Loading...
PZC Packet 081710 (2)IIEARTord-ULL6rl all I. Call to Order (4:30pm) II. Roll Call Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda for August 17, 2010 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street Ill. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the August 3, 2010 Meeting Minutes VI. Sketch Design Review New Commercial Structure Property Location: Lot 67, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 40 Nottingham Road Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG Owner. Jim Pavelich, GPI, LLC Description: The proposal is to demolish the existing Pizza Hut building and replace it with a new structure which is to contain a restaurant and a retail space with a second -story back-of- house/storage area for the primary restaurant and retail uses. VII. Other Business VIII. Adjourn * Reminder: Special Meeting of the Avon Town Council at 6:00 pm in the Council Chambers Posted on August 13, 2010 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.org / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission AVON Draft Meeting Minutes for August 3, 2010 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street C O L O R A D O I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm. 11. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. 111. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendment to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the July 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the July 20, 2010 meeting minutes, with modifications from Commissioners incorporated. Commissioner Patterson seconded the motion and the motion passed 6-0, with Commissioner Anderson abstaining due to his absence from the July 20, 2010 meeting. VI. Final Design Review Wolff Residence Property Location: Lot 114, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2080 Beaver Creek Point Applicant. Fred Wilson, Morgante Wilson Architect / Owner. Ted & Anne Wolff Description: A Final Design review for a single-family residence on Beaver Creek Point. The residence utilizes stucco, drystacked Colorado moss stone, cedar trim, and asphalt shingles for a roofing material. The Sketch Design review for this project took place at the March 2, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Discussion: Jared Barnes highlighted the distinctive features of the property. He explained that the lot has a unique height requirement, and is measured 18' from the centerline of road. There is also a platted building envelope, and all improvements required to be located within the envelope are done so. There is one staff recommended condition that site plans be revised to ensure that snow storage is removed from the Town's snow storage easement - Specifically Sheets C1 and C2 are to be revised. Commissioner Anderson questioned where the snow would be stored if it were removed from the Town's easement. Jared responded that there is an area on the North side of the driveway. Commissioner Roubos asked how big and exactly where the retaining walls would be located. Staff responded that all of the walls are to the south and west side of the structure. Commissioner Struve questioned if the storage requirement should still be in place if there is a note concerning the use of snowmelt system. Staff overlooked the snow melt note, however, areas for snow removal should still be provided per code. -I- Commissioner Goulding asked for Jared to clarify what types of improvements are permitted outside of the building envelope. Jared explained that this property was one of only a few with this type of building envelope, the others being Lots 113 and Lot 114 on the neighboring properties. Lot 113, for example, only has an at grade patio outside of the platted envelope and this proposal is consistent with neighboring approvals. Commissioner Green questioned if Staff had spoken to the applicant with regards to the implications if the building were over height at framing. Jared responded that the roof would need to be modified to conform to the height requirement. Fred Wilson, applicant and architect, addressed the Commission's comments. He clarified the walkout boulder walkway specs. He explained how the drainage worked around the. patio area, and handed out the color/material board for Commission review. Commissioner Struve commented on Sheet L1, and was trying to understand where the air compressors were located due to a discrepancy between the Landscaping and Site Plans. Fred responded that they are on the North side of the storage area near the garage. It was pointed out that on landscape plan they are not present. Commissioner Struve voiced concern that the compressors were to be located on neighbor's side and it would be nice if there were plantings to screen the units from view. Commissioner Struve also noted that on the Landscape Plan there was a note that all disturbed areas were to be revegetated all with native grasses and wildflowers. He would like to see sage plugs added to the note for a more natural look. Commissioner Struve referenced Sheet A4.1, specifically on the West elevation, and questioned if the light fixture on front door was different than the one near the garage. He wanted to make sure it is full cutoff and Night sky compliant. Jared responded that Exhibit C shows all of the proposed light fixtures. Commissioner Roubos questioned if the wall fixture was o.k. with the light ordinance. Jared explained that it was indeed compliant and did not necessarily have to be "Full cutoff" by definition to comply with the Ordinance and that the bulb was fully recessed. Commissioner Struve asked if there would truly not be any sod. Fred responded in the negative. Commissioner Struve asked the outdoor space was a grill area or an outdoor kitchen. The applicant responded that it is a grill and not an outdoor kitchen. Commissioner Green asked for explanation of the metal C channelsdetails shown on Sheet A4.2 (east elevation). Fred stated that the C channels would be painted to match the medium bronze. Commissioner Green asked for clarification on the