PZC Packet 092094I
PLANNING .0%.,141) ZONING COMMISSION STAFrrREPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at 3eaver Creek Subdivision
Nawojczyk Duplex
Final Design Review Modification of Color
PROJECT TYPE: Duplex
ZONING: RD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION -
The Nawojczyk's have submitted a revised body color for their duplex on Lot 37, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The proposed color is a dark brown, similar to the color of
the Municipal building.
STAFF COMMENTS
Staff has no concerns with the request.
STAFF RE OMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission approve this application as presented.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Holden
Town Planner
00% Aow�
PLANNING ..AD ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Nawojczyk Duplex
Final Design Review Modification of Color
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( Approved wiv, recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date Sue Railton, Secretary — _ C+Ip�vLMAi.J
The Commission granted approval fo- the req e ted color change as submitted.
: LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFt EPORT
,y September 20, 1994
I•
Lot 13, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek Automotive
Final Design Review-ldentirication Sign
PROJECT TYPE Business Identification Sign
ZONING: Industrial/Commercial COMPLIES WITH ZONING" Yes
INTRODUCTION
David Svabik, Managing Partner of Beaver Creek ALOmotive, has submitted an
application requesting approval of a freestanding sign for their business
REQUEST:
Please refer to the attached plan of the building identification sign.
STAFF COMMENTS
"Sign Guiuelines" and review criteria from the Sign Code.
Section. 15.28.060 Sign Design Guidelines
A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, configuration, design, — 1-6al
and colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, wii',c
neighborhood, and with the townscape.
B. Harmonious with Building Scale. the sign should be harmonious with the
building scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call
undue attention to itself.
C Materials Quality sign materials, including anodized metal, roused or
sandblasted wood, such as tough cedar or redwood, interior -lit, individual Plexiglas -faced
letters: or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are
encouraged.
Siga materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type ^!A tiC, and raper or
vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if
determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission
D Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in
harmony architecturally. and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures
E. Land: caping. l_andwc .;ging is required for all free-standing signs, and shot.!d be
designed to enhance the signage and surroundini, _uiiJing landscaping
P Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed
PLANNING r ND ZONING COMMISSION STAF► aPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 13, Block I, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek Automotive
Final Design Review -Identification Sign
G. Lighting lighting should be of uo greater wattage than is necessary to make
the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties.
Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians
or vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a
disturbing manner.
H. Location. On multi -story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be
limited to the ground level.
Section 15.228.070 - Sign Design Review Criteria
In addiiion to the sign Design Guidelines listed above, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall also consider the following criteria while reviewing proposed sign
des;gns:
A. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be
constructed and the site upon which it is to be located:
Comment: The proposed sign is consistent with the Town's Sign Design Guidelines.
B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements.
Comment: The sign materials are consistent with allowed signs on adjacent and
neighboring buildings.
C The quality ofthe materials to be utilizeo in any proposed improvemem
Comment. The quality of the proposed sign materials are acceptable
D The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or
neighboring property.
Comment The visual impact of these proposed improvements will be consistent with
existing area signs
E The objective that no impro,ement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the
vicinity :hat values, monetary or aesthetic , will be impaired
Commend: The proposal meets the intent of this criteria
F Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign
code and appear to be appropriate for the project
re
PLANNING .yiQD ZONING COMMISSION STAF► REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 13, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek Automotive
Final Design Review -Identification Sign
Comment: The type, size and location of the proposed sign generally comp:: --s with the
ON Sign Code.
G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether
r the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation.
Comment: These signs are primarily oriented towaw vehicular traffic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Planning and "Zoning approve this application with the following
conditions:
1. The lighting be approved prior to placement of the sign.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
I Introduce Application
2. Ap,)licant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully Submitted
ti c 11i"
Mary Holden
Town Planner
PLANNING tsND ZONING COMMISSION STAFt REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 13, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek Automotive
Final Design Review-ldentifecation Sign
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted (off' Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date Sue Railton, Secretary �_ -nil ,- — CAA W.wfA)r.j
1
E-. '.
T -.
5
, I
`� �G,1 %iPPL.ILI�.T1of.1
��J 11�uI1L �. � S11J2�xIJCF �T2S
Lsi 1 1 � � �JL,c. � � t`�:>T�c�.IM2ti2L c • st
PLANNING t..1D ZONING COMMISSION STAF► REPORT
September 20, 1994
Swift Gulch Addition
Torn of Avon Public Works Site
Amendment to PUD
PROJECT TYPE: Public Works Facilities
ZONING: PUD AMENDMENT COMPLIES WITH ZONING?
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD FOR
SWIFT GULCH ADDITION.
The Town of Avon is requesting an amendment and re -c .ablishment of a PUD on the
proper y know as Swift Gulch Addition. The request is to allow for a public works facility
and associated uses.
STAFF COMMENTS
DESIGN CRITERIA:
The Zoning Code has established design criteria for evaluating a PUD. The criteria is
listed below and comments pertaining to each.
1. C'onjoryniq with the Avon Comprehew"ve Plan, goals, and objectives.
Staff has identified some goals anu objectives listed in the Comprehensive Plan the
Commission should consider. They are:
Goal A5. Provide municipal ser.,ices and utilities to existing development, as
needed, and plan for the extension oft he Town's infrastructure to accommodate
future &velopment
Goal DI Public facilites should be developed as necessary to ma;ntain the proper
level of public services in the Town..
2. Conformitt, and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, the .sub-
area design recommendations and design guidelines adopted [. the Town.
This project is in Sub -Area 16, Swift Gulch, and the standards indi,.ated in the
Comprenensive Plan are attached to this Staff report
.3. Design compatibility with the Immediate environmew, neighborhood, and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, .scale, bWk, building height, buffer
;acnes, character, and orientations.
