Loading...
PZC Packet 10-20-2009 (2)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda for October 20, 2009 VON Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street C01.0RAD0 REGULAR WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the October 6, 2009 Meeting Minutes ZONING VI. Longsun Lane Residences PUD Amendment Property Location: Lots 47/48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5141/5151 Longsun Lane Applicant. Bobby Ladd, RAL Architects, LLC /Owner. David Forenza Description: The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment is to alter the zoning of two duplex properties; to permit three single-family residences, one containing a "legal lock - off" unit. ock- offunit. The density would remain the same — four (4) dwelling units. There is a corresponding Preliminary Subdivision application tracking concurrently. VII. East West Partners Special Review Use Application Property Location: Lots 5, Riverfront Subdivision / Riverfront Lane Applicant/Owner. East West Partners Description: The applicant, East-West Resort Development, are required to gain approval for and the issuance of a Special Review Use (SRU) permit by the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission to keep the existing temporary office structure and use on Lot 5. According to the Riverfront PUD Development Plan's list of allowable uses. VIII. Other Business IX. Adjourn Posted on October 16, 2009 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • Avon Public Library • On the Internet at httD://www.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission �_ Meeting Minutes for October 6, 2009 O Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street C O L O R A D O SITE VISTS (4:00pm — 5:00pm) 4121 & 4123 Little Point— Review of exterior building modifications and privacy screens. 4340 June Point — Mock-up review for materials and colors. REGULAR WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. it. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Item VIIII. Moved to consent agenda and tabled until the next meeting. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the September 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes • Item IX. Minor Project, Long Spur Addition & Renovation (Tabled) Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the minutes and the tabled Item IX. Commissioner Green seconded the motion and it passed 6-0, with Commissioner Roubos abstaining due to her absence at the previous meeting. DESIGN REVIEW —MINOR PROJECT VII. Courtyard Villas Property Location: Lot 12 & 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / Buck Creek Road Applicant. Michael Hazard, Morter Architects /Owner. • Advanced Home Technologies Description: Minor Project review for several modifications to an existing design approval. The modifications include fireplace design change, removal of the chimneys, removal of windows on various elevations, and addition of privacy screens. Discussion: Commissioner Goulding highlighted that the site visit was a follow up to the previous hearing that was tabled. Commissioner Anderson agreed with the window modifications and chimneys removal. He also commented that the privacy screens would have a negative effect on neighboring properties. Commissioner Lane agreed with the previous comments, but did comment that the privacy screens are still hard to understand. He wasn't in favor of the upper level privacy screens due to their architectural compatibility. Commissioner Prince also agreed with some of the previous comments, but did state his lack of agreement with the privacy screens. The upper level, south unit screen doesn't fit within the design guidelines. The lower level, south unit screen should have increased landscaping, specifically evergreen trees to help mitigate the appearance. The northern unit privacy screen doesn't affect the design and he has no issues with that one. Commissioner Roubos wanted the privacy screens to appear like an extension of each wall it is attached to. She did agree with the landscaping comments on the ground mounted screen previously stated. Commissioner Struve wanted the applicant to gain approval of any future modification prior to the change is made. He does support the proposed modifications, but did comment that two additional evergreens would help the ground mounted privacy screen. Commissioner Struve also commented that he preferred the original light fixtures for the driveway when compared to the proposed fixtures. Commissioner Green questioned the light fixtures as well. He didn't believe there would be a negative affect to any adjacent property. He did state his support for the proposed chimney and window modifications. Commissioner Goulding questioned the fire places and their need for venting. Ignacio De Iraola explained the new fireplaces. He didn't feel that the privacy screens would have negative affect so long as the materials were the same as adjacent materials. Commissioner Prince asked for a specification sheet for the proposed light fixtures. Commissioner Green explained that additional landscaping would need to be provided around the ground mounted privacy screen. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether a tree or shrub would be required. Commissioner Green responded that a 4 foot to 6 foot tall tree would be sufficient. Commissioner Anderson stated that a smaller planting would help keep view corridors. Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the minor project application with the following conditions: 1. The materials of the privacy screens shall match adjacent building surfaces and materials; 2. Add coniferous plant material that at maturity does not grow to be larger than the privacy screen and that the landscaping be placed adjacent to the privacy screen; and 3. Approve the driveway light per site visit. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and it passed 5-2. Vlll. Horton Residence Property Location: Lot 59, Block 3, Wildridge / 4340 June Point Applicant. Millie Aldrich, Pure Design Studio / Owner: Norma Horton Description: A follow up meeting to the on-site mock-up review, performed earlier in the day, of the proposed materials and colors. Discussion: Staff briefly outlined the previous approvals and the on-site mockup review performed earlier in the day. Commissioner Green questioned the stone on the mockup and its compatibility with the original submittal. He had additional concerns over the proposed colors. He was also concerned with the amount of white proposed and that depicted on the mock-up. He wanted to see more compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. He also had concerns with the reflectivity of the metal roof. Commissioner Struve would prefer if the light was on a timer so it didn't shine all night. He was in favor of the materials, but he preferred the original colors versus the proposed colors. Commissioner Roubos had concerns over the contrast. She felt the colors were too white. Commissioner Prince agreed with Commissioner Struve's comments about the address light on a timer. He didn't have an issue with the materials, but didn't understand how the materials would flow together. He did comment on the blue color during the early morning of the exposed steel. Commissioner Lane questioned one of the conditions of approval. Staff read the specific condition into the record. Commissioner Lane did state that the proposed colors lacked contrast and didn't blend well with the surrounding environment. He was in favor of the roof color. Commissioner Anderson questioned the compatibility with the surrounding environment when it wasn't snowy. The proposed colors are too white and lack a variety of earth tones. Commissioner Goulding compared the mock-up to the background, specifically highlighting the sagebrush colors. He felt the proposed colors lacked blending with the environment and stood out too much. He was in favor of the concept, but felt the execution of colors lacked sufficiency. Commissioner Roubos questioned the Design Guidelines and their applicability to metal roofs. Staff read into the record the roof related sections of the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Green questioned the metal roof reflectivity and the Light Reflective Value. Staff responded by highlighting the application materials that outlined the LRV value of the proposed roofing material and color. Millie Aldrich responded that the material on the mockup was representative of the color not the reflectivity. This is due to the cost associated with powder coating the metal. Commissioner Lane asked if the applicants thought the proposed colors reflected the surrounding environment. Commissioner Goulding asked Staff if the materials and colors were up for review and asked for clarification. Staff outlined the approvals and mailing that were provided to the applicant that specifically stated all conditions of approval. Commissioner Goulding outlined the issues discussed at this meeting and asked the Commission for clarification on all issues to provide feedback to the applicant. Commissioner dialog ensued regarding the specific color issues. Millie Aldrich commented on how the varying plans of the building will help provide shading and shadow effect that will soften the similarity of the proposed colors. Commissioner Roubos once again commented on how white the proposed color palette is and how much it has varied from any of the previous color boards. Commissioner Lane stated how much contrast exists on the site and how little contrast the mockup showed. Commissioner Roubos stated that the mockup did not reminder her of earth tone colors. Commissioner Prince asked if the elevations could be provided. Staff brought forth reduced plan sets that illustrated the elevations. Action: Struve moved to approve the materials and colors as represented on the mock-up with the condition that the mock-up not be removed until TCO. Commissioner Green seconded the motion and it passed 4-3. IX. Minor Project Long Spur Addition & Renovation Property Location: Lot 34, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2195 Long Spur Applicant/ Owner. • Debra Rappaport Description: Andrew James Abraham of AJA Studio is proposing changes to Final Design approval for an addition and complete renovation to a single family residence at the end of Long Spur Road. This application proposes several changes to the building, including but not limited to: roof forms, window size and placement, door locations and materials, landscaping, materials, and interior changes. Discussion: The agenda item was discussed during the work session. Action: Moved to consent agenda and tabled. X. Other Business • Short Term Rental Overlay Zone District Update • Gandorf Tract B PUD next week at Town Council Xl. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:50 Approved on October 20, 2009: W. Todd Goulding Chairperson Phil Struve Secretary Staff Report PUD Amendment1,-`-7J' October 20, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting AV O N r n Y n a• n n Report date: October 16, 2009 Project type: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, & Preliminary Plan for Subdivision Legal description: Lots 47 & 48, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Current zoning: PUD (2 Units/per lot) Address: 5141 & 5151 Longsun Lane I. Introduction and Summary The applicant, Bobby Ladd of RAL Architects, Inc., representing the owner of these two vacant Wildridge parcels, David Forenza, is proposing Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment and Preliminary Subdivision applications pertaining to the above- mentioned vacant properties in Wildridge. The proposed PUD amendment is to alter the zoning of the two duplex properties; to permit three single-family residences, one containing a "lock -off" unit. While the density would remain the same — four (4) dwelling units, the unit type would be different. The corresponding Preliminary Subdivision application would amend the current property line between Lot 47 and 48, and would add a new property line to separate two of the structures. The preliminary subdivision is required by the Avon Municioal Code, since it would be required to develop the properties as presented. After holding a public hearing in accordance with Section 17.12.100 of the Avon Municipal Code, Staff is recommending that the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission recommend Denial of this application to the Avon Town Council. The basis for this recommendation is the failure to meet the mandatory review criteria as outlined in the body of this report. After carefully consideration of the review criteria, it was difficult for Staff to support this application due in large part to the lack of a community benefit — as required by the Public Purpose Provisions of the Zoning Code for all rezoning or PUD amendment applications. Attached to this report is the applicant's narrative, which introduces the