boulder retaining walls on the same plan sheet. After referencing back to the landscape plans, Commissioner Green pointed out that there was a possible discrepancy and was trying to figure out what is happening in that area. Fred stated that these were to be natural boulders. Commissioner Green asked if the applicant were staying with asphalt shingles. He stated that if there is a change in material to standing seam metal it would need to come back for Commission review. Following up on Commissioner Struve's comment, Commissioner Green commented on the hard edge on limits of disturbance. He requested that the edges be feathered. Fred responded that the client wanted it to look like the natural landscape. Commissioner Green felt that it was good architecture and a good addition to the neighborhood. He also reiterated his concern with the structure being '/2 inch below the height requirement. Commissioner Patterson commented on the snow storage and asked if it were ok with the applicant. Fred stated that with the combination of snowmelt they will be fine. In reference to Sheet Al, Commissioner Prince pointed out that the plant legend showed 3 spruces but the picture shows 4 spruces. He said the quantity should be 2 and 2 and Jared responded that it will be reflected on the plan sets. -2- Commissioner Anderson asked if the chimneys were o.k. to exceed the platted maximum height. Jared responded that this was acceptable and permitted by Code and the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Goulding asked if the applicant could walk through the five (5) questions that came up in the March 2nd Sketch Design Staff report. The applicant proceeded to address the five items: 1) The drainage is to the West of structure, and the garage was lifted out of the ground and it is now 6" higher than the cul-de-sac elevation so that the drainage now moves around. Additionally, the low garden wall has been removed as to not impede drainage that runs North and South around the structure. 2) Concerning the linear design of the roof ridge, if you look on Sheet 2.1 (floor plan) in conjunction with front elevation, it shows how the building cascades in and out. That is how the roofline is broken up. 3) The rafter design has been further simplified, and on Sheet 4.2 they have provided a cove detail on rafters and it shows a clean simple piece. Where there are exposed rafters there is metal strapping to show clean lines. 4) Consistency has been provided for the lentil design. 5) The color scheme has been studied and after looking at other buildings nearby, espresso coloring for wood, and moss rock with a dark tone was chosen. Fred explained that the color palette is less "beigey" and that the roof shingles are slate colored and "earthy." Commissioner Goulding questioned the irrigated area and what Staff has typically seen for irrigated area requirements. Jared responded that they typically range from 10-12% and that Gandorf PUD reached a 20% threshold. Commissioner Goulding referenced Sheet C.1. and commented that they were driving the limits of disturbance far north, and asked if they could tighten those up. The applicant explained the rationale for the contours and it was to pull more even to blend in with existing grades as viewed from neighboring properties. Commissioner Anderson likes the design and landscaping around the house. Commissioner Prince felt that the design is in compliance with the Design Guidelines, and wanted to see the bear attracting trees replaced with non-bear attracting trees. Commissioner Patterson like the design and had no comments. Commissioner Roubos concurred with everybody else. She wanted to make sure that Staff gets final edits correct on the plans. Commissioner Struve stated that if the roof was changed to make sure the color is as flat as possible. He wanted to see the light at the front door addressed, as well as a more natural grill wall. Commissioner Struve wanted the AC condensers shown on the plan and screened from view. He also wanted to make sure the plan reflects a boulder wall on the lower walkout. He felt that this was the best design for a large house in a long time. Commissioner Green referenced Sheet L1, and that CB15CU was not in the submittal. There were 3 path lights and none of the numbers are in alignment with the plans. The applicant responded that these may have been left over from earlier versions of plans. He explained that path lighting is what will be used on the stairwell. Commissioner Green wanted to make it clear that the "temporary irrigation° must be removed after the one (1) year period and not simply shut off. Commissioner Green questioned if Sheet A4.2 (south elevation) correctly depicted a big piece of glass and if that was truly possible to purchase. Applicant responded affirmatively and commented that this is the largest piece the manufacturer sells. Commissioner Green commented that this was a great design. Commissioner Goulding appreciated working though the code transition with staff. He wanted to see the grading tightened up on the north side as much as possible, perhaps being coordinated with the contractor. He felt that the least impact is a better way to go. He -3- also mimicked other Commissioners sentiments that this was a great design for large programming on the site. Action: Commissioner Struve move to Approve, with the following conditions: 1) If roof material changes it must come back for Commissioner review; 2) The light fixture at the front door must be full cutoff; 3) The grill wall will be replaced with a grill enclosure for Staff approval; 4) AC units must be adequately screened from vision and sound from the neighbors; 5) The. plans be revised to reflect the boulder wall walkout design as intended by the architect; 6) Resolve the path lighting issue; and 7) After two years the native grass irrigation must be removed. Commissioner Green seconded the motion, and had questions for clarification of the motion.. He wanted the landscape edge to be a feathered edge and not a hard edge. This was also reflected in the comment that sage be added with a revised landscape plan for Staff review. Commissioner Struve wanted the grill to "fit in with the natural surrounding." Commissioner Green clarified that he meant that it should be a more "organic" wall. These changes could get back to Staff for approval. It was clarified that everything but the roof condition was to be a staff level approval. Commissioner Goulding also wanted to add the condition that the landscape plans include 4 Spruce not 3 so schedule is matching. Also, the species of tree should be revised from chokecherry to a non bear -attracting species. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion carries unanimously 7-0. VII. Master Sign Program Amendment Avon Town Square Property Location: Lot 1, Avon Town Square Subdivision / 30 Benchmark Road Applicant. Monte Park, Sign on Design / Owner., Slifer Center Association Description: Review of a proposal to modify the existing sign program to allow for a permanent non -lit sign option for individual tenant spaces located on the ground level. The original program was approved in 1993 and has not been updated since original approval. Discussion: Jared highlighted Staffs report and the proposal for non -lit signs. Commissioner Goulding question Staff if the referenced 'Exhibit B', which lists all of the requirements and lists exhibits, if this was material to this amendment request. Jared explained that Exhibit B shows images of sample signage and illustrates essentially what dimensional lettering is. Commissioner Green Questioned Page 2 of Exhibit B, concerning the 1`r floor tenant signage, and if it were to be green or blue in color. He wanted to know if we were amending color as part of this amendment. Jared explained that the color will have to match the building standard. Monte Park did not have anything to add. Commissioner Struve was trying to understand how 1993 changes are brought forward and exactly what was changing with this amendment as it was unclear. Commissioner Green wanted to make sure that we have the color right. Monte stated that the exhibits were from the original program and that they were probably produced before the building was even completed and therefore may not be the best representation. Monte stated that they can provide updated images for a new program for future use. Action: Commissioner Green motioned to table the application. This was in order to verify color of signs, and also to see a revised program, updated and revised to include images of existing signs and proposed signs, which were to be lit and unlit, as part of this application. It must be a completely revised sign program, and edited version of original program. -4- b The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roubos. Commissioner Prince asked we can have the revised program as a condition of approval and staff approved. Commissioner Goulding clarified that the Tenant could still submit a sign permit application in the interim period as to non delay the process too much. Jared stated that the applicant had indeed submitted the application for their sign and that is what spurred this application. The motion to table passed 6-1, with Commissioner Anderson opposing. VIII. Minor Design Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2960 June Creek Trail Applicant: Jason Weingast of Active Energies Inc / Owner. Jeff Jacobs Description: A proposal to review a solar panel installation on the roof of a duplex residence located at the end of June Creek Trail in Wildridge. Discussion: Jared highlighted Staffs report and the recent proposed language regarding solar panels in the new Code as it relates to this application. The recommendation is to use the current draft language and drop the panels 6" from the proposed design. The applicant clarified that the roof was an East-West roof and the panels were to be mounted on the east side. He stated that the application would be ineligible for rebates if flush mounted to the roof. Also, Jason pointed out that if they were at 15 degrees, 2.6 feet off the roof is not an accurate representation of the true height off the roof. Rather, 1.9 feet is what the panels would be. Commissioner Green asked about the angular latitude? Jason explained that the optimum angle for maximum efficiency is the latitude where they are proposed to be installed. Commissioner Green asked how these panels would relate. The applicant went on to explain that you need tilt and orientation, and that 180 degrees south and 15 degree tilt is optimum for this property. Jason explained that the 2' limit was o.k. for this application but that in the future, solar thermal collectors, which typically require a larger tilt angle, would be problematic with the draft legislation. Commissioner Struve asked if the duplex mate has signed off. It was affirmed that they had signed off. Commissioner Green began a discussion in regards to the application submittal requirements for this type of application and directed staff to come back with more examples of how this would be processed in the future. Commissioner Struve suggested adding findings that this does not set a precedent for submittal requirements or design. Again, Commissioner Green directed Staff to have a more formal process for submittal of these types of applications. Commissioner Green mentioned notification requirements, concrete set of plans, roof plan, section what they look like, mounting techniques, orientation, building official review. Action: Commissioner Green motioned to approve the application with the following findings findings: 1) The uniqueness of the building has been considered, and this shall not be construed as precedent setting. 2) This body is in no way anticipating that this be a precedent setting application because the process must be defined by Staff and should not be viewed as such. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Staff recommended condition needed to be added to the motion. Commissioner Green did not feel that it was necessary. -5- The motion carried 6-1 Commissioner Goulding opposing. IX.Other Business • Solar Panels. Staff will come back with a new process. To be included will be a Site plan, roof plan, section showing angle of mounting (i.e. mounting style), photo representation that is reasonably accurate. These will be reviewed by Staff before getting to a hearing. Discussion revolved around requiring neighbor approval and notification. Staff thated they will come back with process in next couple meetings. • Town Council is stepping up frequency of meetings, starting next week. August 17"' meeting. The council meeting will start at bpm on the 17th. Commissioner Goulding asked if the Commission could start at 4pm and wrap up by 6pm. Commissioner Green mentioned he will not be present at that meeting. • The Mayor proposed a revised meeting. Instead of PZC sitting at the podium, they will be more of a staff position at the side tables. • Commissioner Struve questioned the work at the Barrancas project. X. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:25pm V Staff Report - Sketch Design August 17, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting V O N Report date August 12, 2010 Project type Sketch Design Review: New Commercial Construction Legal description Lot 67, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Zoning Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Address 20 Nottingham Road Prepared By Matt Gennett, AICP, Planning Manager 111k Summary of Request Dominic Mauriello of the Mauriello Planning Group (MPG), representing Jim Pavelich of GPI, LLC, the Applicant, has submitted a Sketch Design application for a new Commercial building on Lot 67, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, also described as 20 Nottingham Road. The proposal (Attachments C & D) is to demolish the existing Pizza Hut building and replace it with a new structure which is to contain a restaurant and a retail space with a second -story back-of- house/storage area for the primary restaurant and retail uses. A written description of the project from the applicant's representative is included as Attachment C. Staff is requesting that the Planning and Zoning Commission provide feedback on the proposed design as it relates to the Town of Avon Commercial Desiqn Guidelines, Title 17 Zoning (AMC), and the 2006 Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. A full-size (24" x 36") plan set will be available during the Commission's review. Process The Design Review process is broken down into two stages: Sketch Design Review and Final Design Review. The purpose of Sketch Design Review is for the Commission and staff to provide sufficient feedback to enable them to return to the commission with a Final Design application addressing any concerns identified during the Sketch Design Review process. Property Description The subject property is comprised of 0.528 acres, is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and has an uninhabited building on its relatively!flat surface which once housed a Pizza Hut franchise. The Vicinity Map (Attachment A) shows the subject property in the context of the surrounding uses and structures. The subject property is immediately to the west of the 7-11 gas station/office building located on Lot 68 with which it shares a driveway and an access easement that straddles the property line separating Lots 67 and 68. Lot 68 has a second access on the east side of the front property line as well. The property is surrounded by Swift Gulch Road to the north; Lot 4, Buck Creek Subdivision (vacant undevelopable TOA land) to the west; and Nottingham Road/Phillips 66 gas station to the south. Planning Analysis Use: The proposed uses, restaurant and retail, are permitted uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district. Structure: The proposed two-story structure is 4,723 sq ft (the existing building is 3,300 sq ft). The restaurant space will contain 2,805 sq:ft, 1,275 sq ft of which is to be seating area with the remaining 1,530 sq ft as kitchen space. The retail space is proposed at 845 sq ft and the back-of- house/storage area is 1,073 sq ft. Height: The proposed building height is 32 ft, and the maximum height allowed per zoning is 35 feet. Parking: 28 parking spaces will be provided including two handicapped spaces. The parking requirement for this development is 26 spaces. Setbacks: The required front setback is 25' the side setback requirement is 7.5' and the rear setback is 10'. The new building is located within the required setbacks. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed sketch design adheres to the district -specific intent and planning principles stated in the 2006 Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan and excerpted below. District 13: Nottingham Road Commercial District This area's proximity to the I-70/Avon Road Interchange establishes its importance to the Town's identity. Development and redevelopment that occurs here should reflect the standards in the Town Center, but should not compete with the Town Center in terms of size of buildings or intensity of development. Planning Principles: - Limit access points on Nottingham Road to simplify traffic movements. Staff Response: The access is not proposed to change from the existing condition and will remain singular. - Require landscape setbacks and internal landscaping of parking lots. Staff Response: The proposed, conceptual landscape plan does not include any internal landscaping of the parking lot; however, the parking lot contains less than 30 spaces and is surrounded by a landscape buffer on two sides. - Screen all equipment and storage areas from view. Staff Response: The trash enclosure is depicted as being set into and screened by landscaping on three sides, and all mechanical equipment depicted at Final Design must be adequately screened pursuant to this criterion. - Limit building heights to that which is compatible with the existing surrounding development. Staff Response: The proposed height of 32 feet is consistent with the surrounding buildings, which are generally the same height or taller. - Development