PLANNING f. VD ZONING COMMISSION STAFi tdEPORT
September 20, 1994
Swift Gulch Addition
Town of Avon Public Works Site
Amendment to PUD
Existing land uses found in the area are as follows:
North: Open space
South: I-70
West: Commercial
East: Nottingham Ranch and open space.
Information has not been provided on the design of the buildings, however, the maximum
building heights are proposed at 48'.
d. Uses, cctivity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
rela, ionship with surrounding uses and activity.
The Comprehensive Plan indicates this area should be mixed use, which includes light
industry. The Public Works facility use appears to be compatible with surrounding uses.
S. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed
The Town has met with the Divisio:. of Wildlife on site and they have no problem with the
Town's proposal.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural feature,
vegetation anti overall aesthetic duality of the community.
The Town will be sensitive to natural features.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on
and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan.
The circulation for the site is limited by access on Swift Gulch Road. The road will
receive upgrades to accommodate the fac'lity
ll. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in V. der to optimize and
preserve natura: feature, recreation, views and function.
Landscaping has not beer indicated ai this time.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable functions t and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD.
Phasing is proposed, however, at this time the scheduling is not know.
PLANNING i ND ZONING COMMISSION STAF! REPORT
September 20, 1994
Swift Gulch Addition
Town of Avon Public Works Site
Amendment to PUD
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation
systems, roads parks, and police and fire protection.
There will be adequate utilities to serve the site and proposed use.
M. That the existing streets and roads are suitable rind adequate to carry
anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD.
The existing Swift Gulch Road will he upgraded by paving.
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES STANDARDS:
A. Permitted Uses: Offices, Mechanical Shops and Associated Storage, Outdoor Storage
Yards for uses associated with Municipal Services, Water, Transit and Fire, to include but
not limited to Cinder and Sand piles, Snow Plow and Streets Equipment, Transit vehicles,
Town Vehicles, Bad Order parking, Horticulture Cc.mpound, CDL Drivers Course, Fuel
Pump stand. Snow Storage.
B. Maximum I.,tilding Height: Forty-eight (48') high.
C. Minimum L3uil&w Setbacks: Front. Twenty-five (25') feet
Side: Seven and one-half (7 5') feet
Rear: Ten (10') feet
D. Maximum Site Covera . Fifty (50%) percent
E. Minimum Landscaoe Area Twenty (20°%) percent
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
S'aff recommendation is for Commission to a:opt Resolution 94-I8, approving the re-
establishment of a PUD for Swift Gulch Addition
RECOMMENDED ACI ION
I Introduce Application
2 Applicant Presentation
PLANNING A,41) ZONING COMMISSION STAFh REPORT
September 20, 1994
Swift Gulch Addition
Town of Avon Public Works Site
Amendment to PUD
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Commission Review
6. Commission Action
Rf.spectfully Submitted,
Mary Hold
Town Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date 9 IWI 9 d- Sue Railton, Secry "y_
The Commission approved Tannin and Zoninq Co missi n Resolution 94-
Res� Recommending to the Ayon Town Cou cil Arcval of a PUD
Development Plan 'and Development St&dards ated t Parcels 1 and 2
tion,ch Addi Town ofAvon, ray 112 Coulit,79 Culurcluu,
Swift Gul,
following findings:
q Kik, J
I
1. The PUD is consistent with the development patterns and locations set
forth in the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
2.ThePTJ>f=s consistentwith the Comprehensive Plan goals ard— o )ectives
related to land use and prc::imity to the Town Core.
3. The PUD iS cunbiste-!t with the Comp-ehensive Plan a-nd--objec-tives
related to providing municipal services and utilities toexisting
developments and accimnodating future developments.
4. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives
related to the development of public facilities to maintain proper
level of public services in the Town.
J
•
• Minimize access points on East Beaver Creek Boulevard and Avon
Road to simplify circulation. Develop these access points as
shopping area entrances with special landscaping and pedestrian
walks.
• Investigate the possibility of designating Beaver Creek Place as a one-
way street to enhance circulation in the area.
• Within parking lots, define main circulation routes with planting
islands.
• Encourage etdsting development to add landscaped parking islands
to interrupt large paved areas and provide partial screening.
Screen loading docks and service areas -- generally separate truck
and passenger vehicle traffic. Coordinate the location of service and
loading areas between businesses to minimize the land area devoted
to those activities.
• Limit building heights to three to four stories.
Suba-ea 16: Swift Gulch is presently undeveloped, located between generally
Swift Gulch south -facing slopes. As with most southern exposures in the mountains,
the area has t:o trees to naturally soften development. Access to
development will be off Swift Gulc' Road, which should eventually
become a collector that connects to mixed use parcels further east.
Recommendations:
Develop the entire area as a master planned development to ensure
thae (1) access points from Swift Gulch Road are minimizes;
(2) landscape buffering along the road is installed with the first
phases of development: (3) an adequate, internal vehicular and
pedestrian circulation system is provided for, (4) and steep slopes are
protected from development.
Building heights should be limited to three stories. Building
materials and colors should be neutral to blend in with the hillsides.
Offensive uses should oe adequately screened with berms and
Landscaping.
5.28
FI E
I / I A ING
CL SSR
I
I J/'� .C.DA. DNlycn i {
ad
0. •
`. YA STDRAJE
AREA
tW..�
»t^ tb
170 _ ..-T
NEL
i a•J._ •\
i ? �. Imo` ..''
FT�-Cl/LC\fADDl nM
T
JAtJr'VN
VEHICLE STORAGE
• \�
-_EI` YEE PARKING
I•
y, o f
_
\
_—r„
`
du `I // /
N N— Y
fKAN51Tl
2I I
I / ///
EL r PUBIC K'ORKLi PUBLIC WORKS
\ \ Df•FICE + YAW PENANCE
\ �� \tom Y>
n[ eAs! ern a•
^� a� I;
Z.
A.
om_
\
t
•-�. \ \
'U�_-_` EDUPYENT ENCLOSID 1
i].