project and responds to the review criteria. The narrative outlines the merits to this amendment as it relates to the criteria. In Staffs opinion, all of the alleged benefits to the neighborhood Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Longsun Lane Residences PUD Amendment 'RW October 20, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 7 by approving this amendment could otherwise be achieved under the existing entitlements. II. Background Benchmark Properties created the Wildridge Subdivision in 1979, shortly after the incorporation of the Town of Avon on February 28, 1978. According to the Wildridge Final Plat application for Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions, the overall development concept was for "abundant open space recreation areas around lots" with a density of "barely one dwelling unit per acre". The original Wildridge "Specially Planned Area" (now considered a "PUD" by default) and the accompanying subdivision plat were established with a specific purpose and intent: to offer a diverse range of housing types and options to serve the diverse, year- round local population. As such, the housing types in the Wildridge PUD and Plat are diverse: single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, etc - because the housing needs of the local, year-round population continue to be diverse. The population of Avon is comprised of diverse segments of the local population based on such attributes as income, household size, age, and lifestyle choices (i.e. - single, married, married with children, etc). Wildridge was designed on the premise that not everyone wants, or can afford, to live in low density neighborhoods and a diversity of unit types is required to serve the year-round population. The intrinsic value to the public of the diversity of housing types imbedded in the original plat and PUD plan become diminished when a planned type of structure (i.e. multi -family, duplex) is removed and replaced with single-family housing. In 1981, the Wildridge Subdivision was completely replatted with a total of 849 planned development units and is the foundation of the current zoning in Wildridge. Over the years, there have been numerous PUD amendments and some transfers of development rights. Recently, there have been amendments whereby certain development rights were modified and corresponding subdivision plats created to amend the existing plat(s). The most recent amendment to the Wildridge PUD and Final Plat was for the Dry Creek PUD, previously located within Block 2 of the Wildridge Subdivision and now its own stand-alone subdivision, whereby a "fourplex" lot was converted to accommodate three (3) single-family detached structures. The approval of the Dry Creek PUD was predicated upon factors such as the approval of a subdivision variance for lineal lot frontage and the reduced number of dwelling units by one. Construction of the Dry Creek PUD is now complete, and demonstrates the resulting appearance and disturbance experienced with detached single-family structures, as opposed to what was expected under the existing zoning. It should be noted that Staff recommended DENIAL of the Dry Creek PUD, citing the following reasons: (1) The application failed to meet or advance land use and housing goals/policies (Policy A1.5, C1, CIA of the 1996 Comp Plan) relative to establishing or maintaining an appropriate mix of dwelling unit types for both lower and middle-income seasonal and year-round residents and their families; Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74&4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Longsun Lane Residences PUD Amendment October 20, 2009, Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 7 A (2) The proposed development may be compatible in design, scale, and use with the types housing in the area, however a multi -family building would also be compatible with multifamily developments in the area, particularly the enclave of multi -family developments along Draw Spur; (3) Although the applicant proposed to reduce the allowable lot coverage by 10%, the extent of total site disturbance for 3 single-family residences may exceed the extent of site disturbance from a fourplex development; Another recent PUD Amendment approval was for the Western Sage PUD in Block 4. That development converted three (3) triplex lots and one (1) duplex lot (total of 11 development rights) into eight (8) single-family lots. Both of these PUD amendments were approved prior to the public benefit provisions being incorporated into the Town of Avon Zonino Code. It is important to note that previous Wildridge PUD Amendments were largely based on a "down zoning", or contemplated a reduction in dwelling units. While it is assumed the "legal lock -off unit" constructed on Lot 47B would not be for sale, it is defined as a "dwelling unit" by the Zoning Code, and would be counted towards the density of the property. III. Process As required by the Avon Municiaal Code, this report serves as the official findings and recommendations of the Community Development Department. After holding a public hearing before the Planning Commission, a report of the Planning Commission stating its findings and recommendations and this report shall then be transmitted to the Town Council. The Town Council shall then consider this application in accordance with Section 17.28.050 of the Avon MuniciDal Code. The Town Council hearing shall be held no later than thirty (30) days following the Planning and Zoning Commission action. Following this hearing, the Council shall consider the comments and evidence presented at the hearing and evaluate the application in accordance with Section 17.28.080 and either approve, approve with conditions or deny the application, in whole or in part. IV. Public Notice Requirement This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to all property owners within 300' of the subject property. There have been no comments received by Staff thus far. Public comments will be entertained at the hearing. V. PUD Design Criteria It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following design criteria, or Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Longsun Lane Residences PUD Amendment A October 20, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 7 demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular development solution is consistent with the public interest. According to the Town of Avon Zonino Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. 