
Jy(
a
I
„I
r.I
s
=
�!I
FF
e{♦ Y ,
+
w
"Ih
��
l..
.
y
e.i:.�.,, IPS;.•
_i
Z
• �.lf Q 1� 1
di
Z1. I
' 4 w
r .o
SLM •"'•a"'�I".i' T'�cj1,;IJ. .k. .i%1'tt 1 _ k .
7 t
"alu't'f!r `d{64r?:�3io:ir,' .ji.%i11P J:ti%.TrYd;x w � '.:1''ii4
1N .. I•vwY T.k>
I i
' b '
I/ 1
ril
I
��lnrvrnf?':,a-a �$�..yi�d4�t1`�k.'L{`t�tn Y"Lxr•i �aJ{'.1�1":^{
�Mk'} if:�: r S' ':.T`SS.I.rt Jw:.C�'LN'tt ""`a4 ,:;+�;ti a•�r ,. .
1 fa
.. `YKii ::"fir r "..P'.'4"��:. ,r. R`rY"•.:s....�..i%t S�ik, :7.`3�' i .:cyi''tii'`f+y4r.y�r, Sx":
61
I
to
� y
w T
.. `YKii ::"fir r "..P'.'4"��:. ,r. R`rY"•.:s....�..i%t S�ik, :7.`3�' i .:cyi''tii'`f+y4r.y�r, Sx":
61
I
r-4 `
0
0 0
dM -
e1
M
I
Town of Avon
Design Modifications
Commercial
HFARTof the VALUNI
I
Staff Report
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date August 29, 2007
Project type Site Modifications / Color & Material Changes
Legal description Lots 3 & 5, Sun Road Subdivision
.Zoning 'Town Center (TC)
Address 0011 West Beaver Creek Boulevard
Introduction
Pam Hopkins of Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, and Sherry Dorward, Landscape
Architect, are proposing several, site and building modifications to the 151 Bank
properties. Site modifications include closing the entrance near the post office,
shifting the northern entrance/exit to the west, installation of curb and gutter, and
new landscaping islands throughout the project.
The western lot (Lot 5) would become a gated employee parking area separate
from public parking. There would also be one new pedestrian connection to the
property. The applicants are proposing to wrap the existing columns that
surround the building with "Colorado Buff' strip stone. Also part of the application
is the addition of two entry roof elements and associated stone wrapped
columns.
Design Approval Criteria
According to Section 7 from the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Desiqn
Guidelines, the Commission shall review all design plans utilizing specific Design
Standards, and by using the following general criteria:
1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Town of Avon Zoning Code.
The improvements would be in conformance with all provisions of the Town of
Avon Zoning Code. It is important to note that the project meets the parking
requirements for a bank use, exclusive of the gated employee parking
proposed for Lot 5.
The Zoning Code requires 3 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet of
space, and does not distinguish a difference between employee parking and
customer parking. The building is 12,140 square feet and there are 37
spaces open to the public, which is in compliance with the parking provisions.
Lot 3 & 5, Sun Road Subdivision — Building and Site Modifications
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 4
2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains.
The subject properties are located in District 1: West Town'Center District,
and the improvements appear to be in conformance with the sub -area plan.
This district is recognized as the common ground between part time and full
time residents.
Some of the planning principles germane to this application include:
"Use architectural detailing on ground levellf/rst Boor to enhance the
pedestrian environment that includes human scale ... and other
pedestrian amenities."
• "Link pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile circulation to and through
Avon's Town Center."
3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed
improvements.
This criterion does not apply to this application.
4. The Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through
D of the Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines.
A. Site Development: The Design Guidelines state that buildings and other
improvements should be individually designed for the site on which they are
to be placed. Pedestrian ways should be aligned and focus should be placed
on architectural or aesthetic features.
The Design Guidelines state that "the use of sun exposure -reducing
elements such as overhangs, canopies, eaves and . awnings should be
designed as integral components of the architectural design," and "building
entries and public spaces should be treated with special design emphasis,
easily identifiable, and visible from the public realm."
All other sections of the Site Development criteria, including parking, grading,
access, snow removal and storage, and trash storage, are addressed with
this application.
B. Building Design: There is a strong emphasis in the Design Guidelines
placed on the building design for the first two floors of buildings, or the "base."
Secondary emphasis should be placed on the "roof form".
The materials and colors of all commercial buildings are to be visually
harmonious with the Town's overall appearance, with surrounding
development, and with the officially approved development plans. Colors
shall not exceed a light -reflective value'(LRV) of 60%. The LRV of the new
proposed stucco color ("Pavilion Beige") is 52% and complies with the
guidelines.
All roofs are to be constructed with durable materials, and shall have a rise of
not less than 4 -inches in 12 -inches of distance. The new entry canopy metal
roof and skylight frame are to be constructed with "Dark Bronze" colored
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 3 & 5, Sun Road Subdivision — Building and Site Modifications
4 September 4.2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 4
metal. The roof pitch of the new skylight and metal roofing entrance would
meet the minimum requirement of 4:12 pitch. This roof pitch is consistent
with the existing roof pitches on the building.
C. Landscaping: There are several areas of the site where existing paving
and/or concrete will be converted to landscaping. According to the applicant,
the areas directly adjacent to the Town Right -of -Ways (i.e. closed entrance
near Post Office) will have bluegrass sod to match existing landscaping.
Closer to the building, and within the small parking lot islands, water -
conserving plant materials will be utilized. These areas will be watered with
drip irrigation. The newly created planting area near the main entrance will
have a combination of more ornamental (still water -conserving) plantings and
small areas of sod.
While there are no new plantings indicated on the site plan (Sheet Al) for the
area surrounding the trash dumpster, the applicant has indicated that this
area will receive further plantings to help screen the appearance of the
dumpster. Staff would recommend this as a condition of approval.
D. Miscellaneous Items: There are four existing pan -channel lettered signs
on the building. Two of the four existing signs will be moved to accommodate
the new entry canopy feature. The sign facing West Beaver Creek Boulevard
will be moved slightly to the west, and the sign facing Avon Road will be
moved to the north.
5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to
minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope,
and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing
topography.
There are no significant alterations proposed to the topography. As a
condition of approval, staff would require a stamped civil plan to be reviewed
and approved by staff.
6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent
and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to
architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of
materials, and colors.
The improvements would be highly visible from adjacent properties and public
ways. The architectural style, orientation to street, quality of materials, and
colors should have a beneficial appearance.
7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others
in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
No monetary or aesthetic values should be impaired or otherwise lowered
with the planned improvements.
8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the
adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 3 & 5, Sun Road Subdivision — Building and Site Modifications'
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 4
The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted Goals and
Policies.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the design application for
Lots 3 and 5, Sun Road Subdivision —15t Bank."
