The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 11060710. Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission ` '1'`i Meeting Agenda for November 6, 2007 VON 1' Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public C o L o R A D o Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road ON-SITE MOCKUP REVIEW (I 2:00m) Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane Description: On-site review of the revised mockup for the Timeshare West Final Design review. The last on-site review took place on September 4, 2007. WORK SESSION (5:00pm - 5:30pm) Description: Discussion of Regular Agenda Items. Work session is open to the public. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the October 16, 2007 Meeting Minutes. VI. Site Tour Follow-up I Timeshare West - CONTINUED Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane Applicant. Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner: Starwood Vacation Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Timeshare West project. This design was approved at the May 1, 2007 Commission meeting, and an on-site mockup review for this item is now required. VII. Lake Street Design Update Description: Review of the current Lake Street construction drawings. This project is scheduled for commencement in the Spring of 2008. VIII. PUD Amendment/ Hamel— CONTINUED Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision/ 3087 Wildridge Road Applicant. Land Planning Collaborative / Owner: Frank Hamel Description: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lot 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the currently entitled 3 duplexes (or •1 duplex and 1 fourplex) to five single-family residences. The five newly platted lots are Posted on November 2, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • Avon Public Library • On the Internet at htto://www.avon.orq / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions proposed with building envelopes, ECObuild Standards, and restricted to 5,000 square feet. This application was tabled from the June 19, 2007 and July 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. IX. Final Design Plans — Wildridge Duplexes - CONTINUED A. Property Location: Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5351 Ferret Lane Applicant/Owner.David Forenza Description: Final Design for a duplex residence on the last vacant lot on Ferret Lane in Wildridge. The design features a total of square foot building with wood, stucco, and stone siding. Sketch review for a duplex on this property took place at the July 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. This Final Design application has been revised since being tabled from the October 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. B. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Property Location: Cot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision 14080 Wildridge Road West Applicant: Michael Hazard / Owner: Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in Stucco and wood to diminish scale. C. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4090 Wildridge Road West Applicant. Michael Hazard / Owner. Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in Stucco and wood to diminish scale. X. Minor Projects - Wildridge Subdivision A. Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision Color Change Property Location: Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision / 5201 Longsun Lane Applicant: Matt Dietz / Western Sage Partners, LLC Description: A color change application for a single-family residence. The proposed change includes the use of reclaimed materials stained with a dark brown hue. B. Driveway Extension Property Location: Lot 81 B, Block 4, Wildridge / 5717B Wildridge Road East Applicant/Owner.Bill Hubbard Description: An application to expand the driveway parking area to the east and construct a MSE retaining wall approximately 11 feet tall. C. Snowrun Condominium Modifications Property Location: Lot 43, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 520 Nottingham Road Applicant: Ronald Tribelhorn / Owner. Sye Curtis, Unit A; Steve Smith, Unit B; and Ronald Tribelhom, Unit C Description: The applicant is requesting design approval for exterior modifications that were applied for in August of 2004. The project was granted a 15 month extension on their approval in July of 2006. The project is incomplete and the applicant has provided a summary of progress. Posted on November 2, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • Avon Public Library • On the Internet at httD:/iwww.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions A XI. Other Business A. Resolutions Resolution No. 07-03, A Resolution Recommending Approval of the Lot C PUD Amendment Application, application dated May 4, 2007 Resolution No. 07-04, A Resolution Recommending Approval of the Village (at Avon) PUD Amendment Application B. Future Agenda Items • Madison Partners Revised PUD XII. Adjourn Posted on November 2, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • Avon Public Library • On the Internet at htto://www.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions 41 a Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2007 AVO 1, NAvon Town Council Chambers c o L o R A D O Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road REGULAR MEETING Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Green. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Items XI, Master Sign Program, Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 126 Riverfront Lane; XII, Minor Project Application, A., Shed Addition, Property Location: Lot 41-13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road,; and Item XII, Minor Project Application, B., Lau Deck Remodel, Property Location: Lot 95A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2380 A Old Trail Road, were moved to the Consent Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Evans revealed conflict with Items VII, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Folson Annexation Parcel / Highway 6 & 24; IX, Sign Code Variance, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 77 Metcalf; and X, Final Design Applications, A and B, Courtyard Villas of Wildridge, Property Location: Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/4080 Wildridge Road West. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the October 2, 2007 Meeting Minutes. • Item XI, Master Sign Program, Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 126 Riverfront Lane Item XII, Minor Project Application, A., Shed Addition, Property Location: Lot 41- B, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road Item XII, Minor Project Application, B., Lau Deck Remodel, Property Location: Lot 95A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 12380 A Old Trail Road Commissioner Struve motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda with Commissioner Smith seconding the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VI. Site Tour Follow-up / Timeshare West - CONTINUED Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane Applicant. Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner. Starwood Vacation Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Timeshare West project. This design was approved at the May 1, 2007 Commission meeting, and an on- site mockup review for this item is now required. Formal mockup review will be November 6, 2007. Matt Pielsticker gave a brief explanation of Staffs Memo. Chuck Madison, East West Resorts, approached the podium to address the concerns of the mockup. Mr. Madison discussed the palates of colors considered by experts he consulted, changes in materials and elevations, and an explanation of how the decisions were derived. Commissioner Goulding voiced concern for the level and quality of mock up workmanship. Commissioner Struve mentioned that this project was looking similar to the hotel but better than previously presented. Commissioner Foster commented that the original mockup did not look like the original plans and was concerned it would remain as before and not the new look. This item was tabled to the November 6, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and a final_ on-site review. VII. PUD Amendment— CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Folson Annexation Parcel / Highway 6 & 24 Applicant: Lary Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC /Owner. Craig Folson Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a phased 112 unit condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. The property is immediately east of the 49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek condominium project currently under construction. This application was tabled from the February 20, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Commissioner Goulding questioned if wildfire mitigation was reviewed and concern with a fire on the 40% slope. Greg Macik, Tab and Associates, approached the podium to address Commission concerns. Mr. Macik began that he could not guarantee LEED certification, expressed that design standards were high quality, and this project would provide a large amount of open space, moved Phase I to the east, slightly away from the Gates project, lowered the height of the buildings, eliminated Phase III, reduced the size of the units, parking numbers were decreased, and mentioned that surface parking will exist. Lou Reese, Madison Partners, spoke from the podium to get feedback, gave other suggestions for Phase II such as to create 5 duplexes (10 housing units), requested increase in height to accommodate duplexes, reduce the square footage of the condo units from 1600 sq ft to 1300 sq ft, Commissioner review began with Commissioner Goulding voicing surprise of the new presentation that included duplexes. Commissioner Struve suggested townhouses versus duplexes, and walking paths were necessary. Commissioner Foster commented on the restaurant size change, duplexes were a good idea, suggested duplexes on either side of the main building. Commissioner Lane preferred the townhouse idea, roof ridge was a concern, and questioned the LEEDS process. Commissioner Smith found the townhouse concept interesting. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Chris Todd, Canyon Run Resident, approached the podium to understand the definition of conditional approval. Matt Gennett responded that this was an entitlement process. Mr. Todd expressed that elimination of Phase II with town homes was a good move, commented that Highway 6 was to become a 4 lane highway and, with access and egress, it would be 6 lanes and voiced concern that the landscaping would go away with the expansion of the roadway and requested a new site plan. Tom Hix, Canyon Run resident, commented that height was an issue, the structure was too tall and too wide for the site, commented that there are geologic hazards on the site, expressed that this project was on the wrong side of the highway and the wrong side of the river, basically the wrong location, canyon effect was still present, and the Future Land Use Plan specifically addressed the Folson Property with 7.5 residences p& acre and the developer was presenting 27.5 units per acre. Mr. Kelly continued that public benefit was tax revenue, was not concerned with maximizing revenue at the sake of the town, and voiced concerned for the impact to the historical ditch. Mr. Reese commented on the work of the developer and their commitment to going Green should be noted. Julie Eaton, local, commented that the building was esthetically pleasing, and that this would be a major improvement to the town as it was a good looking project. Craig Folson, property owner, voiced from the podium support for this project. Lance Kelly, Avon resident, suggested from the podium the elimination of Building I and place townhouses throughout, and noise issues were voiced. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Goulding questioned access to the town, easy route to town and the Westin gondola. Commissioner Lane questioned ceiling heights in the units with the response of 10 foot heights in the units. Commissioner Struve voiced concern with crossing Highway 6 and the Red Historic House, and traffic calming. Commissioner Struve moved to table Item VII, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Folson Annexation Parcel / Highway 6 & 24. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion to table. The motion passed 6 — 0, with all Commissioners approving. VIII. PUD Amendment— CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Village at Avon PUD Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG /Owner. Traer Creek Description: Amendment request to reconfigure the planning area boundaries of Planning Areas H, Neighborhood Center, I, Neighborhood Center, E, Village Residential, and F, Village Residential, in order to create a larger buffer between commercial uses and the adjacent existing Eaglebend drive residential neighborhood. Also part of the request is a text amendment to the PUD guide that will result in a modification to the current percentages and ratios of commercial -to -residential uses in order to permit more residential density in areas that are presently planned for more commercial square footage. This item was tabled from the August 21, 2007 and September 18, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Matt Gennett reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission. Dominic Mauriello, of the Mauriello Planning Group and representing the applicant, began his presentation with a review of the background, public comment and his impression of the sentiment from the neighbors in the Eaglebend neighborhood related to decreasing commercial presence adjacent to their street. The areas at issue are Planning Areas E, F, H, 1 and J, which are intended to be reconfigured with. this application in terms of commercial -to -residential square footages; and the size of Areas E, F, H and I are to be modified as well. No net change of square footage or land use would result from this application. Mr. Mauriello continued by stating that -the Amendment refines and improves the development, thereby establishing more of a 'village' atmosphere. Mr. Mauriello then voiced concern with Staffs report and his opinion that the conditions seem to violate the PUD Guide and Annexation Agreement, and discussed his letter that was provided in the Planning and Zoning packet. Mr. Mauriello continued that this Amendment would not eliminate any of the triggers for the ice rink / event center approved in Planning Area C; and the amendment is designed to appease the Eaglebend neighbors. Commissioner Evans commented that he does not disagree with Staffs conditions but that this Commission. is concerned with zoning and not legal issues. Mr. Mauriello continued that a traffic report would be provided at time of permit as the Code suggested and not prior to building as Staff has conditioned. He also stated employee housing being required in areas E, F, and H, is also problematic for the applicant. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Matt Gennett stated that a resident of Eaglebend, who had to leave prior to this item being heard, voiced concern for the potential height of buildings behind the Eaglebend development. No other members of the public commented. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner review involved only the zoning aspects of the application, raising concerns with Tract F gaining additional commercial space, the realignment of the the subject planning areas, and stated that the staff conditions should be handled by Town Council and are out of the realm of the Planning and Zoning Commission, claiming a neutral stance on staffs conditions. Mr. John Dunn suggested the Commission rely on staffs expertise on the issue. Commissioner Smith motioned to approve Item VIII, PUD Amendment; Property Location: Village at Avon PUD, Ordinance No. 07-10, modifying the subject Planning Areas (E, F. H, I, and J), as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion and the motion passed 4 — 2. IX. Sign Code Variance — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision 177 Metcalf Road, Applicant/Owner. BBG Holding Corporation Description: The applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 15.28.080(15) of the Town of Avon Sign Code. The request is to allow a freestanding sign within 10' from the front lot line. Matt Pielsticker presented Staffs Report with Matt Gennett gave explanation of photos in the behalf of the applicant, Chris Evans, who had reclused himself. Commissioner review included questions regarding other sites and their monument signs, and truckers having difficulty finding addresses. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING No members of the public approached the podium for comment. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Lane questioned other variances for signs in Avon, signs were a way finding tool, and voiced that the sign did not belong in a setback. Commissioner Foster questioned the height limitations on signs of this nature. Commissioner Struve commented that way finding on Metcalf was difficult and that the height could be adjusted higher but not placed in the setback. Commissioner Goulding commented that hardship must be proven. Commissioner Smith commented that the tree might block the sign anyway. Commissioner Foster motioned to approve the denial of Item IX, Sign Code Variance, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 77 Metcalf Road. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. All commissioners were in favor and the motion to deny was approved unanimously by the Commission. X. Final Design Applications - CONTINUED A. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Property Location: Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 Wildridge Road West Applicant/Owner. Michael Hazard/Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in Stucco and wood to diminish scale. B. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4090 Wildridge Road West Applicant /Owner. Michael Hazard / Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in Stucco and wood to diminish scale. Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report for both lots, as there were presented together. Michael Hazard, owner representative, began his presentation with some historical information on the project and other duplexes in the project area. Commissioner review included questions and comments on the views from each residence, the building footprint's proximity to and encroachment of the setbacks, adjustments for headlight issues, amount and type of landscaping and the proposed colors. Commissioner Struve questioned if the square footage included the garage and it was answered affirmatively. Commissioner Foster questioned the connection from C to D and commented that the louvers reminded her of a jail. Mark Slatkoff, local resident, approached the podium to question the setback encroachments, concerned with the sameness of all the units, had difficulty seeing any daylight between the structures, asked if the site coverage calculations could be redone and it that the project may negatively impact his home. Nigel Dagnall, neighbor to the north of this project, voiced that the original presentation was poorly done. He was concerned with parking in the area, light pollution from this type of window, chimneys size and height as compared to the rest of the buildings, white coloration and improvement from the original presentation. Emie Atlas, adjacent property owner, commented on how different this project is from others in the area. Ron Brethauer, owner of 4221 Wildridge Road, approached the podium to comment on the height and that this project would not be appropriate on Highway 6 so why should it work in Wildridge. He also mentioned that the structure was extreme and was concerned with light pollution. Ben Kleimer, Wildridge resident and realtor, voiced that people want to buy something new and didn't think it would tum into °a white elephant". Commissioner Goulding began the review by commenting that he measured the project by the Guidelines not by his personal preference and determined that it was within its limits. He also commented that courtyards were a nice approach, good articulation in both the vertical and horizontal planes, but was concemed that this would be perceived as one building and that the landscaping plan was wimpy and would benefit by being doubled. Commissioner Struve voiced concern about the main floor connection, the parking issue, and he stated that a lighting plan was needed and landscaping would be key. Commissioner Foster questioned staff regarding the lot lines. Commissioner Lane remarked that the style turned its back on the neighborhood and that- he liked the courtyard design but wasn't sure it fit this project. He also voiced disappointment with the materials to be used, stating that he expected different materials. Commissioner Smith voiced concern with the Residence C and D connection, how the two duplexes appeared as one big building and that a model would be useful for review. Commissioner Struve motioned to table Items X, Final Design Applications A. and B. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge, Property Location: Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 and 4090 Wildridge Road West. Commissioner Lane seconded the motions. All Commissioner were in favor and the motion passed 6-0. XI. Master Sign Program - CONTINUED Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 126 Riverfront Lane Applicant: Andy Gunion /Owner. Riverfront Village Hotel, LLC Description: A Master Sign Program Amendment to allow for tenant identification signs around the public plaza and gondola area. The signs include blade signs, awning signs, window signs, and freestanding signs. Moved to Consent Agenda. XII. Minor Project Application A. Shed Addition - CONTINUED Property Location: Lot 41-B, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road Applicant: James G. Downs, Tuff Shed, inc. l Owner.- Tony Prior Description: Construct an attached shed to the side of the subject property. The shed exterior finish will match the existing residence. Moved to Consent Agenda. B. Lau Deck Remodel Property Location: Lot 95A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2380 A Old Trail Road Applicant: Gary DeKoker/Owner. David Francis -Lau Description: A Minor Project application to remodel an existing deck on one half of a duplex structure. The remodel will include the addition of 370 square feet and the change from stucco to wood as the major material used. The application also includes a color change on both halves of the duplex structure. Moved to Consent Agenda. XI. Other Business X. Adjourn Commissioner Goulding motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Lane seconded. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary Memo: V,,, To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners AVO From: Matt Pielsticker, Planner c 0 L o a A D o Date October 30, 2007 Re: Timeshare West, Riverfront Subdivision Site Tour- Follow-up to Condition of Approval Introduction There is an on-site mockup review for the Timeshare West scheduled for 12:00 Pm on November 6, 2007. Staff and the applicant will be present to answer questions. The concepts that have been incorporated into the revised mockup were presented at the October 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The on-site review will be followed by action during the regular meeting on the same day. Background 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 reports changes to the design of the mockup since the Commission's September 4, 2007 review. Also attached to this Memorandum are new colored elevation drawings for all elevations of the building, which show the approved Final Design of the Hotel next to the Timeshare West. The relationship between the Westin and Timeshare West is essential to this review. Attachments • Letter from Applicant/Architect • 11" x 17" Colored Elevations Timeshare West, River6ont Subdivision November 6, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Studio Obermeier ■ Sheykhet Inc. ARCHITECTURE, PLANAUNG, INTERIOR DESIGN 1580 Lincoln Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone 303.327.4600 Fax 303327.4605 October 29, 2007 Matt Pielsticker 0 R�C�,V�O Community Development Department Com `� 0 ?0p% Avon, Colorado 81620 m�Mty �►q Be: SVO Timeshare West Design Modifications Westin Riverfront Resort, Avon, Colorado Attached are revised drawings for the Timeshare West project at the Westin Riverfront Resort. The team has revised the design, colors and materials to better coordinate with the adjacent hotel. The changes are as follows: 1. A flat Hardie Board sill panel has been added beneath each guestroom window, and has been painted to match the panel between windows to increase the size and scale of the window grouping. 2. Window divisions at the attic story have been center -divided to differentiate the fenestration at that level, similar to the hotel. 3. Small double windows have been combined into a single divided window to increase the size of the opening. 4. Window patterns and divisions over main entry have been modified. 5. Stone detailing has been modified to reflect hotel detailing - stone sills have been deleted. 6. Column base articulation has been deleted to reflect hotel detailing. 7. Metal paneling at entry tower has been re -panelized. 8. Chimneys at west side have been rotated to match the orientation of east side and to reflect the chimney patterning of hotel. 9. Metal fascia vertical joints have been added. 10. Attic story stone sill has been deleted and replaced by flush metal band that tracks continuously including the balconies (interrupted by vertical towers only) - detail is similar to the hotel. 11. West stair tower articulation has been revised to be consistent with overall architectural expression. 12. Two foot flat Hardie Board panels with 1/2" reglets have been substituted for shiplap siding at attic story to differentiate attic story. Detail is similar to hotel Hardie Board. ' J Studio Obermeier ■ Sheykhet Inc. in ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, INTERIOR DESIGN 1580 Lincoln Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone 303327.4600 Fax 303327.4605 The above changes, in total, create more refined expression that is more compatible with and complementary to the hotel. Sincerely, Aleksandr Sheykhet Studio Obermeier Sheykhet I ism m _7 W ME Milli MIS ism W ME MIS EI- I EI- ��- moi- I E2 I 0 Co N N O r Z O Q W J W J ON � H Z m Zcn W -i � J W CO W> w W Q w = Z W ? W H o 0 O N fD N O r Z 0 a w J J W Q H H N H W m C7 > Z Cf) W D � J y W m - W > W a� x z LU N 2 w 0 0 N tD N 0 r c Z O w, > W a. J W J F Q W m 7714 r W Win ,• l = W _ ®® W , QLU ®® 2 Z W N LLI c IIIII!lITII1T�1 PAJ A 1� 1= 0 CO) o N Z CO O N O W J W in uj CDa Q � J W m Z CO LLIW m - W> R W Q� x z CO) 0 LU Fo m w H G LU U a a z O a W J w F- U) LU J a a a w W z w O U O Ix F- 0 O F= w J w U) LU J a a a G C=O -,W Z O W Z GOD W 3 661 INIE."A"{!i6'I LU �� Q 0 08 ` w Gfi W a � I�!1!�alNl�l�!1!�0l w O o DC W a � Z W O � w Z J LU � H GOD !�6i!11!i !illihi!C!i!i�liin!1;!i!il!i I G w LU �� Q 0 08 ` w Gfi W a � age w O o DC W a � Z W O � w Z J LU � H GOD W LU J Q IJJ a a 1r Memo To: Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission From: Justin Hildreth, P.E., Town Engineer Jeffrey Schneider, P.E., Engineer II Date: November 02, 2007 Re: Lake Street Project Update Summary This memorandum is to provide Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) with an update on the progress of the design of the Lake Street project. The Lake Street project consists of construction of a new roadway from West Beaver Creek Boulevard on the north, to the Riverfront Lane railroad crossing on the south. The general alignment of the new roadway will utilize existing Benchmark Road near the Sheraton Mountain Vista, realign the intersection with the Falcon Point condominium entrance, and proceed south and west along the existing Recreation Center parking lot, through the beach volleyball court at the east end of Nottingham Park, and through the existing Municipal Building parking lot to Riverfront Lane. A brief PowerPoint presentation will be shown to illustrate the preliminary layout and selected design elements. Chronology • June 2007: The Town Center West Investment Plan is adopted by P&Z • July 10, 2007: Conceptual Plans presented to Town Council for initial design input • July 17th and 31`t, 2007: Town Center West Design Guidelines are presented to P&Z • August Ph, 2007: Avon Urban Renewal Plan is presented to P&Z • August 14, 2007: The Town Center West Investment Plan and Avon Urban Renewal Plan is adopted by the Town Council • September 11, 2007: First Lake Street design work session with Town Council • September 25, 2007: Lake Street design work session with Town Council to discuss parking layout • October 2007: Meet with Eagle River Fire & Protection District (ERFPD), Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD), and Town Departments including Recreation, Community Development, Public Works and Transportation Previous Town Council Action Staff presented concepts for Lake Street, contained in the Town Center West Investment Plan, to Town Council at the July 10, 2007 work session to obtain initial steering on the key design goals. At the preliminary design level, Staff held two work sessions and a site tour for with Town Council on September 11th and 25"'. At the work sessions, Staff received direction to eliminate parking along the west side of Lake Street due to concerns that the parking will obstruct views of the Nottingham Park and Buck Creek, and to demolish and revegetate the shared Library/Park/Recreation Center Parking (north of the Municipal Building and south of the Recreation Center Entrance). The changes will result in the elimination of 37 parking spaces in the Town Center West plan that will be added to the proposed parking garage. Town Council also directed Staff to include the installation of a pedestrian crossing on West Beaver Creek Boulevard to the north. - Inter -Department Cooperation Engineering staff is engaging ERWSD, and ERFPD, during the preliminary phase of the project design. Their input is necessary for determining fire hydrant locations and for the rerouting of the water and sanitary sewer lines in the area. Input was also sought from other Town of Avon departments including Community Development, Public Works, Transportation, and Recreation. The Transportation Department has requested a north bound bus pull-out on Lake Street between Main Street and the Recreation Center. The Recreation Center staff provided valuable input to the design of the project. The input includes moving the parking a lot away from the east side of the building, realigning the sidewalk away from snow build-up areas, improving the north recreation center entrance to be ADA compatible, and including power outlets for special events. Discussion General Lavout. A preliminary plan view of the project is attached as Exhibit A to this memorandum. The goal of the project is to construct a pedestrian and transit -oriented street providing circulation around the western perimeter of the Avon Town Center West district. The design is following the direction outlined in the Town Denver West Design Guidelines and Investment Plan. The primary layout for Lake Street is to provide two-way vehicular traffic, 45 -degree angle parking on the east side of the street, and a minimum of a six-foot wide sidewalk, with a four -foot wide buffer strip for trees, landscaping, and snow storage. Town Council directed Staff to minimize the impacts to Buck Creek and Nottingham Park by eliminating parking on the west side of Lake Street. The roadway section for the portions of the project with angle parking were researched by the design consultants and town staff, resulting in a horizontal section of 16 -feet for parking (not including the 2 - foot curb and gutter) and 12 -foot travel lanes. A preliminary cross section is included as Exhibit B. Other design elements include delineated transit stops, banding and scoring in concrete areas, raised crosswalks, and a raised plaza at the western terminus of the future Main Street. The snow storage plan is included as Exhibit C. The landscaping is designed to accommodate snow storage along Lake Street in the tree lawns. Some snow will have to be hauled off in the areas with out tree lawns. Sionacre and Wavfindino. A draft of the Lake Street Signage Schematic Design Package is attached as Exhibit D to this memorandum. This draft document details the various signs proposed for the project including monument signs for the Town Center West District and Nottingham Park, as well as lighting, transit, and vehicular signage. The Lake Street signage is in general conformance with the Avon West Town Center District Investment Plan. The proposed locations of the signs are included as Exhibit E. Recreation Center. The Town Center West plans for Lake Street portray a circular drop-off area in front of the Recreation Center. Staff feels that construction of the drop-off area should be concurrent with Main Street construction, so that the design and construction of the drop-off area can be completed after the Phase II Recreation Center Master Plan is updated in 2008. This will ensure that the future needs of the Recreation Center are met, and that the desired drop-off area configuration is designed to account for the Phase II Improvements to the Recreation Center, encouraging a seamless interface between the Recreation Center and the turnaround. Lake Street— Main Street Plaza: One of the more interesting design elements of this project is the Lake Street — Main Street intersection. It is being designed as a plaza or gateway connecting Main Street to Harry A. 0 Page 2 ti' Nottingham Park. Lake Street will be raised 4 inches so that it is at -grade with the pedestrian facilities, resulting in an elevated speed table for vehicular traffic calming, as well as a seamless connection for pedestrians between Main Street and the Park. Hardscape design elements will include colored concrete, pavers, trees and bollards. It is being designed in a similar theme to Avon Station, which is due to be complete on November Ie. The portion of the plaza west of the sidewalk will not be constructed as part of the Lake Street but instead in 2009 as part of the Main Street project. This is because TOA is undertaking the Harry A. Nottingham Park Master plan in 2008. The plaza design will then be coordinated with the master plan so that the design elements will be fully cohesive. Attachments: Exhibit A — Plan View Exhibit B — Road Cross Sections Exhibit C— Snow Storage Plan Exhibit D — Signage Schematic Design Exhibit E — Proposed Signage Location Plan 0 Page 3 1 North .................................. south Lake Street Plan Illustrative I � -- - - --' W. Beaver Creek Blvd. - " - -- ---' _ Pedestrian Crosswalk -- Entrance Art Piece - - -- -a 1 � I \ ;f Tdattve Grassgs , Buck Creek , f I Wetlands-Plant-i4g--- _ �' LI .