The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 030210Staff Report PUD Amendment March 2, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Report Date February 26, 2010 Project Type Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Legal Description Lots 2 and 3, Eaglewood Subdivision Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, Planner II in- le Summary The applicant, Vicki Eastman, on behalf of the Lodge at Brookside Homeowners Association has applied for a Planned Unit Development ('PUD") Amendment to allow Short Term Rentals as a use on Lots 2 and 3 of the Brookside PUD. A "Short Term Rental' is defined as "rental of property for a total continuous duration of less than thirty one (31) days." The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on February 16, 2010. After review of the application and hearing from the applicant the Commission tabled the application and directed staff to clarify the findings and compliance with the review criteria. Staff therefore recommends approval of this application to allow short-term rentals as a use in the Brookside PUD. Process Short Term Rentals are regulated pursuant to Sec 17.20.140 of the Zoning Ordinance. PUDs that are not included in the Short Term Rental Overlay District and do not already include short term rentals as a permitted use must apply for a PUD amendment. PUD amendments are adopted by Council Ordinance. The review process requires a hearing and recommendation by the Commission followed by a second public hearing before the Council. The Brookside HOA Board of Directors, which controls the condominium and townhome buildings on Lot 2 and Lot 3, voted to approve this application to amend the Brookside PUD to allow short-term rentals in both buildings. The Town has received two letters from Brookside Lodge property -owners opposing the application and a letter of support from the master association president, Frank Navarro. All documents are included in Exhibit D of this memorandum. Property Description The Brookside PUD was approved in 1996 as a mixed-use project on approximately 4.7 acres. The development is comprised of three buildings on three separate lots along with common open space and amenities including an outdoor swimming pool and hot tub (the Property). The Property is accessed from one shared driveway on Hwy 6 west of W. Beaver Creek Blvd. The Property is developed in a linear fashion along Hwy 6. Lot 1 is located on the east side of the Property and includes a 29,500 sf office building with 63 surface and 37 stuructured parking spaces. Lot 2 in the middle of the property is z developed with a 40 unit residential condominium known as Brookside Lodge. This building includes an underground parking garage with 48 spaces and 56 surface parking spaces. Lot 3 is situated on the west side of the Property, and was developed with a 14 unit townhouse building. Each townhome includes a 1 car garage, and shares some of the surface parking spaces for overflow/guest parking with Lot 2 adjacent to Highway 6 and 24. A site plan of the Property is attached as Exhibit B. The Property is bordered on the north and west by the ECO river recreation path and the Eagle River. The Sunridge Phase II residential condominiums border the eastern property line and Highway 6 borders the entire southern property line. Across Highway 6 and 24 is the Bear parking lot for Beaver Creek Resort Policy Analysis The intent of the Short Term Rental Overlay (STRO) District regulations is to permit "Short Term Rental uses for hotel room, condominium unit, or other accommodation in areas of the town core that are residential in nature." Permitting short term rentals at Brookside is consistent with the intent of the STRO regulations. Brookside PUD is a mixed-use development which includes a residential component and amenities; and the Property is located in close proximity to town center amenities and both local and regional transportation services. Planning Analysis The applicant is requesting that short term rentals be permitted as a use in the two residential buildings located on the Property. The Brookside PUD contemplated such a use, as evidenced by the fact that the permitted uses include a rental office in the Brookside Lodge building. The HOA covenants permit short term rentals and many of the home owners have regularly rented their units out for short term accommodations since the project was constructed. Parking on the site can accommodate short-term rentals in Buildings 2 and 3. Parking for the residential portions of the project is provided at a rate of 2 spaces per unit. Short-term rentals are typically parked at a rate of between 1.2 to 1.5 spaces per accommodation unit. The location of the Property and close proximity to Town Center, Beaver Creek Resort and Hwy 6 make it suitable for tourist and guest accommodations. All vehicles entering the property share an entrance off Highway 6 & 24, and once on the site, vehicles either bear right towards the commercial building and underground parking, or left towards the residential portions of the property. The regional ECO bus stop is located approximately one quarter mile from the entrance to the site. The circulation system for both vehicles and pedestrians is well developed and functional on site with direct pedestrian connections provided to the river path. The Transportation Plan envisions sidewalks or separate paved trails along Highway 6 & 24 in the future. A direct pedestrian connection adjacent to Highway 6 to the intersection with West Beaver Creek Boulevard will help connect pedestrians and guests to the 3 project. In the meantime, there is sufficient access to the bus stops by walking the ECO recreation path towards West Beaver Creek Boulevard. Engineering Analysis The application does not require any modifications to the Property that would require engineering design. Design Review The application does not require any modifications to the Property or the buildings that would require design review. Findings The proposed PUD Amendment to allow Short Term Rentals at the Brookside Lodge and Townhomes is consistent with the review criteria set forth in Section 17.20.110 of the Zoning Code as follows: 9. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. The PUD amendment would allow short term rentals on the property, which is consistent with Avon's desire to encourage tourism and visitors. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town. There are no proposed changes to the exterior design of the project that will be required to accommodate short-term rental units on the property 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. The architectural design of the project would remain as it is today. No aspects related to the design compatibility with the immediate environment would be affected with the addition of short term rentals to the list of allowed uses. 4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Surrounding residential and commercial uses are compatible with short-term rentals accommodating guests and visitors. The property is directly across Hwy 6 from the Beaver Creek Resort parking lots and shuffle to the resort. Regional and local bus stops near the property also make this Property well-suited for accommodating guests and visitors. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. The Brookside PUD is not located near any natural or geologic hazards. 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Il The Property is located along the south side of the Eagle River. The building and site design of the Property are responsive to the sensitive and natural features of the river environment. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan. The circulation system is design for both vehicles and pedestrians. A future sidewalk or separated path along Highway 6 and 24 is envisioned in the Transportation Plan. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. The Brookside PUD is well-connected with the river environment bordering the north side of the property. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases. No phasing plan is required for this proposal. 10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. The location of the ECO recreation path and nearby connecting local and regional bus transportation is a benefit to short term rental guests. The ECO path connects to the Town Center with only one road crossing. No additional burden will be experienced for public services such as sewer, water, and schools. There are no additional anticipated impacts generated by this land -use on the property then the current land -use mix. 11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. The Property has direct access from Hwy 6, which has adequate capacity to accommodate this use. There will be no additional units or density created as a result of this amendment. 12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code: A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights. 5 C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. The Avon Comprehensive Plan supports lodge type development in the town core area, and there is a public purpose inherent with lodge type housing. The current entitlements do not specifically allow short term rentals; however, there is an inherent intent to accommodate these types of uses given that a rental office can be approved by Special Review Use. The location of this property, in close proximity to the entrance of Beaver Creek resort, and walking distance to the Town Center, creates a compatible workable situation with adjacent uses. Recommended Motion Staff recommends APPROVAL of the PUD Amendment to permit short term rentals in the Brookside PUD to the Avon Town Council with the following findings of fact related to the applicable criteria: 1. The subject application is in substantial conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives (Criterion 1); and, 2. The proposed use and associated activity provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses; and, 3. As evidenced by the PUD Development Plan's allowance to establish an "on-site rental office" with a Special Review Use permit, the Short Term Rental Use has been ongoing since construction of the project; and, 4. The Town desires to permit "Short Term Rentals" in residential/mixed-use areas of the Town Core that are designed as such and where property owners wish to engage in short-term renting of dwelling units; and, 5. The approval of this application and corresponding Ordinance will help to protect and preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the Avon community." Exhibits A: Vicinity Map B: PUD Guide C: Site Plan D: HOA and Homeowner Letters Brookside —Residential Streets Fro. Property Boundaries 0 65 170 Exhibit A / 1I 1 11 4' 1 Ll Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Robert H. Simpson 560 Valley Road Littleton, CO 8012 Recording Secretary Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 Dear Sir /Madam, re: The Lodge at Brookside This letter is in regard to the public meeting to permit short term rentals of less than 30 days in all units of The Lodge at Brookside. Icy wife and I are owners of unit 310. We are both vehemently opposed to short term rentals of less than 30 days. When we purchased the property it was listed as a condo complex. It should remain as such. Changing to short term rental of less than 30 days will decrease property values. In addition it will increase repairs and maintenance required to the structure which will have to be paid for by all of the existing owners because of increased traffic and increased usage and damage. Comrrron area maintenance will have to be increased if short term rentals are allowed- once again paid for by all owners. Since we do not rent our unit these increased costs would be immensely unfair. The Lodge at Brookside has existed for ten years as a condo complex and it should remain as such. It should not be changed into a hotel. Once again our vote is NO for short term rentals of less than 30 days for The Lodge at Brookside. Sincerely, f t• Robert H. Simpson Sally M. Simpson dwipe�t 00 MERVIN W. GRAHAM, D.D.S., M.S. February 11, 2010 Recording Secretary Town of Avon P.O.Box 975 A vcn. CO 81620 Dear Secretary, CEIVE FED 1 0 2010 Cont munity a jjavajgp_nje,,,: 1 am writing regarding a proposed PUD amendment that would permit "short term rentals" in the Brookside PUD (Lot 2 & 3, Eaglewood Subdivision, 37305 Highway 6 & 24). I am strongly opposed to such a measure. 