1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comarehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. District 24 Wildridae Residential District (Comp Plan Page 98-99) The subject properties are located in the "Wildridge Residential District." The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the limited number of existing trees and the open character of the Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan states that "special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings." One of the planning principles for this district is to "site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect views, be compatible with existing surrounding development, and break up building bulk." Future Land Use Plan (Comp Plan Page 27) The Future Land Use Plan envisions continued "Residential Low Density" development. Residential Low Density (RLD) development is intended to provide sites for single-family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings at a density no greater than 7.5 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's proposal would not change the density of the property. Goals and Policies (Comp Plan Pages 37 - 63) The Comprehensive Plan contains several regional, policy goals related to land use and development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to all proposed PUD plans in Town. The goals and policies most applicable to this proposal speak to the built form, including protecting views and clustering development. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town. If this application is approved, the development plan and design of the single-family residences and duplex (single-family plus "legal lockoff") would then be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for conformity with the Residential Design Review Guidelines. The applicant intends to have similarly designed structures for each property. Each unit would need to be reviewed individually at design review to ensure conformance with the Guidelines. 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 majority of these design compatibility considerations would be handled through the codified design review process. There are no changes proposed to the building height, which is limited to 35' for each property. The resulting location of buffer Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Longsun Lane Residences PUD Amendment October 20, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 7 A IX zones and building orientation, dictated by the newly platted building lot lines and corresponding setback lines, would change the appearance of the properties. Attached to this report is a vicinity map. For a comparison to the immediate environment, the map demonstrates the surrounding building footprint locations and sizes to better understand the relationship to surrounding development. Most of the surrounding lots have been developed. Also attached to this report is a digital photograph, showing the rough existing property lines for Lot 47 and 48. 4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. There is a mix of single-family and duplex structures in the surrounding area and this proposal would be compatible. There should be no negative relationship experienced with the surrounding uses or activities on Longsun Lane or the greater neighborhood. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. There have been no geologic hazards identified on the subject property. 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 applicant has demonstrated that a shared driveway for any development on these properties would be the responsive approach to limit the amount of disturbance in the area immediately adjacent to Longsun Lane, where the steepest grades exist. The 50% grades off the roadway appear to have been created with fill during construction of the road, and as the applicant points out, these initial grades have proven problematic when design access solutions for previous design review submittals. The result of replatting and rezoning these properties does not appear to overly affect the aesthetic natural qualities of the sites. However, it is difficult to determine whether or not this design approach would result in a more or less responsive (or sensitive) pattern of development. It is important to note that the most tangible and effective benefit is with the single driveway access point off Longsun Lane, and that this shared driveway concept could be utilized under the existing zoning scenario for two duplexes. 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. Does not apply. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. There are few opportunities for functional landscape areas on the subject properties due to the steep topography that exists. Minor changes to the location of open Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Longsun Lane Residences PUD Amendment October 20, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 7 space and landscaping would result from this proposal by platting new side setbacks. While the overall function of these open spaces would not change greatly, this plan does not appear to optimize or preserve natural features, views, and site functionality. 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. The proposed re -subdivision creates an "Access & Driveway Maintenance Easement" for the shared driveway. Development on Lots 47B and Lot 47A is dependent on the driveway construction and access from Lot 48A. 10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. All services are in place for this proposal to function. 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. Does not apply. 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. C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. Staff is unable to support this application due to the lack of a clear community benefit. The approval of this zoning application would not necessarily result in better siting of development and the application fails to demonstrate public benefits which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. VI. Recommended Motion "I move to recommend of DENIAL of the PUD Amendment and corresponding Preliminary Subdivision application to the Avon Town Council with the following FINDINGS of FACT: Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Longsun Lane Residences PUD Amendment October 20, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 7 AAM 1. This application fails to provide evidence of substantial compliance with the Public Purpose provisions of the Avon Zoning Code. There are no expressed public benefits (i.e. "smaller legal lock -off unit", "reduced lot coverage" "smaller structures", "unique one point automobile egress/entry ; "passive solar heating and wind cooling", "increased landscape area') which cannot be achieved by developing under the existing entitlements. 