�_ I 1 i Street Light ( p) —� I I III I� •� Pedtaian Crosswalk - If'r Custom Stone Bench � , Landscape Band Interpretive - - \ \` Buck Creek Concept a -� A Str6ctIli \ \�em I� /f 12 Turf Perennial Garden Buck Creek , Avon Recreation Center Lake Street North - Plan Illustrative ,A' OWN ((NTfR WI51 VOTI October ; 1,1-007 Perennial Garden Turf Transit Shelter South Bound 'Transit Stop Landicape,$and Norotin'd,,, Tran ' top i -,�iiitcr Season Bosque (Custom P;n iug.So -ep sent Season) 1 Arbor ��! Vine; Future Maiti':Street Connection � • � � � a I � l l S , • , } 3 Main Streei\Plaza �\ , i Sundial/ I' Water Feature / (Future Phase) Arbor w/ Vine:, T. + 5 , Harry A. Nottingham Park` !� _ / ,J _..- Pedestrian Cr ac':_o Lake Street South - Plan Illustrative iOwv LENTER WEST n lda_UA Usque i-ustom Pgvingto Represent Season) w Spr'ui��-�Seasour-fiosque (Custom Paving to Represent Season) Summer Seaspq 4gsque (Custom Pad ilk(I resent Season) Fire Station Library Lake Street Plan Illustrative A \'( 11 i 1 ♦ •- 'moi i B' North .......■ .......................... South I� A � 1 Lake Street Plan Illustrative A \'( 11 i 1 ♦ •- 'moi i B' North .......■ .......................... South A � 1 1 ; 1 � �L 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 - 1 1 1 � i 1 1 � � 1 1 � 1 G 1 c Lake Street Plan Illustrative A \'( 11 i 1 ♦ •- 'moi i B' North .......■ .......................... South v a wo a FA zz 0 �i LA V1 ��Vy F c ---..__L Q 1� W IJ a U I f1 V 1 T ' Jc` I CLI n C- W: 3 t � L I j Avon Recreation Center Hu 1 Library c�3 N C� c will I , I` 0 W 0 > N W Mr 0 w w M o 0 w 0 0 W 0 0 V 11 4Z O ; ; coo Q w J � U w to �J 0 z n o 1 w 0 i WR m I rl T O i Q � M W J 1 Q i U 1 � I J l� 0 M 4 � o H c v_t �I. 'CJ C C O R N 3 L D) J Y�VJ 3 l Stop 11!lel 1► Avon Town Center Sign Types ra Pedestrian Identification i Vehicular Directional ■ Street I.D. Traffic Control Transit Signage Destination I.D. ALL x_ !/ t/ — 1W 45, Stop Yield to LNoPedestrians 7 p TWI Ll I YUMF= (Lake Street and Benchmark Rd.) Staff Report PUD Amendment AVON November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting C o L o R A D 0 Report Date October 31, 2007 Project Type Planned Unit, Development Amendment Legal Description Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision; & Tract O, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Current Zoning Lot 38: 2 Units (Duplex) Lot 39: 4 Units (2 Duplexes or 1 Fourplex) Tract O: Drainage, Access, and Utility I. 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 five single-family residences. The five newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes, and home sizes would each be restricted to 5,000 square feet in size. Building design and "ECObuild" standards would be tied to the new properties. This application has been revised since the original submittal. While the general site planning layout is consistent with the original submittal utilizing a shared driveway concept; the number of single-family lots has been reduced from six to five. The previous "move -up" housing unit proposed for one-half of a future duplex on Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision has been eliminated from the proposal. Pursuant to feedback received at the July 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant is now proposing to enter the sites from the road with a driveway cut through Tract O, a Town owned parcel. 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 private driveway for the five single-family homes is being proposed. This report outlines all of the mandatory review criteria in Section V of this report for the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council to consider when reviewing this application. Based on review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this report, Staff is recommending DENIAL of this application. The findings which form the basis for this recommendation can be found in Section VIII of this report. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting II. Discussion Page 2 of 13 Staff struggles with this revised application due to the absence of a previously proposed 'move -up' housing unit. While the site planning work has been .improved, and single- family home sites would be compatible with the immediate neighborhood, the Public Purpose provisions and the Comprehensive Plan's housing policies cited in this report make it difficult for Staff to support this application in its current form. Staff provided support for the previous application, largely due to the 'move -up' housing provision that benefited the community, and responded to the Housing Needs Assessment (Dec 2006). All zoning applications must demonstrate a public benefit that cannot be achieved under existing entitlements, which this proposal does not. Green building standards and the possibility of utilizing this subdivision as a pilot project in Avon for the ECObuild standards are positive attributes, and are encouraged for all buildings in Town. However, it is difficult to ignore the level of disturbance and retainage required to install the driveway and utilities proposed in the first phase of construction. The ECObuild standards and green building techniques would result in efficient buildings that could be achieved without a zoning application on a voluntary basis. The rezoning and subdivision variance requests are not necessary to implement these positive practices. The fundamental question is whether or not the removal of one development right constitutes a benefit to the community? The current (revised) application is predicated upon the fact that the removal of one dwelling unit and the inclusion of ECObuild standards are benefits that could not be achieved without a zoning application. III. Background Benchmark Properties created the Wildridge Subdivision in 1979, shortly after the incorporation of the Town of Avon on February 28, 1978. According to the Wildridge Final Plat application for Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions, the overall development concept was for "abundant open space recreation areas around lots" with a density of "barely one dwelling unit per acre". The original Wildridge "Specially Planned Area" (now considered a "PUD" by default) and the accompanying Subdivision plat, were established with a specific purpose and intent: to offer a diverse range of housing types and options to serve a diverse local population. As such, the housing types in the Wildridge PUD and Plat are diverse: single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, etc - because the housing needs of the local population were, are, and continue to be diverse. It was not platted as a solely single-family home subdivision and PUD for a reason: Avon's local population is not homogenous. The population of Avon is comprised of diverse segments of the local (and global) population based on such attributes as income, household size, age, and lifestyle choices (i.e. - single, married, married with children, etc). Wildridge was designed on the premise that not everyone wants, or can afford, to live in a single-family house. When a four-plex, or a duplex, is rezoned and broken out into single-family homes, or effectively "down -zoned", the diversity inherent in the original plat and plan is Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 13 diminished, incrementally, over time with each and every such request for a rezoning. Concomitantly, the original purpose and intent of Wildridge is gradually unraveled, leaving fewer housing options for the local population. The intrinsic value of the diversity of housing types imbedded in the original plat and PUD plan become diminished every time a planned type of multi -family housing type, including a duplex, gets reduced to a single-family house product. Additionally, when a four-plex, or a duplex, gets "down -zoned" to separate single-family houses, the corresponding site disturbance with such a configuration increases proportionally with each newly separated -out unit (individual excavation for each foundation, impervious surfaces, roof forms, etc). By way of contrast, Mountain Star is a PUD and Subdivision comprised of solely single- family houses located on large lots meant to serve one homogenous segment of the population, arguably, a largely "second homeowner" population. In 1981, the Wildridge Subdivision was completely replatted with a total of 849 planned development units and is the foundation of the current zoning in Wildridge. Over the years, there have been some PUD amendments and transferring of development rights. Recently, there have been amendments wherein development rights have been altered and replatted. The most recent amendment was for the Dry Creek PUD in Block 2 of the subdivision, wherein a fourplex lot was converted to three single-family residences. This PUD amendment was also predicated on approval of a subdivision variance, and reduced the number of dwelling units by one. Construction of the Dry Creek PUD is now complete, and demonstrates the resulting appearance and disturbance experienced with additional separated single-family structures, as opposed to existing zoning. It should be noted that Staff recommended denial of the Dry Creek PUD, citing the following reasons: (1) The application failed to meet or advance land use and housing goals/policies (Policy A1.5, C1, C1.4 of the 1996 Comp Plan) relative to establishing or maintaining an appropriate mix of dwelling unit types for both lower and middle-income seasonal and year-round residents and their families; (2) The proposed development may be compatible in design, scale, and use with the types housing in the area, however a multi -family building would also be compatible with multifamily developments in the area, particularly the enclave of multi -family developments along Draw Spur; (3) Although the applicant proposed to reduce the allowable lot coverage by 10%, the extent of total site disturbance for 3 single-family residences may exceed the extend of total site disturbance of a clustered fourplex development; The other recent PUD Amendment approval was for the Western Sage PUD in Block 4. That development converted three triplex lots and one duplex lot (total of 11 development rights) into 8 single-family lots. Both of these PUD amendments were approved prior to the public benefit provisions being incorporated into the Town of Avon Zoning Code. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 13 IV. Public Notice Requirement 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 several adjacent and surrounding property owners. Several public comment letters have been received since submittal. All written public comment letters received to date are attached to this report as Exhibit D. V. PUD Design Criteria According to the Town of Avon Zonina 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." 1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. District 24 Wildridde 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 general 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." The proposed land use and layout appear to be compatible with existing surrounding development by respecting existing view corridors, and further restricting the allowed placement of structures on the sites with building envelopes. The southern exposure has been capitalized with the proposed subdivision layout. Future Land Use Plan (Comp Plan Page 27) The Future Land Use Plan envisions continued "Residential Low Density" development on the subject properties. 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. This application is in compliance with the Future Land Use Plan, with a density of approximately 2.3 units per acre. This calculation excludes all areas that would be classified by the Zoning Code as "non -developable", or in excess of 40% existing slope. Goals and Policies (Comp Plan Pages 37 - 63) The ComDrehensive Plan contains several regional policies related to land use and development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to all proposed PUD Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 13 AIIN plans in Town. Some of the policies that pertain to this application include the following: Policy B.2.3: Encourage cluster style development in areas of less density to promote creative and efficient site design that avoids impacts on environmental 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. There would be considerable degradation to the open space (Tract 39F) for construction of the driveway, utilities, and associated retaining walls. 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 Zonina Code. Lots 38A -38E would be at a density of approximately 2.3 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 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment was completed in December, 2006. This study finds a lack of most price ranges, particularly units below $450,000 value in Avon and Eagle County. As proposed, the expected housing type would far exceed this targeted home value. The previous submittal earmarked one-half of a future duplex unit on Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, for a'move up' housing unit. Staff found this potential 'move -up' housing unit to be a strong community benefit; which to some degree eclipsed concerns with the potential for additional second homes in the subdivision. Policy F2.2: Require that workforce housing is integrated with, rather than separated from, the rest of the community. Staff Comment: This application does not further this Policy, and may move in the opposite direction. 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. 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) 746.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 13 - Staff Comment: Development is proposed within areas of steep existing topography. The shared driveway can be considered a benefit; however, it is likely that development would reach further up the steep hillside with this approach, thereby making it more visible. 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. Additionally, some of the ECObuild standards work to provide water efficient development. ECObuild appears to be a positive, measurable approach to facilitate environmentally friendly building techniques. It would be difficult to enforce or guarantee that these standards would be met. The applicant is proposing to meet the minimum number of points required for the home sizes proposed (5,000 sq. ft. maximum), which would be 60 points or more. It is Staffs understanding that points could be quantified at building permit submittal. 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, which demonstrates the general materials and colors that would be utilized in this enclave type development. While the elevation is not binding, it suggests a high level of quality and architectural style. In Section III of the applicant's submittal, there are PUD Design Standards which require the 5 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 energy conservation including: 'Energy Star' appliances, in - floor radiant heat, 'Low -E' glass requirements, etc. There are also ECObuild standards that would be applied to each new lot. The entire model ECObuild regulations are included in the applicant's binder for your review. Where the PUD criteria are silent to architectural standards, the Town's Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion 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. 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 by the Subdivision. 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 Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 13 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. If this development were approved, Staff would recommend that grading and disturbances be limited exclusively to 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. In terms of design compatibility, a clustered development with uniform building and architectural standards should be compatible with other development in the subdivision. The resulting buffer zones between building envelopes should be reviewed carefully. Instead of two, or possibly three structures that would be experienced with the existing zoning, this development would provide four clustered structures at one end of the development site, and one stand-alone building near the pump house on the east end of the development. There is a mixture of single-family and duplex structures in the vicinity with varying bulk and mass. 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. Staff has no objection with single- family land use as it relates*to compatibility with surrounding uses in the vicinity; however, the Wildridge Subdivision conscientiously platted varied densities (i.e. single-family lots, duplex lots, 4plex lots, 6plex lots, etc) in order to provide a mix of housing types. The continued shift to larger single-family homes may not work to further the purpose and intent of the Wildridge Subdivision. 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. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 13 hllI 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 home site development as proposed; however, the driveway would cross through "Tract 39F." 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 and may result in buildings higher than would be experienced with existing entitlements. A four-plex or two duplexes on Lot 39 (as current zoning permits) may result in a more responsive development to the existing topography. Extensive site retention and mitigating measures would be essential for this development to function. Of particular concern to residents and the Planning and Zoning Commission at the public hearing was the appearance of the long, linear series of retaining walls associated with driveway construction. The applicant has attempted to limit the visual scars of these retaining walls by taking height off the upper walls, and adding it to the lower walls. The intention is to further mitigate the appearance with landscaping in front of the lower walls. 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 five proposed residential units. A hammerhead turnaround is also proposed between Lot 38C and Lot 38E. This turnaround was designed with fire department and Trash removal vehicle maneuverability in mind. It appears that visibility is good in each direction entering and leaving the proposed curb cut location. The applicant's preferred access option is through Tract O, which is due to lesser existing grades and the ability to keep the Lot 35A home site lower. 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 undeveloped 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 may help to preserve Views; however, all of the homes on Longsun Lane have been surveyed and the ridges of the structures on Lots 38A -38E would not inhibit views from above. The views from the homes below the project site on Wildridge Road East are focused to the south and in the opposite direction. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 9 of 13 AIIA 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. This development is non-functional without approval of the subdivision variance request. The PUD amendment application is predicated on approval of a preliminary subdivision plan and subdivision variance application, which has been submitted in conjunction with the application for review by Town Council. The applicant has included a timeline for completion of the project on Page 11 of the submittal. The driveway access and utilities would be constructed in the first phase of construction. After construction of the driveway in 2009, 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. Adequate services can be provided for this proposal. 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. 11.That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to cant' 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 site planning that has gone into the design. However, the current zoning entitlements would not preclude the aforementioned public purpose and the quality is possible without rezoning the PUD. 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. Social community benefits are difficult to measure; however, the housing style contemplated with this PUD zoning application does not demonstrate social benefits. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 10 of 13 ME; Large single-family residences have continually widened the housing gap in Avon, creating an incentive for locals to move down valley or elsewhere. While price per square foot numbers indicate that multi -family residences are not significantly different than those for single-family residences, it can be argued that that multi- family units such as those that would be built on Lot 39 under current entitlements would be smaller, and therefore a benefit for those trying to buy or stay in Avon. Other adverse impacts include the greater amount of site disturbance with the increased intensity of use on the land associated with single-family homes. 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 a level of certainty with regard to the siting of development. VI. 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: 1. Based upon the maximum building sizes proposed and the nature of the units (single family vs. multi -family), the development requires 8.33 SFE's compared to the original 6 SFE's proposed for the lots. 2. Avon Municipal Code Section 16.20.150 (4) requires that owners of record of all parcels adjoining the proposed subdivision, including parcels separated by a public right of way, be included in the maps for the project. 3. The Town of Avon Master Drainage Study requires that sites with 25, 000 square feet of impervious service provide a stormwater control plan. Plans shall be provided according to section 16.20.180 (4) of the Avon Municipal Code. 4. It appears that the 4' asphalt pan located on the north side of the access road will sheet flow across the drives creating an ice build up during snow storage runoff. Also, clarify how the 4' asphalt pan drains between stations 5+00 and 6+00. 5. Closed mesh drainage grates must be used. CDOT Type "C" inlets are inappropriate for residential development. 6. The drainage pipe shown day lighting between lots 38D and 38B must be extended to the roadside ditch located at the south side of the lot. Erosion control must be provided at the pipe outlet. 7. The storm water, sanitary sewer and water lines must be located at least 10' apart. 8. All retaining walls taller than 4' or supporting a roadway, will require a Building Permit and structural plans stamped by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 11 of 13 9. The existing tank drain line located on the Town's lot east of the new access point must be shown on the utility plan and the proposed development must accommodate the outflow. 10. Top and Bottom of Wall elevations are required on all retaining walls. 11. The west portion of the access easement that ends on lots 38C, D and E must be more clearly delineated. 12. Curve data must be provided for the five new chord lengths along the south side of the existing lot line. 13. Section 16.24.130(2) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code requires that addresses be shown on each lot with numbers circled. 14. Section 16.24.130(5) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code requires that township and range lines be shown on the vicinity map. 15. Section 16.24.130(6.1) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code requires a title insurance company or attorneys certificate be included on the plat. 16. Section 16.24.130(6.g) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code requires a recorder's certificate be included on the plat. 17. Section 16.24.130(6.h) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code requires that a statement declaring whether or not lots may be converted to timesharing units be included on the plat. 18. The current Certificate of Dedication and Ownership appears to indicate that the access easement will be dedicated to the Town of Avon. The PUD and certificate must make clear who will be responsible for maintaining the new access road, and that the Town of Avon will not be responsible for maintenance of the drive. 19. If applicable, a lien holder's certificate should be included in the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership. 20. Plat notes should be located on the first page. 21. The current Surveyors Certificate has a grammatical error listing the subdivision as WiIdride". 22. Sheet 6 of 7 Plan and Profile sheet cuts off the northwest corner of lot 38E. Clarify how the north side of lot 38E drains. VII. Subdivision Variance The lot configurations presented in Preliminary Subdivision portion of this application require that a Variance 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 linear frontage span 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. The front property lines of lots 38A, 38C, and 38E all have less than a twenty-five foot length abutting Wildridge Road East. According to Chapter 16.12 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Town Council may, at its discretion, grant variances from some or any requirements of the subdivision regulations based up the following criteria: Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 12 of 13 flF (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. There have been other Variances granted from Chapter 16.40.330 of the Avon Municipal Code, the most recent being for the Dry Creek PUD in Block 2 of the Wildridge Subdivision. VIII. 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 conflict with the following housing -related Policies, as outlined in the Town of Avon Comorehensive Plan: 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. Policy F2.2: Require that workforce housing is integrated with, rather than separated from, the rest of the community. 2. The application fails to provide evidence of substantial compliance with the public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municioal Code. IX. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends DENIAL of the Hamel PUD application for Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, due to the findings cited above. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 13 of 13 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, `4 = - Matt Pielsticker Plarrei-W- X. Attachments EXHIBIT A: Applicant's Binder EXHIBIT B: Vicinity Map EXHIBIT C: Comprehensive Plan Excerpts EXHIBIT D: Public Comment Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 x:11: Town District Planning Principles However, the gateway approach needs to be redesigned to enhance the overall image of the community including but not limited to lighting, road and right of way materials, enhanced view corridors, and signage. The emphasis should be on the creation of a positive entry experience that extends the character of the Town Center to Avon's front door. Planning Principles: Enhance the intersections at the on/off ramps on Avon Road to include streetscape improvements and special landscape features. • Maintain the cottonwood trees that contribute to the gateway experience. Improve the I-70 interchange_ for pedestrians and bikers. District 24: Wildridge Residential District This area consists of a residential subdivision containing varying densities, located on the sunny, south -facing slopes north of the main valley floor. The character for the developed landscape should reflect the area's dry climate and typically steep terrain with low water -requiring plant materials and natural landscaping. Due to the limited amount of existing trees and shrubs and the open character of the property, special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings. Plannitig Principles: • Redesign the intersection of Metcalf and Nottingham Roads, and implement the other recommendations for District 4 to enhance the entry to Wildridge and provide more direct access from the Town Center to Wildridge. • Construct bicycle lanes along Metcalf and Wildridge Roads. Promote a trail system through open space areas in Wildridge to provide alternatives to the roadways for pedestrian circulation and greater connection to the surrounding open space. • Preserve and enhance the existing open space trails and explore the possibility of developing additional parcels into pocket parks. Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan �� Q Page 98 Town District Planning Principles • Acq_uire and maintain as public open space the U.S. Forest Service -owned parcel adjacent to Wildridge that includes Beaver Creek Point. • Add an alternative or second access route to Wildridge (perhaps forest service road during the spring and summer). • Identify and delineate all open space parcels and public hails. • 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. District 25: Mountain Star Residential District This area is a planned unit development established in 1992, of large -lot, single-family homes, located east of Wildridge on the south -facing slopes north of the main valley floor. This covenant -controlled, gated community has its own design review committee. Planning Principles: • Prohibit significant alteration of natural environment and minimize stress on wildlife and loss of habitat. • Consider the development of a trailhead to access the surrounding public lands. District 26: Swift Gulch District The Town of Avon's Public Works and Transportation Departments are located in the Swift Gulch District. In response to the area's high visibility from I-70, efforts have been made to screen the existing buildings and facilities and ensure that they blend into the surrounding environment. Planning Principles' • Encourage building at a scale that minimizes visibility from • Screen accessory uses with landforms and landscaping. • Encourage sidewalks and pedestrian connections. own of Avon Comprehensive Plan KEW age 99 R z a J CL W N z LU2 W cc a O u z O a LL O z 0 0 July 17, 2007 4SAME To: Avon Town Council and {?+ Board of Planning and Zoning From: Greg and Janet Kazan 7956 Steeplechase Drive Palm Beach Gardens, Fl., 33418 Homeowners of: 5191 Longsun Lane # A, Wildridge, Co., 81620 Dear P & Z, We wish to voice our opinions at this time on the Wildridge East Road proposed property development, lots #38, #39, #41. There are several different scenarios upon which they can be built. 1. However, we do not want a road built on the property, instead individual driveways for each resident. That extra road and retaining wall will scar Wildridge from miles away. 2. We feel like the middle lot should have been taken into consideration as a non - buildable lot when the builder bought it, instead of trying to make up for lost income now by increasing the density on lots 38, and 39. 3. We are extremely concerned about the heieht and densitv. Therefore, as we discussed, please allow those homes on lots 38 & 39 only to be a maximum of 28-30' high. As far as the density, we all think five homes on two lots is too congested, thus one or preferably two of those homes should be eliminated. 4. If the builder chooses to build multifamily, we are extremely concerned about the values of our oronerties "hieh uo" because there are no townhomes (fourplexes) up there to date. So if you approve multi -family, wd ask that only duplexes be built on those lots. In addition, since we weren't notified of the fast two meeting, please notify us of the next P & Z meeting at the address above. Thank you for your attention in this important matter, and we thought that the P & Z Board had great comments at the July 17a` P & Z meeting. You all really seem to care about this little town of Avon. Respectfully, Greg and Janet Kozan RECElVEt9 AUG 0 6 2007 Community Devebprrent Avon Planning and Zoning Commission Avon Town Council July 30, 2007 Please, Regarding: Rei-EIVFD .j ll'' .4 II c00 00mmunity uvFlaiwmant . PUD Amendment / Hamel — CONTINUED Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road Applicant: Land Planning Collaborative /Owner. Frank Hamel Description: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lot 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the currently entitled 3 duplexes (or 1 duplex and 1 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 June 19, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. It is our strong opinion that the applicant be denied. The reasons are too many to list here but the highlights are: 1- The applicant bought the property with full knowledge of the grade, and other obstacles regarding building on the site. 2- The proposed road is not a desirable solution for any of us — especially the wall. 3- The offer of any kind of housing to be dedicated — under any circumstances should not be a reason to consider this project any different then with out the offer. And if the housing is only price controlled for the first purchaser — it is not price controlled. 