1 olito efle+dively turning [hat property into a hotel. I am fearful that the increased nutnbeis tXtcnicrrs will sr bstan ially increase maintenance costs and devalue the properties ot*i .diividual owners. Thi- property was not built with any plan for short term rerntah. i_rtu that the case, I would not have purchased property there. Very sincerety, Mervin W. Graham Owner Unit #310 05/18/2005 16:54 7043720478 NAVARRO LOWREY INC PAGE 01 Brookside Park Master Association 37347 US Highway # 6 Avon, Colorado 81620 February 23, 2010 Town of Avon Dear Sas; Our property is governedby our Declaration, recorded in 1997. That Declaration allows for short term rentals of our member properties. I can be reacbed at 704-905-0255 if you should have any questions. Sincerely, B ksi 'Master Association E. Navarro, its President Staff Report PUD Amendment March 2, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Report Date February 26, 2010 Project Type Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Legal Description Lot 3, Nottingham Station PUD Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, Planner II �7_� Summary The applicant, Vicki Eastman, on behalf of the Canyon Run Homeowners Association, has applied for a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment to Lot 3, Nottingham Station PUD, commonly known as "Canyon Run." The proposal is to allow "Short Term Rentals," or rentals of duration less than thirty-one (31) days, in addition to the currently allowed land uses. The Nottingham Station PUD calls out "69 Multiple Family Dwelling Units" for Lot 3 on the approved PUD documents. The Zoning Ordinance defines a multi -family dwelling as a structure with three or more residential dwelling units, not to include lodge type uses. This amendment request will add "Short Term Rentals" to the list of allowable land uses, which is currently limited to the following: condominium units and associated attached garages, detached garages, parking spaces and driveways, trash enclosures, and enclosed management storage. Staff recommends approval of this application to allow short-term rentals as a use in the Nottingham Station PUD. Process Short Term Rentals are regulated pursuant to Sec 17.20.140 of the Zoning Ordinance. PUDs that are not included in the Short Term Rental Overlay District and do not already include short term rentals as a permitted use must apply for a PUD amendment. PUD amendments are adopted by Council Ordinance. The review process requires a hearing and recommendation by the Commission followed by a second public hearing before the Council. After holding a public hearing in accordance with Sec 17.12.100 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission will make a formal recommendation to the Avon Town Council based on the compatibility of this land use and compliance with the review criteria found within this report. Council will hold a hearing within 30 days of the Commission hearing and either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The Canyon Run HOA, which controls all management duties of the project, has approved this specific use, and the private covenants allow for "dwelling and lodging purposes only'. 2 Property Description The property is zoned PUD and is entitled up to 70 dwelling units. As constructed, the condominium units are grouped into a total of 9 buildings — Buildings A through I. The structures are situated in a linear fashion between the parking and driveway and the Eagle River to the South. There is an 8' recreation path located between the roadway and driveway/parking portion of the property. The row of parking on the north side of the project is a combination of covered garage and open-air parking. Open space abuts the west and southern boundaries of the property. There is a mix of single-family, duplex and multi- family properties in the immediate neighborhood, including Avon Crossing and Eaglebend apartments. Policy Analysis The intent of the Short Term Rental Overlay (STRO) District regulations is to permit "Short Term Rental uses for hotel room, condominium unit, or other accommodation in areas of the town core that are residential in nature." Permitting short term rentals in the Nottingham Station PUD is consistent with the intent of the STRO regulations. The Property is located in close proximity to town center amenities and is directly served by the Town of Avon Transportation system with a bus stop on Hurd Lane. In addition to the established transportation system, residents and visitors can walk approximately 1,500 feet to the Riverfront Gondola to connect with the resort. Planning Analysis The applicant is requesting that short term rentals be permitted as a use by right in all of the buildings. Property owners in this project have historically utilized their units for short term rentals and the Homeowners Association has approved this land use. The private covenants for the property permit this use in addition to customary residential uses. During the Short Term Rental Overlay district hearings with the Town Council, the applicant was actively engaged with the process in order to protect what owners have historically understood to be a use by right. After it was determined that the Overlay district could not impact existing PUD development approvals, the property management was directed to submit a PUD amendment application in order to legitimize this pre-existing use. As stated, the property was contemplated when drafting the STRO district regulations, and the property is situated in an ideal portion of Town to accommodate this land -use. In terms of parking, this property is sufficiently parked in accordance with the approved PUD documents and parking is adequate for either short term rental use or permanent residents. The parking requirement is congruent with the standard residential parking regulations as outlined in Sec 17.24.020 of the Zoning Code. There is a mix of deeded garage spaces, open-air surface spaces, and signed guest parking. 3 Engineering Analysis The application does not require any modifications to the Property that would require engineering design. Design Review The application does not require any modifications to the Property or the buildings that would require design review. Findings The proposed PUD Amendment to allow Short Term Rentals at the Canyon Run Townhomes is consistent with the review criteria set forth in Section 17.20.110 of the Zoning Code as follows: 1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. The PUD amendment would allow short term rentals on the property, which is consistent with Avon's desire to encourage tourism and visitors. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town. There are no proposed changes to the exterior design of the project that will be required to accommodate short-term rental units on the property 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. The architectural design of the project would remain as it is today. No aspects related to the design compatibility with the immediate environment would be affected with the addition of short term rentals to the list of allowed uses. 4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The surrounding land -uses and densities in the surrounding area provide a compatible and practical relationship with the proposed additional short term rental use. There is a mix of residential and commercial uses in the immediate area. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. Canyon Run is not located near any natural or geologic hazards. 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The Property is located along the north side of the Eagle River. The building and site design of the Property are responsive to the sensitive and natural features of the C! river environment. There is a Town owned piece of property contiguous with the entire south property line for continued open space. All of the buildings are setback at least 30' from the Eagle River. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan. The circulation system is design for both vehicles and pedestrians. The Transportation Plan acknowledges the path in front of the complex as an "existing core trail". The Transportation Plan envisions continued summer and winter bus service on Hurd Lane to service the project. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. The Nottingham Station PUD is well-connected with the river environment bordering the south side of the property. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases. No phasing plan is required for this proposal. 10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. The local Red bus line has frequent service directly in front of the property. Please see the aerial vicinity map attached as Exhibit A for the exact location of this particular stop. Residents and guests can access the resort, shopping, and other services in the town core. No additional burden will be experienced for public services such as sewer, water, and schools. There are no additional anticipated impacts generated by this land -use on the property then the current land -use mix. 11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. The Property has two direct points of access from Hurd Lane. Ingress and egress to the Property is safe with adequate site distance in either direction of the entrances. There will be no additional units or density created as a result of this amendment. 12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code: A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. 5 B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights. C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. The Avon Comprehensive Plan supports resort and lodge type development in the Town Core area, and there is a public purpose inherent with lodge type housing which the current entitlements cannot achieve. The location of this property, in close proximity to the entrance of Beaver Creek resort, and walking distance to the Town Center, creates a compatible workable situation with adjacent uses. Recommended Motion Staff recommends APPROVAL of the PUD Amendment to permit short term rentals on Lot 3, Nottingham Station PUD (Canyon Run) to the Avon Town Council with the following findings of fact related to the applicable criteria: 1. The subject application is in substantial conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives (Criterion 1); and, 2. The proposed use and associated activity provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses; and, 3. The Town desires to permit "Short Term Rentals" in residential/mixed-use areas of the Town Core that are designed as such and where property owners wish to engage in short-term renting of dwelling units; and, 4. The approval of this application and corresponding Ordinance will help to protect and preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the Avon community." Exhibits A: Vicinity Map B: PUD Regulations Canyon Run FYhihi# A ---- Residential Streets fir. c -t Property Boundaries �'"•. rsnras;.roaawac�:��c_��ry ao.