PZC Packet 061891STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Sunridge at Avon Phase I
Proposed Building Color Change
Design Review
INTRODUCTION
Tom Casteel (Vail Management Company), on behalf of Sunridge
at Avon Phase I, is requesting design review approval to
change the color of the Sunridge buildings located on Lot 9,
Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The siding
of the buildings currently exhibit an oxford brown
semi -transparent stain. The applicant would like to restain
the building with a Benjamin -Moore "buckskin" colored solid
body stain. The buildings' trin and doors will remain oxford
brown.
Because the applicant was unaware of Avon's design review
procedures regarding proposed building color changes, a few
of the buildings have already been restained.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Discussion and approval of building colors.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. station of Application
2. Applicant's Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Curnutte
Planner
e)
•
•
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 2 of 2
Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Sunridge at Avon Phase I
Proposed Building Color Change
Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ("--) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continue ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn )
Date Patti Dixon, Secretary
The Commission granted design approval for the color change with the
condition that the breezeways also be painted the exterior color.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Buck Creek Plaza Building Color Change
Design Review
INTRODUCTION
Louie and Cynthia Jordan, on behalf of the Buck Creek Plaza
Condominium Association, are proposing to change the color of
the Buck Creek Plaza building located on Lot 72, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The existing siding
on the building consists of a mixture of 8" cedar siding
(stained brown) and stucco (tan). The windows are dark
anodized clad and the roof is metal (brick colored). The
building's scuppers are painted to match the roof color and
the sway braces match the brown siding.
The applicants are proposing to repaint only the wood siding.
The roof and stucco colors will not change. The siding will
be painted a mixture of Hamilton Blue and Border Green. A
somewhat lighter shade of the siding color will be used on
the building's trim. A color sample has been provided for
review, however, no samples of the proposed trim color have
been provided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Discussion and approval of building colors.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Presentation of Application
2. Applicant's Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Curnutte
Planner
-O"N 1
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 2 of 2
Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Buck Creek Plaza Building Color Change
Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions (tib Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn t
Date Dixon, Secretary
The Commission granted design approval for the color change with
the recommendation that a darker accent color be used.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Public Hearing
INTRODUCTION
John Railton, on behalf of Buz Didier and Christine Morrison,
is requesting a variance to allow for a 9-1/2' building
encroachment into the twenty five (25) foot front yard
setback on Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision. In
addition to the building encroachment, the application
includes a request to allow for a parking space to be located
within 10' of the front property line.
Lot 5 is 16,988 square feet in size, however, slightly less
than half of the lot is located beyond the top of the bank of
the Eagle River. The buildable area of the lot consists of
an area approximately 65' x 70' in size (4,550 square feet
exclusive of setback areas). The proposed building
encroachment, only involves the west building (the east and
west sides of the duplex have been detached and separated).
The west building has a footprint of 58' in length.
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
other existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity;
STAFF RESPONSE: Although the river embankment does
restrict the buildable area of the Lot, it would appear that
there is still sufficient buildable area remaining to allow
for the construction of various duplex building designs. The
east building seems to fit nicely within the front setback
line and the river bank. It appears that detaching and
separating the buildings is actually the most predominant
factor driving this variance request.
B. The degree to which relief from the strict or
literal interpretation and enforcements of a specified
regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of trea int among sites in the vicinity, or to
attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege;
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 2 of 4
Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Public Hearing
STAFF RESPONSE: As mentioned above, the degree to
which relief is r,ecessary seems to be driven more by the
applicant's architectural program (detached buildings) than
by the lot's physical constraints. A different design could
utilize a greater portion of the buildable area of the lot
and eliminate the need for a variance. It should be noted
that an 8' front yard setback variance was granted to the
building on Lot 3, in February 1990. The applicant (Seibert
Development) had built the same house design on numerous lots
in Eaglebend, but could not fit the building on Lot 3 without
a considerable amount of destruction to the Eagle River
natural area. Although stating that the variance request was
largely self imposed, Staff did recommend approval. Unlike
lot 3 it would seem that the western building on Lot 5 can
fit within the buildable area or the lot without the need for
redesign.
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;
STAFF RESPONSE: There is no negative impact upon
this criteria.
SECTION 17.36.50 Findings Required
The Commission shall make the following written findings
before granting a variance;
A. That the granting of the variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations of other properties classified in the same
district;
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:
1. The strict, literal interpretation
and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 3 of 4
Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Public Hearing
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title,
2. There are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone,
3. 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 same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Staff recommendation is for denial of the variance request.
Staff feels that granting the variance will constitute a
3rant of special privilege inconsistant with the limitations
of other properties classified in the same district.
Furthermore, the strict literal interpretation and
enforcement of the 25' setback requirement would not result
in a practical difficulty or unecessary hardship inconsistant
with the objectives of the zoning code, nor are there
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to Lot 5 that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone.
Finally, 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 same district.