4- All of us understood when buying are own property the development that was on the books around us. We can live with that. The variance being requested is of a monumental magnitude and we request that you deny it. Using this proposal to buildone home on each lot might be considered something to look at. Using this proposal to build the same number of dwelling units on these lots under the conditions being offered are not something we believe should be considered, at all. We plan on attending each and every meeting to ask that you deny this request. We suggest to the owner they go back to the drawing board and use their resources to design and build what is available to them on these lots individually. Brian and Pat Nolan July 17, 2007 To: Town Councilmen From: Greg and Janet Kozan We wish to voice our opinions at this time on the Wildridge(=ah proposed property to be developed by There are 3 lots and they have different scenarios in which they can be built upon. 1. We do not want a road built on the property, instead individual driveways for each resident. 2. We feel like the middle lot should have been taken into consideration as a°non- buildable lot when the builder bought it, instead of trying to make up for lost income now by increasing the density of the other most eastern lots. 3. We are extremely concerned about the heieht and orivacv. therefore, do not want to see those houses pushed all the way to the back of the lots. . 4. We are extremely concerned about the values of our nronerties "hish uo" because there are no townhomes up there to date. Obviously, we have paid higher prices just to be up high in order to take advantage of the views. 5. We are developers in Palm Beach Florida and if there is anything we disa ee with, it is a variance. We do not believe there should be a variance in the case due to it setting a precedence here in Wildridge and thus, continuing to decrease our values. Thank you for your attention in this important matter, and we thank you ahead for any cooperation or compromise that you afford us as property owners and neighbors. Sincerely, Greg and Janet Kozan 5191 Longsun Lane RECEIVED JUL 17 2007 Exhibit C To: Recording Secretary, Town of Avon _IVE® (sent via email to Matt Pielsticker, mnielstickerAavon.ore) jug I 1101? From: Anne Clark and Doug Baird, homeowners OOMMW* pev"MOU 5021(E) Wildridge Road East anneclarkCaNnsn.com 748-4565 Re: Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting for June 19, 2007 PUD Amendments – Public Hearing Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East Date: June 17, 2007 The following is to voice our concerns about the proposed amendment to the Wildridge PUD. We have reviewed the Hamel PUD Amendment document of May 11, 2007 and are familiar with the proposal. While some of the benefits are appealing, there are a number of issues that are problematic: 1. The clustering of five single-family units at the west end of the property creates a massing of homes. This is inconsistent with the Town of Avon's goal to minimize the (visual) impact of development. 2. The homes proposed on the west end of the property are remarkably close to the existing homes on the west and north boundaries. 3. Clustering five homes at the west end of the site, close to existing development to the west, intrudes into—and most likely blocks—an important wildlife migration corridor that runs north -south at the west end of the property. 4. Lots 38 and 39 appear to be among the steepest in Wildridge. The builder would need to cut into the bedrock to construct the homes. We're concerned whether the site can sustain six -5,000 square foot homes. 5. In general, we are concerned about overall safety, the traffic impact, and the treatment of the rock face. We understand that six dwelling units are consistent with the original zoning and that development is inevitable. However, we question the original thinking to put so many units on such a steep site; we concerned about whether the site can support six single- family residences of (up to) 5,000 square feet each. We urge the Town Council to decline the proposed amendments requested by the Hamel' development project. Thank you for your consideration. Steven G and Elsa B Reiss 5 Cawdor Bum Road 5021 Wildridge Road East, Unit W Brookfield, Ct 06804 Avon, Colorado Tel 203-775-6431 Tel 970-748-1412 June 18, 2007 RECEIVED To: Recording Secretary, Town of Avon JUN 18 2007 (sent via email to Matt Pielsticker, moielsticker0avon.orc) �ftnftY Dsve iit From: Steven and Elsa Reiss elsareissOaol.com 203-770-0485 cell Re: Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting for June 19, 2007 PUD Amendments — Public Hearing Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East We have reviewed the Hamel PUD Amendent document of May 11, 2007 and we oppose adopting this amendment. We are pleased that the building philosophy Will be "green" and the building style will be consistent with current homes in the area. The donating of a lot and deed restricted home in Lower Wildridge is certainly a plus, however, the negative aspects of this project are alarming. Building six large individual homes on such a small amount of buildable land does not work well for these lots. The larger lot is zoned for 2 duplexes or one fourplex. Since most of the land on that lot is unbuildable, the builder is designating that as open space. Five of the six houses are being built very close together on the western end, creating a huge mass of large buildings. This is not in keeping with the ambiance of the rest of the Wildridge development. There have been many rock and soil slides, and we are concerned not only about the visual impact of this mass of buildings, but also the environmental impact. Because these lots are the steepest in Wildridge, we feel that the town of Avon should be very careful in what they approve to be built there. It seems that because it is too difficult for the builder to build what has already been approved, he is seeking changes from the Town of Avon for his purposes only. These changes will not benefit us enough to allow this site to be developed as he wishes. We would recommend that only three houses be allowed to be built in that area instead of six. The homes that are proposed to be built on the western end are much too close to existing homes and to each other. The density of these proposed homes will impact wildlife migration, an important aspect of Wildridge living. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the meeting on July 19"'. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 07/16/2008 19:05 4128875072 JOHN SALKOI rAat ni RECEWL JUL 1 6 2007 @ -71t-?P community Development r`r`"' los Ate: PUNNING AND ZOFIFG COMMISSION JULY 16l 2007 MATT PIELSTICRER AVOW, CO. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVON, CO. My nage is John if. Salko, and I live an 5177 Longsun Lane in ilildridge Subdivision. i am about 30 feet from the proposed new development on Aildridge Rd. Pass-. I bought this Hast Duplex Home in 1988(the first, Unit on Longsun Lane)frow Buzz Reynolds Corp. and enjoyed living in this lovely home in Wildridge. Each morning I was awaketi by Che beautiful sun- rise from the Fast. and the spectaculor setting of tIe sun in the evening. 1 thought that for the rest of my life I would enjo3 the beauty of Dea- ver Greek, Bachelor Gulch, Arrow Read and the New York Mountain Range. And then this pass week I found out from my neighboi(uot from the town of Avon) that the lots which are 30 feet from my property were being developed for one single home and a five unit duplex. Can you image the feeling I had in my hears. to see the lose of a million dollar view disappear in a flash of a awm lt. The thought of not having this beautiful view sadden we very much_ 4s ,you can tell from the words that I am definitely against this proposed naw development. Everyone on Longsun Lane is very, very up- set that the [.vw of Avon would allow this development to wove forward. I strongly hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission would at bear to the voices of the r,:sidents on Longsun Lane and not allow this development to go any further. This development would drastically ;lower the value of all the hoses on Longsun Lane. It is my hope and the hope of all the residents on Longsun Lanv that this proposal will be defeated. Thank you so such for listening to my words and I hope that this letter gives the Planning and Zoning Board a nerter idea of bow the residents on Langsun Lane feel about this proposed d.•volopment. With beat regards, John H. Salto Leslie Roubos 5039 Wildridge Road E P.O. Box 2119 Avon, CO 81620 July 16, 2007 Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission do Recording Secretary Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 To Whom it May Concern: I am writing a second letter to ask for your consideration in not approving the amendmem, as it has been submitted, for the Wildridge PUD for Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision (5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East). I have met with the developer's planner and architect to review their plans, and we walked the property together. I think they've done a good job in trying to do what the developer wants; however, I think that what the developer wants is too much and, as someone who is directly impacted by this development, I strongly urge you require him to alter his amendment request. As I stated in my original letter to you date June 16, 2007, when I purchased my lot, which is directly below Lots 38 and 39, I did soon the reliance of the current PUD designation for this property. I knew that this meant that there would be two, possibly three, years of construction on the site. 1, and my existing neighbors, purchased our properties in good faith based on the existing zoning and construction timeframes. My understanding now, after my meeting with the planner, is that this project will most likely take 7 years of construction; 1 year for the driveway and infrastructure followed by 1 year per home. That is absolutely unacceptable and is in no way at all good for the surrounding community. As I mentioned in my first idner to you, we moved here for the quality of life and knew that based on the current zoning, we would be subject to 2 — 3 years of construction on those two lots. To now propose 7 years of construction would severely impact the quality of life of not only those of us who live in the surrounding neighborhood but also of every single person who lives in the VAddridge subdivision. In addition to the excessive years of construction, I strongly believe that the developer should be required to reduce the density from 6 to 5 units. Single family homes are more 0 Frown: Alice Leeds ja0oeWaflmeetlrW.comj Soft Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:01 PAA To: SODUafeamolce.com Subjeft Emailing: Wildridge Sill Family Homes 001.jpg, Wiidridge Sgl Family Homes 002.jpg, VVOdrWge Sgi Family Homes 003.Jpg Attachments: Wildridge Sgl Family Homes 001.jpg; Wildridge Sgl Family Homes 002.jpg; Wildridge Sgl Family Homes 003.jpg Wrldge Sgi Fara"Wr lge Sgi FarrdW&k*e Sgi FwNiy , V Hanes 001... Hames 002.. Hanes 003... -A Hi Scott - Thanks so much for taking the time to get involved with the petition for the Wildridge lots. I've attached three photos that I just took of five single family homes that was built below me in lower Wildridge, similar to what they want to rezone for by us. I hope these photos will help show the density when trying to squeeze in too many homes. Good luck, Alice The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Wildridge Sgl Family Homes 001.jpg Wildridge Sgl Family Homes 002.jpg Wildridge 3g1 Family Homes 003.jpg Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. RECEIVED JUN 18 2007 Community Dwelopmerrt 1 JUN 7 8 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattem of the houses on Wildridge Road East. Name: 41,16E %Ds Address: So -:n 4 ki'1 r 4e 12d &.U - Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: RECEIVED JUN 18 2001 Communtty Development To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wildridge Road East. Namef I� a, �,OffiVz-& — � Address: 6 &'111-014"OGe A Name: . I�c a7— 7.=11 A Address: 37) 7,y w►(�F1� R� Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: RECEIVED JUN 18 2001 Dom wntty Devalopmant To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wildridge Road East. Name r e/ —Address: �/6.F Name:,' Z� Address: rvl!�--w Name ,��J. Al e-,, _ 7 Address: A-odo( 1 Name: '<� Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: RECEIVED JUN 1 8 2007 Community DWGIO mem To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the VVildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wil e Road East. :i Name o Address: SO 3 9 l Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: * Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: RECEIVED JUN 18 2007 community Development Leslie Roubos 5039 Wildridge Road E P.O. Box 2119 Avon, CO 81620 June 18, 2007 Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission r!o Recording Secretary Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 To Whom it May Concern: RECEIVED JUPI 18 2007 Ovmmunity 00opme0t I am writing in protest of the request for an amendment to the Wildridge PUD for Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision (5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East). When I purchased my lot, which is directly below Lots 38 and 39, I did so on the reliance of the current PUD designation for this property. I knew that this meant that there would be two, possibly three, buildings on the site. It is not appropriate to increase the number of buildings and size of each footprint given that all of us who already live in this area purchased our properties in good faith based on the existing zoning. The owner of the property purchased it knowing what the current zoning called for, as did the rest of us in Wildridge. Changing the zoning to allow for six 5,000 square foot units is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. The proposed homes are excessive for the size of the lots and would create 6 separate buildings on the sites as opposed to two or three separate buildings as currently zoned. Allowing six separate structures increases the impact to the land and a general loss of open area that would have existed around the buildings. We all moved up here for the quality of life and knew that based on the current zoning, we would be subject to 2 — 3 years of construction on those two lots. To now propose, realistically, 5-6 years of construction (presumably one year per home) would severely impact the quality of life of not only those of us who live in the surrounding neighborhood but also of every single person who lives in the Wildridge subdivision. The noise pollution and traffic during construction is aheady unbearable and to propose to increase that by another 3 years or so is unacceptable. To that end, while I do not think that a fourplex on one of the lots is appropriate either, given the quality of the surrounding homes, I do believe that 3 duplexes, limited in size to 4,000 square feet each, would be a much more appropriate option and would fit in nicely with the surrounding neighborhood In the spirit of looking for solutions, and despite my argument above of not increasing the number of buildings allowed on the site, I could also possibly be convinced that four smaller single family hones, limited to 4,000 square feet each, might be an appropriate use of the land. In a perfect world, I would like to see more lots developed as I did mine... by decreasing the density on the lot rather than increasing the size and number of buildings on each lot. Thank you for considering these arguments. Sincerely,` _. _ - Leslie Roubos cc: Ron Wolf Tamra Underwood Dave Dantas Kristi Ferraro Rich Carroll Amy Phillips Brian Sipes Staff Report FINAL DESIGN PLAN �Q N C O L O R A D O November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date November 1, 2007 Project type Duplex Residence Legal description Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning 2 Units — PUD Address 5351 Ferret Lane Introduction The applicant, David Forenza, has submitted a Final Design application for a duplex structure on Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, accessed off of Ferret Lane. The two residences within the proposed structure are 4,715 sq. ft. and 5,064 sq: ft. (inclusive of garage area) and are designed in a Mountain Rustic architectural style utilizing wood siding and stone on the exterior walls. Included with this report is a vicinity map (Exhibit A), and a reduced set of plans with a site plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit E). The proposed design for a duplex structure does riot seem to address the concerns voiced by the Planning and Zoning Commission at previous hearings, however, the design does conform to the minimum design criteria and zoning standards. Specifically, the applicant was directed by the Commission to further reduce the continuous linear width of the proposed structure, side setback to side setback, for the entire depth (length of side walls along each side setback) of the structure prior to resubmitting plans to staff. Review History At the Commission's July 17, 2007 meeting, a Sketch Design application for this property was reviewed and several comments were made, including the following: the design spans the width of the property and is excessive with regard to the size of the lot, the elevations look repetitive and redundant, the excessive use of gables on the roof form, the lack of a quality amount of base material, and the location of the driveway and excessive retaining wall. At the Commission's October 2, 2007 meeting, a Final Design application for this property was reviewed and several comments were made, including the following: the large size of the structure was a concern as it spans the property setback to setback, the landscaping plan appeared to be pods of landscaping instead of looking natural, and the "mirror image" appearance on the south elevation of the duplex. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Forenza Duplex Final Design A November 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 7' Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Review Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items when reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zonina Code. • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the duplex zoning. • Density. The lot is zoned for a duplex and the density is appropriate. • Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is 50%. The project is in compliance with the PUD, proposing 36% lot coverage, and this coverage ratio is for all impervious surfaces compared to the entire size of the property. • Setbacks: The setbacks for the property are typical for Wildridge with a twenty- five (25') foot front yard setback and 10' side and rear yard building setbacks. The twenty-five (25') foot front setback is measured from the front property line adjacent to Ferret Lane and all building setbacks have been adhered to with this submittal. Even though the building is within all required setbacks, an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) will be required to document the exact location since the building does abut the eastern and western side yard setbacks, as well as the northern front yard setback. • Easements: A Utility and Drainage Easement of ten (10') feet in width borders the south side of the property (rear yard), while a seven and one-half (75) foot wide Utility and Drainage Easement borders the west, southeast, and east sides of the property (sideyards). It is not advised to place landscaping within platted easements; however, it is the owner's responsibility and expense if this landscaping requires removal and replacement in the future. • Building Height. The maximum allowable building height for this property: is thirty-five (35') feet. This design meets this maximum with a proposed height of thirty-five (35'-0") feet. Since the proposed design maximizes the allowed height, staff recommends that the height be slightly reduced to allow for construction variations. Again, this requirement would need to be verified by planning staff with an ILC at the time of ridge construction. • Grading/Drainage: All existing and proposed grades are indicated on the site plan. • Parking: This project requires three (3) spaces for each dwelling unit (two (2) per unit under 2,500 sq. ft. / three (3) per unit over 2,500 sq. ft). The applicant is proposing a total of two (2) interior and two (2) exterior spaces for the west unit and a total of three (3) interior and two (2) exterior spaces for the east unit. All of the spaces appear to be functional and this plan adheres to these requirements. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Forenza Duplex Final Design November I, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to Page 3 of 7 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist on the property for a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Guidelines. A. Site Development: o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put an emphasis on site layout design and state that structures should blend in with natural settings and limit the need for extensive site grading and slope retention. Additionally, buildings should be stepped -in appearance where practical and necessitated by steep slopes. The application has been slightly modified since the previous review. The eastern side of the building has been moved two (2') feet further from the setback creating a maximum of five (6) feet from the setback and a minimum of three (3') feet. The western portion of the duplex was also moved further from the setback. The southern portion of this elevation has been moved five (6) feet from the setback while the northern portion of this elevation (garage area) still abuts the setbacks on its north and west sides. Although the proposed design has been changed it still proposes a "coast- to-coast", or setback -to -setback, design by having the building span almost the entire width of the buildable area. The design still abuts the setbacks on the west and north sides of the property, comes within three (3') of the setback on the east side and maximizes the height of the duplex by proposing a maximum of thirty-five (35'-0") feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission has expressed in previous duplex reviews, as well as in this proposal's previous review, that "coast-to-coast" duplex designs are not acceptable. Staff finds that the applicant has still not successfully addressed the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommends that the design be revised to reduce the building footprint to minimize the linear width of the building. The Guidelines state that all disturbed areas should be revegetated with native seed. The applicant intends to restore disturbed areas with vegetation as shown on the landscape plan and discussed later in this report. o Site Access: Access to the site is provided with a twelve foot wide driveway from Ferret Lane. The driveway has a three and eight -tenths (3.8%) percent grade for the first twenty (20') feet adjacent to the roadway. The grades throughout the driveway vary from five (5%) to ten (10%) percent grades. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision —Forenza Duplex Final Design AB November 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 7 The first twenty (20') feet of driveway in front of the garage for the East Unit has a maximum grade of four (4%) percent. The driveway in front of the single car garage (easternmost space) has a grade of two (2%) percent sloping downward for the first twelve (12') feet, then a grade of three and one-half (3.5%) percent sloping upward for the next fourteen (14') feet. The driveway in front of the two (2) car garage (westernmost space) has a grade that varies from a minimum of one-half (0.5%) to two and one-half (2.5%) percent, depending on the end of the garage in question. The driveway in front of the West Unit has a grade that varies from four (4%) percent to two (2%) percent for the first twenty (20') feet adjacent to the garage entrance. The northern portion of the garage has a slope downward of four (4%) percent for the first eight (8') feet and then a slope upward of four (4%) percent for the next twelve (12') feet. It appears that the access to the site barely meets the minimum requirements of no more than four (4%) percent grade for the first twenty (20') feet of the driveway entering a site and leaving a garage door, as stated in the Design Guidelines. o Parking and Loading: The intent of the parking guidelines is to provide residents and guests with suitable parking locations that are durable and functional. The parking requirements of this section are discussed above, in the Zoning Code parking requirements. The material used for the driveway is asphalt and is in compliance with the Design Guidelines. o Site Grading: Grading on the property is minimal and meets the intent of the Design Guidelines. Grading is used to contain drainage within the property. As stated previously in the Site Design section of this report, the applicant has proposed to revegetate all the areas disturbed by grading work. o Drainage: The guidelines have generally been met with regard to drainage. The proposed drainage appears to be directed away from the new duplex structure. o Snow Removal and Storage: The project has designated two areas around the driveway, one to the north and one to the east, as snow storage. The project proposes 576 sq. ft. of snow storage, which exceeds the required twenty (20%) percent of impermeable surface (564 sq. ft.). One discrepancy between the Design Guidelines and the proposal exists in the area to the north of the hammerhead turnaround. This designated snow storage area is less than six (6') feet wide. Staff recommends that the plans be revised to either remove this section or widen the designated snow storage area. B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: The applicant has proposed the same materials and colors, including: horizontal wood siding, vertical wood siding (board and batten), and cultured stone veneer. As depicted on the Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748AO30 Fax (970) 9495749 Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Forenza Duplex Final Design AVON November I, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 7 colored elevations, the proposed colors are earthtone; a tan tone for the wood siding ("Crossroads", SW3521), a natural wood color for the fascia and all trim (Gemini Coatings "Prairie Gray", #106), and "Brick Red" for the aluminum clad windows. As such, the materials and colors meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest. The building's massing is broken up with varying building materials, wall planes, and use of fenestration. The proposed roof is to be finished with asphalt shingles and varying roof pitches from a minimum of four -to -twelve (4:12) to a maximum of nine -to -twelve (9:12). The building's architectural interest appears to be reduced on the south elevation, while the east elevation has been slightly modified to provide more fenestration and architectural interest. It appears that the building still exhibits a sufficient level of architectural interest on all elevations. The major changes from the previous submittal are located on the east elevation of the east unit, the south elevation of the west units, and the west elevation. The east elevation of the east unit has been revised to replace two single -pane windows with a double -pane window on the main level, a gabled dormer above the single window, and a double -paned window on the lower level generally below the gable. The south elevation of the west unit has had the following changes: removal of the two ancillary gables, alteration of the main level windows on either side of the remaining gable; and the removal of a wall plane on the eastern side of the west unit's south elevation. The last of these changes is due to the increased size of the duplex connection. The final area of change is the west elevation. This elevation has changed only slightly due to the northern extension of the exterior wall underneath the gable, causinga reduction in architectural interest on this elevation. All of the building's elevations appear to meet the minimum requirements in the Design Guidelines, but the west unit's elevations have been reduced in terms of both fenestration and architectural interest. Staff suggests that the west unit's elevations be revised to become more compatible with the level of architectural interest displayed on the east unit's elevations. o Outdoor Lighting: The application proposes twenty-one (21) exterior lighting fixtures that are placed around garage doors, entry ways, and decks (above and below). The proposed fixtures, as seen in Exhibit C, are comprised of a bronze frame with "Gold White Iridescent" panes. The Design Guidelines require that all glass panes be either frosted or seeded to screen the light source. It is unclear as to whether this fixture proposes a frosted or seeded glass, but staff recommends that the fixture's glass panes be replaced with a compliant variation. o Duplex Development: The connection between the two halves of the duplex measures thirty (30') feet in length and appears to be substantial enough to meet the intent of the recently revised Design Guidelines. The connection also appears to be functional as it is used in the west unit as a Town of Avon Community Development (970) 746.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Foren7a Duplex Final Design A November 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 7 bedroom (lower level), study (lower level) and master suite (upper level); and in the east unit as a bedroom (lower level), study (upper level), and a stairwell. The two halves of the „duplex appear.to be compatible and complimentary, but not identical, thereby meeting the intent of the Design Guidelines. C. Landscaping: o Design Character. • The design appears to generally comply with the intent of the Residential Landscaping Guidelines. In terms of plantings, there are a total of sixteen (16) Colorado Blue Spruce trees, forty-seven (47) Quaking Aspen trees, two (2) Rocky Mountain Maple trees, nineteen (19) Globe Spruce shrubs, thirty-six (36) Native Serviceberry shrubs, and nine (9) Tall Western Sage shrubs. Most of the plant species proposed are contained in Appendix 1: Recommended Plant List, from the Town's Design Guidelines. This results in the addition of twenty-five (25) Quaking Aspen trees, twenty-six (26) Native Serviceberry shrubs, and nine (9) Tall Western Sage shrubs, as well as the reduction of one (1) Rocky Mountain Maple tree and one (1) Globe Spruce shrubs. According to the applicant, all trees would meet the minimum size requirements as prescribed by the Design Guidelines: six (6) foot minimum height for evergreens, two (2) inch minimum caliper for deciduous trees, and five (5) gallon minimum for shrubs. The plan proposes a landscaped area encompassing approximately sixty-four (64) percent of the lot, and an irrigated area of approximately fifteen (15) percent of the landscaped area. Both meet the minimum requirements of the Design Guidelines. 0 Irrigation/Watering: The proposed landscaping plan includes a rain sensor with irrigation and meets the minimum standards of the Design Guidelines. o Retaining Walls: There are no retaining walls proposed for this project. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. The design and building appear to be, compatible with the site topography. The structure's lower level is partially built into the ground so that it appears to step with the grades as they fall to the south. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. The applicant has proposed high quality materials, earth tone colors, and an architectural style that should make this project visually compatible with the surrounding environment. On the other hand, as stated previously in this report, the design still maximizes it's massing by proposing a maximum height of thirty-five (35') feet, and a "coast-to-coast" (setback to setback) linear design. The duplex will appear to be dominating on the site due to its size compared to the lot size Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision—Forenza Duplex Final Design A voil November I, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 7 (proportionally), continuous linearity and general massing when it is viewed from Longsun Lane. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. Staff does not find that any monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the proposed improvements. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies and is a use by right pursuant to the Wildridge Subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of this Final Design application for a duplex residence on Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision due to the inconsistencies with sections A -D of the Residential Design Guidelines. Recommended Motion "I move to APPROVE the Final Design application for a duplex residence on Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision based on the following conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval." If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4023, or stop by the Community Development Department. Reectfully submitted, r Jare Barnes Planner I Exhibits: A. Aerial Map B. Color Board C. Exterior Light Fixture Cut Sheet D. Letter from the Applicant dated October 30, 2007 E. Reduced plan sets Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Wildridge - Lot 69, Block 4 Exhibit e— Residential Streets Property Boundaries 0 50 X40 .vweeyaf�ha•am�umunnw. --- - � - � CmreXe� .nmrxvurypawimnp.v Oawrn.rv:.n n Z W W J J LU W Fe ``U W ffm EXHIBIT B c V �1,r AQ 0 8n N O L ORIGINAL O � ci W _ L a co m� co V d o 0 ) Z —6 go p it� A Q gg 5p In o V yy f5X � a ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0© (D 0 0 0 0 ffm EXHIBIT B c V 0 8n N O L CV ol O � ci W N L q co co V d o 0 ) Z —6 r aL 3 p h w 9 FRI 0 c.' w 3 n+i a RAL Architects, inc. October 30,2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon 400 Benchmark Road Avon, CO 81620 RE: Forenza Duplex Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge 5351 Ferret Lane To Whom It May Concern: Exhibit D P.O. Bax 1805 Phone: 470.926.4448 Edwards, Colorado 81632 E -Mail: ralarch0vail.net RECEIVED OCT 8'0 2007 Commanlly Devalepment Based on the comments and discussion at the previous Planning and Zoning meeting on October 2, 2007, we have incorporated several changes to the above referenced project into the attached revised submittal. First, we revisited the concept and studied alternative locations and arrangements for the structure on the lot. Other alternatives we looked into created extensive driveways which increased the impervious coverage for the project and encouraged increased disturbance of the lot leaving little of the lot to be left undisturbed. By, pushing the building down the hillside through stepping and jogging the masses, we end up disturbing a much greater area of the lot by increasing driveways and circulation to provide reasonable access to each unit. After careful consideration, these factors have lead us to conclude that the horizontal massing of the building at the top of the lot is the best design solution with respect to building siting, site access, and minimization of site disturbance. By holding the building tight to the front of the property, it preserves the bottom 1/3 of the lot and keeps the driveway to a minimum needed for adequate circulation and parking. Upon review of the Avon Design Guidelines, we also felt that this solution best fit into the Site Design requirements, specifically the following sections: Z The location of structures and access shall complement the existing topography of the site. Excessive grading andlor the use of engineer -designed retaining walls is discouraged when an alternate site layout would minimize such disturbances. This design requires no site retaining walls and grading is limited explicitly to the areas immediately surrounding the structure and the driveway. 3. Removal of vegetation, trees, and other significant landforms on a site will he limited and not extend beyond a demarcated site disturbance area identified on submitted plans This solution preserves a greater area of the lot than other alternatives, and limits the removal of native vegetation on the bottom third of the lot. 6. Buildings on sloping lots shall be designed to step with the existing (natural) grades. The entry and garage floor elevations are set relative to the maximum driveway slope permitted and by our desire to minimize the driveway and keep it to the top of the lot, preserving the lower portion of the lot. From there, the main floor steps down from the entry elevation to follow the grade dropping off on the lot as well as to respect the building height requirements. As the site continues to drop off, it creates a natural walk- out basement at the rear of the house reducing horizontal sprawl of the structure and creating an efficient stacking solution for the lot which creates a lesser area of disturbance, with a proposed impervious coverage of 35.9% which is well below the 50% allowable. We also feel that this solution best complies with the "Residential Building Design — General Design Character" portion of the Avon Design Guidelines, specifically as this section describes buildings that should "be oriented to take advantage of solar gain and view corridors, where possible. " The horizontal orientation of the structure not only responds to the site topography, but also orients the massing in an East-West profile allowing for the predominant windows to face in a southern direction to encourage heat gain in the winter and to take advantage of the commanding views to the south towards Beaver Creek and the New York mountain range as well as sweeping views downvalley to the west, both important factors in taking advantage of the unique topographical aspects of the Wildridge community. Once we made a final determination of our best solution for the lot, we analyzed that design relative to the surrounding neighborhoods and its compliance with the "General Design Compatibility" section of the Avon Design Guidelines. The surrounding structures consist of a fairly even mix of single family residences and duplexes. A diagram of the lots on Ferret Lane and a portion of Longsun Lane is attached to this letter showing the proposed roofline of this structure overlaid into the existing neighborhood. As demonstrated on this diagram, this proposed design is very contextual with the surrounding duplex structures relative to building size and massing and preservation of the site. In no way does this design appear overly large or out of scale with the other structures in the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall design concept preserves more of the total lot area than several other surrounding homes appear to have done. Based on our decision to work within a similar design concept as the previous submittal, we have made several specific changes to the structure to address your comments and concerns from the last meeting. The "connecting" portion of the duplex structure was shortened to lessen the horizontal length of the structure. This allowed us to pull the building further off of the east setback line so that the building footprint ranges from approximately 5' to 7' off of the side setback line. This "connection" reduction was the largest change we felt we could accommodate in the front of the structure and still preserve driveway access and enough separation between the duplex units to 2 . ., allow for aesthetically pleasing entries and a landscape zone to pull the landscaping adjacent to the structure and minimize the area and perception of hardscape in the front of the building. This connecting element was also deepened to increase massing integration between the two units in response to concerns about the two'units feeling too disconnected. We also revised the massing on the far west end of the west unit, further reducing the horizontal length of the structure by approximately 7' and to further pull the structure off of the west setback line. This change involved reorienting the kitchen and dining areas of the west unit and moving the study area down to the lower level. To accommodate this change, we are now proposing to have calculated space under the garage to be used as a home theater, bathroom, and mechanical area, leading to an overall slight increase in building square footage. Adding this space under the garage had no impact to the above grade massing of the structure and the grading around that portion of the building remains the same. The downhill slope of the lot naturally creates that volume under the garage and utilizing that space allowed us toreduce the building footprint and also to minimize importation of dirt to the lot to backfill for a garage slab. This massing change also eliminated the gable dormer at the west end of the structure further reducing any potential interpretation of symmetry in the building. The landscaping plan was significantly bolstered to include additional trees and shrubs which disseminate out into the surrounding site creating a transition of loosely grouped trees and shrubs building to larger, clustered landscape masses at and immediately around the structure. The east elevation was revised to incorporate a dormer and different window groupings to add architectural interest to that specific elevation. The exterior lighting at the rear of the house has also been revised. The lights at the small decks off of the master bedroom have been eliminated and the lighting at the main decks/patios have been reduced to one light per outdoor space. Futhermore, the fixture submitted exceeds the minimum required standards of the Avon Design Guidelines in that it is certified dark sky compliant and will emit significantly less light than the frosted or seeded glass requirement in the Design Guidelines. In summation, after careful study of this and numerous other solutions for the lot, we have come to the conclusion that this site concept provides the best alternative for the lot and is contextual with the surrounding neighborhood. We have made several significant revisions to the structure and feel that this proposal complies with the Avon Design Guidelines and responds to specific comments addressed at the last Planning and Zoning meeting. Sincerely, Inc. Ladd, AIA » < » \ � � �� j • ^ a Staff Report 17 FINAL DESIGN PLAN AVO N C O L 0 R A D 0 November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date November 1, 2007 Project type Duplex Residences Legal description Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning 2 Units per Lot— PUD Address 4080 & 4090 Wildridge Road West Introduction The applicant, Michael Hazard, has submitted a Final Design application for two duplex structures on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3 of the Wildridge Subdivision. The lots would be accessed off of a private drive from Little Point. The four residences (A and B on Lot 13, C and D on Lot 12) are 3,734 sq. ft. (Residence A); 3,952 sq. ft. (Residence B); 4,175 sq. ft. (Residence C); and 3,997 sq. ft. (Residence D) and are designed in a contemporary architectural style utilizing flat roofs, wood siding and stucco on the exterior walls. It should be noted that in order for this design plan to function, a minor subdivision plat would first need to be approved to adjust the shared lot line between Lots 12 and 13. Included with this report are a vicinity map (Exhibit A) and reduced plan sets with a site plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit F). Also, the applicant has provided a list of changes from the most recent submittal (Exhibit D). Review History At the Commission's June 19, 2007 meeting, a Sketch Design for Lots 12 and 13 was reviewed. There were several comments, including the following: location of private drive in a Utility and Drainage Easement is problematic, differentiation needed between duplexes on both lots, and that the materials and colors need to compliment the neighborhood. At the Commission's August 7, 2007 meeting, a similar Final Design application for these properties was tabled. Prior to the tabling being granted, comments were received from the public regarding the size of the proposed structure on the lot as compared to neighboring properties, the differing roof style as compared to the neighboring properties, and the lack of compatibility with other homes in Wildridge. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design AIIA November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 8 At the Commission's October 16, 2007 meeting, a Final Design application for .these properties was tabled. Comments received from the Commissioners included the following: the style of architecture and the approach to a duplex connection were suitable; the linear width of the duplex connection for the proposed structure on Lot 12 was lacking; lack of parking provide; and the designs of the proposed duplexes appear to be one structure as seen from the roadway. Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items when reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zoning Code. • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the duplex zoning. • Density: The lots are zoned for a duplex and the density is appropriate. • Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is fifty (50%) percent. The project is in compliance with the PUD, proposing forty- seven (47%) percent lot coverage, and this coverage ratio is for all impervious surfaces compared to the entire size of the properties. • Setbacks: The setbacks for the properties are typical for Wildridge with a twenty- five (25') foot front yard setback and ten (10') foot side and rear yard building setbacks. The twenty-five (25') foot front setback is measured from the property line adjacent to Wildridge Road West for Lot 12, while it is measured from both Wildridge Road West and Little Point for Lot 13. An Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) is required to document the exact locations since the buildings do abut the setbacks on the north and south sides of Lot 12 and the north, south, and west sides of Lot 13. • Easements: A Utility and Drainage Easement of ten (10') feet in width borders the east side of both Lots 12 and 13, while a fifteen (16) foot wide (seven and one-half (7.5') feet for each lot) Utility and Drainage Easement borders the north side of Lot 12 and the south side of Lot 13. The western side of both lots has a. ten (10') foot wide Slope Maintenance, Drainage and Snow Storage Easement. The north side of Lot 13 has a ten (10') foot wide Slope Maintenance, Drainage and Snow Storage Easement, while the south side of Lot 12 has a seven and one-half (7.5') foot wide Utility and Drainage Easement. it is not advised to place landscaping within platted easements; however, it is the owner's responsibility if this landscaping requires removal and replacement in the future. In addition, a new Utility and Drainage Easement needs to be platted along the adjusted property line to replace the one affected by the future resubdivision. • Building Height The maximum allowable building height according to zoning for these properties is thirty-five (35') feet. The designs for Lots 12 and 13 are in compliance with the applicable zoning with all top of parapet heights and roofs at or below thirty (30') feet for Lot 12, and at or below thirty-five (35') feet for Lot 13. Town of Avon Community Development (870) 748-4030 Fax (970) 9495749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision— The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design IIIA November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 8 ' There are also elements such as chimneys that extend above the allowed height, but they are exempt from the overall height calculation. Again, adherence to this requirement would need to be verified by planning staff with an ILC at the time of ridge construction. • Grading/Drainage: All existing and proposed grades are indicated on the site plan. • Parking: This project requires three (3) spaces for each dwelling unit (two (2) per unit under 2,500 sq. ft. f three (3) per unit over 2,500 sq. ft.). The applicant is proposing a total of four (4) spaces (two (2) interior and two (2) exterior) for each dwelling unit. The plans propose the exterior spaces for each unit to be in front of their respective entrances in a paved area. The areas differ between each residence with Residence A having a twenty (20') feet wide by eighteen (18') feet long area, Residence B having an eighteen (18') feet wide by sixteen (16') feet long area, Residence C having a seventeen (17') feet wide by nineteen (19') feet long area, and Residence D have an eighteen (18') feet wide by sixteen (16') feet long area. The, minimum size for a parking space is nine (9') feet wide by eighteen (18') feet long, as required by the Design Guidelines. It appears that the spaces for Residences B, C, and D do not support enough square footage for two (2) vehicles, but are large enough for one (1) exterior space for each unit. The two (2) exterior and two (2) interior parking spaces for Residence A and the one (1) exterior space and two (2) interior spaces for Residences B, C, and D are enough to satisfy the parking requirements for each duplex structure. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist on the properties for up to two (2) dwelling units per lot. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Guidelines. A. Site Development: o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put emphasis on the site layout configuration and state that structures should blend in with natural settings and limit the need for extensive site grading and slope retention. Additionally, buildings should be stepped in appearance where practical and as necessitated by steep slopes. Due to the interior courtyard design of each duplex, the project utilizes a majority of the buildable area on each lot. The proposed project abuts the setbacks on both the north and south sides of Lot 12, the north, south and east sides of Lot 13, and is within two (2') feet of the setback on the east side setback of Lot 12. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design WIT, November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 8 ' The Guidelines state that all disturbed areas should be revegetated with native seed. The applicant intends to restore disturbed areas with vegetation as shown on the landscape plan and discussed later in this report. o Site Access: Access to both lots is provided with a twelve (12') foot wide driveway which traverses Lot 13 from Little Point to.access Lot 12. The private drive starts with a four (4%) percent grade for the first twenty (20') feet adjacent to the roadway. The grades throughout the drive vary from no grade to a ten (10%) percent grade. The first twenty (20') feet adjacent to the garage for both Residence A and B (Lot 13) have a two and one- half (2.5%) percent grade. The first twenty (20') feet adjacent to the garage for Residence C (northern half of the duplex on Lot 12) has a two (2%) grade, while Residence D (southern half of the duplex on Lot 12) has a two and one-half (2.5%) percent grade. The Design Guidelines require no more than a four (4%) percent grade for the first twenty (20') feet of the driveway entering a site and leaving a garage door. This design appears to be in compliance with the access requirements. In order to access Lot 12, an access easement must be provided on Lot 13 where the proposed drive is located for the use of Lot 12. This would be completed during the resubdivision of these lots. The site must also be accessible for emergency vehicles. The applicant is proposing an emergency vehicle turnaround between the two duplexes on Lots 12 and 13. The applicant has also provided a notation that a dry horizontal standpipe be designed and installed for both duplexes. This is acceptable to the Eagle River Fire Protection District as outlined in a memorandum from Carol Gill-Mulson (Exhibit E). .Staff requires that this standpipe be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. o Parking and Loading: The intent of the parking guidelines is to provide residents and guests with suitable parking locations that are also durable and functional. The parking requirements of this section are discussed above in the parking zoning requirements. The material used for the driveway/courtyard area is not specified and staff recommends that the material be asphalt, concrete, concrete pavers, or another impervious surface as required by the Design Guidelines. o Site Grading: Grading on the properties is minimal and meets the intent of the Design Guidelines. Grading is used to alter drainage to the east of the driveway and in between the two duplexes. The applicant has proposed to revegetate all the areas disturbed by grading work. o Drainage: The Guidelines have generally been met with regard to drainage. The eastern easements have minimal grading work to ensure that drainage is contained within the site. The Construction Management Plan, which encompasses both Lots 12 and 13, should be revised to show that the Limits of Disturbance fencing encloses the material storage area to the northern portion of Lot 13. Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design IIIA November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 8 " o Snow Removal and Storage: The project has designated the area to the east of the driveway, located in the Utility and Drainage Easement, as snow storage for both Lots 12 and 13. The project proposes 1,680 sq. ft. of snow storage, which exceeds the required twenty (20%) percent of the paved surfaces (1,306.sq. ft.). B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: A variety of quality building materials are proposed with this application, including: stucco, both smooth and horizontal banding, horizontal wood siding, and painted steel railings. The proposed colors have been modified since the most recent proposal. Lot 12 uses the colors as follows: smooth stucco - "Intricate Ivory" (SW 6350); banded stucco — "Sociable" (SW 6359); wood siding and soffits — "Light Brown" (Parklex 1000 Ayous); metal louvers, railings, and chimney caps — "Priviledge Green" (SW 6193); and windows and doors — "Pueblo Tan". The smooth stucco has a light tan to off-white color, while the banded stucco is more of a peach/tan color. Lot 13 is proposing the following colors: smooth stucco - "Creamery" (SW 6358); banded stucco — "Soft Apricot" (SW 6352); wood siding and soffits — "Light Brown" (Parklex 1000 Ayous); metal louvers, railings, and chimney caps — "Pennywise" (SW 6349); and windows and doors — "Pueblo Tan". Both the smooth stucco and banded stucco have darker hues than their respective proposed color on Lot 12. The metal louver, railings and chimney caps are a red hue on Lot 13, while Lot 12 utilizes a green hue. All of the colors appear to be earthtone or indigenous, compatible of one another and meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest. The building's massing is broken up with varying building materials, wall planes, and use of fenestration. The proposed design for the duplex on Lot 13 differs from the proposed design on Lot 12 for a few reasons one of which is the use of wood siding as a building material. The two duplexes (Lots 12 and 13) appear to compliment each other not only in the application of certain materials but also in the varying of colors. Each building's design meets the intent of the Architectural Interest Design Guidelines. The Guidelines encourage pitched roofs and no unbroken ridgelines, acknowledging only flat roofs when discussing pueblo architecture. The proposal is designed in a contemporary architectural vernacular in which flat roofs are vital to the design. The proposal utilizes flat roofs as the main roof type; with the exception of the roof above the roof -top deck/hot tub space. This roof has an inverted pitch, butterfly roof, appearing like a wing shape or v -shape. o Outdoor Lighting: The applicant does not intend to use exterior lighting. Town of Avon CommuNty Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design ME November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 8 o Duplex Development. The connections between the two halves of each duplex are not typical of most Wildridge duplex connections. The proposed design on Lot 12 has a duplex connection on the lower level and can only be seen from Wildridge Road on the west elevation, not from the driveway and east elevation. This connection space is used as a master suite and is a functional area, but the area is not overly large in terms of width as it measures only twenty (20') feet. The proposed design on Lot 13 has a duplex connection on the upper level and the connection is a still a functional yet secondary one. The space is used by a secondary bedroom and bath on both halves of the duplex and is sixteen and one- half (16.5') feet in width. The interior courtyard and garages are below the connection and are easily viewed from both the east and west elevations. The designs of each duplex have similarities between the two halves but they do not appear to be 'mirror images' nor do the two duplexes appear to be 'mirror images' of each other. At the Sketch Design review and the previous Final Design review for both Lots 12 and 13, the Commissioners expressed intrigue and support of this connection, although they asked if the connections could be more massive. C. Landscaping: o Design Character. The provided Landscape Plan encompasses both lots 12 and 13 since they will be developed at the same time. The design appears to generally comply with the intent of the Residential Landscaping Guidelines. In terms of plantings, there are a total five (5) Amur Maple trees, fifty-eight (58) Aspen trees, five (5) River Birch trees, eighteen (18) Spruce trees, four (4) Rocky Mountain Maple trees, one (1) Servicebery, eleven (11) Alpine Currant shrubs, five (5) Blue Mist Spirea shrubs, twenty-two (22) Chokecherry shrubs, seventeen (17) Mugo Pines, eighteen (18) Peking Cotoneaster shrubs, five (5) Rock Cotoneaster shrubs, twenty (20) Sea Green Juniper shrubs, sixteen (16) Three Leaf Sumac plants, thirty-seven (37) White Potentilla plants; ten (10) Woods Rose plants, and groundcovers. Most of the plant species proposed are contained in Appendix 1: Recommended Plant List, from the Town's Design Guidelines. According to the applicant, all trees would meet the minimum size requirements as prescribed by the Design Guidelines: 6' minimum height for evergreens, 2" minimum caliper for deciduous trees, and 5 gallon minimum for shrubs. The landscape plan appears to be well designed and meets the intent of the Guidelines. o !n'igation/Watering: The proposed landscaping plan includes a rain sensor with irrigation and meets the minimum standards of the Design Guidelines. o Retaining Walls: There are no retaining walls proposed for this project. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision—The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design rift November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 8 . The design and buildings appear to be compatible with the site topography. The structures would be stepped with the grades as they fall to the southwest from Lot 13 to Lot 12. As stated in section 4 of this report, minimal grading is being proposed to alter drainage between the two duplexes on Lots 12 and 13. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. The applicant has proposed high quality materials and earth tone colors that should make this project visually compatible with the surrounding environment. Although the architecture used on the two duplexes is not identical to the neighboring properties, the lack of architectural conformity in the area promotes this architecture and design. The massing and appearance of this project do not appear dominating as viewed from the neighboring properties and public ways. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. Staff does not feel that any monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the proposed improvements. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies and is a use by right per the Wildridge Subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of this final design plan for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the final design plan for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions to be resolved by building permit submittal: 1. The horizontal standpipe be designed and stamped by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer; 2. A resubdivision application be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit to adjust the lot line between Lots 12 and 13, provide an access easement on Lot 13 for Lot 12, and to replat a Utility and Drainage Easement between the two lots; 3. The limits of disturbance fencing be revised to include the area called out for material storage on the Construction Staging Plan (Sheet A 1.2); and 4. 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. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design AAM November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 8 Res ectfu"'submitted, A 6"e-� re Bames nerl Attachments: A. Aerial Map B. Letter from Victoria and Nigel Dagnall dated August 3'", 2007 C. Other Public Input D. Letter from the Applicant dated October 25, 2007 E. Letter from Carol Gill-Mulson dated October 30, 2007 F. Reduced plan set and colored elevations Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 • •�� • • � i .f � �,.. , t •� �. , .r, ' � _Y! . }. ' , t i � �' ��'"a V r �'" i ' ,.,_ 4 �. Jared Bames From: Nigel Dagnall [dagnall12@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:30 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Proposed Development of Lots 12 813 August 3, 2007 Dear Commissioners, My husband and I appreciate you taking the time to understand our serious concerns with regard to the proposed application for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13 of the Wildridge Subdivision. We fully understand the right and need to develop vacant lots; however, we feel these huge structures are totally out of keeping with the surrounding area while some of the design features are "suspect" with regard to the Design Review Guidelines, as outlined below. 1) Roof. The flat roof design as proposed for this development is extremely contemporary in style and in no way reflects or complies with the suggested pueblo/adobe or typical mountain architecture with a pitched roof design. The design guidelines state that "all design shall be compatible with existing built structures". The existing contemporary style homes in the area as referenced at the June 19'h meeting all have a pitched roof design (photos to follow). 2) Design The design of tate buildings looks massive and retail/commercial in image, completely out of character with the Wildridge Subdivision and a mountain lifestyle, and rather more fitting in the Domino/Columbine bakery complex in Avon. The site coverage although within the guidelines by a mean 2%, again does not reflect the open living space and mountain lifestyle of Wildridge. We suggest that the design is based purely on monetary gain while sacrificing the environment, image and lifestyle of the Wildridge Subdivision. 3) Lighting The many and large windows, although not governed by the light pollution standards for on site outdoor lighting as indicated in the guidelines, yet the impact and affect to the existing homes is the same as is stated that "the access to a clear and visible night sky is a strong value to our community. Light pollution is a threat to our clear skies that are part of the heritage of the Rocky Mountain West". While this proposed development has meet the landscaping requirements, it appears that the majority of it is between Lots 12 & 14 with minimal coverage around the north and west side of the buildings which directly affects the community as a whole. 4) Parking The guidelines can for 3 spaces per residence, you will notice on the plans that this is an extremely confined and compacted parking area, and the turning spaces seem extremely tight for this type of density and will give difficult access to a number of the garages. In an emergency situation we believe there will also be difficult access for life safety personnel and their vehicles. Little Point road clearly states "no parking" on the road side. Should residents of these units have social events this will cause serious congestion in the area which is likely to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and the existing residents. 5) Traffic With most homes today sharing 213 cars the impact of between 8-16 vehicles sharing a very small and quiet cul-de-sac will negatively impact the existing residents. In closing, we would like to bring to your attention points C and D from page 47 number 6 of the Design Review Guidelines and The Planning and Zoning Commission Review (Final Design Plan Approval Criteria): Point "C"... "The appearance ojproposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to the street, quality ojmaterials and colors. " Point "D"... "the objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired" with regard to these statements most certainly Architectural style, Massing, Height and 8/6/2007 Page 2 of 2 Aesthetics will be totally compromised in comparison to the vicinity of other homes in the immediate area. It is also our understanding that complete drawings were required to be submitted one week prior to the meeting of August 8th, however only partial drawings of qne lot were submitted for review. We accept that a building will most likely be constructed at some point on these lots, we ask that the design is in keeping with the direction of the Design Guidelines and that the appearance is more residential as opposed to retail or commercial as defined by the design. Thank you so much for your time in listening to our concerns, we hope that you will move forward in reevaluate the design of this proposed application and acknowledging that it is out of keeping for the Wildridge area and insist that what ever structure is placed on the lots that they are harmonious and aesthetically complimentary to the mountains and not a small Mall. Sincerely Victoria and Nigel Dagnall 4211 S. Wildridge Road West 8/6/2007 Jared Barnes From: Kad Krueger [Kruegerarchitect@comcast.netj Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:21 PM To: Jared Barnes Cc: mha@vail:net Subject: Proposed Duplexes for Lot 12 and 13, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon colorado Planning and Zoning Commission, In view of citizen's comments received as recently as late this afternoon and because I was unable to be at today's scheduled meeting due to a long standing appointment, I would request that the Planning and Zoning Commission table my submittal for final approval until the next available meeting. I had arranged for an associate to field questions about the Courtyard Villas project already recommended for final approval, but I would prefer to address concerned citizens comments In person and make a fuller presentation of the project during the next meeting in order to allay concerns, refute mischaracterizations or misunderstandings and present visual aids (renderings and/or a model) over and above the final approval requirements already met. Sincerely, Michael Hazard Assoc. 