PZC Packet 050614May 6, 2014 PZC Meeting – Shutters 1
Staff Report – Minor Design & Development Plan
May 6, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Report date May 2, 2014
Project type Minor Design and Development
Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address 230 & 245 Chapel Place
Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, Planning Manager
Introduction
For review is an application to install faux shutters and window heads/sills on two buildings in the
Chapel Square property to be painted gray and red. The shutters are constructed with wood and
fastened to the walls with screws. The areas between windows, between heads and sills would also be
painted gray to match. The subject properties are: 1) Building A, located at 230 Chapel Place, home to
Nest Furniture on the ground floor, and 2) Building C, located at 245 Chapel Place, home to Wells Fargo
on the ground floor. The applicant and Owner, Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate, are also proposing to
paint the same pattern as the shutters onto exit doors of the buildings.
Staff authorized the Applicant to install one mockup on each building to aid the Commission’s review.
This item will was reviewed in the field with a site tour on April 24, 2014, and ultimately continued to
May 6 in order for the applicant to consider other color options in place of the red color. Attached to
this report are photo representations of the shutters installed as well as various photographs of the
buildings.
Review Criteria
The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for a decision on the Application:
§7.16.080(f), Development Plan
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as
specified in §7.04.030, Purposes;
(2) Evidence of substantial compliance with the §7.16.090, Design Review.
(3) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
(4) Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned
development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable;
(5) Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code,
including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning Map,
Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and
(6) That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not
limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services.
Staff response:
§7.16.090(f), Design Review
(1) The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or,
where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a
whole;
(2) The design meets the development and design standards established in this
Development Code; and
May 6, 2014 PZC Meeting – Shutters 2
(3) The design reflects the long range goals and design criteria from the Avon
Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents.
Staff Analysis
According to the Development Code, a Minor Development Plan is required when modifications to the
exterior of an existing building, including but not limited to windows, doors, minor architectural details, colors
and materials are proposed. This application proposes adding wood materials in the form of window
shutters, heads/sills, painted two different colors.
The Avon Development Code includes general review criteria as outlined above. Staff would urge PZC to
consider the Design Review Guidelines criteria (No. 1), that speaks to the character of the surrounding
community and character of Avon as a whole. While the use of Bavarian style shutters is not common in the
Town of Avon or this “neighborhood”, the scope of changes appears to be limited. It should be noted that
there are dark bronze colored shutters at some locations on the Ascent project on Highway 6 and 24. Not to
mention the majority of projects in Beaver Creek resort.
The application meets the design and development standards in the Development Code (Criteria No. 2). For
example, the Generally Applicable Design Standards (§7.28.090) require the use of high quality durable
materials that “reflect the Town’s sub alpine character such as native stone, wood siding...” that is finished
with “indigenous natural or earth tones such as brown, tan , grey, green, blue, or red in muted, flat colors.”
The shutters are finished with muted red and gray colors and appear to meet the intent of these design
standards.
Available Actions
1. Approval. If the Commission feels that the application meets the design and development
standards and applicable review criteria the criteria and finding(s) should be cited. If the
Commission feels that conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable
review criteria that is an option pursuant to the review procedures.
2.Denial. If the Commission does not find the application in conformance with the design and
development standards (or the applicable review criteria) cited in this report, specific findings
must be included in the motion and those shall be tied directly to the review criteria.
3. Continue. The Commission may continue this application if there is insufficient information
to make a decision.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the PZC approve the Minor Design and Development Plan application for shutters
and door treatments on Tract B2 and Lot 22AB, Chapel Square Subdivision, citing the following findings:
1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.080(f), Development Plan and
§7.16.090(f), Design Review, and was determined to be compliant with the review criteria as
outlined in Matt Pielsticker’s May 2, 2014 staff report.
Exhibits
A: Vignettes
B: Photographs of Properties
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
May 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – Wyndham LRV AEC 1
Staff Report ‐ Alternative Equivalent Compliance &
Color/Materials for Major Development Plan
May 6, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Report date May 1, 2014
Project type Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC)
Zoning Town Center (TC)
Address 75 Benchmark Road
Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, Planning Manager
Introduction
The Applicant, Dominic Mauriello of Mauriello Planning Group, representing the owner of the property,
75 Benchmark LLC, has submitted an Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC) application (“the
Application”) for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision (BMBC). The Application
proposes a color that exceeds the Town’s maximum Light Reflective Value (LRV) of sixty with a
proposed 79.42 LRV sample called “Navajo White”. Attached to this report are the application
materials, which include photographs of the color/material on‐site mockup.