intensity and activity should diminish when traveling north on Buck Creek Road. Staff Response: The subject property is located toward the southeast comer of District 13 and not on Buck Creek Road. Engineering Analysis The comments of the Engineering Department are attached hereto as Attachment B. Design Review Considerations The proposed architecture, materials and colors are depicted on Sheet 3 of the reduced Sketch Design plan set (Attachment D). The design intent is to have the structure complement some of the architectural character and elements expressed by the new science school and other buildings in the Buck Creek PUD because they all exhibit a consistent architectural theme and will be the most visually dominant buildings in the immediate vicinity. The following minimum requirements from the Commercial and Industrial Building Design Guidelines shall be considered with this Sketch Design review and at Final Design: 1. The building shall be designed as a composition of architectural elements rather than larger single blocks that appear unrelated in form and context. Staff Response: The proposed conceptual renderings on Sheet 3 of Attachment D depict a composition of architectural elements and do not portray large singular blocks void of form and context. 2. The street level architecture shall enhance pedestrian activity and encourage a lively center of retail activity in the commercial core area, where appropriate. Staff Response: The new structure will improve the pedestrian experience on the south elevation with entrances located on Nottingham Road and an on grade dining porch. 3. Building facades shall be articulated with variations in material and punctuated with intermediate roof forms and building projections. Staff Response: The new structure is articulated with roof forms, projections, and variations of materials. 4. Varying expressions of decks, windows and surface treatment shall be combined to create a rich texture that will enhance the interest of the facades. Staff Response: The conceptual elevations of the proposed structure depict adherence to this criterion with porches and decks enriching the texture of the building facades. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed building design and site layout, and provide the applicant with direction for preparing a Final Design application. Exhibits A: Vicinity Map B: Engineering Comments C: Letter from MPG D: Reduced Plan Sets a f ,h �s LLLLQ �f J�Y1 iI M*�i ' 1# I IF Ii bl s moi. �. 4' Yf • ! i Matt Pielsticker From: Shane Pegram Ser'- Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:12 PM Tc Matt Pielsticker, Matt Gannett Subject: Lot 67, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek (Pizza Hut Lot) Engineering has the following comments: 1. The Lot that is located west of the Pizza Hut Lot was dedicated to the Town of Avon during the Buck Creek PUD process and has been renamed Lot 4. Please change the site plan to read "Lot 4, Town of Avon". 2. The building's footer and roof overhang encroaches on the 20' utility easement. A letter from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District approving the encroachment must be provided. 3. The sidewalk curb ramp on the southeast comer of the lot must run parallel to Nottingham Road and direct pedestrians to the existing sidewalk in front of the fuel station. 4. The existing sidewalk located on the curb island south of the fuel station should be shown on the site plan 5. The new code requires all commercial development to provide a storm water management plan. 6. Any reference to removing trees from Town of Avon property should be removed from the plans. Sjwne Pegram, P.E. Engineer II Town of Avon 970-7484114 office 970470-0610 cell 7/30/2010 Attachment B s Attachment G` Mauriallo Planning Group July 6, 2010 Matt Gennett, AICP Planning Manager Town of Avon PO Box Avon, Colorado 81620 Re: Sketch Design for "20 Nottingham Road" (formerly the Pizza Hut property) Dear Matt Included with this letter is an application for Sketch Design for a new building and additional parking at 20 Nottingham Road. My client is under contract to purchase this property and has a limited window for due diligence. We have submitted this application in order to understand any potential Issues affecting the redevelopment of the property before my client purchases the property. This application is very straightforward. The new owner wants to demolish the existing Pizza Hut building and rebuild with essentially the same building footprint The plan is the maintain the existing parking lot on the north side of the building that was redeveloped when the gas station and associated building were developed in 2003. The proposed use of the property is a restaurant and retail space on the first floor and ancillary storage and office space related to the uses onsite on the second floor. The uses are permitted by right under the Neighborhood Commercial zoning designated on the property. We are not requesting any special uses or variances. The project is being developed within the limits of the zoning regulations. As you are probably aware, the subject property was considered as one development site with the neighboring property when the gas station was developed to the east as is evident from the overlapping easements, joint access, and consolidated parking arrangement Therefore, site coverage and landscape area were reviewed considering the two properties together. The parking, however, was developed so that all of the required parking for the subject property was located on-site. Below is a summary of the proposal: • New two-story building with a total square footage of 4,723 (Pizza Hut Is 3,300 sq. ft) 0 2,805 sq. ft of restaurant area with a seating area of 1,275 sq. ft 0 845 sq. ft of retail space (gross) 0 1,073 sq. ft of storage and office space supporting the restaurant and retail uses (gross) • 28 parking spaces, 21 existing spaces and 7 new spaces • The parking required for the uses onsite is: 0 22 spaces for restaurant (60 sq. ft x 1,275 of seating area) 0 4 