8/7/2007 Page 1 of i Jared Barnes From: john_wamke@comcast.net Sent: Monday, August 06, 200710:23 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 and 13 Jared, we would like to join those opposed to the proposed commercial style duplexes in Wildridge. We believe design mistakes have been made in the past and hope this one can be avoided. Thanks for your concern, John and Becky Warnke, 5768 Wildridge Rd. E. Avon, Colo. 8/6/2007 Page I of 1 Jared Bames From: Harrel Lawrence [harrel3@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 200710:37 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: building at wiildridge road and little pt. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT ON LITTLE POINT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT SHOULD BE A 7-11 STORE AND DOES NOTIIII FIT THE DESIGNS THAT ARE IN THE AREA. WE LIVE ON 4313 JUNE PT. AND THINK THAT THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE AREA THAT WILL DOWN GRADE THE VALUES AND THE APPEARANCE AND BEAUTY OF THE AREA. MARY HARREL LAWRENCE DONALD J. MCMAHAN 970 949-4060 4313 JUNE POINT, WILDRIDGE 8/6/2007 Page I of 1 Jared Barnes From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:40 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 and 13 Wildridge I have lived at 4737 Wildridge Road since 1994 and drive by these Lots every day. Every house shows up on these sage covered hillsides and it has taken me 12 years to grow trees and vegetation to soften my home. ( which happens to be somewhat contemporary.) This proposed design is the ugliest I have seen in my 24 years of selling real estate in this valley. It is even too ugly for a commercial store in Denver much less a residential neighborhood. Do not let this happen. Thank you. Carroll Tyler Carroll S. Tyler Branch Broker Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office 23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657 (970) 479-5762 Direct Line (970) 476-2421 Receptionist (970)476-2658 Fax mm ffidif r.n 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Bames From: Mike Neff [mneff@insuranceaai.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 200712:58 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lot 12 & 13, Wildridge Road West & Little Point Mr. Barnes, I have just been made aware of a pending design approval for the subject property. I do not believe that this design as depicted is appropriate for the Wildridge sub -division. If constructed from materials commonly used in architecture of this nature, it will not only stand out it will detract from the surroundings of our neighborhood. While the design may be consider good architecture, it will fail to enhance the surroundings. As evidence of the kind of negative impact this type of architecture has to the visual appeal of our neighborhood, I only have to relay the comments of all of my guests that drive into Wildridge for the first time make regarding The Barrancas Townhomes on Metcalf. I quote. "what in the world are buildings like that doing in an area like this". How much more of a detriment to the Wildridge neighborhood will a design of this nature have? Significant I think. There have been many homes built in Wildridge over the 10 years I have lived there. (I am a full time resident, by the way) I have not necessarily liked the design of each one of them. However, this one goes too far a field to be considered appropriate for the area. Regards, Michael Neff, President Michael Neff Agency, Inc. 970-949-5633 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Lynn Brethauer [brethr88@comcast.netj Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 9:40 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lot 12&13 WildriidgeRd ATfN: Jared Barnes Subject: Unacceptable Construction Project This is regarding the two duplek residences on Lots 12 &13 Wildridge Rd and Little Point Rd up for final review this Tues, Aug 8, 2007. 1 find it hard to come up with the proper language to describe such a despicable looking construction project to be called duplexes/residences. How would anyone on the board/committee like to have this built next to where they live? I for one want to express my total displeasure of having such a poorly designed, commercial strip mall looking structure built in the area of Wildridge. It lends itself to look like a low affordable housing project. Wildridge has homes, this structure looks like and has the feel of a retail office building—not a mountain home. Because of its size and being on a comer, I am very concerned about the traffic and parking situation that would be involved, the light pollution it would cause, and what about the size of each unit and each structure? I also wonder if this structure will be built with the quality of the homes in Wildridge that is currently here, or just "built" to get it up and sold. I feel Wildridge residence deserve better than this and would say so if they knew of this project design!! This design does not belong in a residential area!! and Lynn Brethauer yrs + residence, two lots away from lot 12&13 on Wildridge RD 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Bames From: GeraldPHerman@aol.com Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:57 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: duplex proposal for lots 12 813 Wildridge Rd West and Little Point My name is Jerry Herman and I live at 5531 Coyote Ridge. I formerly lived at 4211 Wildridge Rd West. My wife, Connie and I believe that the propo$ed duplexes, which have an ultramodern design, will ruin the character of Wildridge and in particular, the area near Little Point. While we recognize that there already are a few residences that are not "Mountain Home" in design, they do nothing to enhance the beauty of Wildridge and we assume were built before there was an active Planning Commission. We chose to move to Wildridge in 2000 because of the beautiful mountain atmosphere and the homes which were compatible with this setting. The proposed buildings belong in a commercial, not a residential setting in the mountains. Therefore we are taking this opportunity to strongly protest this proposal. Thank you. We plan to attend the meeting. Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: nelsonelectdc@comcast.net Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 7:54 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lot 12,13 comm. style duplexs Jared, Excuse me, but why do I have a note on my door concerning this project? Isn't this something that obviously doesn't belong here and should have never made it through the beginning conceptual stage approval process? When I built my house, I took the plans to the town and inquired as to whether my proposed home was something that would be acceptable to the town of Avon. This was done before it ever got so far as final DRB review. This is obviously a plan by some greedy developer and egotistical architect. Please just handle these ridiculous plans earlier in the future and tell them no. Sincerely, Steven Nelson 4033 Wildridge Road 8/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Doss Malone [malone@vail.netj Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:52 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Aug 7 Planning Meeting Jared, Regarding the double duplex planned for lots 12 and 13 off Little Point in Wildridge; the design is very industrial looking and completely out of character with the overall character of our neighborhood. The lots in question are beautiful and deserve beautiful homes in line with the standard "mountain" style of architecture up here. As well, two of these things placed back to back on a prominent ridge will be visually unappealing and an overbearing eyesore for the entire subdivision. My heart goes out to the homeowners on Little Point and surrounding Wildridge Road if this design is approved. Sincerely, Doss Malone 4700 Wildridge Rd Avon . 8/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Chuck Bunting [chuck.bunting@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:23 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 & 13 - Wildddge Road Jared - My wife and I are full time residents at 4015 Wildridge Road West. We are concerned that the appeamce of these buildings in not appropriate for the mountain community where we live. Please have the builder consider redesigning the exterior to be more compatible with the surrounding homes. We plan to attend the meeting this evening. Thank you for your time. ****************************** Regards, Chuck Bunting chuck.buntine(@,urnail.com Home: 970-845-6319 Cell: 970-390-4281 Mail: PO Box 6034 Avon, CO 81620-6034 8/7/2007 Page I of I Jared Barnes From: Paul & Terese Jeppson [paul4799@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 200710:20 AM To: Jared Barnes Cc: Paul & Terese Jeppson Subject: West Wildridge Rd & Little Point Duplex Dear Mr. Barnes and the Community Development Board: My Husband and I have lived in Wildridge since 1988 when we bought our first townhome at Buffalo Head Townhomes on Draw Spur. We are currently in our third house in Wildridge. We have watched the development in this area go from sagebrush, to an area that has struggled with it's identity, and today to a desirable neighborhood that is finally coming into it's own. Lacks Design Compatibility Recently there has been many new single family homes and duplexes built that have been of a higher quality - we are actually seeing properties that are rivaling other neighborhood areas in the valley such as Singletree and Upper Homestead. This proposed development is not compatitable with the current development trends in Wildridge (or in the valley) in either style or high-end quality/feel. In fact, it already looks dated circa 1970. Loss of Property Values and Value on living in Wildridge The neighboring homes surrounding this development will probably decrease in value and Wildridge will again risk becoming a place "not to live" because your investment will not be safe. One of the nice aspects of Wildridge is that the houses do not have that high end track home look (like Cordillera or Eagle Ranch). The town of Avon has given a lot of latitude in what is considered acceptable design. However, if given too much latitude the neighborhood will suffer. It will begin to look like some of the neighborhoods in Clear Creek County where "anything goes". Where an A -fame home can sit next to a modem style home which can sit next to a log cabin. Is there really no way (given the large latitude) to make this property more similar to the surrounding properties (woodflog/stucco)? Commercial Distant from Metcalf Road Given the fact that one already enters Wildridge via a'commercial area with large non-descript storage buildings. It is important that the neighborhood distinguishes itself from this in Its design. Altering this proposed property so it retains the contemporary feeling yet blends - (perhaps making it an adobe like home) benefits Avon and Wildridge. There is a reason designs like this are not being built in other areas of the valley. I know you have heard from many residents in Wildridge - I hope you would consider the opinions of your current residents, the people who are believing and supporting Avon, and tax payers of Avon, over a developer who at this point is not building a property that will enhance the desirability of living in Wildridge and Avon. Do we really want to look back in three years and say - "What were we thinking?" Thank you for your time, Tem Jeppson 44808 West Wildridge Road 8/7/2007 Jared Bames From: Kathleen Kunis [kathleenkunis@comcast.net] -nt: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:20 AM Jared Barnes aub]ect: Commercial Style Duplex Dear Mr. Barnes: I would like to express my dismay about the commercial style duplexes that are proposed for Wildridge Road and Little Point (Lots 12 and 13). We already have a number of architectural disasters on Wildridge. These structures would definitely represent a new low. We are living in the mountains! This style is more appropriate to the suburbs of a city or an industrial zoned area. I cannot imagine what the builder and the architect are thinking! I am also disturbed by the fact that this building would cause a great deal of lighting pollution. I used to be able to see the stars very clearly from Wildridge. This building would be a disaster for its neighbors. We also have the issue of the buildings' size, traffic, and parking issues. I would hope that this building is not allowed to be built in Wildridge. It is the antithesis of a mountain home!, Sincerely, Kathy Kunis 5301 Ferret Lane Wildridge 1 Lots 12 and 13 Jared Barnes From: Joanne Morgan [morgangd@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:09 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 and 13 Jared, Page 1 of 1 I'll be anxious to hear what happens with the Ryan Sutter fence this evening. I'll be amazed if he doesn't have to tear that thing down. He's continuing his backyard remodel which is fine - but hopefully the P&Z folks will stand by their guns and make the fence go. I am also stunned at the plans for Lots 12 and 13 Block 3. This Isn't LoDo and that's what this looks like. What else is going to happen up here in Wildridge that makes no design sense given the adjacent properties? This Is almost as III -placed as that hideous building Daniel Llebskind wants to plop down In Edwards. Joanne Morgan Joanne Morgan Graphic Design 970.748.1064 970.390.7246 cell 8/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:00 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Thank you For getting the design for Lots 12 and 13 tabled. Now we need them to redesign this so that it is more in keeping with the neighborhood and not a light reflecting eye sore. In my opinion, if that duplex were built as is, any property within that view corridor would be devalued at least $200,000.00. Just because something meets Avon "guidelines" does not mean that it should be built. Carroll Tyler Carroll S. Tyler Branch Broker Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office 230 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657 (970) 479-5762 Direct Line (970)476-2421 Receptionist (970)476-2658 Fax www.slifer.net 10/11/2007 Pagel of 2 Jared Bames From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Friday, August 10, 200711:51 AM To: Jared Bames Subject: RE: Thank you Jared, I understand all of this. Avon's "minimum zoning and design guidelines' should not be an excuse to allow such an eyesore to be built on a prominent piece of land visible from a huge part of the subdivision. The fact that Avon has not had tougher requirements is now being reflected by the hugely expensive redevelopment of the town which will be on going for several years. People buy in Wiklridge for the views and if they have to look at this ugly duplex which looks like a bad gas station, they will lose value in their homes whether Town of Avon cares or not. Take the high road. Carroll r From: Jared Bames [mailto:jbames@avon.org] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:10 AM To: Carroll Tyler Subject: RE: Thank you Carroll, I appreciate your comments and care about what is designed in town. Unfortunately there are some incorrect statements in your email. First, I did not ask or request the tabling. The applicant requested it due to him not being able to attend the meeting. In addition, he full Intends to have his application presented at the next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on August 21. Second, you refer to view corridors and devaluation of property. Unfortunately, the town of Avon does not protect any view unless there are in a platted view corridor. In Avon projects are reviewed based on their compliance with the Municipal code and the Design Review Guidelines. If a project meets all of these requirements it will receive a favorable recommendation from staff. This project in particular meets the minimum zoning and design guideline requirements and has received a recommendation for approval from the town staff. Hopefully this clarifies what went on at the last meeting and the next steps for the project. Regards, Jared Bames Planner I Community Development Town of Avon PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 970-748-4023 From: Carroll Tyler [mailto:ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:00 PM To: Jared Bames Subject: Thank you For getting the design for Lots 12 and 13 tabled. Now we need them to redesign this so that it is more in keeping with the neighborhood and not a light reflecting eye sore. In my opinion, if that duplex were built as is, any property within that view corridor would be devalued at least $200,000.00. Just because something meets Avon "guidelines" does not mean that it should be built. Carroll Tyler Carroll S. Tyler Branch Broker Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office 23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657 (970) 479-5762 Direct Line 8/16/2007 Page 1 of l Jared Barnes From: Doss Malone [malone@vail.netj Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:59 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Wildridge Lots 12/13 Jared, This is a follow up to my e-mail last week concerning the planned development of lots 12/13 in Wildridge. I loop around the entire subdivision daily on my bike and would like to stress just how prominent these lots are. As I try to visualize the design that strikes me as industrial, but is euphemistically described as "contemporary", the words invasive and predatory come to mind. I grew up in Colorado and have enjoyed this valley for 30 years. I first purchased in Wildridge in 1994 and have seen the progression of development. While there are certain interesting, unique designs that have been tucked innocently against the natural topography over the years, this design's departure from the regional norm will be exaggerated by its location. I don't advocate a bland cookie cutter approach and appreciate quality and creativity but I do think there is a certain style of architecture that appeals to those of us who love living here and this design seems out of character. On a positive note, I appreciate the economical access design using multiple lots that minimizes the excavation required to development challenging locations. Sincerely, Doss Malone 4700 Wildridge Rd. From: Doss Malone [mailto:malone@vail.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:52 PM To: 'jbames@avon.org' Subject: Aug 7 Planning Meeting Jared, Regarding the double duplex planned for lots 12 and 13 off Little Point in Wildridge; the design is very industrial looking and completely out of character with the overall character of our neighborhood. The lots in question are beautiful and deserve beautiful homes in line with the standard "mountain" style of architecture up here. As well, two of these things placed back to back on a prominent ridge will be visually unappealing and an overbearing eyesore for the entire subdivision. My heart goes out to the homeowners on Little Point and surrounding Wildridge Road if this design is approved. Sincerely, Doss Malone 4700 Wildridge Rd Avon 10/11/2007 Pagel of 2 Jared Barnes From: MIKE NEFF [MNEFF@INSURANCEAAI.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 200712:52 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: RE: Wildridge Lots 12 & 13 Thank you. I appreciate your quick response. I assume that you will provide the meeting with all of the public comment that you have received. Have a nice day, Mike Michael Neff, President Michael Neff Agency, Inc. 970-949-5633 From: Jared Barnes [mailto.jbames@avon.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:30 PM To: Mike Neff Subject: RE: Wildridge Lots 12 & 13 Mr. Neff, The applicant has requested that the project be tabled from the August 7th meeting. He intends to go forward with this application at the August 21 st meeting but I still am waiting to get the final word to verify that intention he has expressed to me. Regards, Jared Barnes Planner I Community Development Town of Avon PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 970-7484023 From: Mike Neff [mailto:mneff@insuranceaai.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:30 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Wildridge Lots 12 & 13 Mr. Barnes, please advise me of the outcome of the final review of the plans for the duplexes on Lots 12 & 13 in the Wildridge sub -division. The review had been scheduled for August 7t'. Thank you, 8/16/2007 Page 2 of 2 Mike Neff Michael Neff, President Michael Neff Agency, Inc. 970-949-5633 8/16/2007 Page 1 0£ 1 Jared Barnes From: GeraldPHerman@aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:43 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Property at Wildridge Rd. West and Little Point My wife Connie and I firmly believe that the proposed houses on Wildridge Rd. West just south of Little Point are not an appropriate design for the Wildridge neighborhood. They have the appearance of commercial structures and will only serve to lower the desirability of Wildridge. We urge the P&Z Commision to reject the design and demand that the architects design something that complements the other homes in the area. While, we now live at 5531 Coyote Ridge, we formerly lived at 4211 Wildridge Rd. West. We can't believe that the Commission would even consider such monstrosities in Wildridge. Thank You. Gerald P Herman I also, have a question as to why nothing has happened with the fence built by Ryan Sutter? See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Harrel Lawrence [harre]3@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 10:51 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: WILD RIDGE - LITTE PT. WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE DELAY IN THE WILDWRDGE SITE APPROVE ON WEST ROAD/LITTLE PT. MEANS THAT THHEY ARE TRYING TO NOT HAVE THE PROJECT LOOK LIKE A 7-11 STORE AND THAT IT WILL BETTER FIT THE AREA . JERRY MCMAHAN AND HARREL LAWRENCE /// CONCERNED HOME OWNERS 10/11/2007 plans Jared Barnes From: Joanne Morgan [morgangd@comcast.netj Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:07 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: plans Jared, Page 1 of 1 I just spent some time with Michael Hazard looking at his plans for the two duplexes. After seeing the renderings with shading and recesses more distinct, I like the project. Joanne 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Matt Ivy [Ivy@vailracquetclub.comj Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:10 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: courtyard villas Hi Jared, We are writing in support of the proposed Courtyard Villas of Wildridge. My wife and I live just up the road from the site at 4274 Wildridge Rd West and will pass the new homes several times each day. We have seen the plans and the elevations and feel that the project is an excellent fit for the site. We encourage the Town to approve the project. Thank you, Matt and Jane Ivy Wildridge Home Owners 10/16/2007 Pale 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Paul & Terese Jeppson [paul4799@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:55 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 & 13 Residential Units Mr. Barnes, We live at 4480B Wildridge Road W. Tem and I have lived in Wildridge since 1988. We have seen numerous buildings and projects constructed over that time. Some good and some bad. Recently, we have started to see the influx in the last 4 or 5 years of high end, high quality projects especially at the upper end of Wildridge. This is consistent with the goal of the majority if not all of homeowners and should be the goal of the P&Z. The currently proposed project has the same look an feel as a combination circa 1975 condominium complexes and commercial industrial design. This design is found in the 30 year old portions of Vail, Avon and other mountain towns. It has no redeeming characteristics that would be pleasing to the eye or that would improve the value of the proposed projects or improve the values of those neighboring the project. It is interesting to note that when these older projects are remodeled as you are seeing in Vail, they are all trying to cover up the old design. I am not an advocate of subdivision building such as you would see in Denver, however the individualistic design needs to fit the character of upscale mountain projects that will assist in creating a better Wildridge not an eyesore. On the way to our house you will pass the "Glass House" duplex and just past it you have a "Frank Lloyd Wright" copy. In between you have Southwestern, modem Mountain and others. While we as individuals might say I don't care for that residential design, we don't confuse them with commercial buildings and go "Why did the town allow that to be built in the neighborhood?" The proposed design would definitely elicit that type of response. The only reason I can think of for this type of design proposal is that it is the cheapest building concept possible. You must take the neighborhood in which this project is proposed into account. Wildridge, has been fortunate to have many beautiful and high-end projects approved and built recently. A poorly designed eyesore in the middle, could and probably would convince developers to build elsewhere as they cannot count on the town to protect the overall values. We will regret this project as proposed for tree next 20 years is approved. Please vote not Thanks, Pau[ A. Jeppson 4480B Wildridge Road W. 10/16/2007 October 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Avon, CO 81620 Dear Commissioners: The purpose of this letter is to provide several formal comments regarding the current proposed development of Lots 12 & 13 in Wildridge, referred to as "The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge". Having monitored the evolution of this application and reviewed the current plan submissions (contained within the spiral -bound booklet), as residents of Little Point and nearby homes, we have several concerns. Below please find an explanation of each as well as some suggestions for how the applicant may address each: 1) Homogeneity of architecture — This application is for two (2) duplex units to be built on adjoining lots. The principle exterior architecture, materials, color treatments, etc. for all four units are identical. As such, the development is out - of -proportion and inconsistent with the neighboring residences and with the Wildridge development in general. Proposed solutions: An optimal solution to the above will be to execute two different architectural styles. For example, one duplex unit remain as is and the other be done in a different style such as a `mountain-esque' structure (e.g. 4214 West Wildridge). Alternatively, one of the duplex units could have several pitched roof sections incorporated into the execution as a means of differentiating the two duplexes (e.g. 4220/4224 West Wildridge). Also, the colors of each duplex could be different, rather than uniform, as a means of further distinguishing the units (e.g. two duplex units on a shared driveway developed by ASE at 5101 Longsun Lane), 2) General Mass of the proposed development — By the design (minimal connectivity of each duplex unit) as well as the placement of the lots, from most any angle of each of 5 views (east, west, north, south, and top/'above' view), this development will look like one massive structure. While we are not shown all 4 units within any elevation, the overlapping nature of the walls, even between the two duplexes themselves, will give the observer the impression that this is one massive structure. This is not consistent with other single family nor duplex developments of adjacent lots (e.g. ASE Development of 3 duplexes on Longsun Lane). Proposed solutions: If the architecture of each duplex were different, and/or if there was greater distance between the structures such that `daylight' could be viewed between the buildings, this could improve the current effects. Perhaps the use of separate driveway entrances could facilitate a solution. Altering the duplex connections (and reducingleliminating the courtyards) could also reduce the footprint and thus improve the proposed impact. 3) Proposed ancillary treatments — While not portrayed in any current drawings, we understand there had been discussion of incorporating a gate and signage at the driveway entrance from Little Point. This is clearly inconsistent with the neighborhood and is not seen as a positive component of any development in the area. Proposed solution: Ensure the entrance treatments are consistent with the neighboring residences which, in many cases, use natural rocks with simple, residence numbers applied, as a means denoting the specific units served by the driveways. We feel strongly about these issues and look forward to working with the Commission, the Town Council and developers towards a solution that will complement the neighborhood while delivering a favorable ROI for the investor(s). Sincerely, Pam and Peter Warren (4181 Little Point) Carel and Marc Slatkoff (4191 Little Point) Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:34 AM To: Jared Barnes Cc: Tina Vardaman Subject: Little Point duplex Hi Jared, Mike Hazard gave me a colored rendering of this proposed "Courtyard Duplex." for Little Point in Wildridge. I am sorry to say that I do not think it is appropriate for our neighborhood. It will cover the entire point and be visible both from above as well as from the roads. This is a commercial style structure with bars that block the views and make it look like a jail. It has taken me 13 years to grow trees at my house and no amount of screening is going to help this one on Little Point. Vote No, please. Carroll Tyler Carroll S. Tyler Branch Broker Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office 23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657 (970) 479-5762 Direct Line (970) 476-2421 Receptionist (970) 476-2658 Fax www.slifer.net 10/16/2007 Page 1 of l Jared Barnes From: GeraldPHerman@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:47 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: tonights meeting 1, again want to reiterate my opposition to the architectural style of the proposed development at the corner of Wildridge Road West and Little Point. The design is much too commercial looking in appearance and will detract from the neighborhood. I realize this is a matter of taste. However, this proposed design belongs on Metcalf Road in a commercial setting. I ask the P & Z Commission to ask the developer to change the outside appearance to better fit in to the Wildridge subdivision. See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 10/16/2007 Michael P.O. Box 1068 Hazard Gbil, Colorado Associates 81658 Architecture 9'0.949.4958 Planning 9, 0.9494838 fax Interiors I.net mha(@vail.net Date: October 25, 2007 To: Jared Barnes Planner 1 Town of Avon From: Michael A. Hazard AIA Re.: The Courtyard Villas of Avon Please find the enclosed documents for consideration at your November 6'" Planning Commission Meeting. The following revisions to the October 16'" submittal are submitted in response to the conditions for approval and commissioner comments : The following revisions shall be submitted to address Commissioners' concerns: • The landscape design has been revised to address the commissioners' concerns with the extensive addition of trees to improve screening. The engineering departments' concern regarding vegetation in the drainage easement has also been addressed. • The dimensions of the chimneys have been diminished both in height and length. To further lessen the overall height and visual bulk of the homes the roof top hot tub enclosures have been diminished by only enclosing the stair while there is a simple roof form supported with wing walls to protect the deck areas. • The colors have been revised with a compatible color palette applied to the duplex on lot 13. This should help to further differentiate the 2 duplexes. B. The following revisions are submitted to address the conditions noted in the Staff comments: • The landscape architect resolved issue addressed by the engineering department • The encroachments noted into setbacks have been corrected. • The Construction Staging Plan now shows the addition of straw bales. • Intermountain Engineering has addressed the concerns voiced with the topographical map. Exhibit D OCT -30-2007 - From:M.E RIVER FIRE PD 9707484747 To: 970%95749 To: Jared Barnes, Planner I. Town of Avon From., Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD Date: 10/3012007 Re: The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge, Lots 12 & 13, Filing 3, Avon EXHIBIT .l' I P!,O MII-1 •r. u r Ir r'I:� 1 I Irl:: 11 •.. I i/ 1I N l: t t i ,I I i t• / m l t t t i •- • t Y If there are any questions, please feel free to sill me at 970.7484741. il .». ,. �.»..-i:�..1' ,gam....+..•+_r... -' ....4 «.. ,.I.z ..u.:_.:: ':. �' . rv.:•• 1111 fill fill o86*a J � I t W 4 i i OF Z ell jo s F a� �. �.• low ' / \ J loop a \ 1 \ iuswdolane(I 4UnWWoo toot o'$ 130 ai W q� n a y g R 1 F W 9mRi'0f4 `wrN W1I*M'O'i 91 W t16 = V ` � b i »A�aap ..iaa..t. i,�..rti•a,atsi.ly erV = � y Ili � 7 't N CL { C 1. .V 1111 fill fill o86*a J � I t W 4 i i OF Z ell jo s F a� �. �.• low ' / \ J loop a \ 1 \ iuswdolane(I 4UnWWoo toot o'$ 130 r W%2:11 o' - �� WIAWAI`,� i r 1 / / / C 1 W mss. � O M W IIA%'OfJ•__yl Wll ml'O'J � ri pp F .J .- vU W D v ` Z Jul .i t O i N -1 S ~ I N � I W mss. 2 � ' O C G ^ i ■■ —v<_u I I � I `\j \ �'U \\ I k I FT \ I / F r y kN'MP1°P'-Pe1 LL71Y°P°'9�Rj°`Pd S ` N '�— tl .. ..p ..n•.n.•a. .r1•...u•.np.y0 0- tJul �S{JJ�� Ci _ �■■ " r� O N r Q y eg � o a . 0 / \ d �/ \ I i h I 1 D \ b _ F Y r'!^�W9O1001� 4VU'PO14'J'4�"P3 ~ ..., ..,,............... ,...., _ i w Jul •baa{i o w �w.. �w� e I C J IL W Zf- IL N M cn M N M N - �8 8- .-6 ofLU m N V Z� .0 -.St — "' Y W weeaweri.e� wit 'v" pw9E1'01 --W 99111°96, w = W e!•lvp fef �ilel• �/il�vvv•il vi.eliillY�l Y' t� YW m 'r1 s 1► F N ce C 140 9f- ly LU LT+Uy� YJ � C c.i L1.. CJ � J tLO N UA 0 - 0. z T b a i~ N W N co ko t� YW 'r1 9J 1► F N ce w 9f- ly LU LT+Uy� YJ L1.. CJ N W 96 'r1 9J 1► F N W w ~ N M - � W y a'7"�'P9O1 P'r LL91Y�'°I'�4'Yl ` W VrrK6UtA —W 9MI-VO•d = s6 W 7 Y L ,.o ,.,,.�.1.6,�...v..,eu.,�pry .j � G 3 F 92 i s N � opI 0 b ti w 99 Ili W a I� 1 a _ a _ I I I I 1 I I I I I .