JURGE
`
Al •\�\\. `\` ••_ a
l\_
t
Jt
04 0
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 18
SERIES OF 1994
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS RELATED TO PARCELS 1 AND 2, SWIFT GULCH ADDITION,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY COLORADO (CURRENTLY ZONED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD)
WHEREAS, the Town of Avon, owner of Parcels I aad 2, Swift Gulch Addition,
has requested approval of a PlannW unit De,.elopment Plan, and
Development Standards on Parcels 1 and 2, Swift Gulch Addition; and
WHEREAS, Parcels 1 and 2, Swift Gulch Addition is zoned Planned Unit
Development; and
WHEREAS, - public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the TL,, via of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law at which the
applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and
present certain im ormr,cton and reports regarding the Zoning Amendment.
NOW, HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, that:
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves and recommends to the
Avon Town Council approval of Zoning Amendment, as defined in proposed Ordinance
#94-19, to establish a Planned Unit Development Plan and Development Standards on
Parcels 1 and 2, Swift GL,ch Addition citing the following findings;
I. The PUD is consistent with the development patterns and locations set
forth in the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
2. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and
06
r•
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS RELATED TO PARCELS I AND 2, SWIFT GULCH ADDITION,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE CCUNTY COLORADO (CURRENTLY ZONED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD)
WHEREAS, the Town of Avon, owner of Parcels I and 2, Swift Gulch Addition,
has requested approval of a Planned Unit Development Plan, and
Development Standards on Parcels 1 and 2, Swift Gulch Addition; and
WIIEREAS, Parcels I and 2, Swift Gulch Addition is zoned Planned Unit
Development; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law at which the
applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and
present certain, information and reports regarding the Zoning Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, that:
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves and recommends to the
Avon Town Council approval of Zoning Amendment, as defined in proposed Ordinance
494-19, to establish a Planned Unit Development Plan and Development Standards on
Parctts I and 2, Swift Gulch Addition citing the following findings'
1. The PUD is consistent with the development patterns and locwmns set
forth in the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
2 The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and
objectives related to land use and proximity to the Town Core.
3. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and
objectives related to providing municipal services and 1, ;lities to
existing developments and accommodating future development.
4. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and
objectives related to the development of public facilities to maintain
proper level of public services in the Town
APPROVED THIS ZO�4 _DAY OF S t P9%44yh-yam. , 1494
Secretary
C akr
4. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and
objectives related to the development of public facilities to maintain
Proper level of public services in the Town.
APPROVED THIS Zb+a DAY OF S [ P4Nti►?ri1994.
Secretary
PLANNING A 'A ZONING COMMISSION STAFF rtEPORT
September 20, 1 . 4
Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Canton Duplex
Variance - Side Yard Setback
' PROJECT TYPE: Duplex
ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? No, Requires a
Varianrc to Side Yard Setback Requirements
This is a Public !fearing for a variance to the side yard setback on Lot 31, Block 2,
Wiidridge Subdivision.
INTRODUCTION:
Mr. Bruce Canton is requesting a variance for a 1.5' roof overhang encroachment into the
west s:de yard setback.
REQUEST:
As the application states, Alpine Engineering staked and verified the dwelling and the
concrete contractor somehow shifted the A side of the dwelling over one foot to the west
By doing this, the roof overhangs, which are two feet, will extend over the side yard
setback by 1.5' The structure will sit 5' from the side yard setback
STAFF COMMENTS:
Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following
factors with respect to the requested variance:
Section 17.36.40, Approval Criteria
A. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
Comment. The requested variance is in keeping with the surrounding uses and structures
in the area.
B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of it specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibly and
uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity.
Comment. The degree of relief being sought is minimal Enc oachment is 1 5' roof
overhang and not the basic structure
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety.
PA
PLANNING A.iD ZONING COMMISSION STAFF KEPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Canton Duplex
Variance - Side Yard Setback
Comment. 'The effect of the request will have no negative impacts on light, air,
population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities or public safety.
D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
40 requested variance.
Comment. StalThas not identified any other factors for the Commission to consider.
FINDINGS REQUIRED:
The Planning and 'Zoning Commission shall make the following findings bel'ore granting a
variance
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would
re-.ult in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title;
ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circvnistances or conditions applicable to
the site of the varK'agce that do not apply generally to other properties in the
vicinity;
iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the vicinity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommendation is for approval of Resolution No. 94-19, A Resolution Approving a
Variance From The Side Yard Setback Requirements As Stipulated in Title 17 of the
Avon Municipal Code for Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, 7 own of Avon, Eagle
County, Co' irado.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
Iy ^
PLANNING A.iD ZONING COMMISSION STAFN .CEPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Canton Duplex
Variance - Side Yard Setback
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Commission Review
6. Commission Action
Respectfully submutteu,
-f -qct �-t
Mary Hold
Town Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Concepwal. No Action ( )
Date_9M Q4 Sue Railton, Secy ary
D PAGE k T
0*4
Lot 31, Blk 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Variance Sideyard Setback
Septembfr 20, 1994
The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-19, A
Resolution Approving A Variance from the Sideyard Setback Requirements as
Stipulated in Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code, citing the following findings
and condition:
Findings:
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for the following reason:
iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the vicinity.
Condition:
1. The overhang encroachment into the west sideyard setback extends a maximum
length of 15 feet.
AA Oft
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 19
SERIES OF 1994
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE
SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS
STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE,
FOR LOT 31, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Bruce Canton, owner of Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge
Subdivision has applied for a setback variance from the "Side Yard Building Setback"
requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, 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 Side Yard Building Setback Variance application, and
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
Town of Avon has determined.
1. The variance is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment
among sites in the vicinity.