�3s,.:•�u�p�a-�-� �;,��., �. � :h;a�ae too ann,a+c;F:nnacma rw.n ct kcn au:m rr.,�:.ana�a toa _a 0 �0 1A� a:eiwcr�[�ne nat:�ean�ai-..-srt.-:c:n Gea!eE nr �O:tIfvVlY.l'r Cc'va�oyFy�t P35onMec. Exhibit B U % p ; o• 4u l ° n O y3 o'i n 3 o pe• 3 � � 3'n Mi 3 JSP n� 4 rtrt ct�a QQ'oR� � 4 P 4 �P' 0 ,P w w C. •• ,�• R' ° C1 m m m m m m Q y qi Q y 1. i i i 3��,o3xm rt n 3 o r EF:J. 2A 3 JSP n� 4 rtrt ct�a QQ'oR� 0 ,P w w C. •• ,�• m m m m m d m d 0 1. y a fO 3��,o3xm rt o r 0 ,P w w C. •• ,�• m m m m m d m d 1. y a fO ry O O m D 9: OD ? C Oca N� a0 S 0 N N 2. s{ Od �' pl Zj7 0'0< N� Q cnjOdo j >N >N >N >N >N >G >> �. � m Sm m , m ;(dmm m • oA N N K.S" 0pm oo md nsd Is mD-,w ^ `fdmmm ffcTc.m0e .a'=., m O. 4 R Sm p A eO ft'.µ tl m w N. m O C m: � p O m m (� d N: m Nr... m d DO.' m J fi S m U» m N N N W m N@ qq 0 N d d m 5-0 p w m ^.m w m m d D Cl n wu�i '.. wmimw O3-m'..• OpO waw nwad w O {NYqmn o 6ma O m dmm Dtmd'rt p3 _pQ¢�d . Vim m .`0�Wc Q 3&m6i a3 m c 2 mo acfc 5 m,0 m-33303 ff 3 Tcjo 0303 30 ipO6�3m.m : : wm6 `mOmam�w m -: i3 no w �wim 'wmdamw `„?.L_Vmi m m m; d 'O°IVm; o To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners From: Matt Pielsticker, Planner II72f� Through: Matt Gennett, AICP, Planning Manager Date: February 24, 2010 C O L O R A D O Re: Trees of Colorado Special Review Use Permit Extension Lot 3, McGrady Acres Discussion: The applicant has been successfully operating Trees of Colorado, a tree sales operation on Lot 3 of the McGrady Acres subdivision, since receiving original approval in 2006. Please find Resolution 06-19, the Resolution that approved this use permit, attached to this Memorandum for your reference. The conditions of approval stated that the use was approved until December 31, 2009, at which time the applicant would be required to have the Planning and Zoning Commission re -review and extend the permit. Staff has not received any complaints about the operation of this business in its current location. This property appears to be a suitable location for this land -use, and Staff does not anticipate any compatibility issues with the adjacent land -uses if the other recommended conditions are maintained by the applicant. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission Approve an extension to the Trees of Colorado Special Review Use Permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. This permit is valid for five (5) years, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission no later than December 31, 2014. 2. If the conditions of the permit become the responsibility of a person other than the applicant (Paul Doughty), the office of Community Development must be notified in writing, identifying the new person or entity responsible for maintaining the conditions of the permit. 3. Hours of operation will be lam - 6pm, with no audible noise at other hours. 4. No lighting is approved for the property, except for an internal light inside the temporary point of sale office. 5. This use may not be modified, enlarged or expanded in ground area, unless such modification receives the prior approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. AMC 17.48.050. 6. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. Attached: Resolution 06-19 Vicinity Map i TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-19 A RESOLUTION RENEWING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL TREE & SHRUB NURSERY ON LOT 3, MCGRADY ACRES SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Paul Doughty has applied for a special review use permit for a retail tree sale nursery, as described in the application dated December 12, 2005, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon on March 7, 2006, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use permit application; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon has considered the following: A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code; and B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan; and C. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission approved this permit request on March 7, 2006 and the applicant has maintained the conditions of approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby renews a Special Review Use permit for a retail tree sale nursery, as described in the application dated December 12, 2005, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 3, McGrady Acres Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. F.APIanning & Zoning Lbrnmission\ResohrtlonsL0t)O\Res 06-19 MrGrndy Arses SRU Rencunl dvr.do, Approved with the following conditions: 1. The chain link fence with green mesh on the northern and eastern property lines will be replaced with a six foot tall cedar fence no later than end of April, 2007, 2. This permit is valid for three years, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission no later than December 31, 2009. 3. If the conditions of the permit become the responsibility of a person other than the applicant (Paul Doughty), the office of Community Development must be notified in writing, identifying the new person or entity responsible for maintaining the conditions of the permit. AMC 17.48.020(d). 4. Hours of operation will be lam - 6pm, with no audible noise at other hours. 5. No lighting is approved for the property, except for an internal light inside the temporary point of sale office. 6. This use may not be modified, enlarged or expanded in ground area, unless such modification receives the prior approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. AMC 17.48.050. 7. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. Adopted this 5th day of December, 2006 Signed - Date: i Chair Attest: Date: Secretary F.APlanning & Zoning Con7,nission\Rexohuions%2000\Res 06-19 ,U1rGrnely Arses SRU Reneira13vr.doe Trees of Colorado Site — Residential Streets Property Boundaries a ao as (,—'d by C.^TC I Y rl iu i-�"`••a rE Staff Report - Sketch Design March 2, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date Project type Legal description Zoning Address Prepared By Summary of Request February 26, 2010 Single -Family Residence Lot 114, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision PUD — 1 Unit 2080 Beaver Creek Poinl-, Jared Barnes, Planner I� rrtu�r`<ca�'.'<nrtnv t Krista Petkovsek of Morgante Wilson Architects (the Applicant) representing Benjamin and Anne Wolff (the Owner) of Lot 114, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision (the Property), has submitted a Sketch Design application for a single-family residence accessed off Beaver Creek Point. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission provide general feedback on the proposed design as well as specific direction concerning the items identified by staff. A full size (24" x 36") plan set will be available for the Commission's review at the December 15'", 2009 meeting. Process A Sketch Design application and review by the Commission is required prior to submitting a Final Design application. 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. Property Description The Property is 0.53 acres, with street frontage along Beaver Creek Point. The Property generally slopes downhill from Beaver Creek Point to the east. The lot is vacant and immediately south of two recently developed single-family lots. To the east and west (across Beaver Creek Point) of the Property is a large Forest Service parcel zoned Open Space (OS). Planning Analysis The Property is encumbered by two separate plat requirements that restrict the building location and height. According to Replat Number 2 of the Final Subdivision Plat of Wildridge: No part of any structure on Lot 114 shall be greater than 18 feet, above finished road centerline elevation at center of lot frontage. The Property is also encumbered with a platted building envelope. The purpose of these plat restrictions are to limit visibility of development on the Lot due to its prominent location along a ridge, and to avoid the steep slopes that occur on the eastern half of the Lot. The applicant will need to provide measurement verification with the Final Design application to ensure that the structure complies with the height restriction as defined in the plat note. The conceptual site plans appear to fully contain the building within the platted building envelope. Staff is concerned with the conceptual landscape plan. It does not appear to contain the level of plantings that have been approved recently by this Commission. Staff recommends that the Commission provide feedback to the applicant on this item. Design Review Considerations The building materials include stucco, Colorado moss stone, cedar trim, and painted iron straps. Either asphalt shingles or standing seam metal will be used for roofing material. Further clarification and a specific proposal at Final Design will be required, but the Commission should provide feedback to the applicant on the proposed architecture, materials, and general site layout. Attachment A: Vicinity Map B: Reduced Plan Set Town of Avon Community Development (970) 746-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Vicinity Map - Lot 114, Block 1, Wldridge Subdivision —Residential Streets Property Boundaries Fr.rr sno,,�ir »�nenua pmp::e: oo:� To-::, cf a. un ee�o.rt+nrta:,et"e crr:ac� ar a:¢ca � cmrn��a� nrre.� 0 2$ $0 c,eo,ce n. ccmmurnry onra: ;„za ocr3n,mn k Planning and Zoning Commission March 2 2010 Final Design Application Gore Range Natural Science School (GRNSS) Lot 3, Buck Creek PUD/Subdivision Summary of Proposal Dave Kaselak, of Zehren & Associates, representing the owner, the Gore Range Natural Science School (GRNSS), has submitted a Final Design application for an educational campus for the GRNSS on Lot 3, of the Buck Creek Subdivision and PUD (the Property). The proposed campus is to be comprised of three educational buildings, the Mountain Discovery Center (MDC), Field Studies Base Camp (FSBC) and the Meadow Learning Studio (MLS); and, two residential buildings to be used as the Graduate Fellows Residences (GFR). Staff recommends approval of the proposed Final Design for the GRNSS campus development on Lot 3 of the Buck Creek Subdivision, with the findings that it conforms with the general Town of Avon Residential Commercial and Industrial Design Review Guidelines; and, that the design adheres to the standards specified in the approved PUD Development Plan for the subject property. Process The Final Design Process is required for all applications that have completed Sketch Design review with Commission. Final Design approval by the Commission is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The Planning Commission reviewed the Sketch Plan Application for the Property on September 1, 2010), and determined that application must comply generally with the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial and Industrial Design Review Guidelines, and specifically with the details provided in the approved development plan for the Buck Creek PUD. Property Description The Buck Creek Subdivision is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads, and was previously platted and zoned as the "Wildwood Resort SPA" (Specially Planned Area). Lot 3 is the northernmost parcel of the Buck Creek PUD/Subdivision and is comprised of 5.29 acres with 32% (63,269 sq ft) containing slopes of 40% or greater. Buck Creek PUD designates Lot 3 for a "Natural Science Education Facility'. Lot 3 is not presently developed with any permanent building improvements. The land uses and corresponding zoning for properties surrounding Lot 3 are as follows: • North: Trails / Opens Space (OS) • South: Vacant Land, Gas station / Neighborhood Commercial (NC) • West: Low Density Residential / Open Space • East: Open Space, Commercial / Open Space Policy Analysis