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the site and building modifications proposed for the 1s1 Bank
of Avon, Lots 3 and 5, Sun Road Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. Stamped civil plans from a Colorado Licensed Professional Engineer
that demonstrate Town specifications and functional drainage must be
submitted and approved by staff prior to any site work taking place.
2. A revised Landscape Plan will be submitted for staff approval. The
plan will demonstrate that the trash receptacle will be screened from
public view with additional plantings.
3. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material
representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this
application and in public hearings shall be adhered to and considered
binding conditions of approval."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please
call me at 748.4413 or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielstl <er
Planner II
Exhibits:
• Colors / Materials
• 1/8" Landscaping Detail for Entrance
• Vicinity Map
• Architectural Drawings
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
NEW ENTRY GANOPY
METAL ROOF AND
SKYLIGHT FRAME—
DARK BRONZE FRAME
SA1%1E AS
O1tIJIiN-,XL
5T0000 —
SHERWIN WILLIAMS #2051
PAVILLION BIE6E
STONE —
COLORADO BUFF
STRIP STONE
RECEIVED
AUG 1 4 2007
commumily ()gvfllK1pf 001
7310'FIRSTBANK OF AVON Snowdon and Hopkins •Architects, P.C.
ORBOARo EXTERIOR REMODEL
LOT 3, SUNROAD SUBDIVISION P.O. Box 3340 970-476-2201
AVON, COLORADO Vail, Colorado 81658 FAX 476-7491
(Dutvt
rL
C+ro%wz '
HC
0
RECEIVED
AUG 1 4 2007
C'Ommun"y
Sunroad Subdivision - Lot 3 and Lot 5
po,
t
I
QFAVF�6�kfta -
J A iRD
® OLot3&Lot 5 -
rm, Property Boundaries --
�o
a„moi a+wev oare Fs -arc.
OGVU0 103 `NO" N011VOIldcIV
NOISIAIaens UdOUNns `£ 10-1 NOIs3oaoNlw
L6VL•9L►XVd MLOOPWO1031MA
LOZZ19LI1016 OPEC zaB'O'd 13UOW3U 2 012131X3 Looz•Lex,nr ama Q
d 4-1i4aJy. sur4doH pus uopnwug NO" j0 )INH81S2113 zvsz AIMN OW
i
luewdoleAeQ Alunwwoo
0 3 A13 03a
,
AVON ROAD (RA.YC VARIES)
{{�R
l YI IV F
AW
W.
s
c
x
Al.
t
Z a
€
r
I 016
x^C'
W
C
4
ufatOU
Fi
—�T A
1�
p
M
}}
yCZ
,
AVON ROAD (RA.YC VARIES)
{{�R
l YI IV F
AW
W.
s
c
x
�
€
912
L
x^C'
W
C
4
ufatOU
Fi
—�T A
1�
p
M
}}
yCZ
lhll�
y
> m
IL
s
x
�
€
912
L
IH
4
M
3G
Vii. tTi
oavuo'loo `None 11"1d311dde
NOISIAmens aVOUNns `£ 101 N�S30 UONa N
161"L91L►X :1 ML9oF--PD:"A Q
,OZZ9LV'OL6 OOTCXOG 0d 13aOW32121012131X3 LooZ•�ek,mr a,ea
'O•d'SP9P4w/•-POOH PSBUOPmOuS NOAV30NNVI31SHI:J zb9z -q-w
juowdGjbAerj AJIU"Y.X.IIWOC)
Loaz t i gnd
®3A[3038
co
oa"o10J `NOAH NOUVOnaaH
NOISIA109ns OH021Nns `£ 101 NoisaoaPo is
MIL9L4 XVz1 MkV-P—P3:P.-A
JGzz9L"L6 DKC xogO'd -i300W321 b011131X3 Looz'LE Alflf •1e0
d speuya,y. sup
ldoH pus uopmouS NOAH AO MNH91SM1-q zvsz -ww
X10,40a wowwwoo
bd �—
a- --
— i
Z
'J
Q
ill
MEs
lH
I t
F
h,
`\
0
E4
it
Town of Avon
Design Modifications
Commercial
HEARTof ft FY11
I
Staff Report
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
August 29, 2007
Project type
Plaza Furnishings
Legal description
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision
Zoning
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address
290 Riverfront Lane
Introduction
The applicant, Andy Gunion of East West Partners, is proposing public plaza
furnishings and landscaping for the public plaza between the Westin Hotel and
the Timeshare West building in the Riverfront Subdivision. This application is a
follow-up to a condition of approval from Ordinance 06-03, the Ordinance that
approved the PUD Development Plan for the Riverfront Subdivision, which
states:
"15. The property owner shall submit a master landscape and
public plaza design plan for Lots 1-7, including Tract A, to be
reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission prior to issuance of the first building permit for the
hotel."
It was determined the master landscape plan, and plan for Lots 1-7, (including
Tract A) could be reviewed separately from the public plaza portion of the
development. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the hotel the
Planning and Zoning Commission approved the master landscaping plan and
portions of the plaza plan at the April 4, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
This application includes furnishings and landscaping in the public plaza, and the
areas connecting the plaza and the front entrance of the Westin hotel porte-
cochere. Items for review include locations and designs of the following:
benches, bike racks, ski racks, chairs, dining tables, flower pots, tree planters,
and trash/recycling receptacles.
Design Approval Criteria
The Commission shall review all plaza design plans for the Riverfront Subdivision
based on the Riverfront Design Standards, and also the Residential,
Lot 2, Riverfront subdivision — Plaza Furnishings p'
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 5
Commercial. and Industrial Design Guidelines where the Riverfront Design
Standards fall silent. The Commission shall review this design plan utilizing
specific Design Standards, and by using the following criteria:
1. Conformance with the Riverfront Village Design Standards, dated
February 14, 2006.
Please find the Riverfront Village Design Standards attached to this report for
your review and consideration. The Design Standards contain standards
specific to public places, such as the following:
1. C. Design of Public Spaces
1) A public plaza will be used to link the Town of Avon to the Eagle River.
This link should be reinforced in both a physical and perceptual way through
the use of paving materials, landscaping, and sensitive spatial planning.
Spatial planning shall include components that reinforce the connectivity of
the Town to the River, and avoid elements that act as barriers to this
connection, such as planter walls that block pedestrian flow, landscaping that
screens the visual connection between Town and River, etc.
1. D. Pedestrian Orientation
1) A pedestrian corridor, connecting the town to a retail plaza with gondola,
will gracefully transition from the plaza to the riverfront promenade by way of
a staircase and stepped terraces merging with the natural landscape. This
transition will avoid barriers from the Town to the River, and include elements
which reinforce this connection, including similar paving materials, wide
pedestrian ways that encourage movement, active signage and way finding,
and a gracious grand stair with oversized treads and minimal risers.