A resolution documenting the Commission's decision and
findings regarding this variance request will be presented at
the July 3, 1991, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 4 of 4
Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Commission Review
6. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
,IG�t�v l.�uti�
Jim Curnutte
Planner
PLANNING AND -ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( f Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdr
Date Patti Dixon, Secretar _
The Commission granted approval of the front yard setback variance and
parking request, citing the findings that the granting of the variance
will not constitute a grant of special nrivilege inconsistent with the
limitations of other orooerties classified in the same district; and that
the granting of the variance will not be detremential to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity; and is warranted because the strict, literal interpretation
a
and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of this
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision
John Railton for Buz Didier and Chris Morrison
Detached Duplex
Final Design Review
INTRODUCTION
John Railton, on behalf of Buz Didier and Chris Morrison, has
requested final design review for a proposed detached duplex
on Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision. Lot 5 is 0.39 of
an acre (16,988 square feet) in size, however, slightly less
than half of the lot is located beyond the top of the bank of
the Eagle River. The buildable portion of the lot is nearly
flat.
As mentioned above, the two units are proposed to be
detached. The drawings show a minimum 6 foot separation
between the two buildings. The east unit is approximately
1750 square feet in size, not counting the 440 square foot
two car garage. The west unit has approximately 1715 square
feet of habitable area and a similar size garage. The
maximum building height of both buildings is 24'.
A landscape plan has been submitted for review. Although the
proposed landscape materials, quantities and sizes are in
conformance with Town guidelines, Staff has the following
comments:
- No reference to proposed irrigation is provided.
- No trees should be planted within the public
right-of-way.
- The landscape plan refers to low shrubs and
flowerbeds in various locations throughout the
property, but are not specifically shown.
The buildings themselves are two story wood frame buildings
with gable roofs. The siding, fascias, soffits, window and
door trim and deck rails will be cedar. Windows will be
aluminum clad and doors will be metal clad. Asphalt shingles
are proposed for the roof and the driveway will be finished
with either concrete or asphalt. Descriptions and samples of
all proposed building colors have been submitted for the
Commission's review.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed project:
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 2 of 5
Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision
John Railton for Buz Didier and Chris Morrison
Detached Duplex
Final Design Review
6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other
applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
COMMENT: As mentioned during conceptual review of this
project, the proposal is not in compliance with three
portions of the Avon Zoning Code.
1. Definition of Duplex - The newly adopted zoning code
defines a duplex as "a building containing two dwelling
units, designed for or used as a dwelling exclusively by two
families, each living as an independent housekeeping unit".
2. Twenty_ -Five Foot Front Yard Setback - The final plat
shows that this lot has a 25 foot front yard setback. The
site plan, however, shows that the garage foundation wall of
the west side unit is at 17 feet from the front property
line. By adding the 1-1/2 foot building overhang the total
encroachment into the front yard setback is 9-1/2 feet. The
applicant has submitted an application for a front yard
setback variance.
3. Guest Parking in Front Setback - The guest parking
space for the west side unit is within 10 feet of the front
lot line. The applicant has included this in the above
mentioned variance application.
6.12 - 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.
COMMENT: The type and quality of the proposed building
materials are acceptable. Although cedar shake shingles are
the predominant roofing material in Eaglebend, a few houses
utilize metal and two have asphalt shingles.
6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site
impacts to adjacent properties.
COMMENT: By separating the two halves of the duplex the
buildings crowd the side property lines, thereby reducing the
amount of open space between them and adjacent properties.
By placing the garage 9 feet closer to the front setback line
than allowed by regulation, the amount of buffering between
r
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 3 of 5
Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend
John Railton for Buz Didier and Chris Morrison
Detached Duplex
Final Design Review
the building/guest parking area and the public roadway is
considerably reduced.
6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with
site topography.
COMMENT: The lot is nearly flut from the road to the
bank of the Eagle River. No walkout basements are proposed,
so the design of the buildings are very compatible with
existing site topography. However, one of the two site plans
provided by the applicant shows the deck in the rear of the
east building unnecessarily extending beyond the top of the
bank of the Eagle River. This condition is not reflected on
the accompanying elevation drawings. The other site plan
shows that a boulder retaining wall will be built at the edge
of the bank. The site plan stops at this point, so it is
difficult to determine the full impact of constructing this
wall on the Eagle River riparian zone.
6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed
improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways.
COMMENT: The appearance of these buildings from
neighboring properties and public ways seems acceptable,
however, as mentioned previously, the site plan does not
provide sufficient detail to determine the visual impact of
constructing the proposed boulder retaining wall.
6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar
or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary
or aesthetic will be impaired.
COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria.
6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed
improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of
the Town of Avon.
COMMENT: This proposal is in general conformance with
adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon,
with the exception of the apparent distruction of the Eagle
River riparian zone.
1 "t
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 4 of 5
Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision
John Railton for Buz Didier and Chris Morrison
Detached Duplex
Final Design Review
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a connection be made between the two
buildings so that it meets the definition of a duplex. By
shifting the west unit back and toward the east unit a front
yard setback variance would be unnecessary, although the 18'
long deck in the rear of this house should be reduced in
size.