The Buck Creek PUD was recommended for approval by the Commission on March 17, 2009, by Resolution Nos. 09-05 & 09-06, and adopted by Council via Ordinance No. 09- 08, Series of 2009, on August 11, 2009. Upon adoption of Ordinance No. 09-08, the Council found that the approved PUD Development Plan conforms to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. The approved PUD Development Plan includes the site plan, building elevation sketches, allowed materials and building footprint locations allowed on Lot 3, from which the proposed Final Design application does not substantively deviate. Planning Analysis The proposed use as a school site conforms to the site-specific PUD zoning designation for Lot 3 of the Buck Creek PUD. The structures proposed to be built on Lot 3 will result in 5% total site coverage, or 10,202 sq ft. The 38 ft maximum building height has been adhered to with each of the five structures: the Mountain Discovery Center (MDC) is 38; Field Studies Base Camp (FSBC) is 31'8"; Mountain Learning Studio is 22' at its highest point; and, the two Graduate Fellows Residences buildings measure 33' at their maximum ridge height. The total landscaped area of the site is 19%, or 37,706 sq ft, and the total paved surface area equals 12% or 23,321 sq ft. All of the required setbacks from the property lines are typical of standard zoning, with a 25' minimum for the front and 10' for the rear and side lot lines. The PUD does specify a deviation in the minimum 30' stream setback for approximately 350 sq ft of the MDC's building area which encroaches up to 20' into the standard stream setback at the most extensive point. The encroachment was contemplated and approved with the PUD and Final Plat upon Council approval of Ordinance No. 09-08, Series of 2009. The development meets the minimum parking requirements with 30 spaces for the MDC building, including two ADA accessible spaces, and eight spaces for the GFR building, six of which are garage spaces. Engineering Analysis The Town Engineer will be available at the meeting to answer questions related to the engineering requirements associated with the Buck Creek Final Plat and PUD Development Plan. Design Review The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of Final Design application utilizing specific Development Standards, and by using the following general criteria from the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design Review Guidelines : 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 Comprehensive 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 Design 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; 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. At Sketch Design review, the Commission raised concerns regarding the linear appearance of the primary roof ridge length on the MDC building, which measures 108' in length including the overhangs. The Applicant has responded to that issue as provided in attached letter (Exhibit B). The solar panels originally depicted in the sketch plans at PUD review may have worked toward breaking up the visual mass of this roof form. Findings As stated in the summary of this report, staff is recommending approval of this Final Design application, with the findings that the plans generally comply with the applicable Town of Avon Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines; and, that the proposal adheres to the standards, purpose and intent of the approved development plan for Lot 3 of the Buck Creek PUD. Attachments Exhibit A. Vicinity Map Exhibit B. Letter from the applicant addressing the linear length of the roof ridge on the proposed MDC structure. Exhibit C. Letter from the Eagle River Fire Protection District regarding accessibility Exhibit D. Minutes from the Commission's September 1, 2009 Sketch Design review Exhibit E. Reduced plan sets containing a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and colored renderings. Vicinity Map - Lot 3, Buck Creek PUD Subdivision Exhibit A — Residential Streets $smap rPS o�oC�asa 4j lno ca�t+:.prAY Ce::!op,mor, pnparlx-¢Ln: ux•cr Las v�ey F -A Property Boundaries:db,!! ,oPo_,I�¢,��Y� , T -I I„ P„d.,.x:�,<<d�:!,w a w¢cY P}tntGdJ taM»?�Y-e.+ a » o zxo Ctea!<d OY L'cn'.1`�:in.l! At-;c::;..^.:nt C.rsnmvM Exhibit B SANTA BARBARA EY j—j V A I L (605)963-6890 FAX (805)963 8102 (970)949 0257 FAX(970)949-1080 t,n:.,�� AND ASSOCIATES, INC_ ARCNiTGCTURF - P1,ANNING- INTF,R10RS February 9, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon PO Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 RE: Roof Forms at the Gore Range Natural Science School Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission and staff: At our meeting with staff about our final design submittal, they brought to our attention a concern they had about the roof forms and specifically the ridge of the MDC building at the Gore Range Natural Science School. Staff felt that the commission would be uncomfortable with the unbroken ridge of the MDC building. We take the concern about the roof ridge very seriously, yet we believe whole heartedly that the design as submitted meets the intent of the design guidelines. It does because the design consists of multiple buildings to break up potential larger forms rather than creating one larger building. We reviewed the Commercial and Industrial Design Review Guidelines and believe our project meets these guidelines. We could not find any guideline that specifically mentions unbroken roof lines. Items 8 and 9 under the Roofs section of the guidelines address massing and articulation, but do not specifically mention restrictions on ridgelines. We believe, when seen in context as a single project, there is no question our roofs are varied and articulated and that they are proportional to the height and scale of the building elevations. The roof articulation and forms were designed to minimize impact on neighboring properties (in our case to nestle them into the natural landscape) and we have used forms like the living roof canopy and balconies to add visual interest. Unlike the town center where major articulation serves to break very large buildings into more human scaled elements and where the environment is rich with buildings and other man made elements, our primary focus is to create simple quiet forms that complement and do not overpower the natural surroundings. It is the natural surroundings that form the basis of the teaching programs and are therefore the focus of the campus. The building forms themselves are meant to recall the simple agrarian forms present in the farms and homesteads that were in the valley and on this site at one time. Heavily dormered or artificially articulated single roof forms would not relate to this context. We understand staff's concern that this may be a concern of yours and so wanted to respond. Hopefully, upon further review of the guidelines you will agree that this project not only complies, but is an excellent example of the intention of the guidelines. If it helps, we think perhaps the concern about unbroken ridges comes from the Riverfront Design Guidelines, which were specific to that project. Sincerely, Dave Kaselak, AIA Principal Cc: Markian Feduschak GRNSS file Exhibit C To: Chris Williams, P.E., J&K, Inc. From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD Date: 2/25/2010 Re: Buck Creek P.U.D., Water & Sewer, Avon I received the submittal packet dated 2-17-2010 for the above referenced project. I've reviewed the drawings and have the following comments: - The road design appears to meet Town of Avon requirements and grades do not exceed our maximum of 10%. The design and road surface meet fire department requirements. The auto turn analysis indicates sufficient access and clearance based on the specifications of the District's pumpers. - The proposed water system and hydrant placement meet fire department requirements. I understand hydrant placement on sheet C.1.2 is based on anticipated development of Lot 2. - Based on square footage and occupancy use, one or more structures may require a fire sprinkler system. Please contact me at 970-977-0097 if there are any other questions. Exhibit D B. Gore Range Natural Science School Sketch Design Property Location: Lot 3, Wildwood Resort Subdivision / Buck Creek Road Applicant: Brian Sipes, Zehren & Associates /Owner: The Gore Range Natural Science School Description: Sketch Design review for several Gore Range Science School (GRNSS) buildings on lot 3 of the Buck Creek PUD. Discussion: Sherry Dorward presented the site design aspects of the proposal. Dave Kaselak presented the architectural aspects of the proposal. Dave presented alternative sketches for the Meadow Learning Center. Markian Feduschak, representing the owner, discussed the potential need for phasing. He stated that the MDC and FSBC will be the first two buildings built. The next phase would be the GFR and the MLC Commissioner Struve questioned the parking requirements and how that will be affected by the potential phasing. Sherry Dorward stated that it would not since elementary education is based on the number of teachers. Commissioner Anderson questioned the ability to have a growing green roof as compared to other green roofs in town. Sherry Dorward responded that proper techniques will be taken to ensure growth. Commissioner Struve asked about potential wind mills. Commissioner Green asked about the drawings and specific lines. He stated that this will be an asset to the community and the design is great. He liked the change to the graduate fellows residence. Commissioner Struve would rather see an impervious surface for the roadway than a paved one. He stated that he would like to see it done early. Commissioner Roubos questioned the roof lines and how they were long and straight. Dave questioned the use of the solar panels to break up the roof plan. Commissioner Roubos commented that the ridge was the issue and she would not be in favor of using the solar panels to break up ridge. Commissioner Prince had no issues with the design. Commissioner Anderson agreed with the roof line comment and had no other issues with the proposed design. Commissioner Goulding also agreed with the roof line comments. He also had concerns about the amount of exposed glass and the amount of light pollution. He also questioned the phasing and the construction staging. He wanted to know what reveg would be in place if there was phasing in place. Commissioner Green addressed the roof issue. He stated on small buildings roofs could have a linear roof. Action: No formal application is necessary. VII. ZONING (PUBLIC HEARING) A. ZaccaZa Special Review Use-- CONTINUED Property Location: Lot 2, Filing 1, Village at Avon Applicant: Cody Kennedy / Owner: Traer Creek —1-2 LLC Description: The proposal is to permit outdoor amplified sound for live music in the evenings from 11:30 am until 10pm nightly. Discussion: Jared Barnes highlighted Staff's Report. Staff Report - Final Design Plan March 2, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report Date Legal Description Zoning Address Prepared By Summary of Request February 26, 2010 Lot 9, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Planned Unit Development (PUD) – 8 Units 1015 Wildwood Road Jared Barnes, Planner I:—\-A� Jeff Manley of Martin Manley Architects (the Applicant) representing Wildavon Enterprises LLC (the Owner) of Lot 9 Block 5 Wildridge Subdivision (the Property), has submitted a Final Design application and a draft Subdivision for three (3) single-family homes with shared driveway access off Wildwood Road (the Application). The application is proposing a phased development plan comprised of at least two phases, with Phase 1 including the three (3) single-family units proposed with this application