The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 12-15-2009 (2)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda for December 15, 2009 O Avon Town Council Chambers AV0w, Meetings are open to the public C D L 0 R A D o Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street SITE VISIT (4:30pm) On-site review to review the proposed location of the heat distribution building. Please meet on the east side of the building. REGULAR WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order It. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the December 1, 2009 Meeting Minutes DESIGN REVIEW VI. Courtyard Villas Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4121 Little Point Applicant: Forenza Contracting / Owner. • Advanced Home Technologies Description: The applicant is requesting approval for revisions to stucco color for Lot 13 (Residences C &D). VII. Gandorf Tract B Sketch Design Review Property Location: Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2101 Saddle Ridge Loop Applicant. Phil Matsen /Owner: Gandorf Tract B LLC Description: A sketch design review of two duplexes. The duplexes will be designed in modem mountain architecture. One duplex will measure approximately 31 feet tall and each unit will be approximately 2200 square feet, while the other duplex will be approximately 25 feet tall and 1700 square feet. VIII. Heat Recovery Project Property Location: Tract N and Tract H, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Applicant. Mark Donaldson, Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Owners. Eagle River Water and Sanitation Dist, Town of Avon Description: The applicant is requesting approval for the design of two separate accessory structures, each necessitated by the construction of the heat recovery project, which is slated for construction in 2010. This is a revised proposal to respond to comments received at the December 1, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Posted on December 11, 2009 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 IX. Timeshare East Property Location: Lot 1, Riverfront Subdivision / 42 Riverfront Lane Applicant. Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner: Starwood Vacation Ownership Description: Final Design review for the 'Timeshare East' property. The design includes two buildings separated at grade: Building East (E), and Building Riverside (R). There are 74 units proposed in the two buildings. The East building is the taller of the two building and includes 58 2 -bedroom units, each with the ability to have a lock -off unit. The Riverside building is positioned between the East building and the Riverfront recreation path. This building contains the remaining 16 2 -bedroom units, also with the ability to have lock -offs. X. Other Business XI. Adjourn Posted on December 11, 2009 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 pillTown of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes for December 1, 2009 VO N Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public AAvon Municipal Building / One Lake Street C O L O R A D O REGULAR WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present, with the exception of Commission Lane. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the November 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. ZONING VI. Airpark Auto Special Review Use Property Location: Lot 4, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Applicants: Paul Bartsch & Trish Shultheis, Airpark Auto & Truck Owners: Bruce and Chuck Allen Description: A Special Review Use (SRU) Permit request to operate a vehicle service and repair facility on Nottingham Road. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker briefly outlined the proposal before the Commission. He highlighted the code language that limited the types of use. Commission Prince questioned why educational use is specifically called out as not allowed. Matt Pielsticker responded that it is not specifically allowed at this time and would require a change of zoning. Sally Vecchio provided a list of potential impacts that need to be mitigated prior to approval. Commissioner Goulding questioned the reasoning for a recommendation for 5 years of review. Matt Pielsticker responded that it was consistent with recent SRU approvals, and also coincides with the tenants lease period. Commissioner Struve questioned if the Commission could call up the SRU. Commissioner Goulding asked why the definition of "Automobile" wasn't used verbatim. Matt Gennett stated that staff was clarifying the "Light" portion of that definition, and did not include the entire definition. Mike Devins, of Remax Vail Valley, representing the business owners, highlighted the proposal. He stated that he was asked by Colorado Mountain College to do Vocational Technical classes up valley. He discussed the building code issues with the building and stated that some of those issues could be dealt with by changing the use to classrooms. Commissioner Roubos asked if the classes were free. Mike Devins responded that the public benefit was to provide space for the classes. Commissioner Struve questioned the National Interlock system. Paul Bartsch explained the system and stated that this was the only service of this type provided from Grand Junction to Denver and that it would be performed in the Gypsum location. Trish and Paul explained that it was a devise to disable the starter if a person has alcohol on their breath. Commissioner Green questioned the educational use. Sally Vecchio stated that an educational use is not allowed within the specified zone district and therefore it is not allowed. Commissioner Struve asked who would manage the property. Paul Bartsch responded that this has not been determined, but in all likelihood he would be one of the primary managers. Commissioner Roubos questioned the number of cars staying overnight. Paul responded that he could hold 12 inside the building but the exact number of cars outside would change. Commissioner Prince asked when a car is deemed abandoned. Matt Gennett responded that it was after it was in one place, or inoperable for 30 days. Commissioner Goulding asked if the potential use was inline with the definition of Automotive Repair. Paul responded that it would be. Commissioner dialogue ensued discussing the light repairs, the nature of the business, and other items related to the use of the property. The Public Comment period was opened. Terry Cosh stated that he supported this use within the building even though he would be one of the bigger competitors in the local area. He fully supports the application. The Public Comment was closed with no other comments. Commissioner Anderson stated that this site was used for this type of use in the past and the proposed use makes sense. He stated this was somewhat against the Comp Plan, but it still made sense. He is in favor of the SRU. Commissioner Green questioned if this use was a °gateway use" for the Town. He did comment on the use of the rental units and asked if they were going to be refurbished and/or used again. He asked about the ability for vehicular circulation with exterior parking. He also had concerns about the amount of noise coming from the property. He stated that screening would be necessary and drainage is important. He wanted input from his fellow Commissioners on whether the 5 years was appropriate or if a shorter time frame would be more beneficial. Commissioner Struve stated this building was built for this purpose. He stated that limit to the number of outdoor parking should be included in the SRU. He would also like to see a way to do education in the building if at all possible. Commissioner Roubos agreed with Commissioner Struve's comments. She commented on the screening of the building, and spoke specifically to the outdoor storage of vehicles. She stated she was comfortable with the 5 year time frame. Commissioner Goulding stated that he felt it was a great use for the area. He felt that Staff did a good job at addressing the 4 criteria of the SRU. He commented on each criteria and agreed with Staff with the exception of number 2 which he thought should be non -applicable. He did comment about the public input that was provided in the Staff Report. There was a G letter received from presumably an owner of a condominium in the area; however, the letter only spoke to the lowering of property values without a clear rationale. Commissioner Prince agreed with the majority of the Commission that this is the highest and best use of the property. He would encourage the applicant to go forward with a zoning change to allow for educational uses. Sally Vecchio clarified that the definition is Light Automobile not Light Vehicle. She further clarified that a one ton limit is generally used as a threshold. The applicant asked if commercial vehicles would be allowed. Commissioner Prince stated that a 5 year approval would further incentivize proper improvements to the building. Commissioner Struve questioned the stacking of vehicles on Nottingham Road. Trish responded that the Port-coche would be used as a valet. If the vehicle stacking became an issue then additional cars would not be allowed on the property. Signs could be installed if they were deemed appropriate Commissioner Goulding summarized the comments heard thus far. He thought linking the definitions of Automobile Repair should be linked, with the exception of gasoline sales. He thought an approval deadline would be beneficial for the Minor Project. Sally Vecchio stated that the Minor Project should be prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve Resolution 09-15 with the findings and conditions listed in Staffs report. It was clarified that the definition for automobile service should match the code definition; Condition #4 should be approved by the "Avon' Chief Building Official; Condition #5 should be reworded to require a Minor Project approvalrig or to the issuance of a building permit; Condition #7 will be added to limit of the number of overnight outdoor parking to 9 automobiles; and the drafted Condition #7 should now be read as Condition #8. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion. Commissioner Prince stated that the outdoor overnight parking should be dealt with at the Minor Project review. Commissioners Struve and Roubos agreed that 7 be changed to outdoor overnight parking will be addressed at Design Review. The motion passed 6-0. DESIGN REVIEW VII. Heat Recovery Project Property Location: Tract N and Tract H, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Applicant. Mark Donaldson, Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Owners: Eagle River Water and Sanitation Dist, Town of Avon Description: The applicant is requesting approval for the design of two separate accessory structures, each necessitated by the construction of the heat recovery project, which is slated for construction in 2010. Discussion: Matt Gennett briefly described the proposal. Commissioner Goulding questioned the exemption that was stated throughout the report. Mark Donaldson discussed the district site and the lack of initial knowledge on the Zoning. Matt Gennett highlighted that a current building is already constructed in this zone district of a similar use. Commissioner Goulding questioned if this process was going through the same process the general public would. Commissioner Green stated that this use was a public benefit and sustainable therefore there should be some allowances for loose interpretation. Commissioner Goulding stated that all open space shouldn't be allowed to be developed with solar panels. Commissioner Goulding stated that Staff should provide quality findings to justify the land use. Commissioner Green questioned the separation of the Rec Center and the Heat Exchange building. Commissioners had the following comments on the Heat Recovery building: Commissioner Struve stated it looks just like the last building and it should look more like the old barn. Commissioner Anderson commented on the non -articulated roof ridge. Commissioner Prince does not find the design in compliance with Town Guidelines. Materials, roof lines, lack of articulation, it's a plain boring building. Commissioner Green agreed with Commissioner Prince. He stated that a 38 foot long ridge is small but a simple solution exists to vary the roof form. He said he was torn on the application. Commissioner Roubos stated that she thought we were limiting ourselves. She said that it should be designed a bit better. Commissioner Goulding stated that he agreed with the previous comments. Commissioners had the following comments on the Heat Exchange building: Commissioner Green doesn't have a problem with minimizing the architecture. He did suggest planting trees to replace the removed trees. Commissioner Prince questioned the fixing of stone and will there be a subsequent issue with this building. He had no other comments. Commissioner Anderson questioned the number of parking spaces currently available and how many are extra. Commissioner Struve had no architectural comments. He said it blended in well. He would like to see better plantings. Commissioner Roubos questioned planned plantings. Commissioner Green questioned the guardrail. Commissioner Goulding questioned if there was any other place possible to put this use. Action: No formal action is required as this is a Sketch Plan review. VIII. Other Business 2010 Capital Improvements Project Update - Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer • Addition to Rec Center Overall Site Plan • Next Meeting's Anticipated Agenda • Courtyard Villas Color Scheme • Gandorf Deed Restriction IX. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:30. Z' e IV Staff Report °"y'U`' MINOR MODIFICATION AVON C D L O R A D O December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date: December 11, 2009 Project type: Modification to Final Design Approval Legal description: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning: PUD Address: 4121 Little Point Introduction The Applicant, David Forenza of Forenza Contracting, representing the property - owners, Advanced Home Technologies, is proposing a modification to the Final Design Approval for Lot 13 Block 3 of the Wildridge Subdivison. The Applicant is requesting to modify the approved stucco colors on Lot 13 only. The previously approved stucco colors are "Sociable" (SW6359) and "Intricate Ivory" (SW6350). The proposed stucco colors are "Interactive Cream" (SW6113) and "Totally Tan" (SW6115). A Final Design application for the construction of two (2) duplex structures, on Lots 12 & 13 Block 3 of the Wildridge Subdivision, was reviewed and approved with conditions by the Commission on November 20, 2007. A Building Permit application was subsequently submitted that included unapproved changes to the exterior of the building. A Minor Project application was approved by the Commission on August 15t 2008 for the aforementioned modifications. The approved changes were limited to the location of windows, doors and exterior building materials. Another Minor Project application was approved by the Commission on the October 6t', 2009 and included the removal of the chimneys, the addition of exterior privacy screens, and modifications to window and material placement. The most recent modification to remove the louvers from both halves of the duplex on Lot 13 was approved by the Commission on November 3b, 2009. Attached to this report is a vicinity map (Exhibit A). Samples of the approved and proposed colors will be provided at the meeting due to the lack of accuracy in reproducing the samples. Staff will also provide a full size set of approved plans at the meeting for your review. 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: Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — Design Modifications �� December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3.. 0 N 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zonino Code. • Allowed use: The current proposal does not affect the use on the property. • Density. The current development is in compliance with the density and this application does not alter the number of units. • Lot Coverage: The lot coverage will not be affected by this application. • Setbacks: The proposed modifications will not affect setbacks or easements. • Easements: As stated above, the proposal will not affect the platted easements. • Building Height. The proposal will not change the overall height of the project. • Grading/Drainage: There are no modifications to the approved grading or drainage. • Parking: There are no modifications proposed that will alter the approved number of parking spaces. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The proposal complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. As stated above, no modifications to the approved density are proposed and adequate development rights exist for the property. 4. The Minor Project is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Desion Guidelines. A. Site Development: o All of the proposed modifications appear to be in compliance with this section of the Design Guidelines. B. Building Design: o The Applicant is proposing to modify the approved stucco colors on the throughout all elevations on the duplex structure. The previously approved stucco colors are "Sociable" (SW6359) and "Intricate Ivory" (SW6350). The proposed stucco colors are "Interactive Cream" (SW6113) and "Totally Tan" (SW6115). The "Totally Tan" color will be applied to the banded stucco, while the 'Interactive Cream" color will be applied to the smooth stucco. Staff has determined that the revised earthtone colors are compatible with the building and adhere to the Design Guidelines. C. Landscaping: o There are no modifications to the approved Landscaping plan for the project. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 i' Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — Design Modifications 1° December l5, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3 .,..... D. Miscellaneous o None of the proposed modifications will be affected by this portion of the Design Guidelines. 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 proposed improvements will not affect this review criterion. 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. Staff has determined that the proposed modification will not affect the architectural style of the duplex on the subject property 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. No monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with these modifications. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Staff finds the proposed modification to color of the stucco conforms to the Town of Avon's adopted Goals, Policies and Programs. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the application as proposed on Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with the finding that it adheres to the Design Guidelines. Recommended Motion "I move to APPROVE the proposed modifications with the finding that the colors adhere to the Design Guidelines." If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4023, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Jar Barnes Planner I Attachments A. Vicinity Map B. Approved and Proposed Color Samples Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 • 7 �.�. � 1 _ t N'�al r +I �F t. ,c P ' ME IT I. . w ® —Residential Streets QVD N Property Boundaries ��wa �"�-„M;Z Exhibit A 7-9 cv ! zr 1 j � 1 �,�.,n dw��.-.".,,: Staff Report r Sketch Design C0L0RA00 December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date December 11, 2009 Project type Two New Duplex Residences Legal description Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning PUD — 4 Units Address 2110 Saddle Ridge Loop Introduction Phil Matsen of Matsen Enterprises and Michael Pukas of MPP Design Shop, (collectively, the "Applicant") representing the owner of Tract B, Block 1 of the Wildridge Subdivision (the "Property"), has submitted a Sketch Design application for two duplex structures with a shared driveway off Old Trail Road. The Property was approved for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to permit this development. The PUD amendment limited the maximum residential floor area to 1,500 square feet for the two western most duplex units; and, 1,900 square feet for the two eastern most duplex units. The building heights were limited to thirty-three feet (33') and twenty- seven feet (27'), respectively. The site coverage is limited to 25% and the minimum landscaped area was increased to 40% of the lot area. Included in this report are Staffs initial comments on the design, the mandatory review critiera, and an aerial vicinity map. A reduced plan set containing a site plan, floor plans, conceptual landscaping, and elevations plans is attached hereto. Staff Comments Unit Size The units' sizes are consistent with the conditions of the PUD amendment. Two of the duplex units measure approximately 1,500 square feet and two units measure 1,900 square feet each. Buildino Height From the drawings provided, Staff is unable to verify the proposed heights for compliance with the PUD amendment. Staff will require the Applicant to provide a roof plan with all roof ridge elevations at the Final Design review. Parking Section 17.24.020(a)(1)d., "Off -Street Parking", states the following: Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Tract B, Black 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Gandorf PUD Sketch Design December 15, 20D9 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3 AO1N All off-street parking spaces, including the adjacent area used for turning movements necessary to enter or leave the parking spaces when open to the sky, may be located in any yard except the front ten (10) feet of the required front yard. The proposed site access and parking areas are inconsistent with the Off Street Parking requirements, which do not permit parking or the area used for turning movements in the first 10 feet of the required front yard. The parking area and its required access will therefore need to be modified before Final Design Review. Landscaoina and Lot Coveraae The proposed landscaping does comply with the PUD landscaping requirements, based on a preliminary landscaping plan. Architectural Desian The Sketch Design application is in general compliance with the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Review Guidelines with the following exception. With regard to the Design Guidelines, Staff has determined that the proposed design does not meet the Duplex Development criteria. Each duplex has mirror image halves which need to be modified prior to Final Design Review. The Design Guidelines recommend that two halves of a duplex should be complementary and create a unified structure, but not be so similar as to be mirror images. Furthermore, the similarity in each half of the duplex, specifically the roof forms, and the close proximity of the two duplex buildings creates an overall composition that lacks architectural interest. Staff recommends that the proposed designs be revised to provide variety between each half of each duplex and between the two duplexes, while continuing to design the structures in a compatible manner. Design Review Considerations The Commission shall evaluate the design of this sketch plan utilizing the specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning Code; 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comorehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains; 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements; 4. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Review Guidelines; 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 Tract B, Block 1, Wiklridge Subdivision. Gandorf PUD Sketch Design December 15, 2009 Planning d Zoning Commission meeting Page 3of3 ^��n 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; 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired; and 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The Commission will take no formal action on this Sketch Plan application. At the meeting, the Applicant will receive guidance from the Commission and Staff to incorporate into a Final Design application. A full size �24" x 36") plan set will be available for the Commission's review at the December 15 , 2009 meeting. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me directly at 748-4023, or stop by the office of Community Development. Respectfully submitted, Jared Barnes Planner I Attachment Reduced Plan Set Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Vicinity Map - Tract B, Block 1, WR Exhibit —Residential Streets gyQH Property Boundaries ` goo wo �•doysu8lsepddw0190401 W IC6P066 )OL6) LS918 00'wnzdAO 0001d a W1smMM S6 ouj Odoys u6isap ddw �O 0 R om e0 eJ®"Ole �O �Jn LU OZU GI OJ'MAtl 400'1 ®9NQi 0101'9PPOS 304 5yt 3 pf 10 IZ L 101'9 1304 r 3 2 } 810w1 Nop000 oll 9 . oojl popuoG a s N 2 ON E COQ U X 2- u o .� o° oOM a ury m� a _ O �U a� Q N°-3�am o C5 o N -W s� N U 3 Lo a )) Q 0. E_ ip W 0 .N L ^` _U Ll E Y Y ^L, W y N u W 4. -a 0 c) 5 N m2a � >` o. "' "> � C� C tCV)U0,^o °' } W ox x ar.a o 0_ 0, 0a - o. -14 W �vCLw E Vi ° CL 0 °a U 4- J O m C C N L O L .b. ; C C ~ a) C 0 v N C° ap "� c^n v 0^�° 0~ N O b �vu L O? �^c0 10 U - 0 /I1 .� 0)0p C�Qaco OP_ �✓ = 6NOO�n U C O Cmo� �oNX�1-1 0, 0 �o�o g Doo- uoo p_ E01 o o WLx>i x o 20> > a CL CL h .' U rL o 0> a� a �04 -Q DaQ� E r � � | #A dOM 3oM 310an § | | / wo3•do4su8jsepddw®leo4ojw tw-wC )OLS) 3 LE91807'wnsd6V OOOId QUOISMOVA 96 BBZ x08 Od oul Idoys u5isep ddw m my �'wt �9� t OZ918 00'MAV dool 96P18 QJPPOS 1012 1101'B 1301 81W1 POPU00 Z)ll 9 JonJJ JJopuoE:) ttt t t 222 2 2 m mal - m ttt t t Ryipp� � 9 NU N - C/ d m il �� , Stxl It ('M'O'?J ,05) avo-al 39QITlcnim (*M'02 ,OS) d00'f R9QIN -=MQQ yS Lu1 r 4-1 M Q o .