2. Approval of the variance will not constitute a grand of special privilege: and
3. The requested variance will have no detrimental effect on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, and public
facilities and utilities, and public safety; and
WHERLAS, the P' ;ening and Zoning Comniis,wn finds
I RUIN rvv. 94 - IV
SERIES OF 1994
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE
SIDE LARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS
STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF ]'HE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE,
FOR LOT 31, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
r._
WHEREAS, Bruce Canton, owner of Lot 3 I, Block 2, Wildridge
Subdivision has applied for a setback variance from the "Side Yard Building Setback"
requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, 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 Side Yar,J Buiiding Setback Variance application, and
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
Town of Avon has determined:
1. The variance is necessary m achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment
among sites in the vicinity.
2. Approval of the variance will not constitute a grand of special privilege: and
3. The requested variance will have no detrimental effect on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, and public
facilities and utilities, and public safety; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds:
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of
A,#%
044
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
Safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby aPl:roves a setback variance of 1.5' from the "Side Yard
Building Setback" requirement of Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 31, Block 2,
Wildridge Subdivision, Town :,f Avon, Eagle County Colorado, subject to the following
condition:
1. The overhang encraachment into the west side yard setback extends a maximum length
of 15 feet.
ADOPTED THIS 20 434 DAY OF _�—��Q�.{hf-y7 1994
Secretary Chai
iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed b, the owners of other properties
in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a setback variance of 1.5' from the "Side Yard
Building Setback" requirement of Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 31, Block 2,
Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County Colorado, subject to the following
condition:
1. The overhang encroachment into the west side yard setback extends a maximum length
of 15 feet.
ADOPTED THIS 204-" DAY OF ot-2EMVoi_V_1994
Secretary
Planning and —aning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 1994
T. J. Connor Building
Special Review Use -- Above Ground Power Lines to Building
Lot 14-15, Block 1, renchmark at Beaver Creek
PROJECT TYPE: Special Review Use -Above Ground Power Lines -- Public Hearing
ZONING: IC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Upon Approval of SRU
This is a Public Hearing to allow above ground power lines to run to the structure.
INTRODUCTION
Peter Sullivan, on behalf of T. J. Connor, has submitted an application for a Special
Review Use to allow above ground power lines to run to the budding. The application
states they were unable to obtain the easement through the adjacent property to run their
power lines underground.
STAFF COMMENTS
New buildings being constructed in the Town of Avon have been under grounding the
power lines. Buildings with power lines above ground are the older structures in the
Town.
Following are the criteria, as fisted in Section 17.48.040, to consider for approval of a
special review use:
A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the
zoning code,
COMMENT: The proposed use complies with all requirements imposed by the "Zoning
Code.
B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan,
COMMENT: The proposed use would not comply with Goal 11: "Ensure that a high
quality visual image of the Town is established through both public and private sector
activities." Object (e) states "Improve the appearance and image of the service district
along Nottingham and Metcalf Roads through enhanced design, screening of activities,
and landscaping.
C. 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.
Planning an(, Commission Staff Report
September 20, 1994
T. J. Connor Building
Special Review Use -- Above Ground Power Lines to Building
Lot 14-15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
COMMENT Adjacent uses may have above ground power lines, however, they were
built prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the goals and objectives.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt Resolution 94-20, which
denies the Special Review Use -- Above ground power lines, which include the findings
for denial.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2 Applicant Presentation
3 Open Public Hearing
4 Close Public Hearing
'. Commission Review
G Commission Action
Respectfully Submitted,
�Ci. LLU
Mary Holden
Town Planner
Planning and mooning Commission Staff Report
September 20, 1994
T. J. Connor Building
Special Review Use -- Above Ground Power Lines to Building
Lot 14-15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued (0-'� Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date '31W114- _Sue Railton, Se?6t-ary_
Atter considerable discussion the Commission tabled thisapplication to
allow the applicant time to provide other possible alternatives.
ABSC LP
P. O. Box 3456
Gaithersburg, MD 20885
301 299.4381
(VOICE/ ME53AGEIFAX)
June 9, 1994
Ted Huskey
Engineering Service Supervisor
Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc.
3799 Highway 82
R O. Drawer 2150
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Mr. Huskey,
Your request for an underground easement through our driveway to the Lots 15 and 16 has been
received. The proposed easement is not only disruptive to our operation during you construction,
but also presents a problem in the future, should your utility needed any service. Therefore, your
request is denied and not granted.
Sincerely,
S. S Chang
Pogt-It' Fax Note
7671
Date Q
-- _ �'r�
ca°qesP,
To t FC J e
From—
C6.IDe01.
Cc.
Phone F
Phone,
Fax A
FAK Y
004
0
. by SII c voss
w
jje:;%y` :': �5
BENCHMARK Ar QEAVEE CREEK
BLOCK j
VAIL AVOAI COMMEECIAL
\ PARK
LEGEND
0 EXISTIn16 POWER POLE
01 EXISTING OVERHEAD PRIMARY ELECTRIC LINC
O PROPOSED POWER POLE
-#//-- PROPOSED OVERHEAD PRIMARY ELECTRIC LIME.
NOT rO 5CALE
I
F -X HIBIT A
L.�,I
4- , V -,A
bwO-e-5 of
i4VON
SINESS�
ON
0
crQ
V
W
L
- -- (_ E G END
EXISTING OVERHEAD PRl RY Ei-Ec T?lc LINE
• EXISTING Pave ER PGCE
- � EXISTING LINPFRGR,9uN PRIMARY FLCCT.CIC LINE
PROPOSED UHVERGAOUN PRIMARY EIECTRIC LINE
® 5xisrIHG TH,QEE-PNASE PRD-Mou"r TIMNSFORMER
PROPOSED THREE- PHASE PAD- MouNr TRANSFORMER
4or 14
\ — J
Q
V
F
Lar IS F
0
U
Lor IG
0
AVON \ (r
BUSINESS
Lor 17
\ 'u
SERVICE
CENTEP,
dP`
\ F
LEGEND
EXISTING OVERHEAD PRI RY Ez-Ec T?lc L/NE
0 EXISTNJG PO H[ER POLE
00I'— EXISTING LIND BRGRO UN PR/M.vAtY ELLc T.¢Ic LINE
PROP05Ko L/HDERGRo uN P?/MA.CY ELEc TRIG GINE
® E,r IST/N6 PAD -MOUNT TRANSF09MER
® F ROPOSED THQEF_- PHASE PAD- MouMT TRANSFORMF/C
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 20
SERIES OF 1994
A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE
TO ALLOW FOR ABOVE GROUND POWER LINES
CONNECTING TO A BUILDING ON LOT 14-15, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK
AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, T. J. Connor has filed an application with the 'rown of Avon for
approval of a Special Review Use to allow for the installation of above ground power lines,
on Lot 14-15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado,
and,
WHEREAS, this location is zoned Industrial and Commercial, in which
above ground utilities may be approved as a Special Review Use, and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, 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, and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing and consideration of such information as
presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows.