1. E. View Corridors
1) A primary southern view corridor to the mountains shall be maintained
from the eastern railroad crossing through the public plaza to help reinforce
the connection between the Town and the ski mountain.
11. C. Plaza materials
a) Rustic materials common in mountain towns and/or a more contemporary
interpretation of these materials such as cut stone pavers, colored concrete
pavers, and stained or colored concrete slabs are appropriate to the Village.
Colors shall be complementary to the site and its architecture, avoiding bright
or brilliant hues that distract from the pedestrian experience.
Staff Response: This application appears to be in conformance with the
Riverfront Village Design Standards. There do not appear to be any "barriers"
inhibiting the connectivity of the Town to the Eagle. River, or vice a versa. The
planters and street level furnishings are appropriate and should not block
pedestrian flow. The view through the public plaza would be maintained. All
of the landscaping is contained in 3' flower pots, or tree planters no larger
than 36"x48" in size.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision — Plaza Furnishings
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 5
Materials are contemporary with: cast Iron, stainless steel, powder -coated
metal, Ipe Wood, and aluminum. All of the colors appear to be appropriate for
their applications. The table tops are silver. The bench frames and trash
cans are metal -polyester powder -coated with "Storm cloud" color, and the Ipe
wood is natural color. The umbrella colors have not been determined at this
time, and staff would recommend the colors of the umbrellas be approved by
staff.
2. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Town of Avon Zoning Code.
This application is in conformance with all provisions of the Town of Avon
Zoning Code.
3. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains.
The subject properties are located in District 3: Confluence District, and the
improvements appear to be in conformance with the sub -area plan. This
district is recognized as the area where the future lift connection brings the
community together and vitalizes the Town Center. The development of this
district "must incorporate three key assets: the railroad, the Eagle River, and
Avon Road."
Some of the planning principles germane to this application include:
"Use signage, streetscape design, landscaping, points of interest, and
other way finding elements to help orient visitors to important
destinations within the district and the Town Center area."
Staff Response: The proposed landscaping and furnishings help to
frame the public plaza and provide direction to visitors and locals. The
visual connection through the plaza appears to be maintained, and
points of interest have been created with fire pits, benches, dining
areas, etc.
"Plan for public plazas and other gathering spaces for community
interaction, social interaction, and special events."
Staff Response: Social interaction appears to be achieved with the
citing of the public amenities shown on the site plan. Flower boxes and
tree planters will also help to provide a sense of place in these
gathering spaces.
4. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed
improvements.
This criterion does not apply to this application.
5. The Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through
D of the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines.
This application is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of
the Design Guidelines.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision — Plaza Furnishings
September 4, 2007•Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 5
6. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to
minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope,
and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing
topography.
This criterion does not apply to this application.
7. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent
and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to
architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of
materials, and colors.
The improvements would be among the most visible improvements in the
Riverfront Subdivision, and public interaction would likely be the greatest in
the plaza area surrounding the gondola. The improvements would have a
beneficial appearance as viewed from the Westin, Timeshare West, and
Riverfront Lane. The proposed materials are of high quality, and some of the
materials are environmentally friendly.
The architectural style and colors of the proposed improvements are
appropriate. The umbrella colors have not been determined, however, the
applicant intends these umbrellas to match those of the future Watermark
hotel.
8. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others
in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
No monetary or aesthetic values should be impaired or otherwise lowered
with the planned improvements.
9. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the
adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted Goals and
Policies.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the street level landscaping and street
furnishings for Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision."
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve the street level landscaping and public plaza street
furnishings for Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. The color of the umbrellas will match those of the Watermark
restaurant and will be approved by staff.
2. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material
representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this
application and in public hearings shall be adhered to and considered
binding conditions of approval."
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 740-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision — Plaza Furnishings
September 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 5 rift
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 Pielstic er
Planner II
Exhibits:
• Riverfront Design Standards
• Application Contents
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74&4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
RIVERFRONT VILLAGE
Avon, Colorado
DESIGN STANDARDS
February 14, 2006
I. Vision Statement for Riverfront Village
A. Scope of Design Standards
1) The following Design Standards for Riverfront Village have been established to
ensure the overall quality and compatibility of the Village with the Town of Avon
and its riverfront site. In general these Standards shall apply to all buildings and
plaza areas within Riverfront Village, with the exception of the Hotel building, or as
otherwise noted.
2) An important aspect of the Riverfront Village vision is responsible care for the
environment and sustainability of the architecture and landscape. To this end, best
efforts will be made to meet the principles set forth in the LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building System for the Hotel. In
addition, all other buildings within the Village will be designed with sensitivity to the
sustainability aspects of site and architectural design.
B. Architectural Theme
1) Riverfront Village represents an important interface between the Town of Avon
and Beaver Creek Ski Resort. It is envisioned as a lively gathering place connecting
the river, mountain and town- a pedestrian friendly environment where townspeople
and guests can stroll from Avon's western Town Center, through the resort retail
plaza, to ride the gondola up to the mountain or to step down to the river.
2) The village is situated on the seam between the town and the mountain
landscape and should therefore strike a balance between the two environments,
creating an architectural expression that captures both alpine and townscape
traditions. To achieve this balance, the architecture shall take advantage of materials
inherent to successful mountain resort architecture—such as stone, wood, and other
natural materials, combined with more contemporary materials such as stucco, metal,
and recycled products.
3) The Architectural Theme will also feature the use of large areas of glass, clean
building forms based on pure geometries, strong, simple but honest detailing (not
overly rustic, "heavy," or overstated), and the bolder proportions appropriate to the
Luger scale of the Town.
C. Design of Public Spaces
1) A public plaza will be used to link the Town of Avon to the Eagle River. This
link should be reinforced in both a physical and perceptual way through the use of
Riverfront \rillage February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 1 of 6
paving materials, landscaping, and sensitive spatial planning. Spatial planning shall
include components that reinforce the connectivity of the Town to the River, and
avoid elements that act as barriers to this connection, such as planter walls that block
pedestrian flow, landscaping that screens the visual connection between Town and
River, etc.
D. Pedestrian orientation
1) A pedestrian corridor, connecting the town to a retail plaza with gondola, will
gracefully transition from the plaza to the riverfront promenade by way of a staircase
and stepped terraces merging with the natural landscape. This transition will avoid
barriers from the Town to the River, and include elements which reinforce this
connection, including similar paving materials, wide pedestrian ways that encourage
movement, active signage and wayfinding, and a gracious grand stair with oversized
treads and minimal risers.
2) Pathways shall also create a network within the Village itself, linking the different
buildings along the length of the site and providing pedestrian access to defined
access/gathering points along the River. The Plaza and pathways within Riverfront
Village should encourage a pedestrian -friendly environment
E. View Corridors
1) A primary southern view corridor to the mountains shall be maintained from the
eastern railroad crossing through the public plaza to help reinforce the connection
between the Town and the ski mountain.
