L61 B2 BMBC work session 2Town of Avon
Project Concept Staff Report
March 2, 1999, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
December 20, 2019
Project type
Mixed-use Town Center PUD
Legal description
Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Zoning
Town Center (TC)
Address
0075 Benchmark Road
Introduction
Lot 61 is a 1.07 acre vacant site west of and adjacent to the Seasons building, with frontage on the Avon Pedestrian Mall, the Avon Transit Center, and Benchmark Road. The owner, IDG3
LLC, is requesting a zone change from Town Center (TC) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), because of the limitations of the existing TC zone district, including height, allowed uses,
building setbacks and parking requirements.
The Commission reviewed the development plan during a work session on February 16. Comments by individual Commissioners included:
The general architectural theme is appropriate;
Building height and zero setback could create excess shadowing on the mall;
Building is too tall relative to the Seasons building;
Access to parking and loading is not adequate
Proposed density is too great.
Review Criteria
Zone Changes and PUD approval are dealt with in separate sections of the Zoning Code, each with a set of review criteria. These are listed below for the Commission’s reference.
Zone Change
Is the proposed rezoning justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of the area proposed to be rezoned?
Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the town’s Comprehensive plan?
Are the proposed uses compatible with the surrounding area or uses?
Are adequate facilities available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone?
PUD Zoning & Development Plan
Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan’s Goals and Objectives.
Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub-area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and
orientation.
Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
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.
A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the town transportation plan.
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
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.
Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
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.
Staff Comments
The following comments are based upon our review of the revised Development Plan submitted on February 24. These are intended to help the Commission’s discussion during the March 2nd
work session, and do not address every element of the application.
Uses: The proposed uses are consistent with those allowed in the Town Center (TC) zone district.
Yard and bulk: Because the building is on the south side of the Pedestrian Mall, its height and distance (setback) relative to the Mall are critical dimensions. Its two- and three-story
height built right to the property line will create excessive shadowing on the Mall.
In contrast, the adjacent Seasons building is 10 feet back from the property line and only 14 feet high for most of its length along the Mall. As a result, much of the Mall receives
sunlight even in December and January.
Staff believes that the zero-lot-line development as proposed on this site would be detrimental to the Mall and adjacent buildings.
Site grading, access, and maneuverability: The parking garage entry is relocated, and is further separated from the Seasons entry. Its new location within the port cochere, however,
is likely to cause the queue to back up on Benchmark Road.
The proposed loading dock entrance is on a curving portion of Benchmark Road adjacent to the Seasons parking structure entrance. Trucks will have to use Benchmark Road for backing and
turning movements. We believe that this design is not acceptable.
Effective pedestrian access to and through this site is essential. The plan includes an arcade from the mall through the site, and anticipates a pedestrian overpass to the Confluence.
However, the building’s location and height as discussed in the preceding section, may have a negative effect on the Mall’s pedestrian function.
Density: Existing zoning allows up to 30 dwelling units (DU) per acre; the proposed density is 110 DU per acre. Because the lot is relatively small and has an unusual configuration,
the functions of vehicle access, parking, and delivery consume a larger percentage of the site than they would on a larger site (diseconomies of scale).
Staff believes that the current density (30 DU per acre) is appropriate; and that granting the proposed density would be at the expense of the Mall and other properties in the Town Center.
Conclusion: We believe that in many ways the plan generally responds to the site and the Town Center. The arrangement and relative massing of the buildings, pedestrian connection with
the Confluence and vertical mix of uses are all positive elements.
However, we also believe that the project significantly exceeds the site’s capacity and will likely result in adverse impacts on the Mall, the pedestrian connection, and on access and
circulation of Benchmark Road and adjacent properties. Based on the above, we would not support the project; we believe it should be revised to conform to the TC zone district.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any community development matter, please call 748-4014, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Matzko
Director of Community Development