A. The proposed use is not consistent with the objectives and purposes of the
comprehensive plan; and
B. The proposed use is not designed to be compatible with the surrounding land
uses and newer uses in the area
SERIES OF 1094
A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE
TO ALLOW FOR ABOVE GROUND POWER LINES
CONNECTING TO A BUILDING ON LOT 14-15, BLOCK I, BENCHMARK
AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, T. J. Connor has filed an application with the Town of Avon for
approval of a Special Review Use to allow for the instillation of above ground power lines,
on Lot 14-15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado,
and;
WHEREAS, this location is zoned Industrial and Commercial, in which
above ground utilities may be approved as a Special Review Use; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, 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 RtMew Use; and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing and consideration of such information as
presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows
A. The proposed use is not consistent with the objectives and purposes of the
comprehensive plan, and
B. The proposed use is not designed to be compatible with the surrounding land
uses and newer uses in the area.
,-061N
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies a Special Review Use for the installation of above
ground power line on Lot 14-15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle
County, Colorado.
ADOPTED THIS _ _DAY OF
Secretary Chairman
1994
ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
Secretary Chairman
994
�i
I --
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Mountain Coast Homes
Variance - Building Height
PROJECT TYPE: Four-plex
ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? No, Requires a
Variance to Building Height Requirements
This is a Public Hearing for a variance to the Building Height, on Lot 3, Block 2,
Wildridge Subdivision.
INTRODUCTION:
Michael Waste, on behalf of Mountain Coast Homes, is requesting a variance to the
maximum building height of 35' allowed for Wildridge Subdivision.
REQUEST:
The proposal is to allow the structure to be built 4 112' over the maximum building height
of 35'. The applicant is citing the topography as the reason for the variance request. The
application is attached the for Commission review.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staffs main concern with the request is that a height variance has never been approved in
the Wildridge Subdivision. Building height is one of the controls on building bulk utilized
to achieve compatibility and conforrnity of treatment among sites.
Upon reviewing the project, there appear to be changes that could reduce the height, such
as design and site layout.
Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following
factors with respect to the requested variance:
Section 17 36.40, Approval Criteria
A. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
Comment: A height variance has not been granted in this area of Wildridge Subdivision
and could be considered a grant of special privileges.
B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibly and
uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity.
PLANNING AND ZONkNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Mountain Coast Homes
Variance - Building Height
Comment. The degree of relief being sought is 4 1/2' over the maximum height limit.
However, granting of the variance may not be compatible or uniform with how other sites
have been treated in the vicinity.
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety.
Comment. The effect of the request may have no negative impacts on light, air,
population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities or public safety.
However, should this variance be approved, others may apply for the same reason,
potentially impacting the population and creating larger, more massive structures in the
area.
D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
requested variance.
Comment. Staff has not identified any other factors for the Commission to consider.
FINDINGS REQUIRED:
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a
variance:
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title;
ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the site of the variance that do not apply generally tc other properties in the
vicinity;
iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the vicinity.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PTAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Mountain Coast Homes
Variance - Building Height
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommendation is for adoption of Resolution No. 94-21 which denies the requested
variance from the maximum height limit of 35' based upon the following findings:
FINDINGS
A. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other prop-rties in the vicinity.
B. That the granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons:
i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would not result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title;
ii. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity;
iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
vicinity.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2 Applicant Presentation
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Commission Review
5. Commission Action
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STA 11FREPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Mountain Coast Homes
Variance - building Height
Respectfullv submitted,
-r ' r Cu.o
Mary Hold
Town Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued (.-r Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) ConcepwJ, No Action ( )
Date_ 9 ZDI 14- Site Railton,
The Commission tabled this a
yf
the applicant time to
MOUNTAIN COAST HOMES, INC.
RFCFIVFD
w�
303-949-4425 • Phone&Fax 303-949-7040
P.O. Box 1123 • Avon, Colorado 81620
Se:plember07, 1994 1 TOWN OF AVON
Town of Avon RE: Proposed I (eight Variance
Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
P O Box 975 2810 ONeal Spur, Avon, Colorado
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Resid-tit:
1 wanted to contact you personally regarding the above referenced subject. My name is Michael Waste and I am the Project
Manager of the project. When we submitted our proposed project to the Town of Avon, our architect, Robert Kaufman, AIA,
had designed a building which we felt met the Planning and Zoning Guidelines. However, the'fown of Avon staff has
calculated that our building does not fall within the Building Height Ordinance.
There is more than one method to calculate the building height, as the Building Height Ordinance is somewhat general. This is
proven by the existing buildings which did not have to go through the variance prxess. Alter reviewing seural projects the
the Wildnoge Subdivision, 1 came to realize that there are many buildings which exceed the height limitation according the
method of calculation that the planning Staff uses today. The following are a few of these buildings:
Wildwood Townhomes'Unit D'
Developed by the Town of Avon
I leight 38.90'
2670 Bear Trap
Height 38.90'
3083 Wildridge Road
Iletght 42.30'
'(here are several determining factors which lead as to believe that we have the support of the majority of the Planning and
Coning Board members. A few of these factors are listed as follows:
I . A difficulty in ascertaining a consistent method of interpreting the height Ordinance.