-1 J C L l6 O L. N 73 V �'wt �9� t OZ918 00'MAV dool 96P18 QJPPOS 1012 1101'B 1301 81W1 POPU00 Z)ll 9 JonJJ JJopuoE:) ttt t t 222 2 2 m mal - m ttt t t Ryipp� � 9 NU N - C/ d m il �� , Stxl It ('M'O'?J ,05) avo-al 39QITlcnim (*M'02 ,OS) d00'f R9QIN -=MQQ yS Lu1 r woo doysu8&sapddw@leoyolw V p [W -06e (M) 9 OZ91800'uony ZE9IR 00'wnsdA9 auold auols' OIIM dool adp% OjppoS 101Z '9 €€ 96 Qouj,does L 101 Pwl eo R g ubisap ddw oil 9;ooa UDO ti ("Wo"N OS) Q'dO2! �9Q1?�Q11M CU . I L ■�Hill - 6 r. ■ ■■ `. I. uoo•doysu6!sepddw@leoyo!w t£67-06£ (OL6) o L£918 00 'wnsdA0 OZ918 00 'uony dool e6p!b eIPPOS 1012 Goold euo}senoll!M 96 99Z Xo8 Od •oul 'does ddw 1401'9 }onJI 9 4001 PoPUDE) `XI. ubisap 0119 Pbal PopuqE) p J 7-T m< r---1 I I ----o 00 00 00 00 1 O Fm�IIIIVGICJaCIC71CiCli:►?V��ny � UIIIIIUIIIIIUIIIIIUII111'1:-!!!�—�■-��■--�--��--� Q O �. = 11UII1111UIIi111U1I111U11111U1I1n7�� _� �_��-��_.I■=. �� / fll��fllllUuluUllluUuulnuulUullu!...--��e■� �,-•• r uU1u111UlllltlUunlUuuuul!HlunuuulUuln.=�'■ ��'•�-'=�� ¢ ' �I IllllulllUullu p Wp pIUIIIIIUIIUIUIIUIUIT.G�--�: - a �Ullunuuuulll�fl�(fUII��miuUu111UuulUuuuuul�T'='-�'i'� i ��uuuuuuuu��unulYunluu�uuuuu�---- ■r��:. Iiiui�itllll�t1l11�ilill�llllllffiiiliiiiiliiliiliiidl/i1R1�*��: IlUun11U11!111U11111UI1111UI1171UIIIIIUIII11UI1111UI1111�� ='4C=*!=: � O u1111tu11UlunUlullUn111Uut11UUlIlUIUIIUIu��r��: ��'_;� UIImInllUlullUlullUnnlU1f111UlullUlul�r'- "•�= _��-�-rR IUnIrlUlullUUlllUlunUlul!n1u1!Ulun•��c�-_:� ��?� ml!n11Un:111UI1111UI1111UI117fUlllr!�ip�nrr��i- "I��.�WS � - u1111t1111UIn11Ulu11UlullUulr�=-•_� � ""•_� •+•_■.._- r� ?��IIICIUIIIllUl1111UU1!� m-� ■-p,�ia-� ^=n��-.�"�RCin� I �_- Oter_..--e.-� .. IIII r��-� �■ ■�__ g_n W■.-_-■ �■ ■ _ -�_� _:_ C .r ■�: �r�■__�— �-=1�M.:—■� .r rr it © u7.11"17iiuI:C7CIC6.'��Fi■o=?�■=?� .�'=--.��=��—e © - -- � � 1111111111U11111U11111�1.'�.;�-�� IIIIIIUIIIIIUIIIIIUIIgIUIIIIi 144111!111111IIIIIUIIIIIUIIgIUI�.--'�-=�■_ �_�� I,. _ �' IIUIIIJIIUl1:UlU1I111U1I111U1I111JU1I1111.S��C- � �_' �"' •► I�unl�ulluuu7�pump�umuuWlup�um�ulu�ln.-, -��- ilui�- .inuiiuiii�•- �mllullolli��J�Wi��rJ�J�!��!��iil� luJ/ IIIl11W411�1!IITUIIIIfUIIIII��II71rI1IlU�II1(�1�==�� _ iii 1III71Iil1UiUlullUlullUlullUnlllUUl1!Ulurl� ��-`-�~ • =�_ -7 IIIIIUIIIII�IIIII�IIIII�IIIIl�g111�111�_=-i_=�I■ Nil LE iIIUIIIJIlUI11111UI11I1U11111U111!s ��y��..- = �J- 711/11111 �11�11 �11�11111�111�� -��_ �� 'J'�`.•.•��:,� �v� • O �= TIL�III�I�IIr�.R_-�==•i== �= � �i=��=moi =� � � , III�IJIII�II:111�11111� Ia..1.i1.a.1... a.1..Ya.1 I • . i I 00 00 Q 00 00 woo•doysuBisepddwojeoyolw l£6V-06£ (OLM o OZ918 00 LEM 00 'wnsdAE) dool e5pIN elppoS eooid auo}smOIIIM 96 1 401'9 eaa Xo9 Od g 'ooJj }to �z)ul ,dogs uf3isep ddw Oil 81004 4jopu I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I •I � � I ; I I I I! 4 I? 4 p4 I u ap QI i! ik I 1 C I a. as 0 ;§ I I I I I I U.1 .� I I I I I O O— t I uony § \1l Iola y as as f 4 s„'0 I I 1 t III I o❑I ' , I I I I I I � IOO i I — - ---- -_---- - - — I I I OO II I I I c 1 — — — %I II I II it I �lll I I II I I I I I O �pp w0 O :y a Z V- o - Id Ia I `ry ❑ `�❑_� I=7•� I o �.: _ I I -o to § I I woo•doysu6!s9pddw@!901401w (OL6) 0 OZ919 00 'uony ^'• LE611-06£ L£919 00 'wnsdAO doo-! 96p!a OIPPOS IOIZ ° Ooold Ouo{sm0ll!M 96 xo8 1 101'9 40DJI m F �` 99Z Odg;00,1111opuoO •oul 'dolls ubisap ddw ��l 8 �obal JJopupE) cr a..c ac ,rc a.. ,o-. ovc ac .rc E IN �o IL 4 o.. `a: •sp. . - c a .a .Spa Yr 9U 8 � mU r-- -- I ---------I —------------ — --I, I •. u I 11 I IllIIII11111 wL� I I _JI 4_4 _�I 4 I I III I — c C - I - L__ __ __--- —_--_----_---T__--I� I m o n 0 IN IN CU woo•doysu6isepddw®j9oyoiw l£617-06£ (OL6) 3 L£9l9 00 'wnsdAo e001d auo}smopiM 96 99Z xog Od oul ,does u6isap ddw I � rf� a6 1919 00 'uony \� door p,a IPP S IOIZ 1401,9 }001 g 4004 PopuOO Oil 8 1004 4JopuoO 0 1 f I I a. t0 I oa 4 I I 1 .d d g� �I II iH I I I Eo O LU 4� U Staff Report MINOR DESIGN -IVON C O L O R A D O December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date December 10, 2009 Project type Accessory Structures Legal description Tract N, Block 3, & Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Zoning GPEH (Tract N), OLD (Tract G) Introduction On behalf of the Town of Avon, the Applicant, Mark Donaldson, is requesting approval for the design of two separate accessory structures, which will house the mechanical equipment for the Town's heat recovery project for the Community Recreation Center. The heat recovery project is a capital project approved by the Avon Town Council for the 2010 calendar year. The 2010 construction budget for this project is approximately $3.8 million. Construction is scheduled to begin next April and will run through the calendar year. The purpose of the Commission's review is to determine if the criteria from the Design Review Guildelines (also outlined in this report) have been adequately addressed by the Applicant, and to make a recommendation to the Town Council for either: 1) approval; 2) approval with conditions; 3) or denial. Staff was advised by the Town Council to have the Commission review these design plans and make a formal recommendation on the Project. Given the physical and logistical constraints with locating both of the structures, this review should be based primarily on the appearance of the structures and the compatibility of the improvements as viewed from neighboring properties and rights-of-way. Design Summary The Applicant has made modifications to both buildings in response to the comments from the December 1 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The modifications are described in the attached letter from the Applicant. Please see the attached architectural drawings for details of the Project. Tract N — Water District Heat Pump The location of this structure has been carefully studied for placement due to vertical elevation and direct connectivity to the target snow melt and pool water heating areas within the Town. The 18' x 38' building is situated at the east end of the Water District's property immediately adjacent to and parallel with the Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Tracts N & G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Heat Recovery Project me° December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 5 AY 0 N chain link fence bordering the Union Pacific property. This structure measures 21' 8" in height, and the building takes design queues from other utility buildings on the property, such as the UV building. Please find photographs attached to this report which show the other existing neighboring improvements. Architectural changes to the Heat Pump building include: new door headers, stronger door and corner trims, roof dormers, a new stain color, and the elimination of photo -cells for the outdoor lights. Tract G — Heat Distribution Building This structure is located on the east side of the Recreation Center between the new parking lot and the building. The building footprint measures 26' x 62'; and the building height is approximately 14' feet with a flat roof. The materials and colors of the facade are consistent with those found on the existing building. All of the heat exchange equipment and new boiler system will be located entirely within this structure. The building has been shifted approximately 1' 6" closer to the Recreation Center building to make room for a new curb installation between the building and the existing drive lane of the adjacent parking lot. Approximately four (4) bollards will help to protect the building from vehicle collisions. The bollards will be 4" diameter steel tubes and can be painted to match the colors and materials of the building. Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items 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. The subject property for the heat pump service building is located in the Open Space, Landscaping, and Drainage (OLD) zone district. This heat recovery project is a Town service that endeavors to achieve higher levels of sustainability than otherwise possible. Avon Municipal Code Sec.17.04.060 Exemption for Certain Services exempts certain services the Zoning Code provisions, including the normal maintenance by public utilities, special districts or municipal departments of underground, surface or overhead water, sewer, transmission, collection systems including mains, drains, sewers, pipes, etc. Staff has determined that this heat generation service is consistent with the types of services exempted by Code, and is considered an above ground utility transmission system. This application is in conformance with all other provisions of the Zoning 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) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 PQEMR Tracts N & G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Heat Recovery Project MM December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 5 A� R N The proposal complies with the Goals and Policies contained within the Environmental element of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. The following is an excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan: Goal HA: Conserve environmental resources to ensure their most efficient use. Policy HAI: Develop an energy and environmental resource plan to identify areas of potential conservation and best management practices for town operations. Policy H.4.2: Support regional and local efforts for recycling and maintain support of regional recycling facilities. Policy H.4.3: Require use of innovative and environmentally friendly appliances and building techniques including water conservation approaches for new and existing development. The heat recovery project is undoubtedly the most innovative energy recycling effort the Town has ever embarked upon. This project will serve as a living demonstration of a heat recovery through mutual collaboration between entities. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Not applicable. These buildings are except from the provisions of Title 17: Zoning. 4. The Minor Project is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines. These improvements should be measured against the Commercial and Industrial Guidelines, which govern the design of accessory structures in the Town Core area. The Guidelines are general in nature and require that "any accessory structures on the building site shall be compatible with the design and materials utilized for the main building structure." In both cases, the proposed building materials and colors are consistent with those found on the adjacent structures. The Guidelines encourage the use of high quality, durable, low maintenance building materials for industrial/commercial settings. According to the submitted drawings for the Heat Distribution building, all colors, trims, roof, CMU block, and exterior materials will match the existing Recreation Center building. Concrete block will only be permitted with specific approval of the Commission. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. There are no significant alterations to the existing topography to facilitate the construction of these essential buildings. 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. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Tracts N & G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Heat Recovery Project December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 5110 0"N The appearance of the proposed improvements will not have any detrimental effects to those viewing from adjacent and neighboring properties. The heat pump building on Tract N will not be visible from adjacent and neighboring properties given the vertical difference between the ECO bike path and the limited viewing angles. As explained, the heat distribution will be highly visible as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties. The efforts made to push the building as close to the recreation center as possible, coupled with the use of complimentary building materials and colors will help make this well -matched building compatible given it's context with surrounding improvements. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. The improvements will not impede monetary or aesthetic values. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Staff finds conformance with the Town of Avon's adopted Goals, Policies and Programs. Energy awareness is highlighted in the Comprehensive Plan's Environmental Element as an overarching Goal for all future development within Town. The environmental awareness efforts in which the Town continues to embark upon will continue to lead as an example to private development and redevelopment in the Town. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the Project to the Town Council, as revised. Recommended Motion "I move to recommend APPROVAL to the Town Council of the proposed modifications on Tract H and Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, citing the following findings of fact: 1. The project is in conformance with the Design Guidelines and the mandatory review criteria outlined therein. 2. The modifications to the design plans are sufficient to address the Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns raised at the December 1, 2009 meeting. 3. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, this joint project will improve the energy efficiency of existing and future publicly planned improvements in the Town Center." If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Vielsticke Planner 11 Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Tracts N & G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — heat Recovery Project PRIMP December 15, 2009 Plannin, & Zoning Commission mcetin, Page 5 of 5A h Attachments Photographs of existing improvements Letter from the Architect Reduced Plans Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 v. w 'r� — `a }r;. -� i �, Y��C�A� IY�i q;f_'1' IIn�Y��HN�N��NIIi�:�iMM11�iHl�Mrir4P<... i � �� .n s.�� ! v• :fit e ��. e �- '� s ala.-�AS r a i .,, � � � - '� J ': a- r �� X� � o' �� .rpr r a,�;�� I � x �Y � 1i' iT rte ir�. _ * � • rj \ : w Ilk ON '.Lb[•]7NFBI",I 0048 E BEAVER CREEK BLVD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 FAX 949-5205 W W W.VMDA.COM TO: Town of Avon Planning 8, Zoning Commission CC: Town of Avon Planning Staff FROM: Mark Donaldson/VMDA on behalf of Camp Dresser 8, McKee, Inc. DATE: December 10, 2009 RE: Final Design Applications for Two Avon Heat Recovery Project Buildings Thank you each for your thorough round of review and discussion provided at the last meeting. We reviewed and discussed those issues with the project engineering firm and client group to address each of those issues with respect. The responses below reflect the project constraints of design engineering functions and cost along with the direction provided by the Water District, all in the spirit of mutual cooperation. These two buildings and Avon's Heat Recovery Project are proposed for construction with mutual funding from the Governor's Energy Office, Department of Local Affairs, Town and Water District. The District has direct ownership and fiduciary responsibilities to its taxpayers for the site, its public functions and management of their Special District Operations. The Town has similar authority over the Rec Center site including the shared parking facilities and other municipal functions. Uniquely, these funding entities are cooperating in the execution of this municipal endeavor while maintaining project objectives and public benefits whilst addressing Design Review objectives and considerations. Thank you in advance for considering this design proposal in context with your Design Review Considerations. Heat Pump Building Planning b Design ( Water District Site) The three similar buildings residing upon this site have been identified by the District as desired for matching this building form, materials, and imagery. This proposed building is also similar to the other three in terms of sheltering important industrial/municipal functions among their campus of Administrative, Operations, Maintenance and Utility Buildings. To address previous comments, we now propose door headers, stronger door and corner trims, a more natural stain color and no photo -cells for outdoor lights. The green metal roof is requested to match the other Utility Shed metal roofs. We considered roof dormers as suggested but unfortunately dormers of any signify - cant size conflict with the overhead electric line clearances needed. The building placement was determined by functional elevation and connectivity to the Heat Distribution Building without limiting the maneuvering of the District's heavy equipment and their access to utility materials storage. inter -Mountain Engineering, Ltd. has verified with Holy Cross Electric the specific clearance requirements for this shape and height of roof and structure to reside beneath overhead electric service lines. We therefore appreciate your consideration and approval of the design as revised for this necessary new Utility Shed. Heat Distribution Building Planning & Design (Recreation Center Site) This building has been carefully situated to maintain the maximum amount of shared parking spaces while allowing existing drives and access lanes to be maintained & minimum of disruption. This location resides in available site area without disruption to Rec Center egress, Loading Dock and Trash operations and with only minimal impact on light to existing staff windows along the East side of the Rec Center. We now include a projected curb and possibly three carefully placed 4" diameter steel tube bollards along the East facade for reasonable defense during snow removal and site ingress under icy conditions. We have also moved this new structure l'-6" closer to the Rec Center to accommodate the new curb/bollards while maintaining the full drive width. The three trees to be removed indicated signs of significant distress from their previous location; Cher lush and dense landscape materials remain in and around the South end of the new ouilding while continuing to screen utility pedestals and meter locations. The architectural adaptations are purely adapted from the adjacent areas of the Rec Center. We have used matching colors, materials, doors and frames while juxtaposing Rec Center materials among the simple form. We believe the intent of site conformity and context for this necessary Utility Shed has been achieved by restraining the forms, connecting the roof to the exit way and proximity to the primary structure. We respectfully request your Final Design approval of these strategic components of heat recovery project as conforming to the intent and spirit of all design consideration and by providing the well defined community benefits. Respectfully submitted, ark Donaldson, Principal dictor Mark Donaldson Architects for Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. i AR I RIIL t P e saes III'' / a/ o a R gig �y g ! meq. •'/;%'i/, ram " _/ 4 y 1 FB�o� gig � :ip'� i" ^!'• �—� 4. %' 't ;/ r, �y4 I'�� ; '� ,".;•it,./,ice • / t� 's'sg4 i'/ !„a• o i1 ®� EER k S3+ g 50 slid a�pp�•� ��'R°��pRg 84 � p- \ i — '_��i ® /:' �R � � � � `q[{. � � i 5 5 A Hill ?/ A. fall' ! ��i /+/ �'•.,� �% R CS 14 / ; m or Ols ♦: l ,.j'',, _ I y\ ell \ • '' \ 1 i ZQ g \ V; oz Z lit! ,� \ S ...Yf ::�� / va ♦ j }f / ti ��Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllin:�,1�11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I1111111111111N'��IIIII' 111111411 ]111! 11{ill' 1111°JIII Z a � cZi n R r t N C U C& a a9 R 0 F m W o d a �pop } p0 W O w e � - KD f C i r� ifl i-� _ Ztlj LU ZC n 4 co Lu 'u ¢a¢ y yy g CD $15 O@ H C 8 S 5[ u t! 8 E 'n Co Z I EL O J ++ i I I I' l l I I 1 Ill 1 •/•6b � � - W w 1W w S 0 F m W o d a �pop } p0 W O w e � - KD f 0 C E 0 0 E 0 u E 2 0 0 0 w I \% agYe ;gg h ti i$€ A �q > w �a LU_ _: IIIIIIIIIII II Q m O - a i W O s w w. x — O it III II ( III I I I IIIII -- 0 0 w I \% agYe ;gg h Ki€ffin i$€ A 1w Z O > w �a LU_ _: W O z m O - a > O s w x 0 Is !<�tE W oYg�S F— =SSE Q $53a i i z i i W o F N N F F N F F u 3 - WNL 1 w w w w w w w 2 .. •- \ WNL < .T \ 1 n ----------------- N� \ • �^' of .;f :i...•. Oj. 0.. V.0 1`F I �+ W�2Z Boa �.\ :� ' • \� � �� '^ t/ VJ Z Z O D Q W Z O U S— :i. �•a�. 10+*r I •? x.7450— ul 21 CD w o a L Q Utie / LL 0 0U W Igj,n�i� + � / Z U � I �e7x3s 1cu , { cA 41 , 1 1 \.7 xor s ill Z KMcn 1 32W2N g W r Nu W a; ut & in a C Do N o ZH hg A00� •Sv0'. $rD h c O m m w pGp ttt � ��4N 1d In W 407 — L-1 — —� c • f� i �Sb/L— }y • QS' i."v • .._ \`W ..� ,.� .. QQ�ii'- 3 M N Y • `'�` -- �^ --. --. �� m p h k� • a P i0c n°'APPROK � ib i }•1�/�'':.'' '}�\ W'n/ I 1. vii .g'•Pvc�• fit l. �:a k.•..x. t1lBlltii!li1i1111ptI11[[1it�itt1l1litIi1 •4, .,. � � _ [k#ei2114111t i I TM }l • N W a O W ,� Z • E� Z � .w V Z N LU, • L= � i a a a 5 i i z i i W o F N N F F N F F u 3 - WNL 1 w w w w w w w 2 .. •- \ WNL < .T \ 1 n ----------------- N� \ • �^' of .;f :i...•. Oj. 0.. V.0 1`F I �+ W�2Z Boa �.\ :� ' • \� � �� '^ t/ VJ Z Z O D Q W Z O U S— :i. �•a�. 10+*r I •? x.7450— ul 21 CD w o a L Q Utie / LL 0 0U W Igj,n�i� + � / Z U � I �e7x3s 1cu , { cA 41 , 1 1 \.7 xor s ill Z KMcn 1 32W2N g W r Nu W a; ut & in a C Do N o ZH hg A00� •Sv0'. $rD h c O m m w pGp ttt � ��4N 1d In W 407 — L-1 — —� c • f� i �Sb/L— }y • QS' i."v • .._ \`W ..� ,.� .. QQ�ii'- 3 M N Y • `'�` -- �^ --. --. �� m p h k� • a P i0c n°'APPROK � ib i }•1�/�'':.'' '}�\ W'n/ I 1. vii .g'•Pvc�• fit l. �:a k.•..x. t1lBlltii!li1i1111ptI11[[1it�itt1l1litIi1 •4, .,. � � _ [k#ei2114111t i I TM }l • N W a ro W ,� Z • n i Cr) m O Z � .w V Z N LU, sI � i a a a 5 i i z i i W o F N N F F N F F u 3 - WNL 1 w w w w w w w 2 .. •- \ WNL < .T \ 1 n ----------------- N� \ • �^' of .;f :i...•. Oj. 0.. V.0 1`F I �+ W�2Z Boa �.\ :� ' • \� � �� '^ t/ VJ Z Z O D Q W Z O U S— :i. �•a�. 10+*r I •? x.7450— ul 21 CD w o a L Q Utie / LL 0 0U W Igj,n�i� + � / Z U � I �e7x3s 1cu , { cA 41 , 1 1 \.7 xor s ill Z KMcn 1 32W2N g W r Nu W a; ut & in a C Do N o ZH hg A00� •Sv0'. $rD h c O m m w pGp ttt � ��4N 1d In W 407 — L-1 — —� c • f� i �Sb/L— }y • QS' i."v • .._ \`W ..� ,.� .. QQ�ii'- 3 M N Y • `'�` -- �^ --. --. �� m p h k� • a P i0c n°'APPROK � ib i }•1�/�'':.'' '}�\ W'n/ I 1. vii .g'•Pvc�• fit l. �:a k.•..x. t1lBlltii!li1i1111ptI11[[1it�itt1l1litIi1 •4, .,. � � _ [k#ei2114111t i I TM Rl ^ Va. \ Ao\� 16 , u � , u � QL C7 c7 ';F f i.. A `,5.. OS %'h443Q15 9YLL51%' sJ` 3 Fii1MIEI+3�JfLL'.Y�G5V37dd s of `.•�'' is l i a .............. O� o �T N W 00 z a C. a� ov W �y Q U �0 F -� ❑❑❑ T❑ ❑❑ LCL 11L uuuu ❑❑❑❑❑ i � N � Q G� F -� ❑❑❑ T❑ ❑❑ LCL 11L uuuu ❑❑❑❑❑ m � � N � Q G� ❑❑jjl �uu J ❑❑B� uu ❑❑� ]❑❑ uuu❑❑❑ mp ❑❑❑❑❑❑ _N ❑❑❑❑❑❑ x ❑❑❑❑❑ uuuuu n 0 �L m � � N � Q G� Z D J m 0Z a mp HW. _N x U CD w o o - Z a °0 LLO U w 3� o OAU w w QJ '- W W ash 8 - 99 yy Y y 0 C V- I I iva ZYl �a O �_k O r LU LLI _ ZYl �a O �_k O r _ I _ LLI -t.... _ IL --r _ - t i k - - t i i i - - k 1 i ZYl �a O �_k O r _ LLI i rt_ - V7 0 Z U) 2 ao° ° b r 6 R o J I- LLI 0 -t w O �_k O _ LLI Y N V7 0 Z U) 2 ao° ° b r 6 R o J I- LLI 0 -t w o� °o O �_k O o� °o U w CL U, 0 W uT1 .Y IV _ LLI U w CL U, 0 W uT1 .Y IV t,LZ0-8bL-0L6 O(IVNO-100 'NOAV 30 NMOL OZ918 OOda0-100 'NOnv ^� 2901 x09 'O'd `JNIO11f16 NOunsiZ11SIO 1V3H ON`d � 0-11 `JNIH33NION3 NIDHV W 3115 0NI>Q:i'dd H31N30 N0l.LV3HZ)3N ss NouonaLswo aOi 03nssl ao-ll-r ! $� 0 AB SNOISN38 3110 ON 8! \ z 0 H' U 7 \ P°1 N ^ Z 0 U 0 \ ^FS Ir_ _ Z9 r \ \i` 2� O \ O o s�b•Z Y- _ R 3 5 h L Ci �O -O • Stb a K d S ^ R150 n 5R h > \ P9 U e 46, _ � U 'osq•i o h � 4 h I a \ yb m +y} z ry O S \ P rcm z a \ 2 pA ^ ^ z \\0 W r a Of 161 2y / U ry ry ~ !V ce N / W I � CO Z $ t \ ah Y W ^ T \ I1r ^` \ \ P� ^P \ [s7 - V) $� ^ U x zs a - 06 s- - cO R K- I l l�/� '�'• �f_ X Staff Report - AV 0 N Final Design Plan CU L 0 R A D0 December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date Project type Legal description Zoning Address Introduction December 8, 2009 Timeshare Lot 1, Riverfront Subdivision Planned Unit Development (PUD) 42 Riverfront Lane The Applicant, Aleksandr Sheykhet of OS Architecture, has submitted a Final Design application for the 'Timeshare East' project, located on Lot 1 of the Riverfront Subdivision (the Project). The site and building design of the Project are consistent project with the building placements and forms approved with the Riverfront Planned Unit Development (PUD) on February 28, 2006 The purpose of this Final Design review is to determine the acceptability of the changes made to the design plans since being reviewed and tabled from a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last year. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this Project at the December 15, 2009 meeting. Design Summary This phase of the approved Riverfront PUD includes two buildings connected underground, yet separated at grade: Building East (E), and Building Riverside (R). There are 74 combined units proposed in the two buildings. Building East is the taller of the two building and includes 58 2 -bedroom units, each with the ability to have a lock -off unit. The Building Riverside is positioned between the Building East and the ECO recreation path. This building contains the remaining 16 2 -bedroom units, also with the ability to have lock -off units. The complete plan set for this development is attached as Exhibit D to this report. The Westin Riverfront Hotel and Spa is located immediately to the west of the Project, Riverfront Lane wraps the north and east sides of the Project, and the ECO Recreation path borders the south side of the Project. The limits of disturbance encompass the entire Lot 1, and even extend beyond the property lines with covered walkways to protect the existing sidewalk on the north and east side of the Project. Staff will require more details from the Applicant with regards to the Development staging plan prior to issuing any building permits. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 1, Riverfront PUD—Timeshare East Final Design R P December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 10 11 Sketch Design review for the Project took place at the August, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and the original Final Design Application was reviewed on November 14, 2008. The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the Final Design Application based on the negatively perceived east building elevations and the lack of architectural variety. The Planning and Zoning Commission made several comments with respect to the linear roof line and the inadequate building entrance from Riverfront Lane. Please find the meeting minutes from that review attached as Exhibit B to this report. In response to comments received at the November 14, 2008 Planning & Zoning meeting, the Applicant has made a number of changes to the design of the buildings. The majority of the changes are evident on the building elevations or roof plan, and include the following: • New entry design on North elevation of Building East • East elevation revisions: 1. Stair has been rotated and the corridor extended. Corner windows added. 2. Entry improved in both detail (integrated canopy) and function (drop off). 3. Porte cochere added. 4. Pedestrian arcade added wrapping northeast corner of the building. • Connection between two buildings was strengthened: 1. Central gates were recessed deeper into courtyard. 2. Fire sculpture was centered on the visual axel from the street. 3. Stepped landscaped terraces added. 4. Fence detailed to be an open decorative metal installation with landscape screen for privacy. 5. Drop off and round planter is added as well as pedestrian arcade and reinforced entry at TSE. • Roof Changes on Building East: 1. New rotated stair and corridor extension allowed for additional roof steps. 2. Pedestrian arcade shed roof added for more pedestrian scale of Building East. Staff has found this application in general conformance with the Riverfront Desion Standards and the design review criteria set forth in the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines. Design Review Considerations The Timeshare East development is governed in part by the site-specific Riverfront Desion Standards, which were adopted as part of the Riverfront PUD amendment. The expressed intent of the standards is to create high quality architectural design through the use of varied roof forms, wall plane articulation, and quality building materials. Attached to this report as Exhibit A for reference is a copy of the Riverfront Desion Standards. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 1, Riverfront PUD—Timeshare East Final Design December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 10 .. R ..... How this building interacts with the public spaces it surrounds is important given its prominent location at the "front door" of the Riverfront development. These buildings will be highly visible from many locations in the Town Core, including many from Avon Road. In addition to the Riverfront Design Standards, the Commision should consider the following review criteria required by Section 7 of the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design Review Guidelines: 1. Conformance with Setbacks, Massing, Access, Land Use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zoninq Code. • Allowed Use: A timeshare lodge use located on Lot 1 is consistent with the approved Riverfront PUD. According to the PUD Development Plan, "Standard Commercial; Incidental Commercial; Residential/Lodging; Lodging Support Uses; Temporary Uses and Facilities; Public Uses" are all uses allowed by right, and "Theaters; Churches; other Temporary Facilities" are listed as Special Review Uses. Timeshare, vacation ownership, and fractional fee ownership uses are enumerated allowed uses for 'Residential/Lodging' in the Development Standards; therefore, this proposal is in conformance with the PUD. • Density: In total, the Riverfront PUD allows for up to 456 dwelling units. The Timeshare East Project contains 74 "Dwelling Units", and the two buildings collectively measure approximately 195,000 gross square feet. This calculation includes both underground structured parking levels (P1 & P2). For the purpose of density calculations, a Dwelling Unit is "one (1) or more rooms, including cooking facilities, intended or designed for occupancy by a family or guests independent of other families or guests, or (2) An aggregate of Accommodation Units provided as follows a. Three (3) Accommodation Units shall be counted as one (1) Dwelling Unit, b. Two (2) Accommodation Units in association with a dwelling unit shall be counted as one dwelling unit." The following table demonstrates the constructed, approved — yet to be constructed, and the proposed dwelling unit numbers, by lot: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lots TOTAL PUD REMAINING TSE Westin TSW Lodge 5,6,7 Dwelling 74 129 52 *75 TBD 456 456 126 Units *Approved, not constricted • Lot Coverage: The Applicant is proposing .71 acres of lot coverage for Lot 1; which is consistent with the lot coverage on the Lots 2, 3 and 4 of the PUD. Maximum building lot coverage allowed under the Riverfront Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 1, Riverfront PUD —Timeshare East Final Design December 15. 2009 Planning 8 Zoning Commission meeting pp p Page 4 of 10 PUD is 25% of the entire 18.5 -acre site, or 4.63 acres. The table below provides the site coverage numbers, to date, for the Riverfront PUD: Lott Lot Lot Lot Lots TOTAL PUD REMAINING TSE Westin TSW Lodge 5.6,7 Coverage .71 1.26 .44 it 74 TBD 3.15 4.63 1.48 (in Acres) *Approved, not constructed Setbacks: There is a front ten foot (10') building setback from the Riverfront Lane Right -of -Way, and a zero (0) side yard setback. All buildings within the Riverfront Subdivision shall be setback from the river the more restrictive of the following: 1) seventy five feet (75') from the Mean Annual High Water Mark, or 2) the northern property line of Tract A - the "River Park" parcel. This application is now in conformance with all setbacks except for the setback on the south side of the lot, bordering Tract A, due to a roof overhang that encroaches 2' into the setback. According to the PUD Development Plan, encroachments for "porches, decks, overhangs, and eaves" are permissible subject to design review approval. This type of encroachment has been permitted on other properties in this subdivision and the Commission determined this encroachment to be acceptable during their last review. Easements: There are several easements on this Lot, including: multiple Utility Easements, Utility, Drainage and Path Easement, temporary construction easements, and a Parking Facility Easement. Building Height The maximum building height permitted on Lot 1 is 105' for Building East, and 45' for Building Riverside. This design is in compliance with the prescribed maximum height requirements. The Building East measures approximately 96' tall and the Building Riverside is approximately 98' tall as proposed. Parking: Based on the residential condominium unit type, a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit is required for this Project.. Based on 74 units, the total required parking for this Project is 111 spaces. There are 134 stalls provided on the two levels of parking. As required by the PUD, the underground parking structure on Lot 1 is connected underground to Lot 2 and will be jointly managed. Snow Storage: The Grading Plan (Sheet C2.01) demonstrates several areas of snow storage adjacent to the Riverfront Lane sidewalk. These areas represent the same areas of sod proposed on the Landscape Plan. The Town Engineer has reviewed the Grading Plan and has determined that the snow storage area is functional. 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) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 1, Riverfront PUD —Timeshare East Final Design December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page5of10 Ruga The Riverfront PUD was reviewed and found to be in accordance with the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. During PUD review the applicant voluntarily applied the then draft plan goals and policies against the proposed Riverfront PUD, and it was found to be in conformance. The Confluence District (District 3) is intended to facilitate an extension of the Town Center with a "significant residentialflodging component... and direct transit connection access to Beaver Creek Village and create a connection with the Eagle River." Planning Principles germane to this application include: • Design Architecture to be significant form all sides (no front or back), maximize solar exposure, protect views, and break up building bulk. • Parking areas, trash containers, and loading or service areas should be screened and/or buffered from the river corridor. • Preserve and enhance public access to the existing linear park along the riverbank. Connections from this path to both the Town Center and Nottingham Park must be created in an ecologically sensitive manner as a key natural amenity. • Create a vibrant mix of uses and creative use of recreation and open space to allow a unique river experience. • Develop a vibrant mix of uses consisting of bed -base development and supporting commercial development. • Recognize the Confluence District as the most valuable property in Town Limits and should be developed at its most optimal level. The Planning Principles explain the development pressure that the site experiences, and the true value that this Project brings to the Town. Aside from providing obvious public benefits to the town (i.e. gondola connection to the resort, dedication of the Riverfront Park parcel), the architecture of the was always envisioned to be imperative as viewed from all orientations. How this project interacts with the Eagle River side of the development is important, and that is why the Building Riverside is downscaled to its current size. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. The proposed residential use and density is in accordance with the approved PUD plan, and there are adequate development rights. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential Design Guidelines: A. Site Development: o Site Design: There have been some minor changes to the site design since Sketch Design review. The shape and orientation of Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74811030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 1, Riverfront PUD —Timeshare East Final Design December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 10 Ru the building footprints are nearly identical with the PUD approved site plan for Lot 1. The Applicant has removed the aerial encroachments from the northeast corner of the Building East, and the western encroachments of Building Riverside over the property line of Lot 2. The majority of the changes to the design are to the building elevations, and are not reflected on the site plans. o Site Access: All vehicle access and guest check -ins for the Project will arrive through the main entrance of the Westin. The entrance to the Lot 1 garage is located on the east side of the Westin's Port Cochere. The entrance on the east side of the property, between Building East and Building Riverfront, may not exceed 4% grade if it is intended for any vehicular access or maintenance functions. o Parking and Loading. Parking has been provided in accordance with the PUD. As outlined above, the parking provided exceeds that required, and there will be joint management of all on-site parking for Lots 1, 2, and 3. Loading facilities for Timeshare West and East are also provided on the Westin Hotel property. The pullout zone indicated on Sheet A1.10 near station 19+00 is not shown on any other plans. This modification cannot be approved without altering the location of easements and/or existing Town right-of-way. Staff therefore recommends that this drop-off zone be eliminated and disapproved. B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: Design Criteria II.C.1.a from the Riverfront Desian Standards requires "rustic materials common in mountain towns and/or a more contemporary interpretation of these materials." Final approval of the building materials and colors for Timeshare East is proposed to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the Timeshare West building — as constructed. Staff is comfortable with this review approach because the exterior of the Timeshare West building is now complete and represents a true example of the materials envisioned for this project. According to the Town of Avon Residential Desian Guidelines, all walls and roofs of buildings, retaining walls, and accessory structures shall be earth tone in color and shall blend in with the natural setting. Design Criteria III.C.1.d from the Riverfront Standards go further to state "Colors should be complementary to the site, and be comprised of greens, grays, golds, browns, and other earth -tone hues...." Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 1, Riverfront PUD—Timeshare East Final Design December 15, 2009 Planning 8 Zoning Commission meeting � Page 7 of 10 OR o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest The design of this Project conforms with the building form and massing standards outlined on pages 4 and 5 of the Riverfront Design Standards. A design theme was established for this PUD when conceptual building elevation drawings were presented at the PUD approval, and subsequently when the hotel was approved. The Riverfront Subdivision is considered a cohesive neighborhood within Avon, and has its own unique architecture. Architectural interest has been provided on exterior walls with different facade breaks, balconies, and decks. It must be determined whether enough architectural interest has been provided in order to break up the mass of the building with sheer fagade walls up to 65' in height. Since last review, the Applicant has modified the building elevations of both structures to satisfy the Commission's concerns. Changes to the window pattern, material application locations, and minor architectural elements have been introduced. The revamped East elevation of Building East is the largest improvement over the previous design submittal. This Project is in compliance with the following massing and architectural guidelines outlined in the Riverfront Desion Standards: • III.A.4 - The middles of buildings will be more visually subtle, but broken by primary and secondary elevation features and material accents that help to avoid monotonous facades. On any given elevation of Lot 1 80% of the vertical wall area will be permitted to be within the same plan, with a minimum of 2 -foot offset for plane changes... stacked decks and balconies will be considered plane changes. • III.A.5 - Primary roofs will have pitches ranging 4:12 to 8:12. Secondary roofs, where pitched, shall be a minimum of 2:12. • III.A.7 - Relatively small roof overhangs are encouraged for buildings on Lots 1 and 3, which are visually and compositionally related to the Hotel. At these locations the minimum roof overhang permitted shall be six inches. o Outdoor Lighting: Pursuant to the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, all light fixtures that exceed the luminosity of a 60 -watt incandescent bulb (or 1000 lumens) must meet the definition of "full cut-off', per the Avon Municipal Code. Staff has determined that the FS2, wall mounted sconce fixture, is non-compliant with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. A revised fixture consistent with the Lighting Ordinance must be provided for Staff review and approval prior to building permit issuance. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 1, Riverfront PUD—Timeshare East Final Design December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting RWIR Page 8 of 10 �R� All other lighting is acceptable and in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. All of the proposed light fixture locations and specifications are shown on Sheets E1.EO1 and E1.E01a. C. Landscaping: o Design Character. The design character of the proposed Landscape Plan (Sheets L1 — L6), contain a mix of native plant species of varying heights. All plant material is tolerant to the local climate, consistent with neighboring approvals, and appropriate for the project. D. Miscellaneous: o Accessory Structures: Not applicable. o Signs: The Master Sign Program for the Riverfront Subdivision includes two monument signs on Lot 1 immediately adjacent to Riverfront Lane and a directional pedestrian/vehicular sign located next to the sidewalk. A Sign permit for the Project will be issued through a separate process. 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. This criterion was addressed with the PUD approval; and the massing and site plan layout proposed with this Project are in line with that approval. At the time of construction plan submittal, udated survey of the Lot must be provided to ensure the constructability of tie-ins to adjacent constructed improvements. The survey provided in the plan set is only deemed necessary to measure the building height. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. The improvements will be highly visible from several neighboring properties, public ways, and the Eagle River. In the context with the rest of the Riverfront Village, the massing, height, and architectural style is appropriate. The building orientation has been slightly changed since PUD approval to conform to the prescribed building setbacks. The proposed building materials and colors are identical to those applied to the Timeshare West building on Lot 3 of the Riverfront Subdivision. Some material applications have changed and new windows have been added to break up the east elevation of Building East. The architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street and quality of materials is consistent with the previous submittal and is appropriate as viewed from neighboring properties. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 1, Riverfront PUD —Timeshare East Final Design December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting ■0 Page 9 of 10 ,...... 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 will be impaired with these improvements. The similarity of this design to the neighboring structures will maintain the aesthetic values that are experienced with the subdivision currently. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. This design plan is in general conformance with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Policies Recommendation Staff is recommending CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the Final Design Application for Timeshare East, located on Lot 1, Riverfront Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to CONDITIONALLY APPROVE the Final Design plan for Timeshare East, Lot 1, Riverfront Subdivision, with the following FINDINGS: The application is in compliance with the Riverfront Design Standards. 2. The application complies with the Riverfront PUD, and all applicable zoning standards from Title 17 of the Avon MuniciDal Code. 3. The design plan is in conformance with review criterion #1 - #8, as outlined in staffs report — dated December 8, 2009. And subject to the following CONDITIONS: The Construction Staging Plan is not approved and will require additional information prior to the issuance of ANY grading or building permits for Lot 1. 2. The pullout zone and round planter shown on Sheet A1.10 adjacent to Riverfront Lane station 19+00 is not approved. This pullout is not shown on any other plan sheets. 3. The Departmental referral comments, attached hereto as Exhibit C, must be addressed prior to the issuance of ANY grading or building permits. 4. The "FS2" light fixture on plan sheet E1.101a is not approved. The lighting plan will be updated for staff approval at the time of building permit submittal with a compliant fixture. 5. The Riverfront ECO trail must remain open throughout construction, with protective measures installed with the approval of the Public Works Director as necessary. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 1, Riverfront PUD—Timeshare East Final Design December 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 10 of 10 AV P.H. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Planner II Exhibits A - Riverfront Design Standards B - November 14, 2008 Meeting Minutes C - Department Comments from Transportation/Pub Works and Engineering D - Reduced 11" x 17" Plans Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 1 * Riverfront Subdivision 'Vets'- -11 1 TMt IP ly 77 '• FRF ,� ' h * I�r � JA�4 ��+� I • � � _.�.r a +A. �" •4 + ! •J� J L_, - r. •.. - s C/uG LN "ii• ir' 0 4G �•t., y + ti. ti k4, 'd r�- f 'Ip. fi — Residential Streets Thl Ru H (=Property Boundaries ,^�� m� Exhibit A RIVERFRONT VILLAGE Avon, Colorado DESIGN STANDARDS February 14, 2006 I. Vision Statement for Riverfront Village A. Scope of Design Standards 1) The following Design Standards for Riverfront Village have been established to ensure the overall quality and compatibility of the Village with the Town of Avon and its riverfront site. In general these Standards shall apply to all buildings and plaza areas within Riverfront Village, with the exception of the Hotel building, or as otherwise noted. 2) An important aspect of the Riverfront Village vision is responsible care for the environment and sustainability of the architecture and landscape. To this end, best efforts will be made to meet the principles set forth in the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building System for the Hotel. In addition, all other buildings within the Village will be designed with sensitivity to the sustainability aspects of site and architectural design. B. Architectural Theme 1) Riverfront Village represents an important interface between the Town of Avon and Beaver Creek Ski Resort It is envisioned as a lively gathering place connecting the river, mountain and town- a pedestrian friendly environment where townspeople and guests can stroll from Avon's western Town Center, through the resort retail plaza, to ride the gondola up to the mountain or to step down to the river. 2) The village is situated on the seam between the town and the mountain landscape and should therefore strike a balance between the two environments, creating an architectural expression that captures both alpine and townscape traditions. To achieve this balance, the architecture shall take advantage of materials inherent to successful mountain resort architecture—such as stone, wood, and other natural materials, combined with more contemporary materials such as stucco, metal, and recycled products. 3) The Architectural Theme will also feature the use of large areas of glass, clean building forms based on pure geometries, strong, simple but honest detailing (not overly rustic, "heavy," or overstated), and the bolder proportions appropriate to the larger scale of the Town. C. Design of Public Spaces Riverfront Village February 14, 2006 Design Standards Page 1 of 6 1) A public plaza will be used to link the Town of Avon to the Eagle River. This link should be reinforced in both a physical and perceptual way through the use of paving materials, landscaping, and sensitive spatial planning. Spatial planning shall include components that reinforce the connectivity of the Town to the River, and avoid elements that act as barriers to this connection, such as planter walls that block pedestrian flow, landscaping that screens the visual connection between Town and River, etc. D. Pedestrian orientation 1) A pedestrian corridor, connecting the town to a retail plaza with gondola, will gracefully transition from the plaza to the riverfront promenade by way of a staircase and stepped terraces merging with the natural landscape. This transition will avoid barriers from the Town to the River, and include elements which reinforce this connection, including similar paving materials, wide pedestrian ways that encourage movement, active signage and wayfinding, and a gracious grand stair with oversized treads and minimal risers. 2) Pathways shall also create a network within the Village itself, linking the different buildings along the length of the site and providing pedestrian access to defined access/gathering points along the River. The Plaza and pathways within Riverfront Village should encourage a pedestrian -friendly environment. E. View Corridors 1) A primary southern view corridor to the mountains shall be maintained from the eastern railroad crossing through the public plaza to help reinforce the connection between the Town and the ski mountain. 2) An east -west view corridor along the Eagle River will also be maintained through the preservation of a 75 -foot river setback throughout most of the site, with limited minor encroachments as allowed in the development plan. In addition, the Riverfront Park will act as a natural corridor along the river edge portion of the Village and act to enhance this view corridor. F. The Natural Environment 1) The Eagle River is a primary amenity for the Town of Avon and Riverfront Village. Links to the River shall be developed as special pedestrian ways to help activate this wonderful amenity. 