2. The flexibility afforded in approving this zoning application would not result in improved siting of the development of these properties. 3. Approval of this application does not further the intent and purpose of Title 17, the Zoning Code of the Town of Avon. Further, the application and supporting materials fail to demonstrate compliance with the review criteria as outlined in this report." If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielstick Planner II VII. Report Attachments Vicinity Map and Digital Photograph Application and Plans Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 I LL 0 1" LO M F— NT LO M Cl) LLL L i cn LO 00 N LL 00 �F v co M LL � w U) M LL LL U) ry G V CD LL U) N \M U) N ` OD LL co W w U) LO le ._• r � N /� fL`ONGSUNjLN} LL a co "\ "-3n Cl) LL LL 0 U) Lf) ro Lo co O O I LL LL C cn LL Mr 00 cn ;. N M N M LO LL 0 (A CD LL a co "\ "-3n Cl) LL LL 0 U) Lf) ro Lo co O O I RAL Architects, inc. Subject Properties Lot 47, Block 4, Parcel Number 1943-351-03-010 005141 Longsun Lane, Wildridge Zoned Duples .74 acres Lot 48, Block 4, Parcel Number 1943-351-03-011 005151 Longsun Lane, Wildridge Zoned Duplex .51 acres P.O. Box 1805 Phone: 970. 926.4448 Edwards, Colorado 81632 E -Mail: ralarch®vail.net These lots sit side 6y side to the immediate south of Longsun Lane. They are downhill sloping lots with a steep top portion, roughly around 50% slope, transitioning to a more gradual grade, approximately 25%, at the front yard set6ack and continuing from there consistently for the duration of the lot. The bottom quarter of the lots is separated 6y a continuous 30' sewer easement, making that area essentially undevelopa6le. Fm RAL Archr inc. Existing Lots P,� 1805 Edwards, Co(ara� 8Ib3 1'ha°e: 2 FMaiL• 970 926 rola8 � ail-ne t RAL Architects, inc. P.O. Box 1805 Phone: 970. 926.4448 Edwards, Colorado 81632 E -Mail: rolarch®vail.net Proposal This proposed amendment to the Wildridge PUD entails d zoning change to combine and redivide the two existing duplex lots, Lots 47 and 48, into three lots, Lots 47A, 47B, and 48A. Lots 47A and 48A would be single family lots, and lot 47B would remain a duplex lot to accommodate a smaller legal lock -off unit to target local workforce housing. To generate a development potential comparison, we used the following general assumptions. For the current zoning scenario on Lots 47 and 48, we assumed a duplex structure on each lot consisting of 4,500sf of habitable area with each side having a 750sf garage. We assumed the building to be a 3 -story structure utilizing the slope of the land to create a lower level walk -out and having an upper level that would consist of only garage and entry elements. Assuming the areas are approximately the same on each of the two floors that equates to a building footprint estimate of 6,000sf per lot. On the new proposed lots 47A, 47B, and 48A, we are proposing varying sizes of houses as depicted in the table below. Based on these assumptions of building size, we offer the following development potential comparison: Sample Current Zoning Scenario Proposed Zoning Scenario Lot Number 47 48 47A 47B 48A Lot Size (AC) .74ac .51 ac .42ac .41 ac .42ac Lot Size (SF) 32,257.7sf 22,086.7sf 18,323.7sf 17,662.7sf 18170.9sf Unit A Habitable SF 4500sf 4500sf 3254sf 4367sf 5795sf Unit B Habitable SF 4500sf 4500sf 950sf Unit A Garage SF 750sf 750sf 81 6s 687sf 960sf Unit B Garage SF 750sf 750sf 263sf Mechanical SF 150sf 150sf 92sf 84sf 138sf Total SF 10650sf 10650sf 4153sf 6351 sf" 6893sf Building Footprint 6000sf 6000sf 3077sf 3258sf 2487sf Lot Coverage 18.6% 18.6% 16.8% 18.4% 13.9% Total Lot Coverage 22.1% 16.2% RAL Architects . inc. PrOposed Lots S AMAS r -'•-•--rte_,_' l_�� �V PO•�1 805 Colo rOdo 8163o' rds, P ? 8Mrn7: 470 X16 rolarc6�vo'. net '41 Archikcj� . inc. ConcePtUa! Site P/c n P.O. Box 78p5 EdworrJs, Colorado 81632 E µa/1. �0. 426 444i1.nM8 ��'o RAL Architects, inc. P.O. Box 1805 Phone: 970. 926.4448 Edwards, Colorado 81632 E -Mail: ralarch0voil.net Design Criteria (1) Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives The Comprehensive Plan descri6es the "Wildridge Residential District" as having limited existing trees and as a su6division with an open character. The Comprehensive Plan states that "special care should 6e taken to ensure that all structures are compati6le with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings." It also cites a main planning principle for Wildridge is to "site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect views, 6e compatible with existing surrounding development, and break up building bulk." This proposed amendment and su6sequent will help to achieve these goals. Three smaller structures on the properties will allow for greater flexibility in building siting that will help to not only maximize views from the dwelling units but also to protect views from within and around the properties through view corridors between the structures. The smaller structures will also appear less 6ulky from both a6ove and below and the open landscape in between them will further help to break down the building size and transition the man-made structures with the native lots in addition to improving drainage across the properties 6y avoiding the "dam effect" created 6y having attached duplex structures. The existing structures on Longsun Lane consist of a mix of duplex and single family structures, so this use would 6e very compati6le and contextual with the immediate surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, we are proposing different sized structures which not only will help to provide visual variety to the houses, but also complies with the Comprehensive plan's call for buildings of varying sizes. This can further 6e enhanced 6y stepping the individual buildings on the site vertically to further create visual interest and break up any perceived visual linking of the structures. The Comprehensive Plan also sets policy to "avoid development in environmental hazard areas such as floodplains, steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards, wildfire hazard areas, and areas with