2. The consideration that our property has a steep slope.
3. That another design would result in a building whose ❑rising would be of a far greater impact to
adjacent property owners
4. The majcnty of our building will start below the street elevation.
1 would like to point out additionally that our design takes advantage of existing grades, utilities and views for the most
efficient floor plan, with the least impact on (he site.
I would appreciate anv yuestion� or comments that you may have regarding our proposed building. Please feel free to call me
at (303) 949-4425.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Sincerely,
Michael Waste
Mountain Coast I Ionics, Inc
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
The undersigned hereby requests that a VARIANCE from the terms of the Town of Avon
Municipal Code be granted. In support of this application, the undersigned states:
1. The specific variance requested is To allow the height of the building to exceed the 35'-0"
height limitation. as cuffCntIN rdlCUl,1tCd LW staff, Proposed height nf the hu Ichng tn F� R
2. Legal de!cription of property:
State of .. ..
3. Address cf property:
`Q 10 O'Neal Spur. Avon, Colorado
4. Owner of described property: Mountain( onstHnmec
5. Applicant for variance: Ivtountaineosaxomee
6. Zoning Classification of property: RLD
7. Existing improvements on property consist of None
8. The duration of the proposed variance is: Permanent X Temporary _ Years
9. The following practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship, inc,nsistent with
the objectives nf the particular regulation would result from the strict, literal
interpretation and enforcement of the regulation:
A building whose massing. b2cause of a larger footprint and parallel to the front properly line would be of far
greater impact to theaa�accnt property owners.
10. The following exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the site do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district:
v_ _ 55%,r;Mi+dietder to the -front-piepetty title
11. The strict literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of the following privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district:
The ability to utilize a design that takes advantage of the existing grades, utilities, and views for a more efficient
and economical floor plan, with the least impact to the site.
J
J
A
JI
n
A
NL
o` o
� Z
C
b
`o
C C)
no �
\ /
0
b
n
_n
t,
n _
H2
,0
e
no �
H2
"U
/ \�
s
m o
mNA` o
� v
b
b
i
5
b
iD
b
u3
�Z i
m
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 21
SERIES OF 1994
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE
BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS
STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE,
FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Michael Waste, owner of Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge, has applied for a
variance from the maximum building height requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and "Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, 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 Building Height Variance; application and has considered
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity,
2 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment
among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege;
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety,
4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed
SERIES OF 1994
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE
BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS
STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE,
FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Michael Waste, owner of Lot 33 , Block 2, Wildridge, has applied for a
variance from the maximum building height requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, 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 Building Height Variance application and has considered:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity,
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment
among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege;
3. The effect of the requested variance on light art' air, distribution of population,
transportation and Traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety,
4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed
variance.
SERIES OF 1994
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE
BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS
STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE,
FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE,
TOWN OF .AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Michael Waste, owner of Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge, has applied for a
variance from the maximum building height requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, 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 Building Height Variance application and has considered:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity;
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment
among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege;
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities. public facilities and utilities, and public safety;
4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed
variance.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds:
A. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity.
B. That the granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons:
i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would not resui! in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title;
ii. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity,
iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the 'town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies the requested variance from the building height
regulation of Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge, Town of Avon,
Eagle County, Colorado.
ADOPTED THIS DAY OF __ 1994
Secretary
Chairman
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons:
i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would not result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title,
ii. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity,
iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies the requested variance from the building height
regulation of Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge, Town of Avon,
Eagle County, Colorado,
ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
Secretary Chairman
1994
PLANNING AiA) ZONING COMMISSION STAFF KEPORT
August 2, 1994
Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Fourplex
Final Design Review
PROJECT TYPE: Fourplex
rY.ONING: PUD, Fourplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? NO, Requires
I Approval of Variance
INTRODUCTION-,
Robert Kaufmann, on behalf of Mountain Coast Homes, has submitted an application for
Final Design Review of a fourplex on Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge. The lot, 1.12 acres in
size, and has slopes ranging from 31 to 55%. The building will contain three and one half
levels.
The units will consist of the following materials:
Materials Colors
Roof
G.A.F - Timberline
burnt sienna blend
Siding
horizontal cedar siding
natural
Other
stucco
wheat field
Fascia
cedar
green band
Soffits
cedar
natural
Window
vinyl clad wood
natural
Window Trim
cedar
natural
Door
metal
green bank
Door Trim
cedar
natural
Hand/Deck Rails
cedar
natural
Flues
N/A
Flashings
metal
natural
Trash Enclosure
wood
natura6'green bank
A landscape plant list is attached to this report.
REVIEW HISTORY
The Commission reviewed this application at the May 17, 1994 meeting and commented
on the following:
• Building height and how propose to lower;
• Four identical units with no variation to window fenestration's, garage doors,
etc.,
• Use of decorative devices,
• Identical not being acceptable;
• South elevation maybe have heavier trim around windows;
PLANNING Ai") ZONING COMMISSION STAFF xEPORT
August 2, 1994
Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Fourplex
Final Design Review
• Variations architecturally on multi -family attached homes looks tacky,
• Steep lot;
• Exposed foundations;
• Stucco to grade; and
• Individual trash pick up suggested due to dumpster location and how
functional location being
At the August 2, 1994 Commission meeting, this application was tabled due to various
concerns, one being building height.