Staff also recommends that the landscape plan be amended as
previously mentioned.
Additional information should be provided to determine the
effects of directing parking lot runoff toward the Eagle
River.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
/"'� atx-L'�
Jim Curnutte
Planner
r�
401
col
s'D 1
=o1
A
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 5 of 5
Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision
John Railton for Buz Didier and Chris Morrison
Detached Duplex
Final Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Aoproved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ✓) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ik
Date \ �` Patti Dixon, Secretary
The rommi— ion granted final dpgign annroval with the following
conditions: 1. The landscape plan and the drainage plan come back
to the Commission for annroval; 2. TheRsphalt shingles be a minimum of
300 lbs oer square foot; 3. No trees be nlanted in the public
right-of-
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Pizza Express
Patio* Improvements
INTRODUCTION
Jerry Maloney and Don Howe are requesting design review
approval of various patio improvements for their business
(Pizza Express), located in the Benchmark Shopping Center,
Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision.
Specifically, the applicants would like to improve the
existing patio in the following ways:
- Addition of sliding glass door to better access
the patio;
- A 2-1/2' cedar lattice fence added to the top of
the existing concrete wall;
- Low wattage patio lights added to the top of the
fence posts. The lights will be either green cr
brown and will illuminate a white light;
- Addition of 5 to 10 2' high potentilla shrubs
around the outside of the patio area.
The applicants have provided example photos of the proposed
fence and lights.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the proposed patio improvements with the
condition that the Planning and Zoning Commission retain the
ability to withdraw their approval of the proposed lights if,
after installed, they are found to be incompatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 2 of 2
Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Pizza Express
Patio* Improvements
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Presentation of Application
2. Applicant's Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
/,�� a�vv
Jim Curnutte
Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawnwn (
DatePatti Dixon, Secreta
The Commission granted final design review aporoval as submitted
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Lot 50, Block 1,
Schaub Duplex
Conceptual Design
INTRODUCTION
Wildridge Subdivision
Review
Wally Schaub has requested conceptual design review of a
proposed duplex on Lot 50, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision.
Lot 50 is .81 of an acre (35,284 square feet) in size and
slopes toward the north, northwest at approximately 22%. The
lot is one of the few "flag" lots in Wildridge. The
buildable portion of the lot is accessed by a 45' wide, 15U'
long, strip of land adjacent to Saddleridge Loop.
The proposed building is a two story, with loft, log home on
an all-weather wood foundation. A two car garage is provided
for each unit. Exterior building materials are as follows:
- Ar:hitect "80" fiberglass shingles
- 9" log exterior walls
- Anderson wood windows
- 1" x 4" cedar trim around windows and door
- 4" log rails on deck
- 1" x 12" horizontal skirtboard
- Metal exterior doors
This application is very conceptual in nature. No grading
and drainage or landscape plans have been submitted for
review. The floor plans that have been provided are
incomplete and do not match the elevation drawings. No
information has been provided regarding driveway finish
(asphalt or concrete?). Driveway width appears to be too
narrow (12'). Despite discussions with staff that fiberglass
shingles have not historically been considered an acceptable
roofing material in Wildridge, especially on log homes, they
are currently shown on the applicants plans. The site plan
indicates an "approximate well location". The application
states that all exterior colors will be brown, no further
details are proviced.
STAFF COMMENTS
As this is a conceptual review, no formal Staff
recommendation will be presented at this time.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 2 of 2
Lot 50, Block 1, Wildridge Subacvis-on
Schaub Duplex
Conceptual Design Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review/Discussion
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Curnutte
Planner
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Lot 5, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Cooper Single Family Residence
Conceptual Design Review
INTRODUCTION
Jim Guida, on behalf of Casey Cooper, is requesting
conceptual design review of a proposed single family
residence on Lot 5, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision. Lot 5 is
.685 of an acre (29,839 square feet), however, the actual
buildable portion of the lot is approximately half of the
total lot area. The western part of the lot has a 20' high
knoll on it before dropping off steeply (60%) into a natural
drainage.
The proposed residence is one story (28' high) in order, to
reduce the building's profile as viewed from surrounding
properties. In order to achieve the proper driveway grade
(10% maximum) the owner has opted to utilize a detached
garage. The building's exterior materials include 1" x b"
shiplap horizontal cedar siding, wood clad insulated casement
windows and cedar shingles. All portions of the building
siding will be treated with a semi -transparent stain. The
garage will be constructed of the same materials as the
house.
The applicant has not provided a proposed landscape plan or
regrading plan for the Commission's review.
STAFF COMMENTS
As this is a conceptual review, no formal Staff
recommendation will be presented at this time.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND BONING COMMISSION
June 18, 1991
Page 2 of 2
Lot 5, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Cooper Single Family Residence
Conceptual Design Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review/Discussion
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Curnutte
Planner