2) An east -west view corridor along the Eagle River will also be maintained through
the preservation of a 75 -foot river setback throughout most of the site, with limited
minor encroachments as allowed in the development plan. In addition, the
Riverfront Park will act as a natural corridor along the river edge portion of the
Village and act to enhance this view corridor.
F. The Natural Environment
1) The Eagle River is a primary amenity for the Town of Avon and Riverfront
Village. Links to the River shall be developed as special pedestrian ways to help
activate this wonderful amenity.
2) The 75 -foot river setback will be largely left in its natural state, and certain
defined river access and gathering points should be created along the linear riverfront
path.
3) In general, additional plantings within the river setback will be riparian in
character and relate to plantings indigenous to river edge environments. More
formal planting areas -- such as small sections of lawn, however, are encouraged at
special gathering and access points to highlight these more formal features. Formal
plantings featuring annuals are not permitted within the 75 -foot setback.
4) In an effort to enhance the natural environment, site walls and site walkways
should become more "organic' as they approach the river edge portion of the
Riverfront \pillage February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 2 of 6
Village. Any walls installed south of the bike path shall be limited to boulder
walls. Accessibility shall be considered when designing walkways.
II. Site and Village Guidelines
A. Primary Building Entries
1) Primary building entries shall be emphasized as welcoming portals through
careful attention to massing, scale, and materials. This will ensure that Riverfront
Village will not tum its back to Avon. Portals will be scaled to encourage pedestrian
movement through them—and avoid overwhelming or diminutive massing --and
they will be treated with materials that enhance this experience. The front doors of
buildings should be treated in interesting ways, either through the use of glass or
special designs and materials that provide interest to these special areas of each
building..
2) Massing of entries shall relate to the overall massing of the buildings but be
presented_as special forms different than typical building bays. Sensitivity to scale
should be considered when transitioning from the overall larger building mass to the
more intimate scale of the pedestrian visitor. Designers are encouraged to use
materials in interesting ways at primary building entries to reinforce their unique role
as part of the building and as part of the overall Village streetscape.
B. Solar Access
1) A solar access study shall be required for buildings exceeding 3 stories in height.
These studies will convey shading impacts at summer and winter solstice Qun 21 and
Dec 21), and at vernal and autumnal equinox (Mar 21 and Sept 21).
C. Site Materials and Colors
1. Plaza materials
a) Rustic materials common in mountain towns and/or a more contemporary
interpretation of these materials such as cut stone pavers, colored concrete pavers,
and stained or colored concrete slabs are appropriate to the Village. Colors shall be
complementary to the site and its architecture, avoiding bright or brilliant hues that
distract from the pedestrian experience.
2. Site walls
a) Site walls shall make use of more contemporary materials such as colored
concrete masonry, stained concrete, board -formed concrete, and similar materials, in
colors complementary to the site and its buildings. Site walls shall relate to plaza
materials and building bases to help visually merge the ground plane around the site.
D. Site Signage — Design, materials, and colors
1) Site signage shall be designed to help animate the plaza and be consistent and
compatible with the design and materiality of the buildings. Site lighting will also be
used to enhance the pedestrian experience at the Plaza level.
Riverfront N dlage February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 3 of 6
III.Architectural Design Guidelines
A. Building Form and Massing
1) In general the form and massing within Riverfront Village will follow the intent
of the Town of Avon Design Guidelines by incorporating form articulation to avoid
the monolithic. However, specific buildings within the Village shall be subject to less
or more stringent requirements relative to building form and massing as identified
within this document to form a coherent, pleasant composition for the entire
neighborhood. 2) Smaller masses, such as portions of the building or elements such
as porte cocheres, etc, will be used to break up the apparent size of larger building
forms. Smaller masses positioned in front of large masses will be used to reduce the
visual dominance of the Luger forms.
3) The development of building bases will help to tie together individual buildings
within the Village and will also de the Village to its riverfront site. Site walls, and
other site features shall relate to building bases in a way that reinforces visual
connectivity to the ground plane. The plaza and gondola terminal, with its
cantilevered structure will stand out as an elevated element from the south, drawing
people up from the river.
4) In general the middles of buildings will be more visually subtle, but broken by
primary and secondary elevation features and material accents that help to avoid
monotonous facades. On any given elevation at Lots 1, 3, and 4, 80 percent of the
vertical wall area will be permitted to be within the same plane, with a minimum of
2 -foot offset for plane changes. Vertical forms comprised of stacked decks and
balconies will be considered plane changes. At Lots 5, G, and 7, 70 percent of the
vertical wall area will be permitted to be within the same plane.
5) The roofscape of Riverfront Village is also critical to the success of the
neighborhood and its relationship to the Town of Avon. The visual coherency of
the Village should be reinforced through the use of similar roofing materials and
colors throughout the Village, helping to knit the individual buildings together when
seen from the Gondola or Beaver Creek above.
G) Pitched roofs expressive of an alpine tradition and the incorporation of dormers,
shed roofs and chimney forms, should be employed. Primary roofs will have pitches
ranging from a minimum of 4:12 to a maximum of 8:12. Secondaryroofs—such as
at dormers, porte cocheres, building protrusions, and similar additive forms—may be
flat, but only if they are finished in materials simila in quality to roof or wall
materials on the building, such as pavers, colored stone, etc. When secondary roofs
are pitched roofs, the minimum pitch required shall be 2:12. Flat roofs are not
permitted for primary roof forms. Ideally flat roofs should be developed as terraces
and other functional spaces.
7) Given the modern alpine character of the architecture at Riverfront Village,
relatively small roof overhangs are encouraged for buildings on Lots 1 and 3, which
are visually and compositionally related to the Hotel. At these locations the
minimum roof overhang permitted shall be six inches. At other locations within
Rivetfront Village the minimum roof overhang shall be 24 inches for primary roofs
and 12 inches at secondary dormers.
Riverfront Village February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 4 of 6
8) To help ensure that roof ridges for the Village remain interesting and contribute
to the overall success of building massing, uninterrupted ridgelines shall be avoided.
To this end, roof ridgelines are litnited to 150 feet before a change in height
(elevation above sea level) is required. These breaks (elevation changes) shall run
horizontally for at least 10% of the overall building ridge length before returning to
the prior elevation. Overall building ridge length is defined as the sum of all primary
ridge lengths for the entire building.
B. Building Height
1) Building heights for the Riverfront Village will be restricted to the heights
described in the approved Development Plan, as measured according to the Town of
Avon Code. Architectural features such as chimneys, cupolas, and other similar
elements will not be included when calculating maximum building height.