Background
The Rezoning, Major Development Plan, and Alternative Equivalent Compliance applications
(collectively “the Application”) for the Wyndham Timeshare resort project were approved by the Town
Council on February 26, 2013. The Application was approved by Ordinance 13‐03; the Ordinance
contained the following condition regarding the final approval of materials and colors for the project:
“The applicant will provide a mock‐up of exterior materials which shall be reviewed by Avon PZC
with the right to appeal to the Town Council in accordance with the Avon Municipal Code
Procedures”.
The on‐site mockup was reviewed at the April 1, 2014 meeting. PZC continued the review of the mock‐
up due to the conflict with LRV standards in the Development Code in order for the applicant to submit
an AEC application.
Design Standards
For quick reference, the Generally Applicable and the Mixed‐Use and Non‐Residential design standards
related to building materials and colors from the Development Code are provided herein. The PZC
should consider these standards when reviewing the mock‐up.
Generally Applicable Standards
(3) Building Materials and Colors
(i) The use of high quality, durable building materials is required. Exterior walls shall be
finished with materials used in a manner sympathetic to the scale and architectural style of the
building.
(ii) Preferred materials reflect the Town’s sub alpine character such as native stone, wood
siding, masonry or timbers.
(iii) The following building materials and wall finishes are not permitted on the exterior of
any structure:
(A) asphalt siding,
May 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – Wyndham LRV AEC 2
(B) imitation brick,
(C) asbestos cement shingles or siding,
(D) imitation log siding, or
(E) plastic or vinyl siding.
(iv) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider newly developed materials in light
of subsections (i)‐(iii), above, and make a determination about appropriateness.
(v) Indigenous natural or earth tones such as brown, tan, grey, green, blue, or red in
muted, flat colors with an LRV (Light Reflective Value) of sixty (60) or less are required.
(vi) The following colors are prohibited: neon, day‐glow, fluorescent, reflective, and non‐
earth tones.
(vii) All flues, flashing, and other reflective materials shall be painted to match and/or
appropriately contrast with adjacent materials.
Mixed Use and Non‐Residential Standards
(i) Building Materials. The means and methods of construction of new buildings should
contribute to their durability, usefulness, and compatibility. In addition to the general
requirements of §7.28.090(c)(3), the following regulations shall apply to exterior walls on
mixed‐use and non‐residential structures.
(A) Durability of Materials. Materials should be used that have a long life and age well.
Materials at the ground floor should be composed and detailed in a manner that enriches
the pedestrian experience. Authentic materials are encouraged. Faux or fake materials are
prohibited. New materials, such as architectural composite panels, should not imitate other
materials, but should reflect their own identity.
(B) Masonry and stone veneer. Masonry and stone veneer walls should be detailed as masonry
bearing walls, especially at corners and windows and door openings.
(C) Synthetic materials. The use of synthetic materials is discouraged unless they can be shown
to display the ability to age in a manner similar to or superior to the natural materials they
replace.
(D) Trim and molding. Building walls should be trimmed in wood, stone, cast stone, precast
concrete, or concrete. Foam moldings are discouraged.
(E) Multiple materials. Two (2) or more wall materials may be combined on one (1) façade, but
should be located one above the other with lighter materials above more substantial
materials (e.g. wood above stucco or masonry, or stucco above masonry).
(F) Color. Materials and finishes should be composed to provide balanced designs that are
appropriate to each style and context. In general, large areas of bright colors should be
avoided, although strong accent colors can be successfully used.
Review Criteria
The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for recommendations on the Application:
§7.16.120(d), Alternative Equivalent Compliance
(1) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development
standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(2) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan
to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(3) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or
better than compliance with the subject standard; and
May 1, 2014 PZC Meeting – Wyndham LRV AEC 3
(4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would
occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this ordinance.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the Material and Colors and Alternative Equivalent Compliance application for the Wyndham
Vacation resort located at Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following
findings:
1. The Mock‐up and proposed material board were reviewed pursuant to §7.16.080(f),
Development Plan, §7.16.090(f), Design Review, and
2. The proposed mock‐up contains a stucco color – Navajo White – that exceeds the Light
Reflective Value (LRV) outlined in the Development Code with an LRV of 79.47.