erosive soils." The top portion of the lots located in the front set6ack and the Town Right of Way exceed the 40% slope to 6e considered developa6le. Rezoning into single family structures helps to stagger the buildings on the lot and create unique access points to them allowing us to limit the street access to only one point, leaving the majority of the steeper lot portion undisturbed. Previous duplex proposals submitted on these lots entailed an extensive amount of these steep areas to 6e covered with driveways and site access which becomes necessary with the increased development and lack of flexi6ility from having larger attached dwelling units. (2) Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town. RAL Architects, inc. P.O. Box 1805 Phone: 474.426.4448 Edwards, Colorado 81632 E -Mail: ralarch0vail.net The intent of this proposal is not to create a cluster home development of similar style and designed homes. Each structure will be uniquely designed and consist of high quality materials composed mostly of stone and wood. The intent is to have 3 individually designed structures so that they visually fit more seamlessly into the neighborhood which now consists of a variety of designs, materials, colors, and styles. (3) Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation. This proposal would be compatible with all surrounding structures as the zoning and design criteria in place on the exiting lots would be enforced on the new lots as well relative to building setbacks, building height, and compliance with design guidelines. (4) Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Given the similarity in use, size, and structure to surrounding houses, this proposal would be compatible and efficient within the neighborhood. (5) Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. There are no identified geologic hazards on the property. As stated before, the shared access proposed with this amendment would limit the amount of disturbance in the areas of the lot that exceed 40% slope. (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 initial steep grade off of the road will require some areas of extensive fill to gain site access regardless of what structures are built on the lots. By utilizing a shared driveway solution, the amount of fill will be minimized by limiting the lots to one point of access on the street where the greatest grade differential exists and by using the driveway slope to found the houses more on grade. Additionally, using smaller masses stepping on the site helps to minimize the need for retaining walls on the downhill side of the structures, limiting disturbance and preserving a more natural landscape transition and look from the highly visible downhill side. Additionally, the driveway access is configured to utilize the buildings themselves for a large portion of the initial grade retention, further limiting the amount of retaining walls required for site access and circulation. RAL Architects, inc. P.O. Box 1805 Phone: 970. 926.4448 Edwards, Colorado 81632 E -Mail: ralarckOvail.net (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 driveway access is limited to one point of automo6ile egress/entry onto the adjacent public road. The driveway is located 6etween two of the three proposed structures creating a T -intersection on the sites and allowing for waiting areas when multiple cars are entering or exiting the property. Off-site transportation is not impacted 6y this proposed amendment. (8) Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function The detached structures create landscape zones between the houses which further softens the massing and overall developments visual impact on the lot while preserving view corridors from and through the site and increasing opportunities for natural light and ventilation that will 6e utilized for passive heating and cooling techniques to help lessen the utility consumption generated 6y the structures. (9) Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, function 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. The intent is to construct all three structures at the same time. In the event that is not economically viable, then the project would 6e phased to build one structure at a time starting with the farthest northwest structure (Lot 48A) and moving southeast through Lot 47B and then to 47A. The use of the structures to retain the driveway dictates building them individually in this order and 6y following this development pattern, no structure would 6e built or site distur6ance occur that was not a direct result of the construction of each specific structure. So, if the construction were to 6e halted and one or more of the residences not built, each remaining lot would essentially 6e undistur6ed from construction on any previously built structures with some minor grading modifications. (10) Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks and police and fire protection All public services are availa6le on the existing lots and would not 6e impacted 6y this proposed amendment. (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 impact on the existing streets and roads will not 6e increased 6y this proposed amendment as the total num6er of dwelling units proposed is equal to the current total number permitted. RAL Architects, inc. P.O. Box 1805 Phone: 970.926.4448 Edwards, Colorado 81632 E -Mail: ralarcha9vail.net (12) That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the public purpose provisions of the Zoning Code as specified in Section 17.28.085. (1) The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. This proposed amendment will create smaller building masses which will allow for greater flexibility in locating the structures across the lot creating a more aesthetically pleasing project as well as greatly improving drainage on and across the site by allowing for an additional drainage path between the structures. Additionally, smaller detached structures will maintain a greater percentage of open landscape area creating both a more aesthetically pleasing product as well as a greater opportunity to utilize the natural environment for passive solar heating and wind cooling techniques ultimately making for more efficient structures and generating a smaller demand on public utilities. While we anticipate only a small reduction in overall site disturbance with this proposed amendment, the amount of open landscape area that will be revegetated will be greatly increased by having