\ ; d • j 1 I 0 1` 1 I I I- I I I 1 � I I I I I 1 jl I I I I I I � i I� Im Yd' } SSS �1 I I j F E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0® O 0 0 0 0 <11 011,11 I I it t I I I I I I � I I I I I � I m 1 31 �1 I 0 I � � 00000000000©©000 54 r F S W W BT'9L6'p[b'—.M PHI N'OL 99 r. L s outDa f JvU 3 F o s Q a0 C 5 IL ° 0 M i 000000©0000®0000 1.1 3 R p d W 1 g tj ! y t O � O `L Q .s �. ee 77 J A B as g r _ - r r lJ 011 a� w << Staff Report;,�,`, FINAL DESIGN PLAN AV 3 O N C O L 0 R A D 0 November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date November 1, 2007 Project type Duplex Residences Legal description Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning 2 Units per Lot PUD Address 4080 & 4090 Wildridge Road West Introduction The applicant, Michael Hazard, has submitted a Final Design application for two duplex structures on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3 of the Wildridge Subdivision. The lots would be accessed off of a private drive from Little .Point. The four residences (A and B on Lot 13, C and D on Lot 12) are 3,734 sq. ft. (Residence A); 3,952 sq. ft. (Residence B); 4,175 sq. ft. (Residence C); and 3,997 sq. ft. (Residence D) and are designed in a contemporary architectural style utilizing flat roofs, wood siding and stucco on the exterior walls. It should be noted that in order for this design plan to function, a minor subdivision plat would first need to be approved to adjust the shared lot line between Lots 12 and 13. Included with this report are a vicinity map (Exhibit A) and reduced plan sets with a site plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit F). Also, the applicant has provided a list of changes from the most recent submittal (Exhibit D). Review History At the Commission's June 19, 2007 meeting, a Sketch Design for Lots 12 and 13 was reviewed. There were several comments, including the following: location of private drive in a Utility and Drainage Easement is problematic, differentiation needed between duplexes on both lots, and that the materials and colors need to compliment the neighborhood. At the Commission's August 7, 2007 meeting, a similar Final Design application for these properties was tabled. Prior to the tabling being granted, comments were received from the public regarding the size of the proposed structure on the lot as compared to neighboring properties, the differing roof style as compared to the neighboring properties, and the lack of compatibility with other homes in Wildridge. Town of Avon Community Development . (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design IIIA November 6, 2007 Planning & zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 8' At the Commission's October 16, 2007 meeting, a Final Design application for these properties was tabled. Comments received from the Commissioners included the following: the style of architecture and the approach to a duplex connection were suitable; the linear width of the duplex connection for the proposed structure on Lot 12 was lacking; lack of parking provide; and the designs of the proposed duplexes appear to be one structure as seen from the roadway. Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items when reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zoninu Code. • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the duplex zoning. • Density. The lots are zoned for a duplex and the density is appropriate. • Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is fifty (50%) percent. The project is in compliance with the PUD, proposing forty- seven (47%) percent lot coverage, and this coverage ratio is for all impervious surfaces compared to the entire size of the properties. • Setbacks: The setbacks for the properties are typical for Wildridge with a twenty- five (25') foot front yard setback and ten (10') foot side and rear yard building setbacks. The twenty-five (25') foot front setback is measured from the property line adjacent to Wildridge Road West for Lot 12, while it is measured from both Wildridge Road West and Little Point for Lot 13. An Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) is required to document the exact locations since the buildings do abut the setbacks on the north and south sides of Lot 12 and the north, south, and west sides of Lot 13. • Easements: A Utility and Drainage Easement of ten (10') feet in width borders the east side of both Lots 12 and 13, while a fifteen (16) foot wide (seven and one-half (7.5') feet for each lot) Utility and Drainage Easement borders the north side of Lot 12 and the south side of Lot 13. The western side of both lots has a. ten (10') foot wide Slope Maintenance, Drainage and Snow Storage Easement. The north side of Lot 13 has a ten (10') foot wide Slope Maintenance, Drainage and Snow Storage Easement, while the south side of Lot 12 has a seven and one-half (7.5') foot wide Utility and Drainage Easement. It is not advised to place landscaping within platted easements; however, it is the owners responsibility if this landscaping requires removal and replacement in the future. In addition, a new Utility and Drainage Easement needs to be platted along the adjusted property line to replace the one affected by the future resubdivision. • Building Height The maximum allowable building height according to zoning for these properties is thirty-five (35') feet. The designs for Lots 12 and 13 are in compliance with the applicable zoning with all top of parapet heights and roofs at or below thirty (30') feet for Lot 12, and at or below thirty-five (35') feet for Lot 13. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design Al1A November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 8 There are also elements such as chimneys that extend above the allowed height, but they are exempt from the overall height calculation. Again, adherence to this requirement would need to be verified by planning staff with an ILC at the time of ridge construction. Grading/Drainage: All existing and proposed grades are indicated on the site plan. Parking: This project requires three (3) spaces for each dwelling unit (two (2) per unit under 2,500 sq. ft. / three (3) per unit over 2,500 sq. ft.). The applicant is proposing a total of four (4) spaces (two (2) interior and two (2) exterior) for each dwelling unit. The plans propose the exterior spaces for each unit to be in front of their respective entrances in a paved area. The areas differ between each residence with Residence A having a twenty (20') feet wide by eighteen (18') feet long area, Residence B having an eighteen (18') feet wide by sixteen (16') feet long area, Residence C having a seventeen (1 T) feet wide by nineteen (19') feet long area, and Residence D have an eighteen (18') feet wide by sixteen (16') feet long area. The minimum size for a parking space is nine (9') feet wide by eighteen (18') feet long, as required by the Design Guidelines. It appears that the spaces for Residences B, C, and D do not support enough square footage for two (2) vehicles, but are large enough for one (1) exterior space for each unit. The two (2) exterior and two (2) interior parking spaces for Residence A and the one (1) exterior space and two (2) interior spaces for Residences B, C, and D are enough to satisfy the parking requirements for each duplex structure. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist on the properties for up to two (2) dwelling units per lot. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desinn Guidelines. A. Site Development: o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put emphasis on the site layout configuration and state that structures should blend in with natural settings and limit the need for extensive site grading and slope retention. Additionally, buildings should be stepped in appearance where practical and as necessitated by steep slopes. Due to the interior courtyard design of each duplex, the project utilizes a majority of the buildable area on each lot. The proposed project abuts the setbacks on both the north and south sides of Lot 12, the north, south and east sides of Lot 13, and is within two (2') feet of the setback on the east side setback of Lot 12. Town of Avon Community Deveiopment (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design AIIA November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 8 ' The Guidelines state that all disturbed areas should be revegetated with native seed. The applicant intends to restore disturbed areas with vegetation as shown on the landscape plan and discussed later in this report. o Site Access: Access to both lots is provided with a twelve (12') foot wide driveway which traverses Lot 13 from Little Point to access Lot 12. The private drive starts with a four (4%) percent grade for the first twenty (20') feet adjacent to the roadway. The grades throughout the drive vary from no grade to a ten (10%) percent grade. The first twenty (20') feet adjacent to the garage for both Residence A and B (Lot 13) have a two and one- half (2.5%) percent grade. The first twenty (20') feet adjacent to the garage for Residence C (northern half of the duplex on Lot 12) has a two (2%) grade, while Residence D (southern half of the duplex on Lot 12) has a two and one-half (2.5%) percent grade. The Design Guidelines require no more than a four (4%) percent grade for the first twenty (20') feet of the driveway entering a site and leaving a garage door. This design appears to be in compliance with the access requirements. In order to access Lot 12, an access easement must be provided on Lot 13 where the proposed drive is located for the use of Lot 12. This would be completed during the resubdivision of these lots. The site must also be accessible for emergency vehicles. The applicant is proposing an emergency vehicle turnaround between the two duplexes on Lots 12 and 13. The applicant has also provided a notation that a dry horizontal standpipe be designed and installed for both duplexes. This is acceptable to the Eagle River Fire Protection District as outlined in a memorandum from Carol Gill-Mulson (Exhibit E). Staff requires that this standpipe be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. o Parking and Loading: The intent of the parking guidelines is to, provide residents and guests with suitable parking locations that are also durable and functional. The parking requirements of this section are discussed above in the parking zoning requirements. The material used for the driveway/courtyard area is not specified and staff recommends that the material be asphalt, concrete, concrete pavers, or another impervious surface as required by the Design Guidelines. o Site Grading: Grading on the properties is minimal and meets the intent of the Design Guidelines. Grading is used to alter drainage to the east of the driveway and in between the two duplexes. The applicant has proposed to revegetate all the areas disturbed by grading work. o Drainage: The Guidelines have generally been met with regard to drainage. The eastern easements have minimal grading work to ensure that drainage is contained within the site. The Construction Management Plan, which encompasses both Lots 12 and 13, should be revised to show that the Limits of Disturbance fencing encloses the material storage area to the northern portion of Lot 13. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74a-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision—The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design A 11A November 6, 2607 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 8 ' o Snow Removal and Storage: The project has designated the area to the east of the driveway, located in the Utility and Drainage Easement, as snow storage for both Lots 12 and 13. The project proposes 1,680 sq. ft. of snow storage, which exceeds the required twenty (20%) percent of the paved surfaces (1,306 sq. ft.). B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: A variety of quality building materials are proposed with this application, including: stucco, both smooth and horizontal banding, horizontal wood siding, and painted steel railings. The proposed colors have been modified since the most recent proposal. Lot 12 uses the colors as follows: smooth stucco - "Intricate Ivory" (SW 6350); banded stucco — "Sociable" (SW 6359); wood siding and soffits — "Light Brown" (Parklex 1000 Ayous); metal louvers, railings, and chimney caps — "Priviledge Green" (SW 6193); and windows and doors — "Pueblo Tan". The smooth stucco has a light tan to off-white color, while the banded stucco is more of a peach/tan color. Lot 13 is proposing the following colors: smooth stucco - "Creamery" (SW 6358); banded stucco — "Soft Apricot" (SW 6352); wood siding and soffits — "Light Brown" (Parklex 1000 Ayous); metal louvers, railings, and chimney caps — "Pennywise" (SW 6349); and windows and doors — "Pueblo Tan". Both the smooth stucco and banded stucco have darker hues than their respective proposed color on Lot 12. The metal louver, railings and chimney caps are a red hue on Lot 13, while Lot 12 utilizes a green hue. All of the colors appear to be earthtone or indigenous, compatible of one another and meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest. The building's massing is broken up with varying building materials, wall planes, and use of fenestration. The proposed design for the duplex on Lot 13 differs from the proposed design on Lot 12 for a few reasons one of which is the use of wood siding as a building material. The two duplexes (Lots 12 and 13) appear to compliment each other not only in the application of certain materials but also in the varying of colors. Each building's design meets the intent of the Architectural Interest Design Guidelines. The Guidelines encourage pitched roofs and no unbroken ridgelines, acknowledging only flat roofs when discussing pueblo architecture. The proposal is designed in a contemporary architectural vernacular in which flat roofs are vital to the design. The proposal utilizes flat roofs as the main roof type; with the exception of the roof above the roof -top deck/hot tub space. This roof has an inverted pitch, butterfly roof, appearing like a wing shape or v -shape. o Outdoor Lighting: The applicant does not intend to use exterior lighting. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 9495749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision —The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design Al1A November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 8 — o Duplex Development. The connections between the two halves of each duplex are not typical of most Wildridge duplex connections. The proposed design on Lot 12 has a duplex connection on the lower level and can only be seen from Wildridge Road on the west elevation, not from the driveway and east elevation. This connection space is used as a master suite and is a functional area, but the area is not overly large in terms of width as it measures only twenty (20') feet. The proposed design on Lot 13 has a duplex connection on the upper level and the connection is a still a functional yet secondary one. The space is used by a secondary bedroom and bath on both halves of the duplex and is sixteen and one- half (16.5') feet in width. The interior courtyard and garages are below the connection and are easily viewed from both the east and west elevations. The designs of each duplex have similarities between the two halves but they do not appear to be 'mirror images' nor do the two duplexes appear to be 'mirror images' of each other. At the Sketch Design review and the previous Final Design review for both Lots 12 and 13, the Commissioners expressed intrigue and support of this connection, although they asked if the connections could be more massive. C. Landscaping: o Design Character. • The provided Landscape Plan encompasses both lots 12 and 13 since they will be developed at the same time. The design appears to generally comply with the intent of the Residential Landscaping Guidelines. In terms of plantings, there are a total five (5) Amur Maple trees, fifty-eight (58) Aspen trees, five (5) River Birch trees, eighteen (18) Spruce trees, four (4) Rocky Mountain Maple trees, one (1) Serviceberry, eleven (11) Alpine Currant shrubs, five (5) Blue Mist Spirea shrubs, twenty-two (22) Chokecherry shrubs, seventeen (17) Mugo Pines, eighteen (18) Peking Cotoneaster shrubs, five (5) Rock Cotoneaster shrubs, twenty (20) Sea Green Juniper shrubs, sixteen (16) Three Leaf Sumac plants, thirty-seven (37) White Potentilla plants, ten (10) Woods Rose plants, and groundcovers. Most of the plant species proposed are contained in Appendix 1: Recommended Plant List, from the Town's Design Guidelines. According to the applicant, all trees would meet the minimum size requirements as prescribed by the Design Guidelines: 6' minimum height for evergreens, 2" minimum caliper for deciduous trees, and 5 gallon minimum for shrubs. The landscape plan appears to be well designed and meets the intent of the Guidelines. o IrrigationMatering: The proposed landscaping plan includes a rain sensor with irrigation and meets the minimum standards of the Design Guidelines. o Retaining Walls: There are no retaining walls proposed for this project. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision—The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design AIIA November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 8 ' The design and buildings appear to be compatible with the site topography. The structures would be stepped with the grades as they fall to the southwest from Lot 13 to Lot 12. As stated in section 4 of this report, minimal grading is being proposed to alter drainage between the two duplexes on Lots 12 and 13. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. The applicant has proposed high quality materials and earth tone colors that should make this project visually compatible with the surrounding environment. Although the architecture used on the two duplexes is not identical to the neighboring properties, the lack of architectural conformity in the area promotes this architecture and design. The massing and appearance of this project do not appear dominating as viewed from the neighboring properties and public ways. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. Staff does not feel that any monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the proposed improvements. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies and is a use by right per the Wildridge Subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of this final design plan for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the final design plan for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions to be resolved by building permit submittal: 1. The horizontal standpipe be designed and stamped by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer, 2. A resubdivision application be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit to adjust the lot line between Lots 12 and 13, provide an access easement on Lot 13 for Lot 12, and to replat a Utility and Drainage Easement between the two lots; 3. The limits of disturbance fencing be revised to include the area called out for material storage on the Construction Staging Plan (Sheet A 1.2); and 4. 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. Town of Avon community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design AAM November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 8 ' Res ec"u"'submiitt�ed, Vj !�D 6e'� re BarnesnerI Attachments: A. Aerial Map B. Letter from Victoria and Nigel Dagnall dated August 3'd, 2007 C. Other Public Input D. Letter from the Applicant dated October 25, 2007 E. Letter from Carol Gill-Mulson dated October 30, 2007 F. Reduced plan set and colored elevations Tam of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Wildridge - Lots 12 and 13, Block 3 Residential Streets Property Boundaries rn: Jared Barnes From: Nigel Dagnall [dagnall12@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:30 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Proposed Development of Lots 12 & 13 August 3, 2007 Dear Commissioners, My husband and I appreciate you taking the time to understand our serious concerns with regard to the proposed application for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13 of the Wildridge Subdivision. We fully understand the right and need to develop vacant lots; however, we feel these huge structures are totally out of keeping with the surrounding area while some of the design features are "suspect" with regard to the Design Review Guidelines, as outlined below. 1) Roof. The flat roof design as proposed for this development is extremely contemporary in style and in no way reflects or complies with the suggested pueblo/adobe or typical mountain architecture with a pitched roof design. The design guidelines state that "all design shall be compatible with existing built structures". The existing contemporary style homes in the area as referenced at the June 19'h meeting all have a pitched roof design (photos to follow). 2) Design The design of the buildings looks massive and retail/commercial in image, completely out of character with the Wildridge Subdivision and a mountain lifestyle, and rather more fitting in the Domino/Columbine bakery complex in Avon. The site coverage although within the guidelines by a mean 2%, again does not reflect the open living space and mountain lifestyle of Wildridge. We suggest that the design is based purely on monetary gain while sacrificing the environment, image and lifestyle of the Wildridge Subdivision. 3) Lighting The many and large windows, although not governed by the light pollution standards for on site outdoor lighting as indicated in the guidelines, yet the impact and affect to the existing homes is the same as is stated that "the access to a clear and visible night sky is a strong value to our community. Light pollution is a threat to our clear skies that are part of the heritage of the Rocky Mountain West". While this proposed development has meet the landscaping requirements, it appears that the majority of it is between Lots 12 & 14 with minimal coverage around the north and west side of the buildings which directly affects the community as a whole. 4) Parking The guidelines call for 3 spaces per residence, you will notice on the plans that this is an extremely confined and compacted parking area, and the turning spaces seem extremely tight for this type of density and will give difficult access to a number of the garages. In an emergency situation we believe there will also be difficult access for life safety personnel and their vehicles. Little Point road clearly states "no parking" on the road side. Should residents of these units have social events this will cause serious congestion in the area which is likely to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and the existing residents. 5) Traffic With most homes today sharing 2-4 cars the impact of between 8-16 vehicles sharing a very small and quiet cul-de-sac will negatively impact the existing residents. In closing, we would like to bring to your attention points C and D from page 47 number 6 of the Design Review Guidelines and The Planning and Zoning Commission Review (Final Design Plan Approval Criteria): Point "C"... "The appearance ofproposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboringproperties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to the street, quality ofmaterials and colors. " Point "D "... "the objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired" with regard to these statements most certainly Architectural style, Massing, Height and 8/6/2007 Page 2 of 2 Aesthetics will be totally compromised in comparison to the vicinity of other homes in the immediate area It is also our understanding that complete drawings were required to be submitted one week prior to the meeting of August 8th, however only partial drawings of pne lot were submitted for review. We accept that a building will most likely be constructed at some point on these lots, we ask that the design is in keeping with the direction of the Design Guidelines and that the appearance is more residential as opposed to retail or commercial as defined by the design. Thank you so much for your time in listening to our concerns, we hope that you will move forward in reevaluate the design of this proposed application and acknowledging that it is out of keeping for the Wildridge area and insist that what ever structure is placed on the lots that they are harmonious and aesthetically complimentary to the mountains and not a small Mall. Sincerely Victoria and Nigel Dagnall 4211 S. Wildridge Road West 8/6/2007 EXHI BIT C Jared Barnes From: Karl Krueger [Kruegerarchitect@comcast.net) Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:21 PM To: Jared Barnes Cc: mha@vail:net Subject: Proposed Duplexes for Lot 12 and 13, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon colorado Planning and Zoning Commission, In view of citizen's comments received as recently as late this afternoon and because I was unable to be at today's scheduled meeting due to a long standing appointment, I would request that the Planning and Zoning Commission table my submittal for final approval until the next available meeting. I had arranged for an associate to field questions about the Courtyard Villas project already recommended for final approval, but I would prefer to address concerned citizens comments in person and make a fuller presentation of the project during the next meeting in order to allay concerns, refute mischaracterizations or misunderstandings and present visual aids (renderings and/or a model) over and above the final approval requirements already met. Sincerely, Michael Hazard Assoc. 8/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: john_wamke@comcast.net Sent: Monday, August 06, 200710:23 AM To: Jared Bames Subject: Lots 12 and 13 Jared, we would like to join those opposed to the proposed commercial style duplexes in Wildridge. We believe design mistakes have been made in the past and hope this one can be avoided. Thanks for your concern, John and Becky Warnke, 5768 Wildridge Rd. E. Avon, Colo. 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Bames From: Harrel Lawrence [harrel3@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 200710:37 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: building at wiildridge road and little pt. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT ON LITTLE POINT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT SHOULD BE A 7-11 STORE AND DOES NOTIIII FIT THE DESIGNS THAT ARE IN THE AREA. WE LIVE ON 4313 JUNE PT. AND THINK THAT THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE AREA THAT WILL DOWN GRADE THE VALUES AND THE APPEARANCE AND BEAUTY OF THE AREA. MARY HARREL LAWRENCE DONALD J. MCMAHAN 970 949-4060 4313 JUNE POINT, WILDRIDGE 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Bames From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 200710:40 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 and 13 Wildridge I have lived at 4737 Wildridge Road since 1994 and drive by these Lots every day. Every house shows up on these sage covered hillsides and it has taken me 12 years to grow trees and vegetation to soften my home. ( which happens to be somewhat contemporary.) This proposed design is the ugliest I have seen in my 24 years of selling real estate In this valley. It is even too ugly for a commercial store in Denver much less a residential neighborhood. Do not let this happen. Thank you. Carroll Tyler Carroll S. Tyler Branch Broker Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office 23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657 (970) 479-5762 Direct Line (970)476-2421 Receptionist (970) 476-2658 Fax wwwsliferm 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Bames From: Mike Neff [mneff@insuranceaai.comj Sent: Monday, August 06, 200712:58 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lot 12 & 13, Wildridge Road West & Little Point Mr. Barnes, I have just been made aware of a pending design approval for the subject property. I do not believe that this design as depicted is appropriate for the Wildridge sub -division. If constructed from materials commonly used in architecture of this nature, it will not only stand out it will detract from the surroundings of our neighborhood. While the design may be consider good architecture, it will fail to enhance the surroundings. As evidence of the kind of negative impact this type of architecture has to the visual appeal of our neighborhood, I only have to relay the comments of all of my guests that drive into Wildridge for the first time make regarding The Barrancas Townhomes on Metcalf. I quote. "what in the world are buildings like that doing in an area like this". How much more of a detriment to the Wildridge neighborhood will a design of this nature have? Significant I think. There have been many homes built in Wildridge over the 10 years I have lived there. (I am a full time resident, by the way) I have not necessarily liked the design of each one of them. However, this one goes too far a field to be considered appropriate for the area. Regards, Michael Neff, President Michael Neff Agency, Inc. 970-949-5633 8/6/2007 Page I of I Jared Barnes From: Lynn Brelhauer [brethr88@comoast.net] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 9:40 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lot 12&13 WildridgeRd ATTN: Jared Barnes Subject: Unacceptable Construction Project This is regarding the two duplex residences on Lots 12 &13 Wildridge Rd and Little Point Rd up for final review this Tues; Aug 8, 2007. I find it hard to come up with the proper language to describe such a despicable looking construction project to be called duplexes/residences. How would anyone on the board/committee like to have this built next to where they live? I for one want to express my total displeasure of having such a poorly designed, commercial strip mall looking structure built in the area of Wildridge. It lends itself to look like a low affordable housing project. Wildridge has homes, this structure looks like and has the feel of a retail office building—not a mountain home. Because of its size and being on a comer, I am very concerned about the traffic and parking situation that would be involved, the light pollution it would cause, and what about the size of each unit and each structure? I also wonder if this structure will be built with the quality of the homes in Wildridge that is currently here, orjust "built" to get it up and sold. I feel Wildridge residence deserve better than this and would say so if they knew of this project design!! This design does not belong in a residential area!! and Lynn Brethauer yrs + residence, two lots away from lot 12&13 on Wildridge RD 8/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: GeraldPHerman@aol.com Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:57 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: duplex proposal for lots 12 813 Wildridge Rd West and Little Point My name is Jerry Herman and I live at 5531 Coyote Ridge. I formerly lived at 4211 Wildridge Rd West. My wife, Connie and I believe that the proposed duplexes, which have an ultramodern design, will ruin the character of Wildridge and in particular, the area near Little Point. While we recognize that there already are a few residences that are not "Mountain Home" in design, they do nothing to enhance the beauty of Wildridge and we assume were built before there was an active Planning Commission. We chose to move to Wildridge in 2000 because of the beautiful mountain atmosphere and the homes which were compatible with this setting. The proposed buildings belong in a commercial, not a residential setting in the mountains. Therefore we are taking this opportunity to strongly protest this proposal. Thank you. We plan to attend the meeting. Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. 8/6/20{17 Page 1 of 1 Jared Bames From: nelsonelectric@comcast.net Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 7:54 PM To: Jared Bames Subject: Lot 12,13 comm. style duplexs Jared, Excuse me, but why do I have a note on my door concerning this project? Isn't this something that obviously doesn't belong here and should have never made it through the beginning conceptual stage approval process? When I built my house, I took the plans to the town and inquired as to whether my proposed home was something that would be acceptable to the town of Avon. This was done before it ever got so far as final DRB review. This is obviously a plan by some greedy developer and egotistical architect. Please just handle these ridiculous plans earlier in the future and tell them no. Sincerely, Steven Nelson 4033 Wildridge Road 8/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Doss Malone [malone@vail.net] Sent: Monday, August o6, 2007 9:52 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Aug 7 Planning Meeting Jared, Regarding the double duplex planned for lots 12 and 13 off Little Point in Wildridge; the design is very industrial looking and completely out of character with the overall character of our neighborhood. The lots in question are beautiful and deserve beautiful homes in line with the standard "mountain" style of architecture up here. As well, two of these things placed back to back on a prominent ridge will be visually unappealing and an overbearing eyesore for the entire subdivision. My heart goes out to the homeowners on Little Point and surrounding Wildridge Road if this design is approved. Sincerely, Doss Malone 4700 Wildridge Rd Avon . 