STAFF COMMENTS:
At the conceptual review, Staff listed various concerns v ith the site plan and building
design. The list is below:
1. Finished slopes may not exceed 2:1;
2. The applicant will be given the Steep Slope Guidelines,
3. Detail must be provided on all retaining walls and if over 4', designed by an Engineer;
4. The retaining wall encroaches in the side yard setback and a variance will be needed;
5. Building height may not exceed 35';
6. Staff questions how functional the dumpster location will be for trash pick up,
7. The topography must be certified by a land surveyor or engineer and include true
limits of site disturbance, utility connections, show all easements;
8. Revegetation of all disturbed areas is required, and must include native bushes.
9. Colors and materials need to be called out on the elevations;
10. The type of fireplace needs to be indicated; and
11. Exterior building lighting must be indicated on the elevations submitted for FDR.
Sile Plan:
The variance to the building hei ;ht must be approved for this application to receive
Final Design Review Approval.
Finished slopes still exceed 2:1.
Letail has not been provided on the retaining walls, which appear to be as high as 10'
in some locations.
This project, due to the steep nature of the site, will be required to place a
construction and erosion control fence on the site prior to any site disturbance.
PLANNING k1A) ZONING COMMISSION STAFF KEPORT
August 2, 1994
Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Fourplea
Final Design Review
DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS.
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.
Comment: This proposal is not in conformance with Town codes. The proposed building
height requires approval of a variance.
The suitability of the improvement, including type and qualit,r of materials of which
it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located.
Comment: The type and quality of proposed building and landscape materials are
consistent wikh Town guidelines.
The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties.
Comment: All impacts will be contained on site.
The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography.
Comment: The loca.ion ofthe building is utilizing the steepest portion of the site
The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and
neighboring pn;perties and public ways.
Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed improvements will be tall to
surrounding neighbors.
The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the
vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired.
COldnlent- The proposal meets the objective of this guideline.
The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the Adopted Goals,
Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
Comment: The proposal is riot in conformance with the goals, policies and programs for
the Town of Avon.
PLANNING A, -D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF rLEPORT
August 2, 1994
Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Fourple:
Final Design Review
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the variance for the height limitation is denied, then deny request based on non-
conformance with the Zoning C _)de.
If the variance for the Height limitation is approved, Final Design Review Approval, is
recommended with the following conditions:
I. The flues, flashings and � ants be painted to match the color scheme of the building.
2. The building lighting be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. Revegetation include native bushes.
4. Meters be placed on the building.
5. Prior to any site disturbance, a const., ction/erosion control fence be placed on site.
6. All Engineering Concerns be addressed prior to the applicrtion of a building permit.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully Submitted
Mary Holder,
Town Planner
PLANNING A_ . D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF ..SPORT
August 2, 1994
Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Fourple:
Final Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( �f Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
r
Date c► ?D Sue Railton, Secetar� _ C#�G�2tNQti)
this application.
so
A �
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridfe Subdivision
Ambrosio Single Family Residence
Final Design Review
PROJECT TYPE: Single family Residence
ZONING: PUD -2 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION:
Tom and Tere Ambrosio have submitted plans for Final Design Review approval of a
single family residence on Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge, which is 5 76 acres The site slopes
to the west at approximately 45%. The residence will contain three levels and stand 33' in
height.
The residence will consist of the following materials
Roof
Siding
Other
Fascia
Softs
Window
Window 'frim
Door
Door Trim
Hand/ Deck Rail
Flues
Flashings
Chimney
Metal clad ext doors
Garage door
Mateeials Color
asphalt
Heritage Rustic Slate
8" lap
Oly 920
rainbow rock stone or moss rock
2x 10/20 cedar/pine
forest green
t&g cedar or pine
Oly 920
metal clad
forest green
i x4 cedar or pine
Oly. 920
pine wood
natural
I x4 cedar or pine
Olv 920
peeled lofts
natural
metal
black
copper
stone veneer
Brest green
re cedar or pine forest ,green
I he landscape plan consists of 2 cottonwoods at 6', 5 blue spruce at 6' high, and 4 junipers
at 18" 1500 square feet of hydro seed is proposed around the perimeter of house
Manual and/or natural irrigation is proposed
REVIEVb HISTORY
The Commission has not conceptuaily review this design
^1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Ambrosio Single Family Residence
Final Design Review
STAFF COMMENTS:
The site plan submitted has contours at 5' intervals with a scale at 1" = 40', and the
enlarged site plan appears to be at 1" = 10', however, it is not exact. Neither site plan
indicates much of a grading plan. Although, from what has been submitted and the
application, a retaining wall of approximately 1.0' high is proposed. Detail needs to be
provided on the retaining wall and approved by Staff prior to the application of a building
permit.
The site plan indicates 2 parking spaces, which do not appear to meet the size
requirements for back out space.
Landscaping must meet the minimum Town standards, which is 2" minimum for deciduous
trees, 6' high minimum for coniferous trees, and 5 gallon minimum for shrubs. Irrigation is
strongly recommended.
Revegetation of the utility cuts and site disturbance must include native bushes, in addition
to native grass and wildflower mix. This may be done through the landscape plan, which
can include native bushes.
The applicant will have to work out Engineering concerns, should they arise.
DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS:
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.
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.
The compatibility of the deign to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties.
The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography.
The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and
neighboring properties and public ways.
The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the
vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired.
A
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Ambrosio Single Family Residence
Final Design Review
The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals,
Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this final design review with the following conditions:
1. The site plan be re -submitted showing grading, drainage, and utility connections, and
approved by Staff PRIOR to the application for a building permit. Should there be
substantial changes affecting the design, the applicant must receive approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission for the changes.
2. The retaining wall design be approved by Town Staff PRIOR to the application for a
building permit.
3. Re, -getation include native bushes.
4. Meters be placed on the building.
5. Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
C'-' `
Mary Holden
Town Planner
.-.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Ambrosio Single Family Residence
Final Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions (✓r Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
Date 4/0"14. Sue Railton, Secy-etary
The Commission granted final de i n a roval with he followinmc
1. The landscape plan be brough back to t Commi sion.
kMpt./
conditions:
C . inc �it.c p an uc is-�uumi u;,cuu�y w�yi au iny, I.Va inayca aiw u�ii iL;
connections, and approved by staff prior to the application for a
hp substa al changes affecting the-
df=sign, the applicant must receive approval from the Planning and
_Zoning Commission for the changes.