and all required improvements as depicted on the concurrent Draft Plat (Attachment F). A common driveway provides access to each unit and an emergency vehicle turnaround. Units 1 and 2 measure approximately 2,000 square feet each, and Unit 3 measures approximately 2,200 square feet. These are gross residential floor areas that do not include garage space. The Draft Subdivision is included in this application for informational purposes. Staff is recommending approval of the Final Design application subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise all plan sets to adequately address the conditions listed in Attachment B, Engineering Comments dated 2/25/10, prior to building permit submittal; and 2. Revise the site plan to call out signage to restrict parking in the hammerhead turnaround that is provided for emergency access. Process At its November 17`", 2009 meeting, the Commission reviewed a Sketch Design for the Application. This Sketch Plan proposed eight (8) single-family residences built in two (2) phases. The Commission made the following comments concerning the proposed design: • the structures' lack of architectural interest, • the desire to see more visual differentiation among the three structures, and • The importance of having the project blend with the existing terrain and landscape. At their February 2ntl, 2009 meeting, the Commission reviewed a Final Design application. The Commission made comments related to the following items: • a greater separation between units is needed, so as to avoid having to provide fire rated walls and windows between buildings 1 and 2 and 2 and 3. • the location outdoor lighting must be identified on the plans and not be excessive; and • small clustered single-family homes is a good concept. The current application is for Final Design approval for three single family condominium units in Phase I only. A Draft Subdivision for Phase I has also been submitted. The necessity for the Draft Subdivision is due to the Project's inability to meet the zoning and subdivision requirements for single-family homes on separate lots, including lot size, street frontage, setbacks, easements, and street standards. Accordingly, the homes are being subdivided as condominium units surrounded by common element open space, and not as individual lots. Property Description The Property is 1.539 acres with frontage on W. Wildwood Road on both the eastern and western property lines. The Property slopes uphill from west to east with the steepest portions of the lot adjacent to both property lines and public ROWs. In addition to typical setbacks and easements, development is restricted by a roadway cut and fill slope easement that runs parallel to the property lines on the east and west sides of Lot 9, Block 5, Wildridge. The surrounding uses are all multi -family structures, with the exception of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) property to the east of the property along W. Wildwood Road. Policy Analysis The Comprehensive Plan includes two planning principals for District 24: Wildridge Residential District which are relevant to this application: a. Special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings; and b. Site buildings of varying size along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect views, be compatible with existing surrounding development, and break up building bulk, The modifications proposed by the applicant since the last meeting satisfies the intent of these sections of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the applicant has responded to the concerns of the Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission by further separating the proposed residences for solar access and views. The applicant has also provided more architectural consistency through the use of building materials, which helps create a more compatible design within the subdivision. Planning Analysis Allowed use: The proposed single-family residential use is permitted as a use by -right according to a Planning and Zoning Commission interpretation that building type was not specified in the PUD or on the final plat. Density: The Property is zoned for a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units. Lot Coverage and Site Design: The applicant has revised the site plan since the last review. The major modifications are related to building separation. The applicant has modified the design to separate the proposed residences by ten feet (10') at the closest roof overhang and thirteen feet (13') at the closest wall points. Staff does feel that the modifications proposed do meet the intent of the site design guidelines. Maximum site coverage allowed under the Wildridge PUD is fifty percent (50%). The project is proposing seven percent (7%) building lot coverage and twenty-two percent (22%) imperious surface coverage (i.e., driveways and buildings). Setbacks and Easements: The required setbacks are: twenty-five foot (25') front yard setback measured off of W. Wildwood Road on both the east and west sides of the Property and a ten foot (10') side yard building setback on both the north and south sides of the Property. As stated earlier, the Applicant is proposing to subdivide the Property in a patio home subdivision (similar to a condominium plat). This type of subdivision would allow the proposed development to avoid subdivision standards for single-family lots including a 7,500 square feet minimum lot size twenty-five feet (25') of street frontage for each Lot, building setbacks and easement (25' front yard and 10' side and rear yards and 7.5' respectively), and minimum street standards for the proposed access road (50' Right -of -Way width). This Property is encumbered by three (3) types of easements. A Utility and Drainage Easement borders both the north and south property lines, and Slope Maintenance, Drainage, and Snow Storage Easement borders the east and west property lines. A roadway cut and fill slope easement runs parallel to the property line, but varies in depth from north to south across the Property. The easement is for the Town's benefit for the purpose of maintaining Wildwood Road. The buildings comply with all standard lot setbacks and the applicant proposed to keep a majority of the development activity out of the easements. Building Height: The proposed building heights of the three residences are: Unit 1: twenty-six and one-half feet (26.5'), Unit 2: twenty-six feet (26'), and Unit 3: thirty-three feet (33'). The maximum building height permitted is thirty-five feet (35'). Parking: Based on their size, each residential unit requires two (2) on-site parking spaces. The Applicant has proposed three (3) parking spaces for each unit; two (2) garage spaces and one (1) driveway space. The proposed project is considered a multi -family development due to the number of units accessed off of a single driveway and is therefore required to have a minimum of two (2) additional guest parking spaces located on the Property. A wider section of the driveway has been provided to accommodate these two guest parking spaces. Staff does have concerns about the lack of additional parking for guests and the likely use of the hammerhead for additional guest parking. Accordingly, signage will be required prohibiting parking in this area. Outdoor Lighting: There are two (2) types of exterior light fixture being proposed in compliance with the Town's Guidelines. One proposed fixture is a full cut-off wall sconce that utilizes a forty (40) watt bulb, while the other is a recessed can. Cut sheets for both light fixtures are provided in Attachment C. Five (5) fixtures have been specified for both Units 1 and 2, while Unit 3 contains six (6) fixtures. All of the proposed fixtures are located adjacent to doors or garages. Engineering Analysis Please refer to Attachment B for the Engineering comments and necessary revisions. To summarize, some of items outlined by the Engineering department require revisions of conflicting information on separate sheets. For example, Sheet 4.0 shows an electric transformer in the same location as planting and snow storage as exhibited on other plan sheets. This will need to be reconciled prior to the issuance of a building permit. Also required prior to building permit issuance is an approval from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) for the location of water and sewer lines. Furthermore, Staff does have concerns about some of the boulder walls that exceed the minimum 0.25:1 batter that is prescribed in the Design Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed batter is not constructible; therefore Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission require the applicant to either revise their drawings to ensure a minimum of 0.25:1 batter or use an alternative wall material, such as MSE, to allow for a 0.1:1 batter. This issue has the potential to alter the site design and if that occurs, the applicant will be required to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a revision. The proposed grading and drainage for Phase 1 does meet the Town's minimum standards. As stated in Attachment B, Staff does need some clarification on the proposed site plan that pertains to drainage around the homes and retaining walls. The driveway grade is four percent (4%) for the first twenty feet (20') off Wildwood Road and range between three percent (3%) and eight percent (8%) for the remainder of the access. The current proposed driveway is sufficient for fire access and turnaround during both phases of the proposed construction. The roadway has been designed through Phase 11 and meets all applicable standards. Design Review 1. General conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines. Building Design: Stucco is the primary building material for all three (3) units. The proposed stucco colors are: "French Vanilla" (STO 10609), "San Juan" (STO 2088), and "Suede' (STO 01006). Wood siding has also been added to all three (3) homes with a Porter Stains "Dark Oak" (#725) color. Other building materials include wood fascia trim, timber belly bands, asphalt shingles, wood decking, and aluminum clad windows and doors. A color/material board will be available for review at the meeting. Landscaping: Number of Plantings and Design Character.- The Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.1) includes: eight (8) evergreen trees between eight feet (8') and ten feet (10') tall, thirty (30) deciduous trees with a three inch (3") caliper, twenty-three (23) evergreen shrubs and thirty-six (36) native deciduous shrubs dispersed throughout the site. In addition to the plantings, native groundcover is being proposed, as a reseeding method. The design uses drought tolerant plant materials that are consistent with plantings throughout the Wildridge Subdivision. These plantings have been located around proposed structures and in front the retaining walls to provide screening. irrigation/Watering: The Landscape Plan indicates that a permanent automatic irrigation system (with rain sensor) will be installed. Approximately twelve percent (12%) of the landscaped area is to be irrigated. The irrigated area is in compliance with the Guidelines, which permit up to twenty percent (20%) irrigated area. 2. 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 modifications to the site design minimize site disturbance as much as possible given the proposed design. The location of the proposed structures minimizes benching as they are stepped up the grades along the driveway. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed to allow the grade to be higher in the rear of the proposed structures, essentially placing a level partially underground to give the proposed designs a single story appearance from the east. 3. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. The proposed design has been modified to separate the proposed structures and provide a greater use of building materials. Although the design is not a multi -family as is built in this neighborhood, Staff has determined that the overall design and improvements are not drastically different from adjacent properties and should appear compatible. 4. No improvement should be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. The proposed design should not impact monetary or aesthetic values. 5. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. As stated throughout this report the proposed design does comply with or conform to the goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. Recommendation Staff recommends APPROVAL of this Final Design application for Lot 9, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, subject to the criteria and corresponding findings listed in this report. Recommended Motion "I move to approve this Final Design application for construction on Lot 9, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1. Revise all plan sets to adequately address the conditions listed in Attachment B, Engineering Comments dated 2/25/10, prior to building permit submittal; and 2. Revise the site plan to call out signage to restrict parking in the hammerhead turnaround that is provided for emergency access. and subject to the FINDING that the design is in conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 (AMC) and the Town of Avon Design Review Guidelines." Exhibits A: Vicinity Map B: Engineering Comments dated 1/27/10 C: Approved Minutes from the 2/2/10 Meeting C: Light Fixture Cut Sheet D: Revised Landscape Table E: Photographs of the Lot and Surrounding Development F: Reduced Plan Sets Vicinity Map - Lot 9, Block 5, Wldridge Subdivision --� Residential Streets Q �aF v.aSG�'+=�6y:�uE_mmurE.-f Oi�.ab�,nart paF��t: r.Crt V5�`Cfi!xB !man Property Boundaries b,.f�,p_�,..a, o a5 aQ Exhibit B HEART of the \ALLEY MEMORANDUM To: Matt Gernert; Jared Barnes From: Shane Pegram; Jeffrey Schneider Cc: Justin Hildreth; Sally Vecchio Date: February 25, 2010 Re: Wildstar Residences (1015 Wildwood Road) Comments Below please find Engineering Department comments on the above -referenced development submittal. Design Review Comments I . In some locations on the Plans, a proposed batter of 0.1:1 is shown for 6 -foot maximum height retaining walls. With the round boulders shown on the building elevations, the proposed batter is not constructible. In addition, Town of Avon Design Guidelines require a minimum of one -foot layback for a four -foot wall, or 0.25:1 batter. Additional horizontal space may be required on the site plan, or another engineered wall solution should be implemented. 2. Porous pavers should be excluded from all pervious/impervious surface calculations on the cover sheet. 3. The Utility Plan shows a water line with four feet of clearance to face of retaining wall along access drive. Revise so that the water lines have seven feet of minimum clearance for frost protection. 4. The proposed sewer line is shown within ten feet of the Building 1 foundation. The line should be relocated for a minimum of ten feet of horizontal clearance. Ten feet is typical clearance between other major utilities and structures and will allow for future maintenance and repair of the line. 5. Numerous plans conflict with sheet 4.0, specifically at approximately 3+20 R offset on the access drive. All sheets except 4.0 show a snow storage area and two trees to accommodate fire hydrant access, yet sheet 4.0 shows an electric transformer in this area. 6. Retaining wall call -outs state that the maximum boulder wall height is six feet, yet top and bottom of wall elevations exceed six feet in two locations north of building 4 and south of building 2. 7. Sheet C2.0 calls out a footpath to the existing fire hydrant located on the property to the south. Please provide a detail of the path including dimensions, materials, and maintenance, and also reconcile the discrepancy between the path and proposed landscaping/snow storage/transformer. 8. Sheets 2.0 through 3.1 call out a `grass lined drainage swale above buildings 1, 2, and 3, but it is not shown on the plans. 9. A legend would be helpful to call out various line types, for example, the `striped' line immediately south of the upper drive (curb and gutter?). 10. Grading plans show a grouted rip rap channel conveying drainage over the retaining walls and into a 18" HDPE culvert, yet no drainage structure (inlet or catch basin) is called out. C:\Documents and Settings\jbarnes\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\01-1<2\WildstarEng Comments rev 2-23- 10.doc Future Building Permit Comments: 1. The impervious area on the revised submittal exceeds 25,000 square feet, whereas the prior approved plans were beneath the 25,000 square foot threshold. Therefore, a drainage plan is required to be submitted and approved by the Town Engineer prior to building permit application. Drainage report requirements were sent under separate cover on February 19, 2010. 2. The proposed lot line for Building 1 encompasses small areas of `common' retaining walls north and east of the building. The maintenance and ownership of these portions of walls must be determined in future plats or declarations and covenants. 3. All graded slopes 3:1 or greater will require installation of erosion matting after revegetation. 4. All retaining walls over four feet in height require submittal and approval of engineered structural plans stamped by a licensed professional engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Walls must be designed to accommodate Phase 1 and Phase 2 anticipated drainage and loading, in particular, the walls to the west of Unit 1. Those walls must be designed to accommodate vehicular loading from the Phase 2 driveway as well as the drainage required from a large snow storage area atop the walls. 5. The revised Utility Plan shows the water and sewer lines in a `main extension' configuration rather than individual service lines. Approval of water and sewer services or main lateral extensions (if applicable) must be received from Eagle River Water and Sanitation District prior to building permit issuance. Please add the horizontal and vertical locations of all proposed utilities to the driveway plan and profile to ensure proper clearances prior to building permit. 6. Additional erosion and sediment control measures may be required during construction at the discretion of the Town of Avon Building Department if found to be inadequate. 7. Provide a detail and riprap sizing calculations for the proposed drainage structure on the retaining walls. Note that it should prevent erosion despite rapid snowmelt from the snow storage areas on the site. 8. A copy of the proposed Declarations and Covenants for the property must be reviewed and approved prior to Final Plat approval. 9. Approval and issuance of a building permit for Phase l does not constitute approval of Phase 2. A formal submittal will be required at that time. C:\Documents and Settings\jbarnes\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\WildstarEng Comments rev 2-23- 10.doc Exhibit C Minor Project review of two (2) new stucco colors proposed to re ffc-e the D stucco colors on this duplex structure. An on-site mockup is ailable for mor samples will also be available for review at the meeting. Discussion: The awl' ant's representative, Rick Irving from Forenz ontracting, presented the material/color boar r the Commission's review and explai that the "peachy looking existing colors were the alre approved colors. He then pre nted the revised colors to the Commission for review, highligh that the lighter color w d remain as the base color and the darker color would replace the "p I color. Commissioner Prince had difficulty with fft applic entire complex would look like with this color nge Prince's concerns and stressed that the com ti + hand. A further discussion ensued regar " g the tw`� each other. It was determined that n enough int exactly where the two colors were to applied. The act like one project and they must compatible. >n of the colors and exactly what the . Commissioner Goulding echoed Mr. of the two structures was the issue at roperties and how they interact with Drib ion was presented to determine Com � ion felt that the two buildings Commissioner Lane felt th an on-site visit would benefit the view. 'The other Commissioners were in eral agreed with the need to review on- for contextual purposes. Action: Com ' sioner Anderson moved to table the application in order to view n -site visit at th xt possible meeting. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion, and ut further discussion the vote carried with a 5-1 vote. VII. Wildstar Final Design Review Property Location: Lot 9, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Applicant. Jeffrey Manley, Martin Manley Architects/ Owner: Wildavon Enterprises, LLC Description: Review of a Final Design application for three (3) single-family homes with shared driveway access off Wildwood Road. At the Commission's July 7'h, 2009 meeting the applicant received Final Design approval for two (2) four-plex structures and a detached garage; however, after submitting for a building permit, the owner decided to explore alternative development opportunities and configurations. Discussion: Jared Barnes presented Staffs report and started by going through the background of the property and previous design approvals. The Commission made the determination that the Wildridge zoning did not specify a building type; rather, a maximum unit designation for properties. This took place at a November 3` , 2009 Commission meeting. Jared Barnes then highlighted the rationale for the recommendation for denial and the inconsistencies between the preliminary plan for subdivision and the Town's standard regulations for single-family type subdivisions. Jared Barnes presented the general site characteristics and the development constraints with developing the property, including a Slope Maintenance Easement, overhead Utilities easement, typical building setbacks and easements bordering the property, the Water and Sanitation District property, and the sloping topography. The Comprehensive Plan policies pertinent to this property were highlighted. The Plan calls for varying buildings sizes along the street frontage, and general compatibility with neighborhood. Jared Barnes went through some of the conflicts with the Design Guidelines. He spoke to the site layout guidelines and stated that improvements shall consider active and passive solar use. He stated that the 3 proposed dwelling units do provide windows on the southern elevations, but as proposed the units do lack solar exposure that is expected with typical single-family home construction due to the close proximity of the structures. The site access was highlighted, and one single point of access from Wildwood road is provided in the appropriate location. Staff's concern with the lack of parking was pointed out, and the need for 'no parking' signage in the fire truck turnaround hammerhead area would be required if the plan is approved. Jared Barnes continued by stating that the future phase two buildout drainage and snow storage must be demonstrated at this time in order to ensure a workable development plan. Additionally, snow storage and the possibility of pushing snow onto the Lot 10 (south) property needs to be addressed. Jared Barnes went through additional conflicts with the Design Guidelines. The Guidelines require a minimum of two building materials for each building elevation in a substantial manner. In order to meet this concern with materials that