2) In addition, the percentage of ridge height allowed at the maximum allowable
building height for any given building will be limited to 25% of the overall building
ridge length. Overall building ridge length is defined as the sum of all primary ridge
lengths for the entire building.
3) The maximum height for building facades fronting the Public Plaza will be
limited to 75 feet from the Plaza elevation. The only exception to this facade height
Limitation shall be for the western fa4ade of the central tower of the hotel, which
shall be permitted to be as tall as 100 ft. from Plaza elevation. This central tower
fagade may run horizontally for up to 60 feet along the plaza.
4) The minimum horizontal setback required for building facades exceeding the
maximum height for building facades fronting the Public Plaza will be 2 feet from
the building fayade fronting the Public Plaza. This shall only apply to the central
tower portion of the Hotel.
5) The minimum setback required for maximum allowable height per the
Development Standards from the Public Plaza will be 60 feet from building fagade
fronting the Plaza
C. Exterior Materials, Detailing, and Colors
1. Materials and colors for walls and roofs at Riverfront Village will have a Light
Retlec¢ve Value ([,RV) not exceeding 60%.
a) Materials inherent to the mountains, including stone and wood, will be used at
lower levels of buildings in areas of direct pedestrian interface, as well as metals.
These materials should be used in refreshing ways within the Village, reinterpreted
for the urban nature of Avon towards a "mountain modern" character.
b) Stucco conveys mass in a subtle, "quiet" way and is therefore a recommended
material for building middles and tops. However, building accents comprised of
non -stucco materials, such as metal, wood and cement materials replicating wood,
shall be allowed in building middles and tops to help provide interest, except as
prohibited by Codes. When used, stucco shall be carefully detailed to ensure
longevity when it comes near the ground plane at building walls.
Riverfront \rdlage February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 5 of 6
c) Roof materials will include rubber shingles, asphalt shingles and other materials
suitable for mountain environments. Standing seam metal shall not be used for
primary roof planes, but may be used for small and/or special roof features such as
shed dormers, retail roof forms, porte cocheres, and other selective roof elements.
d) In general, colors used within the Village should be complementary to the site,
and be comprised of greens, grays, golds, browns, and other earth -tone hues.
However, due to the desire for a highly acddated retail experience at the Plaza level,
the colors used along the retail edges of the Public way may be more vibrant and
active in nature.
2. Minimum window area at plaza level
a) At a minimum, 50% of the 1" level of building facades facing the plaza from the
east and the west shall be glass. For this calculation the plaza shall be deemed to
begin at the northwest comer of the hotel and the northeast comer of timeshare
west and shall terminate at the east -west plane where the staircase down to the river
begins. This calculation shall exclude the gondola terminal, control booth and public
restrooms.
Riverfront Village February 14, 2006
Design Standards Page 6 of 6
sMemo-
To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners V O
C 0 L 0 R A D 0
From: Matt Gennett, AICP, Senior Planner
Date September 4, 2007
Re: Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines, 2007
Summary:
On August 28, 2007, the Avon Town Council reviewed the Town of Avon Attainable
Housing Guidelines dated September, 2007, and remanded the document back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission, with minor Modifications, for their review and
recommendation of approval to Council for consideration at their September 11, 2007
Town Council hearing.
Staff is presenting to the Commission a document titled "The Town of Avon Attainable
Housing Guidelines, September 2007", which contains Resolution No. 07-31, for their
review and recommendation of approval to Council.
The criteria currently used to evaluate an application involving a request to rezone a
property, rezone a property to a PUD, or to amend an existing PUD, are listed below.
Staff would suggest a thirteenth criterion be added to the existing criteria in order to
implement the Guidelines, as follows:
Design Criteria. The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in
evaluating a PUD. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal
material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following design
criteria or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular
development solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved.
1. Conformity with the Avon comprehensive plan goals and objectives,
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub-
area design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the town;
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent
properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones,
character, and orientation;
4. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable•
relationship with surrounding uses and activity;
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that
affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed,
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation
and overall aesthetic quality of the community,•
Z A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on
and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the town transportation plan;
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function;
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall
clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without
relying upon completion of future project phases,
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation
systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection;
11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated
traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD.
12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial
compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085
of the Avon Municipal Code:
A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning
entitlements cannot achieve.
B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social
community beneFts that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result
of the changed zoning rights.
C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better
siting of the development, -preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and
increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan
documents.
13. Conformity with the 2007 Attainable Housing Guidelines. (New Criterion)
The developer of a project involving a rezoning shall demonstrate the proposal's
conformity to the Town of Avon 2007 Attainable Housing Guidelines to the
satisfaction of the Avon Town Council.
Background:
During the March 6th, 2007 joint work session with the Planning & Zoning Commission
and Avon Town Council, staff presented legislative tools proven effective elsewhere for
the creation of Attainable Housing regulations. These tools include Inclusionary Zoning,
Commercial Linkage, resale appreciation caps, strategies for type and location of units,
livability standards and a payment -in -lieu method. Staff presented a draft ordinance
containing the tools discussed during various meetings held with the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and the Town Council, meant to help facilitate the implementation of an
Attainable Housing regulatory policy. During the April 3rd Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, staff presented a proposal for an Attainable Housing regulation and
was given direction to discuss pertinent issues with Town Council.
In June of 2006, the Town of Avon commissioned a study to determine Avon's housing
stock and the availability of various types of housing in Avon, as well as the labor force
currently employed within the town's boundaries, titled the Town of Avon Housing Needs
Assessment 2006, Final Draft. The goal of this exercise was to fully understand the
housing needs in the town and explore policy options in order to better house Avon's
citizens and in -commuting labor force as Eagle County and its neighboring counties
continue to grow over time. In January of 2007, staff reported back with the findings of
ri
this study and was directed to begin putting together an ordinance to develop Attainable
Housing regulations.
During the January 9th Town Council meeting, staff presented the findings of the 2006
Housing Needs Assessment. Staff was directed by council to- begin drafting guidelines,
requirements and tools for the provision of diverse housing types with consideration of the
comments made during the meeting. The following report presents the draft ordinance
that incorporates the tools discussed during the joint work session.
At the March 6th, 2007 joint work session with the Planning & Zoning Commission and
Avon Town Council, staff presented legislative tools proven effective elsewhere for the
creation of Attainable Housing regulations.
On June 8, 2007, staff held a work session with Council to discuss options for
implementing Attainable Housing Guidelines to be utilized by staff, the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and Council for the review of any development application involving
a rezoning in order to assess an amount Attainable Housing commensurate with the
scope of the development at hand.
And as stated in the beginning of this memorandum, Council remanded this item back to
the Commission on August 28, 2007 for their review and recommendation to Council for
review at the September 11, 2007 Town Council hearing.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the Avon Town
Council APPROVAL of Resolution No. 07-31 as written.