3. The retaining wall design be approved by Town staff prior to the
application for a building permit.
4. Revegea ion i fft U-d�ti ve bushu s-- —
5. Meters be placed on the building.
E,--- Qntrnl fe_noe_
be placed on site.
Mn
I-
18.0 �4
1d.o
I
,I
NCK LIN
0'E MAINTENANCE,
SITORAGE LOT 29
rd
i V
I
L-7.50' UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
158
�`-7 OU $z
p = 66'35'21"
R = 125.00'
T = 82.08'
-,45.27'
UILDING SETBACK
LOT 31
-DRIVEWAY TO LOT 31
TAP ALL- LJ-r(L-i"T IF:"
"ONE I N bV-"j,02
.
M.H. RIM REFERENCE
ELEV =8203.0
1 0 it d
\EDGE OF ASPHALT
Z
9
Il
C,
c[,
f)
lu
tzr
77-7
�.•:cDAti
RETL�1Ntn�
STrPwE-
-
N O KT H F LEVATI O t,1
:5. LE. ��
E_XTEKIOR FINISH SC.NFIDULE
�OOF
k5�kt-,- �xG%zxiJ rED��: - DE
50FFIT- Vot RErEN"
E�nP\L
x9ZF)
I4 CEt� ,�
EAR
EA5-f'
Lr
Al ofti
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Pellerito Residence
Final Design Review
PROJECTTYPE: Single Family
ZONING: PUD, One Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES
INTRODUCTION:
Sam Sterling has submitted an application for Final Design review of a single family
residence on Lot 55, Block 3, which is .71 acres in size. The lot slopes to the west at
approximately 25%, however, there are portions of the lot with slopes in exc ,s of 40%.
The single family unit w;ll contain three levels and height varies from 31' to 37.5'.
The single family unit will consist of the following materials:
The landscape plan includes the following.
Spruce 4 8' high
Aspen 2 4" caliper
Aspen 4 2 1/2-3" caliper
Juniper 12 5 gallon
Sod 600 s f bluegrass/mountain hybrid
Seed 5000 s f high mountain mix
Drip and 2-3 sprinkler heads for sod area
REVIEW HISTORY
The Commission reviewed this project as a Conceptual at the June 7, 1994 meeting and
commented on the following.
Materials
Color
Roof
asphalt shingles
tan
Siding
cement stucco
dove white
Fascia
2x 10 & 2x4 r.s. cedar
sage gray
Soffits
vood
sage gray
Window
clad wood
white
Window Tfim
2x10 and 2x6
sage gray
Door
clad wood
white
Door "Trim
1x6 painted or stained
sage gray
Hand/Deck Rails
wood
sage gray
Flues/Flashings
metal
tan
Chimney
stucco
dove gray
G-irage
steel paneled
not indicated
Other retaining walls
6x6 treated lumber or concrete
w/ stucco finish
The landscape plan includes the following.
Spruce 4 8' high
Aspen 2 4" caliper
Aspen 4 2 1/2-3" caliper
Juniper 12 5 gallon
Sod 600 s f bluegrass/mountain hybrid
Seed 5000 s f high mountain mix
Drip and 2-3 sprinkler heads for sod area
REVIEW HISTORY
The Commission reviewed this project as a Conceptual at the June 7, 1994 meeting and
commented on the following.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Pellet ito Residence
Final Design Review
■ Driveway grade;
■ Driveway turnaround;
■ Stucco with no second material,
■ Minimize mass of garage,
■ Variance for retaining walls in setback;
■ Hzight;
■ Color samples,
■ Brightness of stucco; and
■ Siding and roof color.
At the September 6, 1994, the Commission tabled the application due to various concerns
which included grades, building height, slopes, retaining walls, drainage, cutting in the 10'
Slope maintenance easement and utility connections.
STAFF COMMEI FS:
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan addressing the concerns identified at the
previous meetings. The only outstanding item is the building height.
Site Plan Analysis
■ The building height in the north (side) elevation exceeds the 35' height limit.
Attached to the Staff report are the elevations which show how the height was
calcul ted and the north side appears to exceed the 35' limit.
■ Staff is recommending a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site prior to
any site disturbance. It is particularly important for this site due to the steepness and
building on the top of the site with everything sloping down.
Design:
• Lighting has not been indicated or specified. Lighting must be approved prior to the
installation.
• The type of fireplace has not been indicated on the floor plans. This must be resolved
and indicated on the building permit plans.
DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS:
Pt.ANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
September 20, 1994
Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Pellerito Residence
Final Design Review
The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project:
Conformsnce with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town.
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.
The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties.
The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography.
The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and
neighboring properties and public ways.
The objective Ctat 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:
Should the Commiss;on give Final Design Approval, Staff recommends the following
conditions.
I . The building height be lowered to conform with the maximum limit of 35'.
2. The design of the boulder retaining walls be approved by Staff PRIOR to an
application for a building permit.
3. The buildine,, lighting be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit
4. Revegetation include native bushes.
5. Meters be placed on the building.
6 Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
PLANNi, 1D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Septembe, 994
Lot 55, Bi 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Pellerito > .. s,dence
Final Design Review
Respectfully Submitted
Mary Holden
Town Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( )
Approved with modified conditions Continued ( ) Denied ( )
Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( )
(1 �
Date giZO1,94Sue Railton, ecretary`
The Commission granted final design approva wit the following conditions:
1. The building height be to ered to con m iw h the maximum height of 35'
rjQr to
application for e building perm- .
3. The building lighting be approved by Staff p for to issuance of a
Dunning permit.
4. Revegetation include native bushes.
6. Prior to any sire disturbance, a construction/erosion control fence be
7. A sa-ple of the sage color, on a piece of wuod that it is going to be
used on, along wit;- the stucco color be brought. back before the
omm-ss-on. —
L
OV
m
,
I
♦ 1
I
L
OV
m