was also brought up at sketch review, this must be addressed prior to final design approval Additional conflicts with the Guidelines were presented, including the requirement that no single wall plane can be more than 70% of any one elevation. The proposed designs for lot 1 and lot 3 do not comply. Lot one has approximately 74% and lot 3 approximately 85%. These East elevations must be revised to ensure compliance. The retaining wall design lacks an abundance of lansdscaping between and in front of the retaining walls, as required by the Design Guidelines. Jared Barnes stated that this design plan creates more site disturbance as experienced with the 4plex option. Three single-family homes exhibit more disturbance as would be experienced at build out. The entire "developable" area is either disturbed during construction or includes impervious surfaces as proposed. Furthermore, there is a limited amount of space for revegetation and open landscaped area at full build out. Greater variety of building materials and distance between buildings as proposed. Foxx4 was a PUD that down -zoned to a two duplex scenario. Staff's rationale for the recommendation for denial was described as it relates to the review criteria. Jared Barnes directed the Commission to the findings section of the report. He explained that any future submittal should demonstrate compliance with engineering standards at full build out. The primary issues with the development as shown on the drawings were: site planning as it relates to proximity of structures, drainage, snow storage, grading, and access, and also the architectural issues rose in staff's report. Commissioner Roubos questioned the issues with the driveway as we had discussed issues With the driveway at sketch design review. Jared Barnes highlighted the issues with the width being less than 20' for the entirety of the length, snow storage standards, and the possible impacts with the site planning if the driveway widening will impact Phase two. Commissioner Struve questioned when a driveway is required to be 20 feet in width. The Town Engineer, Justin Hildreth, explained that any project 3 units or more would need to meet this requirement. Commissioner Goulding questioned the type of legal subdivision and asked if there are any other projects in the Town with the same lot configuration for a subdivision (i.e. condominium for single-family). Jared Barnes highlighted other similar types of projects in terms of lot configuration, but none of which utilized this type of subdivision measure. Commissioner Goulding used the word "patio home" subdivision and it was clarified that this type of subdivision was, in essence, a condominium subdivision and not defined in the code. Commissioner Goulding asked staff how the Building code and Fire code requirements impacted this development. Jared Barnes responded that the units would need to be fire - rated, including the windows, due to their close proximity. Dominic Mauriello went through the background of the project, including the 4-plex approval, the Planning Commission determination made on Nov 3`d, and the November 17th Planning and Zoning review of a sketch plan. Dominic Mauriello presented the 4plex scenario where there was even more pavement in front of the structures. The fourplex does not necessarily have direct solar access on any of the units, only 3 sides of two of the units and two sides of the middle two units have direct access. The two fourplex approval was highlighted in detail with the unit sizes and the driveway area, including the building footprint areas. The bulk and 2-3 story mass was shown on building elevations for the fourplex scenario. There was also a driveway structure located near the hammerhead portion of the driveway. The hypothetical nature of the phase two improvements were discussed, and the fire concerns that Carol Moulson had had with the final units were minimized due to the fact that a fire truck does not necessarily need to access the phase two homes by truck. Solar access and distinction being drawn that there is less solar access, when in fact there is room between buildings with single-family structures. Commissioner Roubos stated that the snow and ice issues were more of the issue than the simple sun access into each of the units. Dominic Mauriello went through the build out analysis compared with existing fourplex scenario showing the driveway area, footprint area, and walls of building with light and air demonstrated. He expanded on the unit type and the compatibility of single-family homes with multi -family residences in the area. Other examples of single-family development near multi -family properties in the subdivision were presented, including the 6 unit project near Old Trail Road. Other examples, including the Victorians were shown in the Power Point presentation. Jeff Manley presented the final building elevations and the massing of the individual structures. He demonstrated the difference in height and differentiation between the units. Commissioner Roubos questioned the length of the roofline of Unit 2. Jeff Manley responded that the length of this ridge is approximately 27'. Mike Dantas approached the podium to discuss his recollections from previous meeting. He felt that staff has hammered the applicant. He continued to discuss the staff comments with respect to the abundance of stucco siding. Mike Dantas felt that the durability of stucco is superior and he demonstrated why they are proposing to utilize super insulated roof for ice damning, durability, etc. He felt that if it comes down to adding wood siding that there can be wood siding added but that doesn't seem to be the issue. Mike Dantas also talked about the building separation issue. Commissioner Lane wanted to know what the applicant wanted, if it was approval for all three structures, and asked if they would be three separate approvals. Dominic Mauriello asked that each structure be approved individually, or they could take one or two of the structures. Phase one access was being requested for approval with at least one of the structures. Commissioner Goulding questioned the benching and the difference between staff and the applicants interpretation of this comment. Commissioner Anderson felt that its a great project and there is public benefit inherent with the design. He thought that creating jobs and affordable housing are benefits to the project. Additionally, this adds value to the project. The density fits in with the surrounding neighborhood as the applicant pointed out. Commissioner Anderson discussed that In Wildridge, there is a lot of density compatible with this project, and he reviewed a similar project in Edwards that project had similar 6' separation between overhangs and 10' between buildings. After reviewing that project he was more comfortable with this design, partially given the elevation difference between eaves with this design; however, additional separation would benefit the design if possible. He also felt that the orientation of buildings at 45 degrees did not work to fit into the hillside, however this does maximize the views. Commissioner Lane thinks that the site design works as presented, especially because this is not a flat lot and there is grade separation to help the massing. He agrees with the driveway comments for phase two that this needs to be demonstrated at this time. In terms of building design, Commissioner Lane felt that there is enough differentiation, but prefers some kind of differentiation in materials be pursued. Commissioner Prince stated that the applicant has demonstrated that the market is looking for this type of product. In may be the fact that thirty years ago a multi -family may have been the building preference type, but that development of single -families clearly is the need in the community. Solar access is clearly better in the case of three single -families, as with fourplexes. This is demonstrated with thirty-two window sides as opposed to twenty. Overall, this design lends to abetter support for increasing values in the neighborhood. In terms of site access the he felt that the designer did a good job, and it is yet to be seen for Phase two. Commissioner Prince's overall impression is that he likes it. Commissioner Roubos felt that Staff did a good job in the report. She feels that the lack of solar exposure between the homes could be an issue but as they are directly south facing it may not be as much of an issue. Commissioner Roubos explained to the applicant that it would behoove them to design the entire site plan, and that the design should be complete at this time in order to make sure it works. She thinks that the buildings are still almost identical. Commissioner Roubos pointed to the slide with fourplex above the three single -families and she felt that that slide demonstrates that additional variation is warranted to break up the buildings. The long unbroken rooflines make Commissioner Roubos weary, especially on the first building. Commissioner Struve agreed that the 14' driveway and the snow storage runoff needs to be addressed. On three asking approval there is a more acceptable situation than with four plexes. Commissioner Struve stressed that the buildings should be 10' apart as opposed to 6 or 7' apart. He felt that the general comment of the buildings looking too similar it just fine. Commissioner Struve pointed out that Western Sage is a good example of similar structures work well with each other. All stucco is acceptable and there is no lack of interest. He feels that the fact that party walls are a perception issue and a people issue, and not a functional issue. Commissioner Struve expressed his liking of the project and that this is the highest and best use of the property. Commisisoner Goulding wanted to clarify that at the November 3`tl meeting it was made clear that the 8 dwelling units maximum density allowance only expressed an 8 unit density and not a type of structure. This is a different type of subdivision and a new product for the Town. The question now is how up to 8 units can be effectively sited on the property. Commissioner Goulding felt that it was a thorough analysis provided by Staff. He thinks that this is a new and different project, and its only fair that this be reviewed in additional detail. Unfortunately, the public benefits are not a review criteria since this is not a PUD amendment. Chairman Goulding had questions related to the applicants comparison of driveways that went down from 17,600 to 14,000 square feet and agrees that this may get impacted if the driveway gets larger. Unfortunately, the building footprint and roof area goes the other way. He explained that there is a massive area of asphalt shingles. The massing of four buildings actually grew, and on the second tier it expanded as well. Commissioner Goulding asked if the applicant could provide that type of information to better understand how the roof area is impacted with the shift to separate structures. Commissioner Goulding had concerns over the phasing and felt that there is limited control over phase two. If phase two never happened, the impact of three single-family homes sitting on one large lot, the appearance of 3 single -families on large lots may not be compatible. Staff's comments on phase two are the applicant's responsibility, and would rather see the entire development to fully understand the build out. Commissioner Goulding questioned if the light fixtures were called out clearly on the plans. The architect stated that there were 6 per building. He continued by reiterating that the driveway width is an issue that needs to be resolved prior to approval. Mike Dantas requested further clarification on what the lighting issue was. . Commissioner Goulding