Respectfully Submitted,
Matthew R. Gannett, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Exhibit A: The Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines, September, 2007
(Resolution 07-31 is contained therein)
C O L O R A D O
THE TOWN OF AVON
TTAINABLE HOUSING GUIDELINE
September, 2007
RESOLUTION NO. 07-31
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TOWN OF AVON
ATTAINABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO
WHEREAS, the February 2006 Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
(F) contains three goals: "Achieve a diverse range of quality housing options to serve
diverse segments of the population, Provide a workforce housing program that
incorporates both rental and ownership opportunities for residents that are attractive,
safe and integrated with the community, Participate in countywide housing policies and
procedures'
WHEREAS, the Avon Town Council directed staff to prepare language to be
incorporated into an attainable housing guidelines document, to be adopted by Council
via this resolution, that will provide guidance to developers seeking a change in zoning
the rules of Title 17, Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Avon commissioned and completed a Housing Needs
Assessment in December 2006 that identifies different segments of the population,
based on income, in need of housing attainable at that level of income; and
WHEREAS, the Attainable Housing Guidelines attached hereto are intended to be an
additional criterion for all rezoning applications, that require explicit findings be made in
the affirmative, promoting public benefit; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Attainable Housing Guidelines is to establish a
framework for discussion and negotiation for attainable housing exactions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
AVON, COLORADO: hereby approves the Town of Avon Attainable Housing
Guidelines, dated September 2007.
ADOPTED THIS DAY OF September 2007.
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines -2-
Planning
2 -
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sections Page
1. Purpose and Applicability .............................................................................. 4
2. Definitions........................................................................................................ 5
3. Inclusionary Housing Provisions.................................................................. 6
a. Requirements for the Development of Attainable Housing .................. 6
b. Requirements for Attainable Housing Ownership ............................... 7
4. Commercial Linkage Provisions.................................................................. 10
5. Unit Types ... .......................................................
............................... 11
6. Potential Incentives.......................................................................... 12
APPENDICES
A. 2006 Housing Needs Assessment....................................................... 13
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines -3-
Planning
3 -
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
SECTION 1: Purpose and Applicability
PURPOSE
The purpose of these guidelines is to set forth minimum standards for Inclusionary
Housing Provisions; Commercial Linkage; sale and resale procedures for Attainable
Housing; and sale and resale limitations on Attainable Housing. Through the application
of these guidelines, the Town of Avon shall commence efforts toward achieving the
goals set forth in the housing element of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan adopted
in February, 2006. These goals are to achieve a diverse range of quality housing
options, maintain the affordability of attainable units, provide a housing program that
incorporates both rental and ownership opportunities for residents that are attractive,
safe and integrated with the community and to participate in countywide housing policies
and procedures.
APPLICABILITY
All site specific rezoning applications, including amendments to existing zoning, shall
adhere to the provisions within these Attainable Housing Guidelines. Development
approval shall be evaluated, at the discretion of the Town Council and the Planning and
Zoning Commission, based on adherence to these guidelines, and pursuant to the
criteria outlined in Chapter 17 of the Avon Municipal Code. It shall be the burden of the
applicant to demonstrate how their site specific zoning, or rezoning application, conforms
to these guidelines.
RESTRICTIONS
There shall be no sale, rental, purchase, or lease of a unit with a deed restriction in place
created pursuant to these guidelines except to income eligible households and in
compliance with the provisions of this document.
EXCEPTIONS
Where Attainable Housing units are preexisting to a rezoning application, those units
shall be counted towards the requirements of the Attainable Housing Guidelines. When
the rezoning is for an approved project for which there has been a previous housing
exaction, these guidelines shall apply only to any increase in residential and/or
commercial entitlements for the total project.
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines -4-
Planning
4 -
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
SECTION 2: Definitions
Above Middle -Income: A household earning the equivalent of over one hundred
twenty percent (120%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Eagle County.
Area Median Income: The local estimates of median household income compiled and
released annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As used in
this code, Area Median Income shall be represented by'AMI' and shall reflect the most
current figures available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for
Eagle County.
Attainable Housing: A unit restricted to occupancy by eligible households that meet
size and for -sale price requirements and that are deed restricted in accordance with a
covenant approved by the Town Council of the Town of Avon.
Capital Improvements: Any fixture erected as a permanent improvement to real
property excluding repair, replacement and maintenance costs, unless otherwise defined
in the Deed Restriction covering the affordable unit.
Commercial Linkage: An obligation, formulaically calculated on a square footage
basis, which requires developers to provide housing for a certain number of new
employees that are generated by a new commercial development, focusing solely on a
development's impact as related to employee generation and not taking into account
secondary impacts.
Deed Restriction: An enduring covenant placed on units that identifies the conditions
of ownership and occupancy of the units to eligible households, and. may control the
prices of for -sale units, initially and/or upon resale.
Inclusionary Housing Provision: The provision of Attainable Housing units, or
financial set-aside, as mitigation for residential development as determined by these
Attainable Housing Guidelines.
Low -Income: A household earning the equivalent of between fifty percent (50%) and
eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Eagle County.
Market Rate Unit: A residential unit upon which there are no restrictions on occupancy,
price or resale. -
Middle -Income: A household earning the equivalent of between eighty percent (80%)
and one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Eagle
County.
Net Livable Square Footage: As calculated in the pertinent sections of the Building
Code used by the Town of Avon at the time of review of subject proposal. Exclusions
include, but are not limited to, uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, exterior
storage, stairwells, garages (either attached or detached), patios, decks and porches.
Very Low -Income: A household earning the equivalent of between thirty percent (30%)
and fifty percent (50%) of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Eagle County.
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines 5 -
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
SECTION 3: Inclusionary Housing Provisions
All site specific zoning or rezoning applications within the incorporated area of the Town
of Avon should include no less than twenty percent (20%) of the total Gross Floor Area
for residential uses developed as Attainable Housing. When required to develop one
attainable housing unit, the developer shall be required to build a two-bedroom unit
priced at a maximum amount affordable for a household earning one -hundred forty
percent (140%) of the AMI. When required to develop more than one unit, the developer
shall be required to develop a distribution of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units,
priced in such a way that the average purchase price does not exceed that required of a
two-bedroom unit affordable for a household earning one -hundred forty percent (140%)
of the AMI, and no single unit exceeds a'price attainable for a household earning two -
hundred percent (200%) of the AMI, nor lower than a price attainable for a household
earning eighty percent (80%) of the AMI.