3. The AEC application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.120(d), Alternative Equivalent Compliance,
and were determined to be compliant with the review criteria.
4. The proposed alternative provides consistency with the West Town Center District Investment
Plan design objectives by providing consistency and flexibility, while maintaining a unique
design.
5. The area of proposed Navajo White, approximately 15% of the exterior wall surface, achieves the
intent of Mixed‐Use Design Standards contained in the Development Code which discourage
“large areas of bright colors.”
Attachment
Application Materials
!!!
April 7, 2014
!
Matt Pielsticker, AICP
Planning Manager
Town of Avon Community Development Department
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
!
Re:
Submittal for an AEC for an exterior paint color to exceed the LRV of 60 for Wyndham Vacation
Resort
!
Dear Matt:
!
Mauriello Planning Group, on behalf of 75 Benchmark LLC, is submitting this application for an
Alternative Equivalence Compliance (AEC) to allow for an exterior paint color, Navajo White, with an
LRV of 79.47 (LRV rating of a paint chip on a flat surface) for Wyndham Vacation Resort. As you are
aware, on April 1, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to continue the On-Site Mockup
Review to allow us to submit for an AEC. The Town’s current requirements state the following:
!
Indigenous natural or earth tones such as brown, tan, grey, green, blue, or red in muted, flat colors with an
LRV (Light Reflective Value) of sixty (60) or less are required.
!
Below is a photo of the mock-up we are proposing. Based on the P&Z review on April 1, we understand
that all of the colors and materials are acceptable, with the exception of the stucco color, Navajo White,
which is the color we are requesting this AEC.
The preference for Navajo White is based on the following:
!
The lighter color helps to make the building feel less bulky at the top.
The lighter color gives the wood siding a warmer and more true-wood look. This is very important
to ensure we do not get orange color tones.
The lighter stucco will have dark wood accents where we have brackets and trim boards. This is a
very sophisticated look and is much more timeless in aesthetic than the more yellow or grey tones
that we would have to push to for the LVR compliance.
The stucco is used predominately in areas up high with roof shadows prevalent or in areas with
exterior decks casing shadow on the building.
This color and material is also used more heavily on the north elevation which will not receive as
much direct sunlight
The stucco is only a small portion of the building façade – it is up high and is an accent material and
not the base material for the building. The percentage of stucco for the structure is only
approximately 15% (of the total wall area of 51,133 sq. ft., only 7,880 sq. ft. is stucco.) The following
provides the approximate amount of stucco for each elevation:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Section 7.16.120 Alternative Equivalent Compliance provides the following criteria as
the basis for a decision on an application for alternative equivalent compliance:
!
(1)The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or
development standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
!
Applicant Response: While limiting the LRV of exterior materials to 60, the Avon Development
Code provides further guidance on the design of mixed use structures, stating:
!
Multiple Materials. Two or more wall materials may be combined on one facade, but should be
located one above the other with lighter materials above more substantial materials (e.g. wood above
stucco or masonry, or stucco above masonry).
!
With specific regard to color, the Development Code states:
!
Color. Materials and finishes should be composed to provide balanced designs that are appropriate
to each style and context. In general, large areas of bright colors should be avoided, although strong
accent colors can be successfully used.
!
It is important to note that LRV and “brightness” are not the same measure of color. “Brightness” is
a measure of intensity. In simple terms, “brightness” refers to how clear or how muted a color is.
LRV is the overall quantity of useable and visible light reflected by a surface in all directions and at all
wavelengths when illuminated by a light source. The intention of LRV is to measure the need for
artificial light (vs. natural light) to illuminate a room (mostly used for interior design). It is often used
in green-building as a method of reducing energy consumption for interior lighting. The LRV of the
same shade can be affected by the surface upon which it is applied. A glossy paint of any shade on a
smooth surface will reflect some light, while a textured surface, such as stucco, will reflect light only
in a diffused manner. On the exterior, LRV is more often used to describe light absorption. Low LRV
colors will absorb light, often increasing costs of heating and can cause faster deterioration of
exterior materials.
!
The color chart below provides some commonly used colors and is organized from lower LRV to
higher LRV.