additional landscape zones between the detached structures which will'create structures that blend more harmoniously into the hillside and will lessen the visual impact the proposed residences will have from all angles in viewing the site. (2) 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. There are no potential adverse impacts created by this proposed amendment (3) 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. As previously stated, the smaller, detached structures allow greater design flexibility in regards to building siting and location on the lots which not only decreases the visual impact on the lot but also creates opportunities to best utilize the lot to enhance views, provide more light and ventilation both within the structures and on the lots, improve drainage around and across the site, and increase the overall landscape area both between units helping to minimize the perceived massing of the units and across the entire site by decreased lot coverage ratios. C1 m CA T Q m y � c ��•-� c O .isr N a C � O +- Kt G OO i C1. > t"5 Q 6f p'� T m +�3 O y, N Co G N S O r Q y O p O +' 3 Q O c a v a C1 0 o N �" a, c - N c 3 `; m 04 c m c m >_ CL y a, Y } o m t- m _ °°mm y2*o C�i Qm cT mctt1 Z) c X vv ..0 a_ .- E c aa a° m�.�c�NQc° Nci C_E CW 5� Z U `-"0 c ed coN3m Ma o o 0 r c '° N a m c cc NlCam T dAc� � w ME O C Q 0. C O �2 i0 tll N °m E c a ui > r m N z c h c P T� ��Ez+ac°aa�o��_0 acn `°c oc o c� c am «. m > Za t° «' CX 4) E � ►`- (D c j N O L r o N `� 'd & 0 N 0 E� Njy 0 � N m a ro a rn m N m" N-0 m a m O E m c t0 c o C C > c c� am+'E$ H 0 m0Cw acima c°v V cc D o c c c N W> C s E O Z m o a Z 0) m N U 3 rim E Zs *0 0 Z, CL !2 ® o � 8 UJ O .. � ci co «- a) c> z co v Q w d1 E - m c u, c sca v v c m c t a o t. Q V :c L± O a fl;ci a ° c m �= mr. - Wo hd y r c' fiii E c u`°i o U o E w c�i a �- 0 �0 �' »- a N� v o : >-0B Z Ci r� N �N !v t E N ?^ �' a T w c c_ w q cca a�'uwc E cE°cE'�$ 3 O 131 ea V 0 ld T F E `-° °' Ti, iu N a o o '1t 0 -0° a t' a m d ai U3 o° U a Z m o rn E' m e m C) 'r m 8 y c y a Q L C ,� _ L„ 9 O :L m m m j d ° °� c `� N i ° mCM mF°-� �d O O c ci vU a m> o :� �w a N N m o ._ tli c 'R3 o N c g Z c m o E c U U +' w o ,, G U) o m Y N (Jf N s U O N �� H u cNo C m RO 3 O w Cl) 0 c a s te° o w J m e° O0 00 c o v) O e w= c.- �tm.m m>.N cQ � Sc C U M c ® coo 2W Z t�II f a y ° O E v io E� .� E � '= a c "' _ c(D c y a m lit W 3 E° .2 0) O No�cic�7 Q m N ca g n N> O t/i �v� o m� U H �a' at E N 8� r~- C Ul *MONO O NCL ° N C w a T{� a O r N 40 N N "!7 O O •O a r o ° N U >.2 Z TO C) 'p y m O _tN N r t4 4�CA V 7P' am O - , . -0 I�y o0 O C m E O- r co o D E m a c m o a� 2 E m o o E _ o� 8 w N .> O O N O E .-. m � � c a N m m� N U (/y\ w 0 y V Q E �j �0i1 41 aC I C V C m0' Q .� R7 a 5 a . tE6 m a m Q c M Z 0 w o 'r7, �C A m [C N t+s N ca w m C tx N R d m o f ami o a i& `, o v vmi `� m N t w E tv`a cg C3 N Q N Q m L rn ° i o eri 'v m O co � is LL Cs ` O. m O m p 0 O -0 Q �✓ �' m NYUU O - m m o m N m E p N 'c fi Fd m � > > > m•° m � aim > m� � a �$ 40 { N m c o u. m �; W fl � c°� ai ° cn` c o"0 C m m 3 C v m a t v oy$ ar c 5 c r> o o m a mW ��ul Cp a �!� o CL Im m a ° m a, �, ow t a ci m ° °�- w o m � N Ca ^ .. ca a E s ° S3 g c o h o o a o W v CX 0 x o cc N UCcmmcc > cm m Ni SE d 0 T 4�./ V L O c� o �0 d ,= c 05 E D -° D �a t3 t� p m ° +� U a c v Z3 N 0 -a o ° a U c °� (T l vmm, rn U�. r, Y 'o n m c m C I w o ani Q E ecd v ►""'� O m c a c m� 00 $ U i c U g m t' .L. N d o m° rn m F°- c c} 1L a' ° U O C c N c O c (a N c, C46 C3 c c 'cc 'o S N T O m LL a n E L (� m t0 m E °$ m c c ai 'm Q >m u- O a E a u� O c' m N a c u'r w _ `+ttcCD ac m° mcNm D O m E N a- m m w z° m o m aaN m m m w c tN" C L N (.� L w Z w o m �' y. F U w N x iC Cu m $ ° �t � o w � ' C p me U E o ° m ~ cis � � +� g � Z -c o 3 a_ �u 4) x t- ✓�,"' Y m o a � y �� W to U F- ' O a �- vs W 21- UJr �m Wr T ( ) w0 w \, o w m U. Z wW O za W v yZa W �a W Z(J z zaLL in 'M LL o °° N• __ "4 NE �. ('� z waw Q UP 0 0!'� 9- o 01 �� uN w - o co 9- 0 UJ a � Omcg O Iii o ` 0 � ':r'. LQNC7 ao a o � a z?crr nor N 9 Oto 09 - LU >a z May W`" o00 Qod m�~ >`�LU u'a t'V N oOaw- '� rT a 0 r�jLp zwo mwd N �o I) I) i/'i 4J °�� = o Lp ¢MW t ¢ N z" Fro W-' °ALL �� z g Z o LAoN n Q g 9 n QZN wQ m _ d 11 W C) Q or M Uow «.►�' Ferny 3 y w 40 uj > w i r w c'i M a� n io a it , (30 Y� xF ¢ W o� = LU N z -a d W !Y Q = cr Ncv vLn � a 11�'�9, ()Y g m _, 0 080 x 0¢ a o o z Cr_ C) 4 F- V �1 a II c u 0 (�+1'%' �i� E 82' 31 o< �y Nd z Udo LU moa 0 rmw w � � 51V"' � .6Z < Z¢2 ZW o WLL ¢ wcK Ow 4) ..�' N ' =mrvw7 O vw'M yUJIL >o gz a �-o as ¢oavm— /�/� 00 �w `9¢p� o o > o �cwi LjW 83' 3 W o �dU UNw o O `, s� "' ow "�SwF Jaz a w 0 13,41 ¢ Z 2Wy MOM FZ 0 F- �• �- N _ r _ Z� oz gu0 IX ¢Q 0 - cc O � ° w LU;Fc a� - - - --� - r� Z �� 750 M04 r O w O t- aci t- no '-•�--�/ -- -- `"' Sa- w o ` W Z cA Z ¢ 4 Lry 'S r m a W ¢ � O W Z Vl U 00. ` � i" d _ - ! - -� 1' 1eJL ZZ�; W 0 r3W g¢r OWMW � u4 a or 8� rte- i/, � oa a�n a LU = t-3 allo 14 mix -ca° � / diry Lj J� 3 oh �M wC, •� �� c� r z d 3w o z mN w o� /ILO 0. > 0 OM ioa g zm OQ \ �� -n0 z z C n/ zt- t v xcc d :1- °v`I`rro 0 v sem, \��� 11 nc ^^/°j W N¢ Q W \ N 1 Zx y LL ZOO y¢vm owz¢ w.-cpppo7Yp ran a \`1� z `, �/O ra w gd N 00 wo wNa c~7�U= <0W m w� `�� `z \ � w= NZ w Wa o °aa EWO ��¢ ¢=o0 ,aawa ¢oma w z \\'� �r Q W in 'a m� a 5z u'4w of '� mm�o0 ¢ �a \ h z z� rmr i.-:� am P -1.X 1 o ul N �O z uaa�d zW ay p aYw4 0 Wm / \ '� d �0. �`a �dw� M w `cr- ` �a �" ' u+ O 10 2 o aria's w>IL ;g w Uw ¢� ! .^" / c`'t a �. w Z o dry) r in �- 0 M W Wxr o¢a0 Qm O u¢ h U) w= t1r aaN w H�' v ` 0 1- a¢ Z w� ¢¢� ~��LL �"zZW W W W COY ~ p~ fid= Q , NV M� O Q wz 0 x Owa ONd- O- zcJ /"1 j v f - z o m¢ t`d c9zN z'�(wi�¢ ��,ac,a o J o am j� a>� Qw w �% Jd W J tus :7 wV v uiOFPCL r'aF-mt� t�r'vm � m? u p \ M un ^ M 1 F � 1 cz 0 z 0 O W W W wzzz ¢N(AN a020 QQnnQ LL3LL LL LL LL Ui W zzz Way aaa4 i 0 o- N w o va� 40000 CL J J J (- \1 /�\\ C �a J a 750 i� (n OW 7,50 w > t z r - z 2 v ul �� °i b ` ,,� 1 z ' W O 11 a' ow ` \ > o� Vin N 150 ca \\ \ CA Z - - r � in - 74.54' "o.i O `- •Ci � ' W \ \ — fV02'OS'41 "W NO2'05'4t"W 65 88' Q ' - o ori CYO ,— �� \ \\ -`- - _ T 65.90 ....r' �, en 0 O O Up O ♦� 0 Y• C.) C; ! CAt d CK IO E .r Staff Report SPECIAL REVIEW USE W lY C O L 0 R A D 0 October 20, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date October 16, 2009 Project type Special Review Use (SRU) -Public Hearing - Legal description Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD) Address 330 Riverfront Lane Introduction The applicant, East-West Resort