spaces for retail area (4/ 1000 x 845 of floor area) o Total parking required/provided = 26/28 • Project meets all setbacks: 0 25' front setback required/25' provided 0 7.5' side setback required/54' provided east, 7.5' provided west 0 10' rear setback required/76' provided • Project meets building height requirement of 35' with max height at 32' The design of the new building is of a very high quality. With the recent approval of the Natural Science School and the character of the buildings proposed there, the applicant would like to pursue a design that more closely reflects the character of that project The proposed design could be characterized as "contemporary rustic." The applicant is hoping for a building style and form that Is memorable and Iconic while compatible with the character of Avon. Please see the plans included with this submittal. We look forward to meeting with Design Review Board and moving forward with this exciting project Based on our discussions we anticipate being on the July 20, 2010 agenda. Sincerely, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Principal °Y h Mom q ism i Iaz F r. °u�/°iYM°I1?911910i W IM°MT.N MOilpIl.OYlMWp° WlCCNN1Y•0 iLi4 f O 3YI1 Y° NPI.�'[AM.h ANY oavuo I611LIL4XVd sS919oPejo ,. a°°°N�N°°•°N° M33N3 N3"39 lbs NUVWHON39 `I. MOO -19 `L91O-1 � lou-sLroLs oveexos'o'd OL/LZ/L also avom WHHJNI11ON OZ SOO l jegwnN qor ♦ ai AT 3- �i 0 X� � JZ �sz T 4 I Fii OZ XL 1�} Al,fir_-I-• IL(t Zp otn xt d % Vit' \\\ I I ILmN <� Zn � A•,Sl r - -I Zr' J %i, I t' a ..� �• 1,t smZr11 5. zW ------------------_-1 zI �Z H ' +IL �� zP':1t ;,17o,Lz-I-4N —i— r\ xsIL .-AlIl'p ��� :I y-- — --- --- — i- Yaya iTi� p r N j I N N I— Nim I N t- tz '1 ;i N� t4 'r�+—T- I. DLII' I a. I } .�: E f. id 11 I 3 y l IT r it r>g I 1 0 1'I 4. II I Al aZ=p ,' Z� N� I----4- _ r-- a� rte' III tL,� I ! r a jz I 1 1 I E II I �Z -t- {li. 1..._. yp _ 1*� _ l; II i z� I,r i �li� jh 1 j \51 �i T f 1 4 3 I I I� i �. Y• I 3, J � y�6u �N Ilj! � ' � 1 as : ZiL a � �' �z zix Xi1' y� III II ii .� I �'� ,ua�mt�l,-iil� ,� 1�,.� nt- x r p d a�� 1 •��• ,ny . r I µ. I >!li S �y}. � 1 III 1T�•__ y %.;°lam 1� 1 1� .»i �.;'; N I _�}I� 3Y 1 y3a ► t - I I I T I I Zai p ♦, 1 li 1 Z. � r ---h- II IVF 727 L L 1 MSI ly us- o. ZI a5 w 1—o_ez II I 4' ,u LL._l.____=1 ---�. __ _ _•mss , _� __ 1 -�u _ r— .•�- �\ illi- T � rw I�s'S1�t �'sI Iz7.•I N-- F-7— Al o AL Mal -S7 aye Al _4,Q .sL = NJ =ZaU 1Y1��tiQ ±d.l Icy _ak J�41� Oil t°1 Y. a: -1-z 1 \. 4 co A • I i I iNa{I:sw 'N a s ° �'UZIL� 2+�o �ij.L .uC try ♦ r Y♦�� '� \ T r i • \9'sr N 4. i r K� 0 �3 ai AT 3- �i 0 X� � JZ �sz T 4 I Fii OZ XL 1�} Al,fir_-I-• IL(t Zp otn xt d % Vit' \\\ I I ILmN <� Zn � A•,Sl r - -I Zr' J %i, I t' a ..� �• 1,t smZr11 5. zW ------------------_-1 zI �Z H ' +IL �� zP':1t ;,17o,Lz-I-4N —i— r\ xsIL .-AlIl'p ��� :I y-- — --- --- — i- Yaya iTi� p r N j I N N I— Nim I N t- tz '1 ;i N� t4 'r�+—T- I. DLII' I a. I } .�: E f. id 11 I 3 y l IT r it r>g I 1 0 1'I 4. II I Al aZ=p ,' Z� N� I----4- _ r-- a� rte' III tL,� I ! r a jz I 1 1 I E II I �Z -t- {li. 1..._. yp _ 1*� _ l; II i z� I,r i �li� jh 1 j \51 �i T f 1 4 3 I I I� i �. Y• I 3, J � y�6u �N Ilj! � ' � 1 as : ZiL a � �' �z zix Xi1' y� III II ii .� I �'� ,ua�mt�l,-iil� ,� 1�,.� nt- x r p d a�� 1 •��• ,ny . r I µ. I >!li S �y}. � 1 III 1T�•__ y %.;°lam 1� 1 1� .»i �.;'; N I _�}I� 3Y 1 y3a ► t - I I I T I I Zai p ♦, 1 li 1 Z. � r ---h- II IVF 727 L L 1 MSI ly us- o. ZI a5 w 1—o_ez II I 4' ,u LL._l.____=1 ---�. __ _ _•mss , _� __ 1 -�u _ r— .•�- �\ illi- T � rw I�s'S1�t �'sI Iz7.•I N-- F-7— Al o AL Mal -S7 aye Al _4,Q .sL = NJ =ZaU 1Y1��tiQ ±d.l Icy _ak J�41� Oil t°1 Y. a: -1-z 1 \. 4 i e co • I i I iNa{I:sw 'N a 2+�o �ij.L .uC try ♦ r Y♦�� '� s il, 4. �3 u +- . {� A �Y � o I s_ 11I I • .I p '4 Al d I � � d0� V II 7ddd71' ski � Y � i e e oa"o-lOo `NO" JO NMOL X61-L9Lvxvd esmOPejopo'0eA °. .� �133zi� 21B"38 IV NNVWHON38 `� >130-18 `1910- � IOZZ-9LroLsX ores oe o d �••- �•� •a " O l /LZ/L oleo �.d 's}oapgajy . suldoH pue uopneoug avoN WVHJNI11ON OZ 8001 jegwnN Sof 1 ocal zl zl�/ I I I . I y' I I L --t —.Y• --^-J- irk-_ I I = _— _\ -. 771_, - 0 � I _ _ .I I I I I I I I I I I 13 OOVMO-103'NOAV AO NMOI -18 'L9 101 64L -9L* XV=l 99919 opBjoloo'l!eA I N33M3 N3"39 IV )INVWHON38 MOO C2 wZZ-9M,OL6 OM xOe 'O'd .0 L IL31L ale(] CIVON MHOMILON OZ 'SPGVLPV -Sul dOH Pue UOPMOU s goo 1. jaqwnN qOr . + Z I 0 > w Z LU LU I 3l AHglf WIiCOn1NlTNW MLlOVA Oavmo-ioo `N0AV J0 NMOl 1 61IL-9LVXVd MLS OPeJolo0'HeA „ .. ,q, M33N3 N3"38 lid NNVWHC)N38 M30-19 `L910- Iozz stv ots oroee xoa o d ,,® ;a• „a PL/LZ/ L oleo r d 's}aaliyojy . swNdoH pue uopnnouS M. r • aVON MH O N 1110 N OZ mvul.suiouim•u•oa..A! Boot ja9WnN Sof SIC � agd i 8'�'pws z / , I z W I7ro-------------- Q r z A i s , ISI I l A a° • . Z 5 \ 5 WV T � r z \ • oecc-eze xreCLMze oce8609W'N°016 MOLLYJl1LLtlD 3111 A LVO 31e to ><onz o•e •10ssiKN°l-�i�''0s'anMm8609W'ON W011„e�3.i' �I '6Qbl'7 �\/d ppy ilOp9 ,� �n �alYo�• A3amn� 3a a � � � Z'9699L 'oN BOf' I £O/4/£0 :03f1551 31V0 ONI ONIH33NION3 OCMIO-M d0 ELLVI8 °3-k7Va d0.1IMOO'NOAV d0 NMO-L sea ,.ke 03M03HO 103 :Ae NMvao I— Nouar 1.an u�v 3aNIM6a lsrol mx "n aarxoim al awmxv aiuw e— N3ablO aaA` aS LV NUMHON0A0 _ I >100-113 e89/L9 10-1 9£'Z£'ZL'LS 30Vd L9f'S9£'£9f'49£ >10013 Q131d W Q 39aHins9ad1-40 NO11VOOWAOUAV4I 1s3% Z9 avoIHSW1' NOLL33SaNid'd SNOISV38 31V0 •oN s� r @ _ � � U i �iO Q ^y LIP .e•m d 1 M 9Z6LZ ,a.Y 1 IS CR q I TM" N 3 Z C 0 0 o a Z I ( f"` \\jl Lm.-a3y.o II ' •;n ®.