The intent of the design standard limiting the LRV to 60 was to limit the use of “bright” colors, but it
had the effect of limiting light colors. We believe the measure has been generally misapplied in the
Code and before continuing its use the Town should consult an expert in this regard. Navajo white,
with an LRV of 79.47 is not a bright color, but a light color. Use of this light color achieves the
intention of the LRV limitation, which is to limit the use of “bright” colors, while still maintaining the
intention of lighter material (stucco) being above heavier, darker materials (stone).
!
Finally, it is important to look at the mock-up and view the colors in context. The Navajo White
allows for contrast with the other colors, which creates a rich color palette for the building.
Adjusting the stucco color to comply with the LRV limit of 60 increases the yellow/brown tones and
causes the wood siding color to appear more orange, while simultaneously making the grey siding
appear more green, as indicated in the photo below:
We believe that the most appropriate color scheme is as presented on the mock-up and on page 1
of this application.
!
(2)The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
!
Applicant Response: The proposed alternative allows achieves the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan. The following objectives are provided on page 53 of the Avon West Town
Center District Investment Plan:
Objectives
• To provide enough consistency in the materials, forms, and building elements to create a unified
district, while allowing enough flexibility to encourage unique architectural designs and character
expression.
• To offer guidance and articulate design preferences to save owners, designers, and tenants time in
the design review process.
• To create sustainable buildings of lasting quality.
• To encourage pedestrian activity
• To produce a consistent collage of signs that tastefully inform, delight and stimulate the visitor and
shopper while fitting in seamlessly with the context of the environment.
•To outline general sign requirements for retail tenants.
The objective clearly identify the goal for a unified district while still allowing flexibility in design.
Allowing for this AEC provides for enough flexibility to allow Wyndham Vacation Resort to have a color
palette that is complementary to surrounding buildings, while maintaining a unique design and character
expression, as is an identified goal of the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
!
(3)The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are
equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard; and
!
Applicant Response: The proposed color palette will provide for a beautiful building with colors
that are cohesive with the goals of the Town of Avon. This building will be a benefit to the entire
community.
!
(4)The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties
than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this
ordinance.
!
Applicant Response: There are no greater impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed color will
blend well with surrounding properties while allowing for some diversity of color.
!
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. We look forward to hearing your comments
on our application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
970.376.3318.
!
Sincerely,
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Principal
Memo
To: Planning and Zoning Chairman and Commissioners
From: Brian Garner, Town Planner
Date: May 6, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Re: Revised Language for LRV Standards
Introduction:
Pursuant to the latest Light-Reflective-Value (LRV) discussion at the April 24 Planning &
Zoning Commission meeting, staff has drafted three (3) options for revising the current
Development Code language. The revised standard as recommended by the Planning &
Zoning Commission will be presented to Town Council for adoption by ordinance to
amend the Town of Avon Development Code.
The Town Council discussed removing LRV standards from the Development Code at
their April 8 meeting. In order to view their discussion, please follow this link:
http://www.publicaccess5.org/VideoLibrary.cfm and begin the video stream at minute 131.
Existing Language:
7.28.090(3)(v): Indigenous natural or earth tones, such as brown, tan, grey, green, blue or red,
in muted, flat colors with an LRV (Light Reflective Value) of sixty (60) or less are required.
7.28.090(3)(vi): The following colors are prohibited: neon, Day-Glo, fluorescent, reflective and
non-earth tones.
7.28.090(3)(vii): All flues, flashing and other reflective materials shall be painted to match
and/or appropriately contrast with adjacent materials.
Revised Language Options:
Option 1: 7.28.090(3)(v): Indigenous natural or earth tones such as brown, tan, grey,
green, blue or red, in muted, flat colors is strongly encouraged.
Option 2: 7.28.090(3)(v): Colors should be indigenous natural or earth tone utilizing deep,
saturated palettes that are non-reflective.
Option 3: 7.28.090(3)(v): Colors: Large wall areas should be subdued in color and not
reflective. Bright colors shall be used sparingly and limited to accenting a building, and
shall not be used to act as signs or create sign buildings. Deeper, richer shades of colors
are preferred. Monotonous color palettes are strongly discouraged. To ensure
consistency, color and material palettes must be submitted and reviewed by the Planning
& Zoning Commission.