A. Requirements for the Development of Attainable Housing:
When required to provide Attainable Housing units, the property owner is encouraged to
provide the maximum requirement on-site and shall provide a minimum of twenty
percent (20%) of their requirements on-site. If the property owner wished to provide
units in another manner and another manner was acceptable to the Town, the
requirements are as follows:
1. Off-site. If the property owner chooses to provide a portion of their units off-site,
the required mitigation rate is increased from twenty percent (20%) to thirty
percent (30%). Also, a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the required thirty
percent (30%) shall be constructed on-site and the remaining portion may be
provided off-site. If the offsite location is to be approved by the Town, off-site
development may only be allowed by the Town Council if a developer can prove
that the units will serve a greater or more urgent need for the Town. The options
for an off-site Attainable Housing unit are as follows:
a. The property owner may construct or contract with a third party to
construct the remaining required Attainable Housing units anywhere in
Eagle County as approved by Town Council; or
b. The property owner may purchase a market rate unit and deed -restrict
the unit for permanent affordability; or
2. Payment -in -Lieu. If the property owner chooses to satisfy the fequirement with a
payment -in -lieu, the mitigation rate increases from twenty percent (20%) to fifty
percent (50%). The remaining Attainable Housing units may be supplied in
accordance with the following calculations:
a. The property owner may dedicate developable land suitable to the Town
of Avon or pay a cash -in -lieu contribution to the Town of Avon Attainable
Housing Fund in the amount required from the payment -in -lieu
calculation. When suitable land is dedicated to the Town of Avon; its
value shall be based on the appraised value; and
b. The payment -in -lieu is calculated based on the difference between the
current market rate cost of a unit and the cost of an Attainable Housing
unit based on income eligibility pursuant to the current AMI for Eagle
County. A fifteen percent (15%) administration fee will be added to the
payment. An example of how to calculate the payment -in -lieu amount is
shown in Appendix A.
c. This option may only be approved by the Town Council if a developer can
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines -6-
Planning
6 -
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
demonstrate that the units will serve a greater or more urgent need for the
town.
B. Requirements for Attainable Housing Ownership:
1. Maximum Initial Sales Price for Attainable Housing Unit
The maximum initial sales price for an Attainable Housing unit is based on a
targeted range of the current AMI for Eagle County. Unit prices shall not
exceed an amount equivalent to the annual payments affordable for a person
or household earning that targeted range of the AMI.
2. Approved Initial Purchaser for Attainable Housing Unit
A property owner may select a qualified buyer for a unit. The buyer shall
obtain written approval from the Town of Avon's Housing Administrator before
executing the purchase.
3. Resale Price for Attainable Housing Unit
a. The resale price of any Attainable Housing unit shall not exceed the
purchase price paid by the owner of that unit with the following
exceptions:
I. Customary closing costs;
ii. Real estate commissions paid by the seller shall not exceed one
percent (1 %);
iii. Permanent capital improvements installed by the seller shall not
exceed twenty percent (20%) of the initial listed purchase price set
forth in deed restriction for an initial ten year period. For every ten
year period subsequent, an additional twenty percent (20%) of the
initial purchase price may be added
1. The term "Permitted Capital Improvement" as used in the
Agreement shall only include the following:
a. Improvements or fixtures erected, installed or
attached as permanent, functional, non -decorative
improvements to real property, excluding repair,
replacement and/or maintenance improvements;
b. Improvements for the benefit of seniors and/or
handicapped persons;
c. Improvements for health and safety protection
devices (including radon);
d. Improvements to add and/or finish permanent/fixed
storage space;
e. Improvements to finish unfinished space;
f. Landscaping;
g. The cost of adding decks and balconies, and any
extension thereto; and/or
h. Improvements associated with health and safety,
energy efficiency, water conservation, and green
building products.
2. Permitted Capital Improvements as used in this Agreement
shall not include the following:
a. Jacuzzis, saunas, steam showers and other similar
items;
b. Upgrades or addition of decorative items, including
lights, window coverings and other similar items.
c. Upgrades of appliances, plumbing and mechanical
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines -7-
Planning
7 -
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
fixtures, carpets and other similar items included as
part of the original construction of a unit and/or
improvements required to repair and maintain
existing fixtures, appliances, plumbing and
mechanical fixtures, painting, and other similar
items, unless replacement is energy efficient or for
safety and health reasons; and
iv. A simple appreciation rate of three percent (3%) per year or
Consumer Price Index appreciation rates per year whichever is
less for the first five years of ownership. For years six (6) through
ten (10) of ownership the appreciation rate grows to six percent
(6%) per year or CPI rate whichever is less. For years eleven (11)
and on of ownership the appreciation rate grows to nine percent
(9%) or CPI rate whichever is less. When a change in ownership
occurs the appreciation growth is reset.
4. Qualified Buyer.
a. Qualified buyers must meet the following criteria:
L An owner shall occupy the unit as his or her primary residence;
ii. Property must be occupied continuously with no more than one 30
day period of non -occupancy in a twelve month period;
iii. Provide at least three years of Federal Tax return documents to
prove that wage earnings are within the accepted range for a
particular unit;
iv. Provide documents to prove that 95% of their total earnings are
from an Eagle County employer. If the person is new to Eagle
County then written documentation from an Eagle County
employer may suffice. If the applicant is retired then
documentation of work in the 5 years prior to retirements from an
Eagle County employer may be accepted. Every two years these
documents must be resubmitted to prove continued eligibility;
v. An owner cannot own any other property in Eagle County at the
time of applying to purchase an Attainable Housing product in the
Town of Avon;
vi. An owner shall be either a full time employee working at least
thirty (30) hours per week in Avon or Eagle County, or a retired
person who has been a full time employee in Avon or Eagle
County•a minimum of four years immediately prior to his or her
retirement, or a person having a medical disability who has been a
full time employee in Avon or Eagle County a minimum of two
years immediately prior to his or her determination of disability, or
the spouse or dependent of any such persons who resides with
them; and
vii. No more than 2 non -related individuals may reside in the unit.
5. Lottery Process.
a. In the event multiple qualified buyers submit identical bids for the same
Attainable Housing unit a lottery process will be held.
b. Priority will be given to those who have worked for Eagle County
employers. Qualified buyers will be given a number of chances in the
lottery based on the length of time they have worked in the Eagle County.
These chances relate only to those households who have worked in
Eagle County four years or more. Any other qualified buyer, who has
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines -8-
Planning
8 -
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
worked in Eagle County less than four years, will receive only one chance
if a separate lottery is held. The following chances are given to qualified
buyers who have lived in Eagle County for four years or more:
i. Working in Eagle County greater than 4 years and less than 8
year - 5 chances;
ii. Working in Eagle County greater than 8 years and less than 12
years - 6 chances;
iii. Working in Eagle County greater than 12 years and less than 16
years - 7 chances;
iv. Working in Eagle County greater than 16 years and less than 20
years - 8 chances; and
v. Working in Eagle County greater than 20 years - 9 chances.