` C-) s w $ J Y fD o If r w m r 7c m II G li Z Q. j5 A R w ' q \. n / a wIf ~ $f X 0 0 (D 0 E) ® If \,, If j II I II 9 � � II � � a II T 1 '' �• 1wy b rII In II aca ' W2� < w Z u o w 3 F �_ S Q 9� a' &ii i� if :: N 9 Z Z w „• II 1 « = I II yk W'~.Sui I``1 I Ily e ®Q F e i$ ® ® o o # ,• II >i y �g1 11 1� 3 0 S I _ � k5 s� h-1 ft1 1 N .LIZ • .3, sx •. RZ � �I � ,onzsL-n3i33aaaY 'Igy �a j. co co I co s 11 J ���5 '-��� ��p� 11 � —'——•—'—•— I ►-- €�z utlEli. I 1 10 11 rT �" "-- m ~ n� Oji &II _ i kll L . — , — , — AdONY] dnnd SY9 J J% ME 313 ' I ~ yy Avmwma 111N YZZId I O Y M w h---- _ o ---- --�- } I ° z o z - °R-- -I z a anti y„x;` -naL~ "� LQN < / O^' a z+� s � (d) 3.9f,8L6fN °Q s•1. �'� r $ � ® � (d) ,00.01 3.91.Zi.9YN ;Jim 4 g�`bi �g on 0 l�n'ai � � g � e s`W F- L J o o IgE ,� m 'wdzt:ezfOlozBIL''011eo-l9l BLOLV�OA�WV'Z � 3 1 LS X U9119 0GY801W 'SOLYM038 OLY• L6 %OY 'O'd . N31N30 553N60B SOLYM03 �N JNId�9_NI�N� __ a — = — — — E3Nld!V W99W ,ON NOLUGO3d 804 =Tovd 004 w)oe oatao-loa do 31t1s 'nva do xwnoo Nona do NMol >MaWO HaA` EM lbs NWHHONO3 I >I00 -M `89//-9 10'1 89//-9 101 dVW 0IHcJV&D0d01 i _ •MMas rourwMn yu A 9tr9 yu Maui mcrB IOIIY/ AMY AYn ! �LV139 Mab =Moana uyu S699L 'ON BOP t00Z/LZ�II mf1551 31VO �— w uj = S80 :03>103H0 OOa :NMVaO / 51 39dd 0£ NooB 013Li —Aix „o p NVIOWK -IVdIONI Nd IN9 3HL do 1S3% Z9 3ONVa 'HLnos S d9 swm 'Zt v t SNOLL03S x SNOISVGU 31V0 'ON 8p 89 8 z w 5 3 �= a a W W W z z U 0 v00 v c4 Qi < ° V< S S S a J Y N b i0 N f b Y iL O Ld w f�5 *0@00006=06 99 _ N Y .V. a �RW 1 z / a —Aix „o p O x 0 � �ar �Ym b R4= 7 WW � Ld n >� Z wH {Q� V Z? all a. W K ry lFy w lVy �r7 a d> o t$ I e a A•® i& 99 � N Y .V. a �RW 1 z / a —Aix „o p o U x 0 � �ar �Ym b R4= 7 WW � 99 0 Q O W 0 _3:: U. Z o F— L O z $4—'Wd bf:Sf:b O1071911'Q+W7Y9•L9l Y[Ot01N0AV10M01:Z � N Y .V. a �RW 1 z / a —Aix „o p o U 0 Q O W 0 _3:: U. Z o F— L O z $4—'Wd bf:Sf:b O1071911'Q+W7Y9•L9l Y[Ot01N0AV10M01:Z Memorandum To Planning and Zoning Commission Fr Sally Vecchio, Asst Town Mgr, Community Development Date August 12, 2010 RE Criteria for Allowing Re -subdivision of Wildridge Duplex Lots BACKGROUND At its August 10th meeting, the Town Council continued reviewing the proposed Avon Development Code, and directed staff to work with the PZC to propose appropriate review criteria for re -subdividing Wildridge duplex lots into smaller single-family lots. DISCUSSION The idea of re -subdividing Wildridge duplex lots has been brought up several times during the Development Code review as a way to discourage the large duplex structures that have been built in the last 10 years, and to promote more openness and open space between structures by allowing the two permitted dwelling units to be separated. Although a Wildridge duplex lot can be subdivided pursuant to the Town's current and proposed zoning code provisions, there has historically been resistance to such subdivisions as being inconsistent with the Wildridge covenants. The subject has been discussed by both the Council and PZC for a number of years, although appropriate review criteria have never been adopted. Council has therefore requested that the staff work with PZC to develop appropriate criteria to be included in the new Development Code. , Review Process Under the provisions of the proposed Development Code, the process of subdividing and developing a duplex lot in Wildridge requires three steps: 1) PUD amendment, 2) Minor Subdivision approval and 3) Development/Design approval. The processes and applicable requirements are summarized below. 1. PUD AMENDMENT PROCESS The PUD Development Review Procedures (§7.16.060) allow amendments to Final PUDs to be reviewed pursuant to the provisions of §7.16.020(g) Minor Amendments. Minor Amendments may be approved administratively if the amendment complies with the requirements of the Development Code. If the Director determines that the minor amendment would materially changes the approved PUD, the Director may refer the application to Town Council. 2. MINOR SUBDIVSION PROCESS A minor subdivision is defined as, 4 lots or less, requires no public improvements, consolidates 2 or more lots, or moves any lot line by more than 2 feet (Subdivision Categories §7.16.070(b)). After conducting a public hearing, the Council may approve a minor subdivision. New subdivisions must comply with the Town's requirements for lot layout, grading, streets, storm drainage, utilities, and public improvements (Engineering Improvement Standards, Chapter 7.32). 3. DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSES New development must comply with the development review process (Development Plan §7.16.080) and the design review process (Design Review §7.16.060) to ensure compliance with the development and design standards of the Development Code. The processes run concurrently, and no noticing or hearings are required. The reviewing authority for new residential development in Wildridge is the Planning and Zoning Commission. Review Criteria At the next PZC meeting, staff will discuss the review criteria for PUD Amendments and Minor Subdivisions, and will suggest additional criteria to ensure that the objectives for permitting duplex subdivisions are addressed. SUMMARY Council has agreed to consider appropriate review criteria to be included in the proposed Development Code for re -subdividing duplex lots in the Wildridge subdivision. A staff presentation at the next PZC meeting will include design tests on several vacant duplex lots in Wildridge to illustrate the issues that may result from subdividing as well as the opportunities to promote smaller structures and more openness between structures. J Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda for August 17, 2010 Avon Town Council Chambers VON Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street C O L O R A D O I. Call to Order (4:30pm) The meeting was called to order at 4:35. II. Roll Call All commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Green. Ill. Additions & 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 August 3, 2010 Meeting Minutes Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the consent agenda as modified. Commissioner Prince seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. VI. Sketch Design Review New Commercial Structure Property Location: Lot 67, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 40 Nottingham Road Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG; Owner: Jim Pavelich, GPI, LLC Description: The proposal is to demolish the existing Pizza Hut building and replace it with a new structure which is to contain a restaurant and a retail space with a second -story back-of- house/storage area for the primary restaurant and retail uses. Discussion: Matt Gennett stated that he had no presentation but that he would be available to answer questions. Dominic Mauriello presented an overview of the project. Commissioner Struve questioned when the property was originally built. Dominic responded that was constructed in 1985. Commissioner Anderson questioned if there were any photos of the retaining walls that would be removed with this proposal. Dominic pointed out an overgrowth area where retaining walls/planters were located. Commissioner Struve questioned if this building's setback from the gas pumps were the same as 7-11. Dominic stated he wasn't sure of the dimensions. Craig Snowden responded that the existing Pizza Hut building's wall is located where the new parking spaces are proposed. 