requested further information on the differentiation of colors. Jeff Manley presented the color board and explained how the main stucco color would be the same and the main difference in color for buildings 1 and 3 and building 2 is only for the upper levels. Commissioner Goulding stated that the Guidelines require two materials. He is concerned with the level of fire code compliance and what would happen if the fire code required a different building treatment for fire ratings. Mike Dantas stated that you can use wood on upper levels if you put drywall on the inside to comply. Commissioner Goulding felt that the windows might change, glazing, and this might come back in the future as an issue due to the proximity of the structures. He asked if the East elevations on buildings 1 and 3 could meet enough variation. The amount of structure (i.e. retaining walls) is increased with this proposal as compared to a multifamily structure that might retain the hillside itself. To summarize, Commissioner Goulding explained that the concept is appropriate and the footprints have grown and the end appearance is the primary concern. Jeff Manley explained that the difference is that the height is reduced with this proposal with adding ground level space and a bedroom. Dominic Mauriello readdressed the desire of the applicants tonight for least one structure if not approval of both buildings 1 and 3. Matt Gannett addressed the Commission and explained what was possibly at stake with approving any or all of the phase I construction. Most of if the other SF scenarios are PUD amendments in which at least 1 dwelling unit is lost. It is predicated upon approval of a maximum of 8 units. Sally Vechio responded to the request for a preliminary subdivision. Due to the uniqueness of the project, the applicant brought a subdivision showing individual lots that would not meet the Town's requirements. The applicant is advised that a common interest community would be required and it was not out of staff's legal realm to require additional information to make sure that the entire project functions. Commissioner Roubos agreed that the entire development plan needs to be brought forth before a potential approval. Commissioner Goulding again went through 'why are we here tonight' and what brought us here. He again explained that the direction was appropriate, but the execution was not quite there yet. Action: Commissioner Roubos moved to table to the next meeting. The motion failed with no second. Commissioner Prince wanted to address phasing, and if they build 3 and nothing else wanted to know what happens. He did not feel that only 3 would negatively impact the neighborhood. Mike Dantas felt that there was a philosophical issue with what staff wants to see, and wanted to get down to the details. Mike Dantas wanted to know what we need to see if 8 units is a go. Commissioner Goulding felt that Staff might still not agree with the plan as it relates to the guidelines, but the commission may have a different interpretation of these same guidelines as they are applied to this design. Commissioner Anderson asked how staff still wanted to see the plat changed. Jared Barnes responded that if the final location of the structures is agreed upon then yes, the subdivision would need to accurately reflect the new location. New Motion: Commissioner Struve moved to table. There was a second to the motion by Commissioner Lane. The motion was discussed and what needed to be included on a revised submittal. Commissioner Struve stated that the items to be considered are what Commissioner Goulding outlined. The items to be considered include the materials, separation, and articulation. The East side of buildings 1 and 3 needed to be changed. Commissioner Anderson added that the future phase two driveway width must be demonstrated including snow storage and drainage. Commissioner Struve did not want to accept the need to change the east side of the buildings because the east side of building 1 is not seen. Mr. Struve did accept that portion of the motion. Commissioner Anderson added that the material differentiation needs to be addressed, and he added that plat be broken up into 8 different lots as directed by Staff. Commissioner Anderson asked if there should be a minimum number put on the separation between the buildings. Commissioner Struve responded that 10 feet seemed appropriate. There was no further discussion on the motion. A vote was called and the motion carried 6-0 VIII. Other Business • Update on Unified Land Use Code — Presented during Work Session. • P&Z discussion on P&Z Questionnaire IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:55pm Approved on February 1 W. Todd Goulding Chairperson Phil Struve Secretary MARTIN 0 MANLEY ARCHITECTS Date: 12-15-2009 Exhibit D Kichler 49059 Craftsman / Mission Single Light Down Lighting Dark Sky Option Outdoor Wall Sconce from the Ripley Collection Product Details for the Kichler 49059 Finish: Olde Bronze Dia./Width: 8.0 IN Body Height: 7.375 IN Single Light Outdoor Wall Sconce from the Ripley Collection Bringing clean lines to a rustic look, the Ripley collection of outdoor lighting features an Olde Bronze finish that warms the smooth cone shape of this 1 light outdoor sconce. Single light down lighting outdoor wall sconce • Rises 2.75 inches above the center of the wall opening Requires 1 40W (type R) or 1 60W (G type) bulb not included • Dark sky compliant with use of R14 40W bulb UL listed for wet locations MARTIN M A N L E Y ARCHITECTS Date: 02-24-2010 RE: recessed can lighting for Wildstar New Construction Shallow IC Airtight Housing 0 6" Deep Cone Baffle Trim Black Aluminum Baffle White Aluminum Trim (paint to match stain color) Maximum Wattage: Description New Construction Shallow IC Airtight Housing Specifications Product #: 11019 Dimensions: D: 6 3/8" L: 13 1/2" W: 10 3/4" H: 6 1/8" Listings: UL Listed for Damp Locations cUL Listed for Damp Locations Details • Airtight Construction: Meets airtight requirements for 2.0 CFM or less air leakage. • Safe- Thermally Protected/Listed for Damp Location: IC housing is approved for use in direct contact with insulation. • Housing Adjustment: Housing adjusts vertically for various ceiling thicknesses. • Joist Tab: Tab to locate on bottom ofjoist. • Notch for T -Bar Ceilings: No clips required. Secure bar hanger to T -Bars with wires or screws. • Snap -In Socket: Snap in socket locates lamp in optimum position. • Sealed Trim: One piece sealed trims. No light leaks. LANDSCAPE LEGEND SYMBOL NAME EXHIBIT TREES SIZE QUANTITY EVERGREENS 8 BS COLORADONBLUE SPRUCE 8 + TALL 4 ES ENGLEMAN SPRUCE PICEA ENGLEMANNI 10 TALL 2 P P PONDEROSA PINE PINUS PONDEROSA SCOPULORUM 8 TALL 2 DECIDUOUS TREES 30 QA QA- QUAKING ASPEN POPULUS TREMULOIDES 3 CAL. 25 M M ROCKY MOUNTAIN MAPLE ACER GLABRUM 3 CAL. 5 EVERGREEN SHRUBS 23 c CREEPING USUNIPER HORIZONTALIS) 5 GAL. 14 MH- MOUNTAIN MAHOGONY CERCOCARPOS INTRICATUS 5 GAL. 7 SG SAGEBRUSH (ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATE) 5 GAL. 2 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS 36 RB RABBITBRUSH CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUS 5 GAL. 15 SB SERVICEBERRY AMELANCHIER) 5 GAL. 6 P PURPLE LEAF SANDCHERRY (PRUNUS CISTENA) 5 GAL. 7 LL 1LILAC (SYRINGA VILLOSA) 5 GAL. 8 GROUNDCOVERS - SHOWN HATCHED GC BUFFALO GRASS GOLDEN CARPET STONECROP ORANGE SEDUM SNOW -IN -SUMMER ALPINE CURRANT CARPET BUGLE AREA = 1,700 S.F. PLANTING BEDS ARE TO RECEIVE 4" OF BARK MULCH ,IIIIIQ ,�II�I�I a0\� QA K? MM 6 " SHRUBS CJ SG MH RB SB PS LL "69 VISION STATEMENT EXERCISE A Vision Statement communicates a compelling vision of the future, is critical to implementing strategy, and answers the question "What will success look like in the effective implementation of the Avon Transportation Plan?" The following Vision Statements were developed based on the SWOT analysis completed by the Commission and the existing transportation goals and policies from the 2006 Comprehensive Plan and 2009 Transportation Plan. After reviewing the Transportation Vision Statements consider the following: How well do the Vision Statements capture the community's vision for the future? What, if anything, do you think is missing from the Vision Statements? What, if anything, do you think should not be a part of the Vision Statements? The Commission will discuss and revise the vision statements at the meeting. Transportation Vision Statements By the year 2035.... 1. Avon has a low -impact, environmentally friendly transportation system that provides safe, convenient travel options for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists to the ski area facilities, parking facilities, commercial centers, and throughout Avon and the region. 2. The Town's transportation system is fiscally sustainable, manages both demand and capacity, promotes areas of concentrated growth, employs the best technology, and joins roadway, pedestrian and bicycle facilities into a fully interconnected network. 3. Sufficient parking is available for visitors, businesses and residents without detracting from the community character of Avon. 4. Pedestrian and bike routes provide safe, non -vehicular connections between neighborhoods and activity and community centers. 5. The Town's transportation system promotes the region's economy and environmental quality, and operates in an attractive and safe setting --it is a system that serves everyone, including residents, visitors and businesses. 2006 AVON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AVON'S VISON "...To provide a high quality of life, today and in the future, for a diversity of people and interest; and to promote their ability to live, work, visit, and recreate in the community." WHAT WE VALUE An exceptional transportation and transit network. Avon will support a multi -modal transportation network that provides convenient, efficient, clean links throughout the town, to ski area base facilities, and the entire Eagle Valley region. TRANSPORTATION GOALS GA Create an integrated transit system that minimizes dependence on automobile travel within the Town by making it easier and more inviting to use transit, walk, ride, bicycles, and utilize other non -motorized vehicles. G.2 Ensure that the RR ROW corridor becomes an integral part to the Town's mobility system and no longer creates a barrier to circulation throughout the Town. G.3. Facilitate the development of a transit connection linking the Town with BC Village and BC Resort. GA Provide a safe and efficient vehicular transportation system. G.5 Encourage a "park once/shop many" environment. SWOT EXERCISE TOWN TRANSPORATION SYSTEM Strengths 1. E and W Town Center Plans — very strong policy documents 2. Comprehensive Plan 3. Free Parking 4. Town Center 5. Proximity to 1-70 6. Existing Transit Center 7. Existing density in Town Center 8. Currently have good Levels of Service on roads, transit and parking options Weaknesses 1. Bike trail connectivity 2. Way finding 3. Multi -modal connections to other communities and activity centers (i.e., Edwards, Eagle/Vail, Vail, etc.) 4. Proximity to 1-70 5. Parking and driving are inexpensive and easy (no congestion, surplus parking, etc) Threats 1. Unknown long range plans for Beaver Creek parking lots 2. 1-70 plans for improvements (widening, exit ramps, etc.) controlled by CDOT 3. Vail/Eagle County plans for expanding activity centers, destination shopping, etc. Opportunities 1. Existing bike/trail system 2. Unused railroad line running through town 3. Proximity to 1-70 4. Town center & Main Street redevelopment 5. Town controlled bus system Reduce dependency on auto travel (Goal) Make transit/pedestrian travel more convenient (Goal) Develop vision plan that creates 'gold standard' in pedestrian connectivity (Goal)