8/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Chuck Bunting [chuck.bunting@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:23 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 813 - Wildridge Road Jared - My wife and I are full time residents at 4015 Wildridge Road West. We are concerned that the appeamce of these buildings in not appropriate for the mountain community where we live. Please have the builder consider redesigning the exterior to be more compatible with the surrounding homes. We plan to attend the meeting this evening. Thank you for your time. ***•:**ss*sa*ssa*r+r►*s**r�s►s Regards, Chuck Bunting chuck.bunting(a)gmail.com Home: 970-845-6319 Cell: 970-390-4281 Mail: PO Box 6034 Avon, CO 81620-6034 8/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Bames From: Paul & Terese Jeppson [paul4799@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:20 AM To: Jared Barnes Cc: Paul & Terese Jeppson Subject: West Wildridge Rd & Little Point Duplex Dear Mr. Barnes and the Community Development Board: My Husband and 1 have lived in Wildridge since 1988 when we bought our first townhome at Buffalo Head Townhomes on Draw Spur. We are currently in our third house in Wildridge. We have watched the development in this area go from sagebrush, to an area that has struggled with it's identity, and today to a desirable neighborhood that is finally coming into it's own. Lacks Design Compatibility Recently there has been many new single family homes and duplexes built that have been of a higher quality - we are actually seeing properties that are rivaling other neighborhood areas in the valley such as Singletree and Upper Homestead. This proposed development is not compatitable with the current development trends in Wildridge (or in the valley) in either style or high-end quality/feel. In fact, it already looks dated circa 1970. Loss of Property Values and Value on living in Wildridge The neighboring homes surrounding this development will probably decrease in value and Wildridge will again risk becoming a place "not to live" because your investment will not be safe. One of the nice aspects of Wildridge Is that the houses do not have that high end track home look (like Cordillera or Eagle Ranch). The town of Avon has given a lot of latitude in what is considered acceptable design. However;. if given too much latitude the neighborhood will suffer. It will begin to look like some of the neighborhoods in Clear Creek County where "anything goes". Where an A -fame home can sit next to a modem style home which can sit next to a log cabin. Is there really no way (given the large latitude) to make this property more similar to the surrounding properties (woodBog/stucco)? Commercial Distant from Metcalf Road Given the fact that one already enters Wildridge via a'commemial area with large non-descript storage buildings. It is important that the neighborhood distinguishes itself from this in it's design. Altering this proposed property so it retains the contemporary feeling yet blends - (perhaps making it an adobe like home) benefits Avon and Wildridge. There is a reason designs like this are not being built in other areas of the valley. I know you have heard from many residents in Wildridge - I hope you would consider the opinions of your current residents, the people who are believing and supporting Avon, and tax payers of Avon, over a developer who at this point is not building a property that will enhance the desirability of living in Wildridge and Avon. Do we really want to look back in three years and say - "What were we thinking?" Thank you for your time, Tem Jeppson 4480B West Wildridge Road 8/7/21)07 Jared Barnes From: Kathleen Kunis [kathleenkunis@comcast.net] it: Tuesday, August 07, 200710:20 AM Jared Barnes 5ubject: Commercial Style Duplex Dear Mr. Barnes: I would like to express my dismay about the commercial style duplexes that are proposed for Wildridge Road and Little Point (Lots 12 and 13). We already have a number of architectural disasters on Wildridge. These structures would definitely represent a new low. We are living in the mountains! This style is more.appropriate to the suburbs of a city or an industrial zoned area. I cannot imagine what the builder and the architect are thinking! I am also disturbed by the fact that this building would cause a great deal of lighting pollution. I used to be able to see the stars very clearly from Wildridge. This building would be a disaster for its neighbors. We also have the issue of the buildings' size, traffic, and parking issues. I would hope that this building is not allowed to be built in Wildridge. It is the antithesis of a mountain home! Sincerely, Kathy Kunis 5301 Ferret Lane Wildridge Lots 12 and 13 Jared Barnes From: Joanne Morgan [morgangd@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:09 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 and 13 Jared, Page 1 of 1 I'll be anxious to hear what happens with the Ryan Sutter fence this evening. I'll be amazed if he doesn't have to tear that thing down. He's continuing his backyard remodel which is fine — but hopefully the P&Z folks will stand by their guns and make the fence go. I am also stunned at the plans for Lots 12 and 13 Block 3. This isn't LoDo and that's what this looks like. What else is going to happen up here in Wildridge that makes no design sense given the adjacent properties? This is almost as ill -placed as that hideous building Daniel Liebskind wants to plop down in Edwards. Joanne Morgan Joanne Morgan Graphic Design 970.743.1064 970.390.7246 cell 8/16/2007 Page I of I Jared Barnes From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:00 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Thank you For getting the design for Lots 12 and 13 tabled. Now we need them to redesign this so that it is more in keeping with the neighborhood and not a light reflecting eye sore. In my opinion, if that duplex were built as is, any property within that view corridor would be devalued at least $200,000.00. Just because something meets Avon "guidelines" does not mean that it should be built. Carroll Tyler Carroll S. Tyler Branch Broker Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office 23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657 (970) 479-5762 Direct lane (970) 476-2421 Receptionist (970) 476-2658 Fax www.slifer.net 10/11/2007 Pagel of 2 Jared Barnes From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:51 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: RE: Thank you Jared, I understand all of this. Avon's "minimum zoning and design guidelines' should not be an excuse to allow such an eyesore to be built on a prominent piece of land visible from a huge part of the subdivision. The fact that Avon has not had tougher requirements is now being reflected by the hugely expensive redevelopment of the town which will be on going for several years. People buy in Wiklridge for the views and if they have to look at this ugly duplex which looks like a bad gas station, they will lose value in their homes whether Town of Avon cares or not. Take the high road. Carroll From: Jared Barnes [mailto:jbames@avon.org] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:10 AM To: Carroll Tyler Subject: RE: Thank you Carroll, I appreciate your comments and care about what is designed in town. Unfortunately there are some incorrect statements in your email.. First, I did not ask or request the tabling. The applicant requested it due to him not being able to attend the meeting. In addition, he full intends to have his application presented at the next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on August 21. Second, you refer to view corridors and devaluation of property. Unfortunately, the town of Avon does not protect any view unless there are in a platted view corridor. In Avon projects are reviewed based on their compliance with the Municipal code and the Design Review Guidelines. If a project meets all of these requirements it will receive a favorable recommendation from staff. This project in particular meets the minimum zoning and design guideline requirements and has received a recommendation for approval from the town staff. Hopefully this clarifies what went on at the last meeting and the next steps for the project. Regards, Jared Barnes Planner I Community Development Town of Avon PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 970-748-4023 From: Carroll Tyler [mailto:ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:00 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Thank you For getting the design for Lots 12 and 13 tabled. Now we need them to redesign this so that it is more in keeping with the neighborhood and not a light reflecting eye sore. In my opinion, if that duplex were built as is, any property within that view corridor would be devalued at least $200,000.00. Just because something meets Avon 'guidelines' does not mean that it should be built. Carroll Tyler Carroll S. Tyler Branch Broker Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office 23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657 (970) 479-5762 Direct Line 8/16/2007 Page I of I Jared Barnes From: Doss Malone [malone@vail.net] Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:59 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Wildridge Lots 12/13 Jared, This is a follow up to my e-mail last week conceming the planned development of lots 12/13 in Wildridge. I loop around the entire subdivision daily on my bike and would like to stress just how prominent these lots are. As I try to visualize the design that strikes me as industrial, but is euphemistically described as "contemporary", the words invasive and predatory come to mind. I grew up in Colorado and have enjoyed this valley for 30 years. I first purchased in Wildridge in 1994 and have seen the progression of development. While there are certain interesting, unique designs that have been tucked innocently against the natural topography over the years, this design's departure from the regional norm will be exaggerated by its location. I don't advocate a bland cookie cutter approach and appreciate quality and creativity but I do think there is a certain style of architecture that appeals to those of us who love living here and this design seems out of character. On a positive note, I appreciate the economical access design using multiple lots that minimizes the excavation required to development challenging locations. Sincerely, Doss Malone 4700 Wildridge Rd. From: Doss Malone [mallto:malone@vail.net] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:52 PM To: 'jbames@avon.org' Subject: Aug 7 Planning Meeting Jared, Regarding the double duplex planned for lots 12 and 13 off Little Point in Wildridge; the design is very industrial looking and completely out of character with the overall character of our neighborhood. The lots in question are beautiful and deserve beautiful homes in line with the standard "mountain" style of architecture up here. As well, two of these things placed back to back on a prominent ridge will be visually unappealing and an overbearing eyesore for the entire subdivision. My heart goes out to the homeowners on Little Point and surrounding Wildridge Road if this design is approved. Sincerely, Doss Malone 4700 Wildridge Rd Avon 10/11/2007 Pagel of 2 Jared Barnes From: MIKE NEFF [MNEFF@INSURANCEAAI.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 200712:52 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: RE: Wildridge Lots 12 & 13 Thank you. I appreciate your quick response. I assume that you will provide the meeting with all of the public comment that you have received. Have a nice day, Mike Michael Neff, President Michael Neff Agency, Inc. 970-949-5633 From: Jared Barnes [mailto:jbames@avon.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:30 PM To: Mike Neff Subject: RE: Wildridge Lots 12 & 13 Mr. Neff, The applicant has requested that the project be tabled from the August 7th meeting. He intends to go forward with this application at the August 21st meeting but I still am waiting to get the final word to verify that Intention he has expressed to me. Regards, Jared Barnes PlannerI Community Development Town of Avon PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 970-74813023 From: Mike Neff [mailto:mneff@lnsuranceaai.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:30 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Wildridge Lots 12 & 13 Mr. Barnes, please advise me of the outcome of the final review of the plans for the duplexes on Lots 12 & 13 in the Wildridge sub -division. The review had been scheduled for August 7th. Thank you, 8/16/2007 Page 2 of 2 Mike Neff Michael Neff, President Michael Neff Agency, Inc. 970-949-5633 8/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: GeraldPHerman@aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:43 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Property at Wildridge Rd. West and Little Point My wife Connie and I firmly believe that the proposed houses on Wildridge Rd. West just south of Little Point are not an appropriate design for the Wildridge neighborhood. They have the appearance of commercial structures and will only serve to lower the desirability of Wildridge. We urge the P&Z Commision to reject the design and demand that the architects design something that complements the other homes in the area. While, we now live at 5531 Coyote Ridge, we formerly lived at 4211 Wildridge Rd. West. We can't believe that the Commission would even consider such monstrosities in Wildridge. Thank You. Gerald P Herman I also, have a question as to why nothing has happened with the fence built by Ryan Sutter? See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 10/11/2007 Pale 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Harrel Lawrence [harrel3@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 10:51 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: WILD RIDGE - LITTE PT. WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE DELAY IN THE WILDWRDGE SITE APPROVE ON WEST ROAD/LITTLE PT. MEANS THAT THHEY ARE TRYING TO NOT HAVE THE PROJECT LOOK LIKE A 7-11 STORE AND THAT IT WILL BETTER FIT THE AREA . JERRY MCMAHAN AND HARREL LAWRENCE /// CONCERNED HOME OWNERS 10/11/2007 plans Page I of 1 Jared Barnes From: Joanne Morgan [morgangd@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:07 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: plans Jared, I just spent some time with Michael Hazard looking at his plans for the two duplexes. After seeing the renderings with shading and recesses more distinct, I like the project. Joanne . , i, _ . : .. ... ...... 10/11/2007 Page 1 of I Jared Barnes From: Matt Ivy [Ivy@vailracquetclub.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:10 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: courtyard villas Hi Jared, We are writing in support of the proposed Courtyard Villas of Wildridge. My wife and I live just up the road from the site at 4274 Wildridge Rd West and will pass the new homes several times each day. We have seen the plans and the elevations and feel that the project is an excellent fit for the site. We encourage the Town to approve the project. Thank you, Matt and Jane Ivy Wildridge Home Owners 10/16/2007 Page 1 of l Jared Barnes From: Paul & Teresa Jeppson [paul4799@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:55 AM To: Jared Barnes Subject: Lots 12 & 13 Residential Units Mr. Barnes, We live at 4480B Wildridge Road W. Tem and I have lived in Wildridge since 1988. We have seen numerous buildings and projects constructed over that time. Some good and some bad. Recently, we have started to see the influx in the last 4 or 5 years of high end, high quality projects especially at the upper end of Wildridge. This is consistent with the goal of the majority if not all of homeowners and should be the goal of the P&Z. The currently proposed project has the same look an feel as a combination circa 1975 condominium complexes and commercial industrial design. This design is found in the 30 year old portions of Vail, Avon and other mountain towns. It has no redeeming characteristics that would be pleasing to the eye or that would improve the value of the proposed projects or improve the values of those neighboring the project. It is interesting to note that when these older projects are remodeled as you are seeing in Vail, they are all trying to cover up the old design. I am not an advocate of subdivision building such as you would see in Denver, however the individualistic design needs to fit the character of upscale mountain projects that will assist in creating a better Wildridge not an eyesore. On the way to our house you will pass the "Glass House" duplex and just past it you have a "Frank Lloyd Wright" copy. In between you have Southwestern, modem Mountain and others. While we as.individuals might say I don't care for that residential design, we don't confuse them with commercial buildings and go "Why did the town allow that to be built in the neighborhood?" The proposed design would definitely elicit that type of response. The only reason I can think of for this type of design proposal is that it is the cheapest building concept possible. You must take the neighborhood in which this project is proposed into account. Wildridge, has been fortunate to have many beautiful and high-end projects approved and built recently. A poorly designed eyesore in the middle, could and probably would convince developers to build elsewhere as they cannot count on the town to protect the overall values. We will regret this project as proposed for tile next 20 years is approved. Please vote no! Thanks, Paul A. Jeppson 44808 Wildridge Road W. 10/16/2007 October 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Avon, CO 81620 Dear Commissioners: The purpose of this letter is to provide several formal comments regarding the current proposed development of Lots 12 & 13 in Wildridge, referred to as "The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge". ' Having monitored the evolution of this application and reviewed the current plan submissions (contained within the spiral -bound booklet), as residents of Little Point and nearby homes, we have several concerns. Below please find an explanation of each as well as some suggestions for how the applicant may address each: 1) Homogeneity of architecture — This application is for two (2) duplex units to be built on adjoining lots. The principle exterior architecture, materials, color treatments, etc. for all four units are identical. As such, the development is out - of -proportion and inconsistent with the neighboring residences and with the Wildridge development in general. Proposed solutions: An optimal solution to the above will be to execute two different architectural styles. For example, one duplex unit remain as is and the other be done in a different style such as a `mountain-esque' structure (e.g. 4214 West Wildridge). Alternatively, one of the duplex units could have several pitched roof sections incorporated into the execution as a means of differentiating the two duplexes (e.g. 4220/4224 West Wildridge). Also, the colors of each duplex could be different, rather than uniform, as a means of further distinguishing the units (e.g. two duplex units on a shared driveway developed by ASE at 5101 Longsun Lane). 2) General Mass of the proposed development — By the design (minimal connectivity of each duplex unit) as well as the placement of the lots, from most any angle of each of 5 views (east, west, north, south, and top/'above' view), this development will look like one massive structure. While we are not shown all 4 units within any elevation, the overlapping nature of the walls, even between the two duplexes themselves, will give the observer the impression that this is one massive structure. This is not consistent with other single family nor duplex developments of adjacent lots (e.g. ASE Development of 3 duplexes on Longsun Lane). Proposed solutions: If the architecture of each duplex were different, and/or if there was greater distance between the structures such that `daylight' could be viewed between the buildings, this could improve the current effects. Perhaps the use of separate driveway entrances could facilitate a solution. Altering the duplex connections (and reducing/eliminating the courtyards) could also reduce the footprint and thus improve the proposed impact. 3) Proposed ancillary treatments — While not portrayed in any current drawings, we understand there had been discussion of incorporating a gate and signage at the driveway entrance from Little Point. This is clearly inconsistent with the neighborhood and is not seen as a positive component of any development in the area. Proposed solution: Ensure the entrance treatments are consistent with the neighboring residences which, in many cases, use natural rocks with simple residence numbers applied, as a means denoting the specific units served by the driveways. We feel strongly about these issues and look forward to working with the Commission, the Town Council and developers towards a solution that will complement the neighborhood while delivering a favorable ROI for the investor(s). Sincerely, Pam and Peter Warren (4181 Little Point) Carel and Marc Slatkoff (4191 Little Point) Page 1 of 1 Jared Barnes From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:34 AM To: Jared Barnes Cc: Tina Vardaman Subject: Little Point duplex Hi Jared, Mike Hazard gave me a colored rendering of this proposed "Courtyard Duplex." for Little Point in Wildridge. I am sorry to say that I do not think it is appropriate for our neighborhood. It will cover the entire point and be visible both from above as well as from the roads. This is a commercial style structure with bars that block the views and make it look like a jail. It has taken me 13 years to grow trees at my house and no amount of screening is going to help this one on Little Point. Vote No, please. Carroll Tyler Carroll S. Tyler Branch Broker Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office 23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657 (970) 479-5762 Direct line (970)476-2421 Receptionist (970)476-2658 Fax www.slifer.net 10/16/2007 Page 1 of l Jared Barnes From: GeraldPHerman@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:47 PM To: Jared Barnes Subject: tonights meeting 1, again want to reiterate my opposition to the architectural style of the proposed development at the corner of Wildridge Road West and Little Point. The design is much too commercial looking in appearance and will detract from the neighborhood. I realize this is a matter of taste. However, this proposed design belongs on Metcalf Road in a commercial setting. I ask the P & Z Commission to ask the developer to change the outside appearance to better fit in to the Wildridge subdivision. See whars new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 10/16/2007 Michael P.U. Box 1068 Mazard Vail, Colorado Associates 81658 Architecture 9,70.949.4958 Planning 9: 0.9494838 far Interiors mhanvail.net 1 1, Date: October 25, 2007 To: Jared Barnes Planner I Town of Avon From: Michael A. Hazard AIA Re.: The Courtyard Villas of Avon Please find the enclosed documents for consideration at your November 6h Planning Commission Meeting. The following revisions to the October 16th submittal are submitted in response to the conditions for approval and commissioner comments: The following revisions shall be submitted to address Commissioners' concerns: • The landscape design has been revised to address the commissioners' concerns with the extensive addition of trees to improve screening. The engineering departments' concern regarding vegetation in the drainage easement has also been addressed. • The dimensions of the chimneys have been diminished both in height and length. To further lessen the overall height and visual bulk of the homes the roof top hot tub enclosures have been diminished by only enclosing the stair while there is a simple roof form supported with wing walls to protect the deck areas. • The colors have been revised with a compatible color palette applied to the duplex on lot 13. This should help to further differentiate the 2 duplexes. B. The following revisions are submitted to address the conditions noted in the Staff comments: • The landscape architect resolved issue addressed by the engineering department • The encroachments noted into setbacks have been corrected. • The Construction Staging Plan now shows the addition of straw bales. • Intermountain Engineering has addressed the concerns voiced with the topographical map. Exhibit D OCT -30-2007 09:52 From:ERCLE RIVER FIRE PD 9707484747 To -9709495749 P.V1 To: Jared Barnes, Planner L Town of Avon From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD Date: 10!30/2007 Re: The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge, Lots 12 & 13, Filing 3, Avon 1' 1lq,a•1 H' •'11 1' 11 1", -Y 1 1 1 111,: 1 1.' 1 111 1,1 betweeathebuildings and includingaborizmWstaridpipcs ! i .` a the 11c ! 1 the property. believethis amm the intmtof :dapsupplyand Y1 U there are any questions, please Pett free to call me at 970-7484741. 51 Ica Staff eport ` Design Modifications AVON� COLORADO Residential November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date Project type Legal description Zoning Address Introduction November 1, 2007 Material and Color Changes Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision 1 Unit — PUD 5201 Longsun Lane The applicant and owner, Matt Dietz, representing Western Sage Partners, LLC, has proposed a material and color change to previously approved plans for a single-family structure on Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision. The color change consists of a change in siding color from an approved Olympic #713 stain to a reclaimed wood with "Vintage Dark" stain (Exhibit B) on the siding and trim; and a "Vintage Red" stain on the soffits. Both colors appear to meet the intent of the Design Review Guidelines in that they are earthtone colors. Staff is recommending that the material and color change be approved with the condition that the stain for Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision be altered to a color complimentary to the approved change on Lot 2, Western Sage Subdivision. Included with this report are a Vicinity Map (Exhibit A), proposed materials and colors for Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision (Exhibit B) and approved materials and colors for Lot 2, Western Sage Subdivision (Exhibit C). Design Approval Criteria According to Section 7 from the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desitin 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 Zoninq Code. As proposed, this application would be in conformance with all provisions of the Town of Avon Zoning Code. The material and color change do not affect these requirements. Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision — Color Change "M November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 ory1k. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. This criterion does not appear to be applicable to this application. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. The material and color change do not affect the number of dwelling units on the property, therefore this criterion is not applicable. 4. The Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Guidelines. A. Site Development: The material and color change will only effect the building design, not how the site is developed. B. Building Design: As stated previously in this report, the application proposes to use reclaimed wood finished with a "Vintage Dark" stain on all siding and trim, and a "Vintage Red" stain on all soffits. Previously, Ted Leach, also representing Western Partners, LLC, had proposed and received approval for a material and color change on Lot 2, Western Sage Subdivision. This material and color change also proposed to use reclaimed wood with "Vintage Brown" on the siding and "Vintage Dark" on the trim and fascia (Exhibit C). The approved color for Lot 2, Western Sage Subdivision was an Olympic #705 stain. The Final Design approved colors for Lots 1 and 2 were similar but not identical. The current application is proposing to make the two identical. At both the Sketch Plan and Final Plan reviews for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Western Sage Subdivision, the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concern with the similarities between the proposed buildings and preferred buildings that complimented each other in architectural style, materials, and colors. Staff finds that the proposed material and color change for Lot 1 is too similar to the approved material and color change for Lot 2. Staff also has determined that approving this change will set a pattern for approval of a similar if not identical, proposal on Lot 3 and 4, Western Sage Subdivision. C. Landscaping: There is no landscaping being proposed with this application. D. Miscellaneous Items: These Guidelines do not apply to this application. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. The subject proposal will not be affected by this criterion. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74114030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision — Color Change November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of TTI 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 similarities of the proposed color changes could make it difficult to differentiate between each home in the Western Sage Subdivision. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. No monetary values should be impaired or otherwise lowered with the planned improvements, however, aesthetic values could be impaired, as noted in Criterion #4. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The proposed project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted Goals and Policies. Recommendation Staff is recommending CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the material and color change on Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the material and color change on Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision, subject to the following condition: 1. The color change be modified to provide a greater degree of differentiation between the approved changes to Lot 2, Western Sage Subdivision and the proposed changes to Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision; and 2. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval." 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. Res ectfullyl ubmitted Jared Planner I Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map B. Proposed Material and Color Change for Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision C. Approved Material and Color Change for Lot 2, Western Sage Subdivision Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Wildridge - Lots 1, Western Sage Fxhihit e— Residential Streets Property Boundaries_��°''°° r ., c w � i ? � {, �� W1 p .' � 1 _ ''.4:: _ x � � a G _ ., �. 4 i '. j A 1. F � � a G _ ., W rte t I d r ? M ! t V�_ k t t {u 1 i S ti EXHIBIT C nnt�2 RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2007 Community Development W111111N1111Y LMVUlrlpmig 11 D SEP 0 5 2001: �%ommunrty.Ggvelopnrer<w } Staff Report -0/1 Design Modifications AVON COLORADO Residential November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date November 1, 2007 Project type Retaining Wall and Driveway Extension Legal description Lot 81 B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning 2 Units — PUD Address 5717B Wildridge Road East Introduction The applicant and owner, Bill Hubbard, has proposed a retaining _wall and driveway extension for one half of a duplex structure on Lot 81B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. The driveway extension is to the east of the existing driveway and along the house. The applicant is also proposing a retaining wall that is approximately eleven (11') feet at its highest point and stairs that are adjacent to the wall on the north and east sides. The applicant is proposing to heat the concrete drive. Included with this report are a Vicinity Map (Exhibit A) and reduced plan sets (Exhibit B). Design Approval Criteria According to Section 7 from the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Guidelines, the Commission shall review all design plans utilizing specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, -,°access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zoninq Code. As proposed, this application would be in conformance with all provisions of the Town of Avon Zoning Code. The proposed changes have stairs that extend into the side -yard setback, but according to the definition of setbacks, stairs are allowed to be placed within a setback. An Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) is required to document the exact locations since the driveway and retaining wall modifications abut the setbacks on the north sides of the lot. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. Lot 81B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision —Driveway and Retaining Wall Modifications November 6, 2007 Planting & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of Fi This criterion does not appear to be applicable to this application. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. The driveway extension and retaining wall do not affect the number of dwelling units on the property; therefore this criterion is not applicable. 4. The Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Guidelines. A. Site Development: The Design Guidelines discourage the use of engineer -designed retaining walls. The subject design is proposing the use of an eleven (11') foot tall retaining wall. The addition of driveway area has a direct impact upon the size of the retaining wall. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the drawings to step down the retaining wall by breaking it up into two sections at its higher points. B. Building Design: The proposal does not affect the design of the building; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. C. Landscaping: The subject proposal removes two (2) existing trees for the installation of the stairs and retaining wall. The Design Guidelines discourage the removal of existing vegetation. The Guidelines also encourage small retaining walls using natural stone boulders. The guidelines go on to state the following: i. Retaining walls shall be constructed of permanent type materials such as concrete, gabions, reinforced earth, etc. Railroad ties (6x6 treated timbers) are not acceptable. Retaining wall design details may be required for design review. 