1 t, Commissioner Struve pointed out that restaurants typically have freezers in the parking lot for nighttime deliveries. Dominic stated that the owner didn't have a tenant and wasn't sure what the business plan would entail. Dominic presented the elevations of the proposed building. Commissioner Anderson questioned the snow shedding on the east elevation. Craig responded that the snow would shed into the planter bed. Commissioner Struve questioned the siding types. Craig responded that there would be clapboard siding and horizontal siding. Commissioner Roubos questioned the length of the roof lines. Craig responded that the main ridge was 60 feet in length. Commissioner Struve questioned if the applicant has access to the plans for the firehouse. Commissioner Goulding questioned how the design related to the adjacent stucco buildings. Craig responded that the design resembles an old farm house and that the main structure was a simple design and the architecture resembles additional pieces with varied exterior materials and roof forms. Commissioner Goulding asked if the architect studied how this design would relate to a gas canopy and the adjacent stucco building. Craig responded that this design was intended to be an introduction to the designs beyond rather than complementary to the existing adjacent buildings. Commissioner Patterson questioned how this would affect Lot 52A. Matt Gennett stated that lot is currently considered Lot 4 of the Buck Creek PUD and that it would be used for the future roundabout. Commissioner Patterson questioned if the design took into effect a roundabout adjacent. Dominic responded that the design did take this into effect by ushering pedestrians to the other side of the property. Craig further stated that the design of the building didn't turn its back on the roundabout and still provided some architectural interest. Commissioner Anderson questioned if a temporary patio would be considered if the applicant would enter into an agreement with the town. Craig stated the current design does allow for that potential. Commissioner Prince questioned what the FAR of this property would be. Dominic responded that he wasn't sure, but could provide that information. Commissioner Prince questioned if solar was considered for this application. Craig stated that the optimum roof orientation would be 90 degrees from the proposed so solar was not contemplated. Commissioner Anderson stated that the FAR was 0.21:1. Commissioner Patterson questioned if there were and issues with this design and the new proposed Development code. Dominic responded that setbacks could be an issue, but he stated he was under the assumption that Staff was rectifying these issues. Commissioner Anderson questioned the design's relationship to the easement. Staff stated Commissioner Struve stated he felt this was a good design and that the architecture wasn't dragged down by the neighborhood. He stated that more architectural interest could be provided on the west side or increased landscaping. He also stated signage should be considered with this application so that future tenants are handcuffed. Commissioner Roubos stated this was an upgrade from the current building. He appreciated the mimicking of the science school architecture instead of the gas station. She also commented on the parking and felt that there could be some insufficient numbers. She also commented on the roof lines and she wanted to see more interest in the roof forms. She agreed with Commissioner Struve's comments about signage. 2 Commissioner Anderson stated that the easement comment from Engineering needs to be addressed. He also commented on the issues with the parking space next to the trash enclosure. He appreciated the architecture and felt the long ridgeline wasn't an issue to him. Commissioner Patterson questioned where the gas tank filing location is for gas station. Craig responded that the design wouldn't impact that function. He commented that landscaping on the town owned lot should occur and the applicant should work with the Town. Commissioner Prince stated that he is happy to see the Pizza Hut building be removed. He didn't have any issues with the ridgeline. He felt the patio on the south side would be great if it were wrapped around to the west side. Commissioner Roubos clarified that her comments were related to two separate uses instead of a single use and that could pose reality issues. Commissioner Anderson questioned the design of the Firehouse. Commissioner Goulding included the letter from the adjacent property owner for the record. He also commented that this design should correlate to the Firehouse instead of the school since that will not be viewed from this property. He stated that this application shouldn't be contingent on a sign application. Commissioner Struve commented that this design uses good proportions and is a collection of boxes and that would be good architecture. Action: There are no motions required for sketch design review VI. Other Business • Shane Pegram presented the roof options for the Recreation Center. Discussion ensued and consensus was the darker hues and more of a matte finish. • Discussion regarding duplex lots and the option of two single family structures. VII.Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm. 9