April 24, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Revised Language for LRV Standards
Available Actions:
The Planning & Zoning Commission may elect to choose one of the three language options as
above; the Planning & Zoning Commission may choose alternate language; or the Planning &
Zoning Commission may direct staff to revise the options entirely and present new language at
a future Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the meeting discussion and P&Z’s desire to ensure colors and materials are
comprehensively reviewed, staff recommends Option 3 be forwarded to Town Council as the
recommended revised language to amend the Town of Avon Development Code.
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street
Site Tour of Proposed On-site Improvements for Agenda Items VII A, B, &C
Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate
Property Location: East Avon Properties
Description: Walk from Town Hall to the project sites to review the proposed property improvements.
Present were: Commissioners Losa, Bonidy, Struve, Minervini and Prince. Jeff Meier, Stephanie
McClurg, Steve Sandovall were present, as well as Staff members Matt Pielsticker, Willey Gray,
Brian Garner, and Virgnia Egger.
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:50pm.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Hardy and Clancy were absent.
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
None.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts to disclose.
V. Site Tour of Proposed On-site Improvements for Agenda Items VII A,B,&C
Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate
Property Location: East Avon Properties
Description: Walk from Town Hall to the project sites to review the proposed property
improvements.
VI. Alternative Equivalent Compliance
Wyndham Vacation Resort Stucco Color
Property Location: Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Property Address: 75 Benchmark Road
Description: One of the conditions of approval for this Development Plan stated that the PZC
would be the reviewing authority for on-site color/material board. At the April 1st PZC meeting
the colors and materials were reviewed and an AEC was requested for stucco color.
Action: This item was continued at the applicant’s request.
VII. Minor Development Plans
A. Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate – Landscaping and Parking Lot
Property Location: Lot 20, Lot 65-B, Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Property Address: 82 E Beaver Creek Blvd / 182 Avon Road
Applicant/Owner: Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate – 8000 Maryland Ave, STE 1120 St.
Louis, MO 63105
Description: The property owner is proposing extensive landscape enhancements including
removal of existing vegetation, installation of new vegetation, sidewalk improvements and
expansion of an existing parking lot.
Stephanie Mclurg of Ceres Plus landscaping presented the improvements. Steve Sandoval,
Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate, also represented the application for improvements.
Jeff Meier spoke on behalf of Building B, Chapel Square.
Action: PZC approved the application (4-1 vote) with the following conditions:
Prior to construction the following items will be addressed:
a. Landscaping units for the property will be reviewed and confirmed to meet code
requirements with the Christy Sports application.
b. License Agreement approved by Council for public parking use. The agreement will
address the future possibility of a pedestrian bridge crossing across Avon Road near
the parking area and railroad tracks.
c. Right of Way permit (including traffic control) must be obtained from Public Works.
d. Additional landscaping will be added to the area at northwest corner of retaining wall
to buffer the retaining wall – to be approved by Staff.
e. 2-3’ of the retaining wall to be shifted to save the first tree to the north.
B. Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate – Murals
Property Location: Tract A, Tract B-1, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Property Address: 220 Chapel Place
Applicant/Owner: Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate – 8000 Maryland Ave, STE 1120 St.
Louis, MO 63105
Description: The property owner is proposing four (4) murals painted by a professional artist
on the exterior walls of the shopping center with seasons theme.
Mason Torry, of Mason Torry Fine Arts, presented the application.
Jeff Meier gave public comments.
Action: PZC unanimously approved the application with the following conditions”
1. Smooth surface at split face blocks will be prepared prior to painting.
2. Mountain scenes more representative of the local area will be considered.
3. Color renderings will be provided to staff for review prior to installation to confirm no
reflective or bright colors.
C. Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate – Shutters on Buildings A & C
Property Location: Tract B2 and Lot 22AB, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Property Address: 230 & 245 Chapel Place
Applicant/Owner: Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate – 8000 Maryland Ave, STE 1120 St.
Louis, MO 63105
Description: The proposal is for shutters and window sills to be added to Building A and
Building C of the Chapel Square PUD. The shutters are constructed of wood and have
diagonal paint schemes. Solid metal exit doors would also be painted to match.
Steve Sandoval, Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate, presented the application.
Jeff Meier spoke on behalf of Building B, Chapel Square.
Action: The application was continued (unanimous vote) to the May 6th meeting.
VIII. Consent Agenda
April 1, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Action: Approved unanimously.
IX. Other Business
PZC discussed flags and requested that the Town Attorney provide an interpretation
on whether or not flags are regulated.
X. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20pm