2. Walls over 4 feet high shall be structurally designed or certified by a licensed engineer (P.E.). 3. A series of lower retaining walls with landscaped terraces is preferable to a high wall with an unbroken vertical face. This application does not appear to meet these minimum requirements of the Design Guidelines. The retaining wall proposes to use Versa -Lok system design and concrete materials, which seems to be contradictory to the natural stone boulders that are encouraged. Also, all walls over four (4') feet have to be designed by a licensed engineer. The plans are stamped by a licensed engineer, but staff needs structural plans stamped by a Colorado Licensed Professional Structural Engineer. The current plans are insufficient to adequately review their structural soundness. The plans also propose a single high wall with an unbroken vertical face. As stated above, the guidelines encourage the use of shorter stepped retaining walls. D. Miscellaneous Items: This section of the Guidelines does not apply to this application. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 81B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Driveway and Retaining Wall Modifications November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of I"N 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. The subject proposal will essentially remove a section of existing slope in order to increase the amount of paved driveway. 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 subject proposal sits below the street elevation and will not be seen from the adjacent roadway (Wildridge Road East). Staff finds that when this proposal is seen it will not match the character of the adjacent properties and improvements. 6. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. No monetary values should be impaired or otherwise lowered with the planned improvements, however, aesthetic values will be impaired. 7. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The proposed project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted Goals and Policies. Recommendation Staff is recommending DENIAL of the driveway and retaining wall modifications as proposed on Lot 81 B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to DENY the driveway and retaining wall modificiations on Lot 1, Western Sage Subdivision, subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed modifications do not meet the purpose and intent of the Design Guidelines as outlined in sections 4A and 4C of this staff report." 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. Res ecffully submitted, Jared B es Planner I Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 81B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Driveway and Retaining Wall Modifications November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map B. Proposed Retaining Wall Material C. Plan Set Page 4of 1�� Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Wildridge - Lots 81 B, Block 4 e— Residential Streets RI OWN Property Boundaries J RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2007 Community DOvOlopmont Made worldwide under license from MASA-LOK• Retaining Wall Systems. U.S. Patent 0319,885, U.S. Patent D321,060, U.S. Patent D341,215, U.S. Patent D346,667, U.S. Patent D378,702, U.S. Patent D391,376, U.S. Patent D430,680, U.S. Patent D435,302, U.S. Patent D439,678, U.S. Patent 0452,332, U.S. Patent 0458,387, U.S. Patent 6,488,448, and other U.S. patents pending; Canadian Industrial Design Registration No. 63929, No. 71472, No. 73910, No. 73911, No. 73912, No. 77816, No. 79058, No. 82288, No. 99084. I.C.B.O. No. 4625 THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING TECHNICAL AND ENOINEERMG DATA ABUSES, TABLES, DESIGNS, DRAWINGS, DETAILS, SUGGESTED PROCEDURES, AND SUGGESTED SPECIFICATIONS, PRESENTED IN THIS PUBLICATION IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY MILE EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ENSURE ITS ACCURACY, THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE USED DR BELIED UPON FOR ANY APPLICATION WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF ACCURACY, SUTABIUm,, AND APPLICABILITY FOR THE USE CONIEMFIATED, WHICH IS THE SOLE RESPONSMM OF THE LEER. A ANAL, PROJECT - SPECIFIC DESIGN SHOULD BE PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED, UCENSED, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER BASED ON ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. VERSA -1 -OK RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY FITNESS FOR ANY GENERAL OR PARTICUTAR PURPOSE. TRADEMARK, OR COPYRIGHT IN REGARD TO INFORMATION OR PRODUCTS CONTAINED OR REFERRED TO HEREIN. 0 2003 Kittle Corporation • Printed in U.S.A. • VLS-602 • 10K • 7-03 VERSALOW Retaining Well Systems Solid Solutions:" A Division of Kiltie Corporation 6348 Hwy 36, Suite 1 Oakdale, MN 55128 (800) 770-4525 (651) 770-3168 office (651) 770-4089 fax www.werso-lok.com O£LZ•9Z6 (90) .x? (046) :4d o � Z£9 SPIlApa D ��B5Z8 PI "PH LSOO N 914 I!, d SPjVbPH a� o a s a 966ZxOH'O'a oo 9NI-L-1i?SNOD/9MI-I� INIDN-;lIIAID -DNI "DN N -A -A N IWI 0I,M[21b' SB -11-408d (INV NV _ XVMgAid(l 4I - 1 8 10-1 �901�lclllm W 0-4 F9 ll� 0 0 0 0 OD 10o. G'xq I MS; "Z0Z o � v il'0998 A313 Nd D ��B5Z8 Z Z a#a�p4 a�y� 0. N UWI/ a=RrcR o m a� o a s a a oo o o v o Dc ° c _ c a c D d D ? v s E o r i mpa .3 t £0'9598 A313 �Ad j 4I o o vm olon oD I I € � W -O 0. p N o d N c Vi Vi a a o co3-o m u+. 'x ado o E r E o o E - _ r o a 3• cD D y u _ a o m o a o N a� o ow n v a T a °a an a •N c � or o c_ > _ u o ❑� $a c � a ❑+ o �D o v u o E o u a 3 o rric p° u v E D E ° a a ; 3 OI W ME d U T E `p �a .N _u C 3 r 0 Q C U U 6 oui c n 0. =v\ •oa mo N u v c m p a o 'u N a Dai C '9 O 'o o a n D 5 c au o" 'o u y:: O N O vE rn� D o o c� dN" oD yllt 1.8.fAn o > D a o D m - u D v o c a v n on cm > 'In c a D m a u c c D o c p a+ v m 0 0 m x a o a w v 'T c a c +�_o o c D a a a o L a ran 3 °°rn u a u e c °. i0 t Q °u u a d. o a o �o qw tl p c t o y o o o c o u o` a E a D c o D J O T 0. ❑r a J p E C a C NC "�]' 7 t 'C -CDI •� a W D C ° D •J O VI .t. O Qr E [ 0 o u N O a Dorn .� N a oa o ¢ m OV w oE w o a o m D c m oT �" ° ma p° s o a m y W D rti O u° O a w m a !^ C a U U p o G +ry a a 3 ] y D > O+ O N? V W D 5o Cy.N O C.r u a om ....a O t u O^-• U O D � O V v u C p y v uo a m-6 �o rnra o C U V a E C_ EO O+ a .a.• 'c .'. C O u" VY C U u L D N U X L 'n w ti # U v a C 0 0 C O] D L O y y 0 7 o U fn U y a[1 ❑ ,'A E a .a. a a C _T a N C - ❑ a '^ C O 'O aT C U a ~ N m O M u K of H O 10 f%1 r m h cc D7 N u Q Z 0. O N t6 Zu;< a Q70 UO L6 6 W 0-4 F9 ll� 0 0 0 0 OD 10o. G'xq I MS; "Z0Z E J J il'0998 A313 Nd D ��B5Z8 Z Z a#a�p4 a�y� 0. UWI/ a=RrcR _o Ln4JW6W j NO ! oo . _ r i £0'9598 A313 �Ad j 4I N j z I I € � W O a ' ( \' 1599 1,313 Nd © 1 � t r1 � 1 $ � � ! C,� 1, _. ! j._ ea'fr+t-}--�•v3��nd. i_....__ fs 1 I o }_ y rt r J J f z j. 1 x ?�i ! t 0 _!t y I ".c ' ``I � : � O ; 6L Bro9B a A3Y3 IAd_._.._...................................... t ; 0 CL'9L+4 tll5 Nd o Z 64'8498 s A3t Ad d % £9'LL+Ad I I•�_. j�� o � I � ! 1 1 S„} t a 1 i 1 1 f _1 E HcaI aowe I xo tem tL t tac . y° — �,� 4N3143SY3 39VNIY! '; - t j i f I I Al alw 1 I I } a? WAD zz o rtNg t I I i w�xyi OW �€ 1 3 4 it I j S z Wolp C(L FOa A` 6 }�piNo 9� ` " ��AbVONROg A 213d021d � _ ajo() JNv UOISIA28'`-5; 'ON lgl, l-Ol :aaod C:3 + � Q ' ww S� w ccs a I COVERED I N PORCH �jv . a N * a a. J a w ow J om W y Q 3 O O sa 1.1999 = A313 Mol W Y1SI y ..._........_ _._ _.__ 9.0498 8313 M01 W I (8'44+0 :• VIS I i i F I 0- -z - tI e 16'9498 -313 MOI I- 91'ZZ+a • rls ........ a 3 1 Id 4'9'8498 - A 13 MOl — — - LL'51+0 tl1S - - EM98 = I(�13 M01 - - - t3e.:l+Q_V15__-....... ... ...!............ .._... .................._. _.. _ _' I L'8499 - A3� M01 - I 29'60+o -i Y15 I 9711498 - ill'4 M01 Ab 6'0999 9'0599 0 0 Z j £'497 i:Da•Sd N0ObL A@s1)yd x01aX 'Wd 9.0:91:6 LOOC/ZL/OL 'OmP'LO-6-01 9`d Ud0169L90-(JV3V\'i()M\0Mp\8L9 101 aUP!apl!M\/006 s10@1ald pu01\:0 "Z0Z N WwFZF o zia o W �MMy M D ��B5Z8 m l uco N Q a#a�p4 a�y� 0. UWI/ a=RrcR _o Ln4JW6W NO ` " ��AbVONROg A 213d021d � _ ajo() JNv UOISIA28'`-5; 'ON lgl, l-Ol :aaod C:3 + � Q ' ww S� w ccs a I COVERED I N PORCH �jv . a N * a a. J a w ow J om W y Q 3 O O sa 1.1999 = A313 Mol W Y1SI y ..._........_ _._ _.__ 9.0498 8313 M01 W I (8'44+0 :• VIS I i i F I 0- -z - tI e 16'9498 -313 MOI I- 91'ZZ+a • rls ........ a 3 1 Id 4'9'8498 - A 13 MOl — — - LL'51+0 tl1S - - EM98 = I(�13 M01 - - - t3e.:l+Q_V15__-....... ... ...!............ .._... .................._. _.. _ _' I L'8499 - A3� M01 - I 29'60+o -i Y15 I 9711498 - ill'4 M01 Ab 6'0999 9'0599 0 0 Z j £'497 i:Da•Sd N0ObL A@s1)yd x01aX 'Wd 9.0:91:6 LOOC/ZL/OL 'OmP'LO-6-01 9`d Ud0169L90-(JV3V\'i()M\0Mp\8L9 101 aUP!apl!M\/006 s10@1ald pu01\:0 Memo VON C O L O R A D O To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners From: Jared Barnes, Planner I� Date November 1, 2007 Re: Building Modifications at 520 Nottingham Road (Snowrun Condominiums) Background and History: On August 3, 2004, the owners of the Snowrun Townhomes (units A, B, and C) received design approval to make exterior building improvements to the West, South, and East elevations of the three units. The improvements included the removal of existing siding and trim boards; replacement of wall insulation and sheathing; and application of stucco material and fiber cement siding to the areas indicated on the drawings. In addition, windows would be repaired or replaced as needed, a bellyband would be installed, and cultured stone base would be applied as indicated on the drawings. On July 18, 2006, the improvements were not complete and the design approval was set to expire in August 2006. The applicants submitted a summary table indicating the progress that had been made to that date. Understanding that some units were closer to completion than others, staff advised the property owner to re -apply for design approval. Staff also requested that the applicant provide the Commission with the estimated completion date. The Planning and Zoning Commission extended the design approval for 15 -months for all three (3) units (A, B and C). The owners of the Snowrun Townhomes have again submitted a Minor Project application for a new design approval because their last extension of their design approval has lapsed, on October 31, 2007, without completion. As outlined in Exhibit B, Each unit has some work that needs to be completed. Unit A, owner Sye Curtis, needs to finish the following: stucco the south and west elevations, demo and stucco the north and east elevations. Unit B, owner Stephen Smith, needs to finish the following: metal fabrication for main stair entry, installation of a temporary handrail until metal rail is ready for permanent completion. Unit C, owner Ron Tribelhom, needs to finish the following: completion of the south elevation, constriction of new metal stairs and handrails, painting and addition of doors beneath the smaller deck, completion of the sidewall just below the roof. Discussion: The Town of Avon's Municipal Code Section 2.16.110 regulates performance bonding as listed (verbatim) below: If the Commission determines such action is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Town, prior to issuing approval of any application, the Commission may require permittee to submit, prior to obtaining a building permit, a letter of credit, surety bond, or other adequate security, in a form and an amount acceptable to the Town, guaranteeing to the Town the compliance with all regulations or ordinances of the Town. It is not the intention of this provision that duplicate bonding be a requirement. At the July 18, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Staff recommended conditional approval, with the following conditions: 1. The owners of each individual unit shall obtain the necessary building permits from the Town of Avon Building Department prior to commencement of construction; 2. The design approval is valid for 1 -year, 3. The applicant will provide the Town with a performance bond to secure the completion of construction in accordance with Section 2.16.120 of the Avon Municipal Code; and 4. Except as otherwise modified by representations made by the applicant application and in public hearing(s) shall conditions of approval. this permit approval, all material or applicant representative(s) in this be adhered to and considered binding Attached is the Staff Report dated July 18, 2006 (Exhibit C) summarizing the discussion and recommendation. Staff finds that the recommendation for conditional approval was acceptable and will again recommend the same conditional approval. Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map B. Letter's from the property owners describing extent of work that needs to be completed C. Staff Report dated July 18, 2006 R\Planning & Zoning Commission\Memos\2007\L43, Bl, BMBC-Snowrun Condos Update.doc Exhibit A October 25, 2007 To whom it may concern, Thank you for your consideration of an extension for the exterior remodel of 520 Nottingham Road. Unfortunately, due to finances, weather conditions, and limited daylight hours outside of the regular work day, Unit A is roughly halfway through the remodel. The south and west facing walls are ready for stucco. Where the weekends would have been ideal for this application, the weather has not cooperated. Therefore, more demo of the North and East facing sides has been in progress. Leading in to the winter, these sides must be attended to and I intend to do so in as timely a manner as possible. With people living in the house, this is obviously a priority to have finished before the heavy snows. I would like to request more time and sincerely plan to meet the requirements asked of me as soon as possible. Thank you, Sye Curtis U A PO Box 1092 Vail, CO 81658 970-331-8899 RECEIVED OCT 2 9 2007 Community Development SMITH W001-)WORILING i PO Box 3848 } Avon, Colorado 81620 r Phona(970)331.6633 Fax(970)845-6289 Stephenjsmlth2Comcastnet October 29, 2007 To: Town of Avon From Stephen J. Sm (unft B) Re: Status report Status and progress report for unit B: -All areas of siding complete. -All deck areas and decking complete. "Waiting on metal fabricadon for main stair entry to complete Will install temporary band rail until metal arrives for permanent install and completion. Roof- -Two roof areas complete. RECEIVED -4 O v Stephen J. Smith Thank you, OCT 2 9 2007 Date: 10/29/07CMmunfty Development Stephen J. Smith Ron & Marci Tribelhorn ? 520 Nottingham Rd.;Unit C l Avon, CO Project Status: S0; lf� fr I expect to have the front (south) face completed within two weeks, weather permitting with the exception of the following: New metal stairs and hand rails—waiting on bids from fabricators who all seem too busy to make estimates The area beneath the smaller deck needs painting and doors for storage and will be completed as weather permits The areas shown in the photograph as viewed from the back of the townhome: d The chimney box has base coat of real stucco applied while the sidewall needs EFIS applied. This north facing area is not visible from street level. Completion of this area will be weather dependent i.e. snow and temperature. RECEIVED `- G : , ] e,lupment Staff Report EXHIBITS Minor Project AVUN C 0 L 0 R A o 0 July 18, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report Date July 5, 2006 Project Type Minor Project — Snowrun Townhomes Legal Description Lot 43, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Address 520 Nottingham Road Introduction On August 3, 2004, the owners of the Snowrun Townhomes (units A, B, and C) received design approval to make exterior building improvements to the West, South, and East sides of the three units. The improvements included the removal of existing siding and trim boards; replace wall insulation and sheathing; and apply stucco material and fiber cement siding to the areas indicated on the drawings. In addition, windows would be repaired or replaced as needed, a bellyband would be installed, and cultured stone base would be applied as indicated on the drawings. To date, the improvements have not been completed and the design approval is set to expire in August 2006. The applicant has submitted a summary table indicating the progress that has been made to date. Understanding that some units are further along than others in terms of completion, staff has advised the property owner to re -apply for design approval. Staff has also requested the applicant provide the Commission with the estimated completion date. According to the applicant, the request is to extend the design approval 15 -months for two of the units (B and C), and 24 — months for unit A. Unit A has yet to begin construction. Design review approvals are ordinarily valid for two years. Design Approval Criteria 1. According to Section 7 from the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design 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 proposed exterior building improvements appear to be in compliance with the requirements imposed by the Town of Avon Municipal Code. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 43, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Minor Project July 18, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 3 The property is located in District 22: Nottingham Road District, and is designated as a Low Priority District. According to the Planning Principles in this district, redevelopment should be "high quality" and be consistent with the land use regulations. The proposed improvements are consistent with this policy statement. However, given the proximity of this property to Avon's town entrance and the prominent visual impression of the property, staff is recommending that completion of the improvements not exceed 1 -year. Furthermore, staff is requesting the applicant post a performance bond in accordance with Section 2.16.120 of the Avon Municipal Code to ensure the completion of the project within 1 -year. According to the applicant, the reason for the delay in construction is because they are doing the work themselves and funding the project themselves. Staff ordinarily would not request this type of condition for a "minor project", but because of the slow progress made staff believes the condition is necessary. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. No changes in use or land use intensity are being proposed with this application. 4. The Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desiqn Guidelines. A. Site Development: No changes are proposed to the site layout. B. Building Design/Materials: The building design and architectural style will not change with the proposed improvements. The guidelines do however require a variety of quality, durable building materials. The materials proposed include: synthetic/real stucco, fiber cement siding, cultured stone, composite/wood decking material. that all building colors be earth tone and shall blend in with the natural setting. All of the proposed materials will improve upon the existing condition of the building. C. Landscaping: There is no landscaping proposed with the application. 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 is no site or grading changes proposed. 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. No negative impacts should be experienced as viewed from adjacent properties once the improvements have been completed. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. As proposed, the town home improvements should not impair monetary values or aesthetic values in the vicinity. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 43, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Minor Project July 18, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 3 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. As proposed, the townhome improvements appear to conform to the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town and appears consistent with the Design Guidelines. Staff Recommendation The appearance of the incomplete project when viewed from Nottingham Road and 1-70 has resulted in several complaints relative to the building's appearance. Therefore, staff is not inclined to recommend an additional two-year approval. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the townhome improvements to Units A, B, C for Lot 43, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The owners of each individual unit shall obtain the necessary building permits from the Town of Avon Building Department prior to commencement of construction. 2. The design approval is valid for 1 -year. 3. The applicant will provide the Town with a performance bond to secure the completion of construction in accordance with Section 2.16.120 of the Avon Municipal Code. 4. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please do not hesitate to call me at 748.4009 or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Eric Heidemann Senior Planner Attachments A. Minor Project application B. Comprehensive Plan District 22 Planning Principles C. Location map D. Section 2.16.120 of the Avon Municipla Code Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 y,. ,w 4 1-r7L TOWN OF AVON AVON C O L O R A D O PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, RESOLUTION No. 07-03 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR LOT C, AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Points of Colorado, owners of Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision, have applied for a PUD Amendment, pursuant to Section 17.20.110 of the Avon Municipal Code; as presented in the revised application received May 4, 2007; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the notices required by law, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held public hearings on March 21, 2006, July 17, 2007, and October 2, 2007, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding this PUD Amendment request; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the following criteria when evaluating this application: 1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comorehensive Plan Goals and Objectives. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town. F..INWming&Zoning C=MW10WRa01011MeJ007Uty 07-03 Ld C PUDAmendAppro l Reccomendmion.doc t 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. 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. 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; WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing at their October 2, 2007 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission made the following findings with respect to this application: F.Wonning & Zoning COmmLn1onWao1w1owJG07,Ra 07-03 La CPUDAm=dAppmvW Retmnendailon.doe 1. The application is in general conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. 2. The application is in conformance with the Main Street Desion Guidelines. 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 maintains a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. 8. The application provides evidence of compliance with the public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code-, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby recommends that the Avon Town Council approve the PUD Amendment application, as presented in the revised application received May 4, 2007, for Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County Colorado, and recommends that the following conditions be incorporated into the approval: 1. The property owner shall convey to the Town the water rights necessary to serve the proposed development. Final water right determination shall be resolved between the property owner and the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase C-1. Approximately 24.72 acre feet shall be supplied. 2. The property owner will identify, with architectural plans, at least 4 contiguous affordable studio units to be reconfigured to increase their size prior io completion of the project. The units will be reconfigured prior to completion of F."Bmming& Zoning Commbvlo -,Rvololia 12007:Ru 07-03 Lot C PUD AmendApp�l Re mwdadon.dw the project. In addition to reconfiguration, all of the units will be removed from the Metro District. 3. The property owner shall submit a master landscaping and public plaza design plan, including public art locations integrated along the pedestrian corridor on the west side of the project, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to issuance of the building permit for Phase C-1. 4. Building heights shall not exceed those depicted in the Amended PUD Development Plan. 5. The proposed restaurant shall be open and operating prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase C-1. 6. 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. ADOPTED AND REAFFIRMED THIS 6v' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2007 Signed. Chair Attest. Secretary Date: Date: F.`Tlmming& Zoning COmmhslonlResolmio ''.7007LPu07-03 Lot CPUDAmntdApproval Re=mendatlan.doe IJ W1, TOWN TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AVON RESOLUTION NO. 07-04 C O L O R A D O A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PUD AMENDMENT APPLICATION AMENDING THE VILLAGE AT AVON PUD PLANNING AREAS E, F, H, I AND J, FILING 1, VILLAGE AT AVON SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, COUNTY OF EAGLE, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, Dominic Mauriello, on behalf of Traer Creek LLC, has filed an application to amend the existing Planned Unit Development ("PUD") for the Village at Avon PUD; and WHEREAS, the proper posting, publication and public notices for a hearing on October 16, 2007 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon were provided as required by law; and WHEREAS, said application was heard at the October 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and the Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Avon Town Council, but declined to make a decision on the suggested conditions of approval contained in the Staff Report dated October 11, 2007, and deferred said conditions to Council for their consideration; and WHEREAS, said application complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals, as required by section 17.20.110h(1) of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the following criteria when evaluating this application: 1. Conformance with the Town of 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 of the Town. F.-Oanning& Zoning Cammlu1on1Rm1W1 nr1200ARu 01-04 VM Ammd.doc 4 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. 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. 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. WHEREAS, this PUD Amendment provides evidence of compliance with the public purpose provisions outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Municipal Code, F.Oanning & Zoning Commin1*nVZaohai=170071Ra 0744 VAAAmenddoa NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval to the Avon Town Council of the amendment of the Village at Avon PUD, Filing 1, application dated July 12, 2007, deferring the following Staff -recommended conditions of approval to the Council for their review: 1. Planning Areas E, F, H, 1, and J shall be limited to a 5 -year vesting period, pursuant to Ordinance No. 06-09, the Town's vested rights regulations; 2. Section 1(12)(d) of the Village at Avon PUD Guide shall be amended to include Planning Areas B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1, and J; 3. The applicant shall quantify the proposed traffic impacts with respect to trip generation, impact to existing travel times, and stacking for all modes to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer through submittal of a Traffic Study prepared by a qualified licensed Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit within Planning Areas E, F, H, 1, and J; 4. At such time as formal approval by Town Council is granted for this amendment, the applicant will have provided sufficient language to be incorporated within the PUD development plan and annexation agreement which guarantees a portion of the remaining attainable housing requirement be realized in Planning Areas E, F, and H; and 5. The applicant shall initiate and properly maintain mass transit service connecting West Avon to the easternmost commercial parcels and Buffalo Ridge of the District, at a level of service no less frequent than is provided within the Town, from time -to -time, and pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Village at Avon Annexation and Development Agreement, prior to the issuance of a building permit within Planning Areas E, F, H, 1, and J. F.•IPlmming& Zadng CommLu1anl9vdrd1ow11007LRv 07-00 YM Ame 4dx ADOPTED AND REAFFIRMED THIS 60' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2007 Signed: Chris Evans, Chair Attest: Phil Struve, Secretary Date: Date: F...IPIu Ing &Zoning Commh:r1on1Rnohd1=120071Ru 0744 VAA Ammd.dw What several Commissioners said in the first couple hearings stuck with me and my team — a PUD amendment like this has to fit the neighborhood precedent and meet the amendment criteria, all of which talk about good site planning and being compatible with surrounding uses. As much as they paint me otherwise in the report; it is not my goal to be the jerk ruining the social fabric of Avon. My son lives and works in Avon. Our family owns a home here. We believe we are good neighbors and responsible builders who have worked very hard to listen to and respond to all commissioners during this process. We sincerely appreciate that there is a housing issue, that's why we were excited to have a local housing unit as part of our initial proposal. The fact remains that whatever we finally build on these lots will not solve the problem nor unravel the neighborhood, and it's not fair to our PUD to suggest this. I believe we have responded to the actual criteria of this PUD process and have made an application that not only meets the down -zoning precedent but raises the bar a little higher. We hope that you agree. R ly, �I Frank Hamel Owner November 5, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commissioners Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81621 RE; StaffReport for Hamel PUD Amendment Lots 38, 39, Block 4, Wildridge PUD Dear Commissioners: I've asked Tambi and Gerry to submit this letter to you for the record since I unfortunately cannot attend this meeting First, I want to express my appreciation for helping guide our application through the review process to this point. When we started this process, we were open to the idea of creating a local housing unit on another property in Wildridge in return for keeping all six dwelling unit rights on Lots 38 and 39. While this original concept was supported by stdK it wed a lot ofpmblems for us in site planning the property. Since then, we have worked awfully hard on solving the site plan issues and feel we have zeroed in on a solution which is supported by both the required PUD amendment Criteria and the precedent of PUD amettts in Wildridge. We've listened and responded to your concerns over a few meetings now and hopefidly done better than previous amendments. As Gerry and Tambi will review with you tonight, we have tightened all our building envelopes, crated a minimum 30' setback from our existing neighbor on the west; and adopted the Eagle County ECO -build standards as part of our application We have also minimized the retaining walls and Created the best solution to accessing and staging construction ofthe pmperties. After so much ient oftime and energy spent listening and responding to everything communicated to us, it comes as a complete shock to tine that staff is recommending denial of this application- Unfortunately, pplicationUnfortunately, it really feels hike staff is using this PUD process as a soapbox to stand on and malting me out to be the villain who is poised to "... unravel the original purpose and intent of Wildridge". Claiming that the loss of one divellbrg rmit is going to undermine Wildridge is insulting to everyone's intelligence. I do not understand how out of 12 review criteria that we comply with, staff boils the whole review down to their own issue: af'ornlabk housing is rhe only bene it that ommisover ew.+ydmWetre. Dear Chris Evans and Planning and Zoning Commission, I, Sye Curtis, owner of 520 Nottingham Road Unit A, would like to first apologize for my absence due to a pre-existing family wedding and for the inconvenience of this matter before you. I address this letter to you with the understanding that this matter is in your hands. Being a first time home buyer in the valley, my financial situation was not prepared for the exterior improvements at the time of purchase when I became aware of the requirements. Since this time, my financial priorities have been to make the improvements happen. Unit A is roughly halfway through the remodel. The south and west facing -walls are ready for stucco. Where the weekends would have been ideal for this application, the weather has not cooperated in the month of October. Therefore, progress more towards demolition of the North and East facing sides has been in progress. Leading in to the winter, these sides must be attended to and I intend to do so. in as timely a manner as possible. With people living in the house, insulation and weather proofing are obviously a priority to have finished before the heavy snows. I would like to request more time and with your cooperation, sincerely plan to meet the requirements asked of me as soon as possible. An additional twelve months would be more than sufficient. I would greatly appreciate this opportunity to complete the remodel. Thank you for your time, Sye Curtis 520 Nottingham Road, Unit A PO Box 1092 Vail, CO 81658 970-331-8899