2) The 75 -foot river setback will be largely left in its natural state, and certain defined river access and gathering points should be created along the linear riverfront path. 3) In general, additional plantings within the river setback will be riparian in character and relate to plantings indigenous to river edge environments. More formal planting areas -- such as small sections of lawn, however, are encouraged at special gathering and access points to highlight these more formal features. Formal plantings featuring annuals are not permitted within the 75 -foot setback. Riverfront Village February 14, 2006 Design Standards Page 2 of 6 4) In an effort to enhance the natural environment, site walls and site walkways should become more `organic' as they approach the river edge portion of the Village. Any walls installed south of the bike path shall be limited to boulder walls. Accessibility shall be considered when designing walkways. H. Site and Village Guidelines A. Primary Building Entries 1) Primary building entries shall be emphasized as welcoming portals through careful attention to massing, scale, and materials. This will ensure that Riverfront Village will not tum its back to Avon. Portals will be scaled to encourage pedestrian movement through them—and avoid overwhelming or diminutive massing—and they will be treated with materials that enhance this experience. The front doors of buildings should be treated in interesting ways, either through the use of glass or special designs and materials that provide interest to these special areas of each building. 2) Massing of entries shall relate to the overall massing of the buildings but be presented as special forms different than typical building bays. Sensitivity to scale should be considered when transitioning from the overall larger building mass to the more intimate scale of the pedestrian visitor. Designers are encouraged to use materials in interesting ways at primary building entries to reinforce their unique role as part of the building and as part of the overall Village streetscape. B. Solar Access 1) A solar access study shall be required for buildings exceeding 3 stories in height. These studies will convey shading impacts at summer and winter solstice Gun 21 and Dec 21), and at vernal and autumnal equinox (Mar 21 and Sept 21). C. Site Materials and Colors 1. Plaza materials a) Rustic materials common in mountain towns and/or a more contemporary interpretation of these materials such as cut stone pavers, colored concrete pavers, and stained or colored concrete slabs are appropriate to the Village. Colors shall be complementary to the site and its architecture, avoiding bright or brilliant hues that distract from the pedestrian experience. 2. Site walls a) Site walls shall make use of more contemporary materials such as colored concrete masonry, stained concrete, board -formed concrete, and similar materials, in colors complementary to the site and its buildings. Site walls shall relate to plaza materials and building bases to help visually merge the ground plane around the site. D. Site Signage — Design, materials, and colors Riverfront Village Febmary 14, 2006 Design Standards Page 3 of 6 1) Site signage shall be designed to help animate the plaza and be consistent and compatible with the design and materiality of the buildings. Site lighting will also be used to enhance the pedestrian experience at the Plaza level. III.Architectural Design Guidelines A. Building Form and Massing 1) In general the form and massing within Riverfront Village will follow the intent of the Town of Avon Design Guidelines by incorporating form articulation to avoid the monolithic. However, specific buildings within the Village shall be subject to less or more stringent requirements relative to building form and massing as identified within this document to form a coherent, pleasant composition for the entire neighborhood. 2) Smaller masses, such as portions of the building or elements such as porte cocheres, etc, will be used to break up the apparent size of larger building forms. Smaller masses positioned in front of large masses will be used to reduce the visual dominance of the larger forms. 3) The development of building bases will help to tie together individual buildings within the Village and will also de the Village to its riverfront site. Site walls, and other site features shall relate to building bases in a way that reinforces visual connectivity to the ground plane. The plaza and gondola terminal, with its cantilevered structure will stand out as an elevated element from the south, drawing people up from the river. 4) In general the middles of buildings will be more visually subtle, but broken by primary and secondary elevation features and material accents that help to avoid monotonous facades. On any given elevation at Lots 1, 3, and 4, 80 percent of the vertical wall area will be permitted to be within the same plane, with a minimum of 2 -foot offset for plane changes. Vertical forms comprised of stacked decks and balconies will be considered plane changes. At Lots 5, 6, and 7, 70 percent of the vertical wall area will be permitted to be within the same plane. 5) The roofscape of Riverfront Village is also critical to the success of the neighborhood and its relationship to the Town of Avon. The visual coherency of the Village should be reinforced through the use of similar roofing materials and colors throughout the Village, helping to knit the individual buildings together when seen from the Gondola or Beaver Creek above. 6) Pitched roofs expressive of an alpine tradition and the incorporation of dormers, shed roofs and chimney forms, should be employed. Primary roofs will have pitches ranging from a minimum of 4:12 to a maximum of 8:12. Secondary roofs—such as at dormers, Porte cocheres, building protrusions, and similar additive forms—may be flat, but only if they are finished in materials similar in quality to roof or wall materials on the building, such as pavers, colored stone, etc. When secondary roofs are pitched roofs, the minimum pitch required shall be 2:12. Flat roofs are not permitted for primary roof forms. Ideally flat roofs should be developed as terraces and other functional spaces. 7) Given the modern alpine character of the architecture at Riverfront Village, relatively small roof overhangs are encouraged for buildings on Lots 1 and 3, which are visually and compositionally related to the Hotel. At these locations the Riverfront Village February 14, 2006 Design Standards Page 4 of 6 minimum roof overhang permitted shall be six inches. At other locations within Riverfront Village the minimum roof overhang shall be 24 inches for primary roofs and 12 inches at secondary dormers. 8) To help ensure that roof ridges for the Village remain interesting and contribute to the overall success of building massing, uninterrupted ridgelines shall be avoided. To this end, roof ridgelines are limited to 150 feet before a change in height (elevation above sea level) is required. These breaks (elevation changes) shall run horizontally for at least 10% of the overall building ridge length before returning to the prior elevation. Overall building ridge length is defined as the sum of all primary ridge lengths for the entire building. B. Building Height 1) Building heights for the Riverfront Village will be restricted to the heights described in the approved Development Plan, as measured according to the Town of Avon Code. Architectural features such as chimneys, cupolas, and other similar elements will not be included when calculating maximum building height 2) In addition, the percentage of ridge height allowed at the maximum allowable building height for any given building will be limited to 25% of the overall building ridge length. Overall building ridge length is defined as the sum of all primary ridge lengths for the entire building. 3) The maximum height for building facades fronting the Public Plaza will be Limited to 75 feet from the Plaza elevation. The only exception to this facade height limitation shall be for the western facade of the central tower of the hotel, which shall be permitted to be as tall as 100 ft. from Plaza elevation. This central tower facade may run horizontally for up to 60 feet along the plaza. 4) The minimum horizontal setback required for building facades exceeding the maximum height for building facades fronting the Public Plaza will be 2 feet from the building facade fronting the Public Plaza. This shall only apply to the central tower portion of the Hotel. 5) The minimum setback required for maximum allowable height per the Development Standards from the Public Plaza will be 60 feet from building facade fronting the Plaza C. Exterior Materials, Detailing, and Colors 1. Materials and colors for walls and roofs at Riverfront Village will have a Light Reflective Value (LRV) not exceeding 60%. a) Materials inherent to the mountains, including stone and wood, will be used at lower levels of buildings in areas of direct pedestrian interface, as well as metals. These materials should be used in refreshing ways within the Village, reinterpreted for the urban nature of Avon towards a "mountain modem" character. b) Stucco conveys mass in a subtle, "quiet" way and is therefore a recommended material for building middles and tops. However, building accents comprised of non -stucco materials, such as metal, wood and cement materials replicating wood, shall be allowed in building middles and tops to help provide interest, except as Riverfront Village Febtuary 14, 2006 Design Standards Page 5 of 6 prohibited by Codes. When used, stucco shall be carefully detailed to ensure longevity when it comes near the ground plane at building walls. c) Roof materials will include rubber shingles, asphalt shingles and other materials suitable for mountain environments. Standing seam metal shall not be used for primary roof planes, but may be used for small and/or special roof features such as shed dormers, retail roof forms, Porte cocheres, and other selective roof elements. d) In general, colors used within the Village should be complementary to the site, and be comprised of greens, grays, golds, browns, and other earth -tone hues. However, due to the desire for a highly activated retail experience at the Plaza level, the colors used along the retail edges of the Public way may be more vibrant and active in nature. 2. Minimum window area at plaza level a) Ata minimum, 50% of the 1" level of building facades facing the plaza from the east and the west shall be glass. For this calculation the plaza shall be deemed to begin at the northwest comer of the hotel and the northeast comer of timeshare west and shall terminate at the east -west plane where the staircase down to the river begins. This calculation shall exclude the gondola terminal, control booth and public restrooms. Riverfront Village February 14, 2006 Design Standards Page 6 of 6 Exhibit B Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and directed staff to prepare a resolution for a future meeting. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and it passed with a 7-0 vote. Commissioner Green moved to table the application to December le with Commissioner Goulding seconding the motion. It passed with a 7-0 vote. Vill. Final Design Review Applications A. Timeshare East Property Location: Lot 1, Riverfront Subdivision / 42 Riverfront Lane Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner. Jim McIntyre, Starwood Vacation Ownership Description: Final Design review for the Timeshare East` property. The design includes two buildings separated at grade: Building East (E), and Building Riverside (R). There are 74 units proposed in the two buildings. The East building is the taller of the two building and includes 58 2 -bedroom units, each with the ability to have a lock -off unit. The Riverside building is positioned between the East building and the Riverfront recreation path. This building contains the remaining 16 2 -bedroom units, also with the ability to have lock -offs. There is no Commercial land use proposed with this phase of development. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker presented Staffs Report. He highlighted a few of the major changes from the Sketch Review that took place on this project. Matt Pielsticker asked that the Commission decide on the Mock-up and if it can be removed. He stated that almost all of the encroachments have been removed with the exception of a roof overhang on the river side. Commissioner Struve asked Matt Pielsticker to clarify the color and material application on Timeshare West. He clarified that the proposal uses the same colors and materials although their application is slightly different. Chuck Madison, East West Partners, discussed the history of the project. Mike Williams, VP of Architecture and Interior Design for Starwood, introduced Alexander Sheykhet and Howard Wong, the director of construction. Alexander Sheykhet outlined all of the changes that have been made since the Sketch Plan proposal that was recently heard. He presented the typical floor plan and outlined the plan changes proposed by this design. He stated that they are striving for LEED certification. Commissioner Struve questioned the designs of the East and West buildings and how they asked for the designs to be "brackets° not 'bookends'. Alexander Sheykhet asked for clarification on the question. Commissioner Struve stated that the designs are the same, specifically colors and materials. Alexander Sheykhet stated that the designs are different, but complementary and he stated the height, entrances, retail components are all different. Commissioner Prince questioned if the chimneys are functional. Alexander Sheykhet responded that a few are. Commissioner Lane asked if the applicants have the LEED checklist available and who worked on ft. Alexander Sheykhet responded that they do have certified people in their offices, but they retained a LEED specialist firm to conduct the checklist. Commissioner Goulding stated that most of his comments are the same as those during the Sketch Review. He asked if they are LEED registered for this building. He also commented on the monolithic nature, lack of variation in the roof form, lack of presentation to Avon Road, and lack of architectural variety in general. Commissioner Struve stated that there have been considerable strides made on the south building with the exception of the north elevation. He stated that the Avon Road elevation of the larger building is 'unacceptable" and needed a greater level of architectural interest. He stated that he didn't like the placement of the windows, and felt that the Timeshare West and the Hotel have too much brown. Commissioner Struve stated that the colors are too similar and don't help provide variation. He also stated that the entrance is weak, too many chimneys are used, and that the roof form is too long and needs variation. Commissioner Roubos was also disappointed in the design. She stated that it appeared as an apartment complex. She stated that a foot or two of variation is not sufficient enough on a building of this scale. Additionally, Ms. Roubos felt that the stone around the balconies was too much. Commissioner Prince agreed that the buildings should be similar but different He stated that the entry is still lacking an inviting feel. He commented that the chimneys aren't sufficient for him, and felt that the roof is flat and long. They are too tall and/or too abundant. He reiterated that this Is the gateway project and the level of design isn't there. Commissioner Lane agreed that the East elevation is the most important and still Is lacking. It was stated that the variation presented is only skin deep on the East side. He once again stated that he would like a better idea of the checklist, and a better understanding of where the points are coming from for LEED certification. Commissioner Green stated that there is a lost opportunity on the East Elevation for stunning design. He stated that a five story wall is not an acceptable entrance for this area. He stated that there is the Intent of using complementary architecture, but the level isn't there. He stated that emulating the Westin building would go far in creating a better design. Chuck Madison responded that he believes these three buildings were designed during the PUD process and there was a fairly detailed level of design that was included. Commissioner Green responded and stated that the Commission didn't think that his comments were accurate. He stated that the Commission isn't asking for a design of the level of the Westin, but there are portions of the design that are still lacking. Commissioner Goulding clarified that the PUD guide doesn't outline the design of the building, but rather provides a framework for all the designs. He listed off numerous projects throughout the Valley that successfully achieved what they are asking for. Commissioner Roubos clarified that they are only looking for a more interesting building and something that is appealing; similar to the Timeshare West Building. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to table the application, and Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion. It passed with a vote of 6-1. B. Beowulf Residence PFGAO_rty Location: Lot 7, Western Sage PUD / 5771 Wildridge Road East Applice o Spinnato, Studio Spinnato, Inc<dg Beowulf Lot 7 LL Description: Fina n review for asinresidon a Westam Sage PUDproperty, accessed off Wil oad East aridge. Sketch Design review forthis project took place atthe July 1, tanoning Commission Meeting.Discussion: Matt Pielsticker prese trt and stated that a site tour wasundertaken at noon. It was att by Sealie Spinnato, Matt Pielsticker and Commissioner Struve. Wined the chanthe Design that was recently presented. He co nted that the lack of vm the Sketc ew guides the staff Mrssioner Struve asked about the roof lines not matching up during the Pielsticker did comment that those discrepancies have been fixed. Exhibit C AVON C O L O R A D O MEMORANDUM To: Matt Pielsticker From: Jeffrey Schneider Cc: Justin Hildreth, Sally Vecchio Date: December 4, 2009 Re: Lot 1 Riverfront Subdivision Timeshare East Final Design Below please find Engineering comments on the above -referenced project submittal dated 11-16-09. The construction staging plans are considered to be conceptual at best and must be resubmitted by the contractor prior to issuance of any permits for the site. The following comments must be resolved prior to issuance of ANY permits for the site: 1. Sheet C0.00 — The topographic survey is outdated and does not reflect current site topography or existing infrastructure. 2. Sheet C2.01— Since the survey is inaccurate (comment 1) existing and proposed contours shown on this sheet are meaningless, especially at the north edge of the site. 3. Sheet C2.01 — The grading in the far southwest comer of the site (7422 contour) should grade towards the inlet shown on the storm drain run along the property line. 4. Sheet C2.01 — Label 75' setback from mean annual high water line along south edge of property. 5. Sheet C2.41 — Silt fence is shown across all entrances to the site. 6. Sheet C2.41 — A stabilized construction entrance should be shown as a stormwater/erosion control measure at the site entrance. A detail should also be provided. 7. Sheet C2.61— Water, sewer, and shallow utility service line (gas, electric, communications) connections to building are not shown. 8. Sheet C2.61 — Roof drains are not shown tieing into the storm drainage system. 9. Sheet C2.61 — It appears that an additional sanitary sewer manhole will be installed on the east side of the site to serve both buildings. This must be approved by ERWSD. It also appears that the constructed service stub on the northern site boundary will not be used. This may need to be abandoned per ERWSD. 10. Sheet C2.61 — The additional storm sewer manhole and 76 LF of RCP to be installed on the southeast comer of Lot 2 are not included in any other sheets limits of disturbance. This will also involve complete removal and replacement of the existing stairway. Further, it does not call out removal of the existing RCP stub out. 11. Sheet C2.61 — No drain for the swimming pool is shown. C:1Documents and SettingMmpielsticker%Local SettingsVemporary Internet FilestOLK3=12-0.09 Lot 1 TRneshare East Eng Comments (3).doc 12. Sheet Al. 10 — The "Flood Line" along the southern property boundary is incorrectly labeled. The correct name is "75 -foot setback from mean annual high water line." 13. Sheet ELEO 1— Electrical service/metering for the property is not shown. 14. Sheet GC -100 — The northern site perimeter shows a soil nail shoring wall. An exhibit showing that the soil nails will not affect subsurface utilities must be provided, as well as approval from all applicable utility companies that the soil nails will not affect their ability to maintain their installations. Also, if the soil nails encroach into the Riverfront Lane public right of way, approval from the Director of Public Works will be required. 15. Sheet GC -100 — The plan does not show the existing curb cut/ramp. It also appears that new curb cut(s) will need to be installed to permit the delivery truck egress. Replacement of the sidewalk and curb should be added to the civil -series plans. 16. Sheet GC -100 — A detail of the vehicle tracking mat should be provided. A CDOT-standard stabilized construction entrance is recommended. 17. Sheet GC -1.01 — It may be beneficial to locate the office trailers such that they do not need to be relocated between phases. 18. Sheet GC -1.01 — The northern crane stop for the easternmost crane is not shown. 19. Sheet GC -1.01 — Additional warning signage needs to be placed east and west of the walkway cover on the bike path south of the project to alert path users in advance of approaching the construction area. 20. Sheet GC -1.02 — Verify that the proposed use of Lot C as a temporary parking area is allowable per zoning through Town of Avon Community Development. 21. Sheet GC -1.02 — If the use is determined to be allowable, the following must be provided for Lot C: grading plan, striping plan, drainage plan, stormwater/erosion control plan, and reclamation plan. 22. Sheet GC -1.02 — Access to the proposed Lot C parking area must be from Benchmark Road. As shown it is using adjacent property (Lot B). C:1Documents and Settings%mpielsticker%Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files10LK360112.4.09 Lot 1 Timeshare East Eng Comments (3).doc To: Matt Pielsticker, Planner CC: Justin Hildreth, P.E. Town Engineer From: Jennifer Strehler, P.E. Director of Public Works and Transportation Date: November 10, 2008; Re -submitted December 3, 2009 Subject: Comments from Avon Departments of Public Works and Transportation on Westin Riverfront Resort Timeshare Design Review Submittal (set date 9/19/2008 and 11/1612009) Resubmit Sheets GC -1.00, GC -1.01, GC -1.02 and make the following changes and clarifications: a. Construction fence on S side is not shown consistently on all sheets. Locate 2-3 ft back from north edge of ECO Trail asphalt and bring fence all the way to the back of sidewalk on Riverfront Dr. b. Relocate gates (or reverse swing) such that the gates never block the sidewalk. c. Provide more definition to "staging" areas. Call out where exactly is the load/unload zone; this zone should be dedicated for this purpose and separate from areas to be used for materials storage, on-site fabrication, and other staging uses. Public Works will not allow routine loading/unloading from and materials storage in Riverfront Drive. d. The proposed new/temporary driveways to parcel on Riverfront Dr. is not anoroved by Public Works and may not be approved due to proximity to Avon Rd and ECO Trail intersections. See comment 43. e. Construction traffic circulation should not depend on use of the ROW for turnaround. Circulation should be self-contained (i.e., full loop or hammer head should be provided on private property) and utilize 1 main gate off of ROW. f. Provide a permanent flagger throughout the construction duration at all gate locations. (The flagger "available on demand" system is has proven to be inadequate in the previous phases.) g. Show where staging is located after "First 10 months of construction" h. Show driveways and bus stops on adjacent properties to all impacted sites (including parking sites in town limits). i. Submit design detail showing plan, profiles, and materials of construction for "walkway cover". Page 1 of 2 2. ECO Trail Considerations: a. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining comments and making adjustments as necessary from Eagle County/ECO Trails. Contact Elle Caryl at 328-3520. b. Crane should not travel over ECO trail if possible. If this can not be avoided, the trail will likely need to be closed. c. Walkway cover shown on GC -1.01 over ECO Trail is not under the crane swing area identified on GC -1.00. Relocate or explain the purpose of this cover at the location shown. Review of this submittal does not constitute approval for Right of Way (ROW) modifications and use. The Applicant must obtain separate ROW Use Permits from Public Works (748- 4100) for any work in the ROW including the following components of the work: a. New driveways b. Trail closures (including ECO Trail) c. Sidewalk modifications (e.g. to install covered walkway) d. Sidewalk closures e. Temporary road and lane blockages or closures 4. The proposed new driveway on West Beaver Creek Blvd. (shown on GC -1.02) to the proposed "winter parking site" (eastern portion of Sheraton property) is not aonroved by Public Works. See also comment 93. The Applicant should not rely on the ability to obtain permission for this new driveway and is herein strongly encouraged to make alternative arrangements for construction employee parking and transportation. Page 2 of 2 y L. yt i F":'fiSt. 'Ar -- - AN