Development, is required to gain approval for and the issuance of a Special Review Use (SRU) permit by the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission to keep the existing temporary office structure and use on Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision. According to the Riverfront PUD Development Plan's list of allowable uses, the following provision was put in place for the temporary use of Lot 5: "Temporary facilities for real estate sales and development on Lot 5 for up to one year after the issuance of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy of the Hotel." The PUD goes on to state that "other temporary facilities are subject to Special Review Use." The Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Westin Hotel was issued over one year ago and this necessitates the issuance of an SRU permit for any continued use of the approximately 2,750 square foot building. Process and Review Criteria The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review this request and act in accordance with the Avon Municipal Code review procedures outlined in Section 17.48.040. The Planning & Zoning Commission shall consider the following criteria when evaluating this application for a SRU permit: 1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code. Staff Response: The site must be mitigated of all noxious weeds and the applicant should also be required to submit a temporary landscape plan, at a minimum, depending on the intended duration of the use and existing structure on the site. Other than this design review adherence issue, the use complies with all other pertinent requirements of the Zoning Code. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision SRU October 20, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3 2. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: Given the planning principals for District 3, the proposed use continues to be in conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan (February, 2006). 3. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Such compatibility may be expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features, site design and the control of any adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc. Staff Response: As stated above in Criterion 1, the mitigation of weeds and a temporary landscape plan are required for the site to be fully compatible with adjacent uses. 4. That the granting of this SRU must provides evidence of substantial compliance with the public purpose provisions of the Zoning Code, as outlined below: 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. C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. Staff Response: The use being requested is temporary in nature, insofar as the property will be redeveloped to a higher and better use' in the near future as contemplated in the master development plan for the subject property. To mitigate any negative visual impacts of the existing site conditions, Staff is recommending minimal weed removal and a temporary landscape plan submittal and implementation as a condition of approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends conditional approval of the proposed SRU based on compliance with the required review criteria and subject to the conditions listed below. Recommended Motion `I move to approve Resolution 09-14, thereby approving the request to extend the temporary use located on Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. A landscaping plan showing the removal of all noxious weeds on Lot 5 and the addition of minimal, temporary landscaping improvements on the site must be approved by the Community Development Department within 30 (thirty) days. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision SRU October 20, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3 The plan must demonstrate drainage, adequately address snow storage requirements, and include a level of landscaping as deemed acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, 2. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this application and in public hearings shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval." If you have any questions regarding this or any other application or community development issue, please call me at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielstic r Planner II Attachment Resolution 09-14 Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONAVO NRESOLUTION NO.09-14 1V C O L O R A D O A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT TO PERMIT AND EXTEND SALE OFFICE USE FOR LOT 59 RIVERFRONT SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, East-West Resort Development has applied for a special review use permit to keep the existing temporary office structure and use on Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision, as described in the application dated September 25,2009; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon on October 20, 2009, 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 application; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon has considered the following review considerations: _ 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. D. Whether the proposed use provides evidence of compliance with the Public Purpose provisions outlined in the Avon Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby conditionally approves a special review use permit to extend the use of the temporary office structure, as described in the application dated h September 25, 2009; as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING: The use is in compliance with the mandatory review criteria listed herein. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A landscaping plan showing the removal of all noxious weeds on Lot 5 and the addition of minimal, temporary landscaping improvements on the site must be approved by the Community Development Department within 30 (thirty) days. The plan must demonstrate drainage, adequately address snow storage requirements, and include a level of landscaping as deemed acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, 2. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material' representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this application and in public hearings shall be adhered to and ' considered binding conditions of approval ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 Signed. Todd Goulding, Chairperson Attest. Phil Struve, Secretary Date: Date: