L4 Nottingham Station bldg GHI final designTown of Avon
Final Design Staff Report
February 17, 1998, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
December 20, 2019
Project type
Multi-family Residential
Legal description
Lot 4, Nottingham Station Subdivision – Canyon Run Buildings G, H, & I.
Zoning
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address
0270, 0290, & 0320 Hurd Lane
Introduction
Patrick W. Nook & Associates, representing Canyon Run LLC and Shapiro Development Company, has applied to modify the approved Final Design for Canyon Run’s last three buildings – G,
H, and I. On December 12, 1997, the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the buildings’ preliminary design subject to satisfactory resolution of the design issues outlined in that
meeting’s staff report.
The applicants have revised their plans in response to those issues in the following ways:
Building G now complies with the 50-foot maximum building height.
Buildings G and H step more in response to the site, lessening the amount of fill required.
Building I stepping is now reduced, lessening the amount of excavation adjacent to its foundation, as well as reducing the height of the retaining wall to its east.
The remaining seven technical labeling and design issues have also been addressed to staff’s satisfaction.
The overall architectural design, colors and materials are consistent with Canyon Run’s existing buildings.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Commission’s Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 6.10, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project:
Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town.
Density: The number of units in Building G is being increased by two units from the previous Final Design approval. This increase raises the Canyon project to its maximum allowed density
of 70 units.
Setbacks: The interior building envelope lines originally established by the PUD between Buildings G, H, & I have been laterally adjusted to accommodate the increased number of units
in Building G. This type of adjustment is specifically allowed by the PUD.
Easements: The applicant has provided revised grading plans; Staff is reviewing the revised grading and drainage plans for the 20-foot drainage easement east of Building I.
Building Height: Building G’s largest scaled height of 50' conforms with the 50' maximum limit established by the PUD. However, extreme care will be needed during construction to ensure
that the building does not exceed this height limit.
Grading: Staff has not completed its review of the revised site plan. It appears from our initial review that the modified design of all three buildings lessens the site impacts to acceptable
levels. However, specific areas of the revised grading plan specifically the retaining wall south of Building G, and the area and retainage east of Building I, are going through final
staff review.
Landscaping: The revised landscape plan provides for additional screening of the relocated electrical transformer near the access point. A significant grouping of new Cottonwoods and
other plantings is proposed behind Building G as recommended by the project’s arborist to mitigate impacts to the riparian corridor. It should also be pointed out that the applicant
will mark the trees that are to be preserved.
The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located.
Consistent with the rest of the Canyon Run project.
The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties.
Staff will continue to work with both the applicant and neighboring property owner to the east to resolve any potential conflicts created by the alignment
The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography.
Building G has been stepped down
The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways.
The architectural styling of these three buildings generally follows Canyon Run’s existing design theme. It should be noted that the applicant has eliminated a secondary roof gable from
the buildings’ front elevations. Staff believes this roof element, found on the projects existing buildings, adds architectural interest.
The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired.
The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
Staff Recommendation
Based upon the general compliance with the above criteria, staff recommends final design approval for Building H, with conditions, and upon staff’s final review of the revised grading
plan associated with Buildings G and I, final design approval for Buildings G and I at the March 3 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
Recommended Motion
“I move to approve final design for Building H, Lot 4, Nottingham Station Subdivision as depicted on the plan set dated February 10, 1998, with the following conditions:
The applicant provide signage identifying trail location and routing trail users away from neighboring private property east of Building I.
If the three buildings are to be completed in separate phases, a phasing plan indicating all improvements, to included landscaping, for each specific phase requires approval prior to
the issuance of any TCO’s or CO’s.
A protective and erosion control fence shall be installed prior to inspected and maintained throughout the construction activities along the “no disturb line” as shown on the Nottingham
Station PUD Amendment No. 3 Zoning Plat and no site disturbance shall be allowed beyond this line or within any wetland areas verified by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
949-4280 (extension 139), or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
George H. Harrison
Planner
Planning & Zoning Commission Action
( Approved as submitted ( Approved with conditions (noted below)
( Denied ( Tabled ( Withdrawn by applicant
Conditions of approval, reasons for tabling or withdrawal of application, or basis for denial (refer to code or guidelines by number):
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Signed:
_________________________________ Date __________
Andrew Karow, Chair
Attest:
_________________________________ Date __________
Sue Railton, Secretary