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines -9-
Planning
9 -
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
SECTION 4: Commercial Linkage Provisions
All new commercial development within the incorporated area of the Town of Avon shall
provide no less than twenty percent (20%) of the total housing unit need generated by
the particular development's employees. The employment generation rate shall be
determined pursuant to Eagle County's Nexus and Proportionality Study as summarized
in Table I — Commercial Employee Generation Rate. When required to develop one
Attainable Housing Unit, the developer shall build a two-bedroom unit. When required to
develop more than one unit, the developer shall- include a distribution of studio, one, two
and three bedroom units, priced in such a way that the square footage weighted average
sale price equals that which is defined as affordable in Section 3 titled "Inclusionary
Housing Provisions.".
All Attainable Housing units established pursuant to this section shall be offered at an
initial purchase price not to exceed the amount determined in accordance with Section 3,
Attainable Housing Provisions. Such Attainable Housing Units must contain resale
restrictions binding future buyers and/or sellers to the appreciation caps, primary
residence, listing and sales procedures, and other applicable requirements in effect at
the time of property transfer.
Table I - Commercial Emplovee Generation Rate
Land Use
(AA)
Total
Employees
Generated
(Per 1.000
(B)
Employees
Generated
Reduced for
u
Attainable
Housing
Unit Needs
u
Attainable
Housing
Requirements
Categories
Multiple Job
Employees
Reduced for
20% Mitigation of
Holdings
HA)/1.2 lobs per
Local Resident
Gross SF, Unit.
Households
with Multiple
Housing Unit
or Room)
Employeel
Needs
((C) X .2
Workers
B /1.92
Employees Per
Mitigation Ratel
Household
Bar/Restaurant
8.0
6.7
3.5
0.7
Lod in /Hotel
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.06
Commercial/Retail
3.0
2.5
1.3
0.26
Prope
Mang ement3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.02
Office
4.1
13.4
1.8
0.36
Overall
2.9
I 2.4
1 1.25
0.25
Source: RRC White Paper
All Calculations are based on Per 1,000 S.F. Basis
Y All Calculations for Lodging/Hotel are based on Per "Room" Basis
3 All Calculations for Property Management are based on Per "Unit" Basis
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines _10 -
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
SECTION 5: Unit Types
The table below sets forth the minimum Net Livable Square Footage for each unit type.
The table is based on the minimum "Livability Standards". It shall be the burden of the
applicant to demonstrate that the Attainable Housing units provided are integrated within
the development and are consistent with the size, type of amenities and finishes
provided for within the proposed development. Property owners may construct larger
units; however, allowable rent and sale prices for such larger units may not exceed the
maximum sale prices set forth in these Guidelines. The Community Development
Department shall review square footage and construction of units prior to issuance of
any certificate of occupancy for either market rate or Attainable Housing components of
a project.
Table 2
Unit Types
Size of Unit in Habitable Square Feet
Studio
500
1 Bedroom
700
2 Bedroom
900
3 Bedroom
1100
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines 11 -
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
SECTION 6: Potential Incentives
If a developer appears to have provided a combination of compliance measures that go
beyond the minimum guidelines for Attainable Housing, the Town of Avon, at their sole
discretion, may offer the following incentives:
A. Density Bonus: The Town may offer a density bonus over the otherwise maximum
number of units allowed by the property's zoning and development standards. A
rezoning to PUD would have to occur for a density bonus to be granted.
B. Site Design Flexibility: Provided that the standard of housing or the purpose/intent of
the regulation are not compromised, the Town may consider flexible application of
design standards such as minimum lot size, lot coverage, setbacks, parking and
landscaping. A rezoning to PUD would have to occur for the standards to be varied.
C. Priority Permitting: The Town may prioritize the project throughout various procedures
such as zone change, subdivision, variance, building permit, etc.
D. Public Funding Assistance: The Town may assist with the application process for
developers who decide to pursue funding assistance from state or federal agencies. The
Town may also choose to use funds to match state, federal or private grants.
Town of Avon Attainable Housing Guidelines -12-
Planning & Zoning Commission, September 4, 2007
C
0
Round Series Q►Cyiitldcr ►Instaroue l ❑►TrashQ►AshFrii►Ral,ch
Fountain
sTONEWEA ;
'91f --E WARR E
Round selles Slimaro piclurod on page 19.
2= 30 36 48 60
C Is
0 24
I
oo=?
36
U42 r—
V8'=r
M0001
Olrrall
omr411
Approx
Capadly
Numher
0iameiar
Height
Baso
111mctar
n01gh1
Oaa
waigtn
Cu. Fl.
RCG042
60
42
-50
56
41
48
373
58
RC603G
Go
3G
50
56 -
- 35 -
- AS
334 -
- 50
RC6024
Go
24
50
56
23
48
255
33
RC6018
00
18
50
56
17
48
216
24
RC4836
48
36
_
38
44
35
36
251
31
rIC4830
48
30
38
44
20
36
220
20
RC4824
48
24
38
44
23
36
189
20
RC4818
48
1s
38
44
17
3G
157
15
RC3630
36
30
20
32
29
24
_
153
13
1103624
36
24
26
32
23
24
130
11
RC3G18
30
18
26
32
17
24
100
8
nC3030
30
30
20
26
29
18
132
9
RC30211
30
24
20
20
23
18
110
7
RC3018
30
18
20
26
17
18
90
5
RC2424 24
24
18
20
23
16
79
11
RC 2418 24
1 18
18
20
1
17
"Gmm�m
63Instant
3
Fountain—SameSeries
RF7815 78
15
78
GB 1
0 1
64
425
100ga1.
Receptacle—Trash
Sanle
fOr Square
R7283G 28
36
1s
26 1
35
17
175 1
30+U.
a
Ash Urn—Saine
foil Square
Series
HA 1422 14
22
8 1
1'
12 1
21
7
50
1'I gal.
Bench
R07218 72
18
24
1
295
StandUNN ary M AbMa M dW1. U Q+apal l%br brams:O mirw tWWI m.M o110M in Mmaa �:YNY alil fWNI 61W.
rnusn upuons, pages 11u -tis FrettuonllyAsked Questions, pages 52-53
42 Order/ Information: 800-356.2462 Fax: 775=883-8306 V%febsiie: hltp://to�rivslonetiti'car.corn
-,..
Ar
Choosy? With this many choices you can be.
t
e
4
t Paseo Series
IUR9�c3?-:i3
;
0
Tuscan Series Veneto Series
pa.4is34-35 puww36-37
I
Lorraine Series Aventine Series
1kaM416 vmWV
Dubai Series
Iki1;a ,17
Jordache Series Quallro Series
IkON 38-39 Imps,10-11
Bollards Tables
Ikiar.. 8 Itiwt an
Order/ InTmrinalion: 500-356-2462 Fax: 775-883-8306 Websile: 19