PZC Packet 061990STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lot 23, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Wolff Warehouse
Dan Shelton for Vail Furniture
Parking Review for New Retail Business
In IC Zone District
INTRODUCTION
On June 11, 1985, the Avon Town Council approved a Special
Review Use request by Blue Steel Gun Shop, Inc. to conduct
retail sales and personal services on Lot 23, Block I,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek (Wolff Warehouse). Lot 23 and the
surrounding property is zoned IC (Industrial Commercial).
The Town Council's approval was subject to three conditions.
Condition number two of Resolution 85-19 is as follows:
"All changes in occupancy or use within the project
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission for compliance with parking
requirements".
Dan Shelton, owner of Vail Furniture, would like to lease the
space formerly occupied by the Blue Steel Gun Shop, Inc.
This space is 2,520 square feet. The required number of
parking spaces for the gun shop was calculated as a personal
services establishment at 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
building area or 7.56 spaces. Therefore, 8 parking spaces
were required to be provided for the gun shop. Mr. Shelton
has indicated that he will be using his space for the storage
and retail sales of used and discontinued furniture. The
parking requirements for the 1,260 square foot warehouse
portion of the building is calculated at 1 space per 800
square feet of area or 1.58 spaces. The parking requirements
for the 1,260 retail sales portion of the building is
calculated at 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of area or 5.04
spaces. The total number required parking spaces for Mr.
Shelton's proposed business is 7 spaces. Mr. Shelton has
indicated that his lease will include a commitment for 7
parking spaces to be reserved specifically for his new
business.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
acknowledge that the applicant has provided sufficient
information necessary to assure that the new use will comply
with the required number of parking spaces.
..r
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 2
Lot 23, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Wolff warehouse
Dan Shelton of Vail Furniture
Parking Review for New Retail Business
In IC Zone District
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application (Staff);
2. Prese,.tation by Applicant;
3, Commission Review/Discussion;
4. Commission Action.
Respectfully submitted,
4
Jim Curnutte
Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions l
Continued (✓) Denied ( ) Withdrawn
Date- - I J Terri Jeppson, Secretary
is
owner
Mr. Wolff, will meet with the staff and provide copies of the existing
leases for the staff's review and determination if the parking is
ava
+�.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lot 7, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Michael Hazard for Dave Garton
Garton Duplex
Final Design Review
INTRODUCTION
Dave Garton is proposing to construct a duplex residence on a
portion of Lot 7, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Lot 7 was
originally 1.04 acres in size and assigned six development
rights. In the early 1980's the first phase (3 units) of the
Suncrest Townhome project was constructed on the western halt
of the lot. Lot 7 was replatted in 1986 in order to create
units 1, 2 and 3 of the Suncrest Townhomes and surrounding
common area. A new lot line was created which in effect
split Lot 7 into east and west halves. It is the east halt
of Lot 7 upon which Mr. Garton wishes to construct the duplex
building. The lot is .485 of an acre (21,127 square feet) in
size and the building coverage is approximately 5,050 square
feet for a building area ratio of 24%. The floor area of the
building is approximately 8,000 square feet for a ratio of
38%. Nearly 1/2 of the lot area, or approximately 10,000
square feet, is covered with impervious materials. Maximum
building height is 47 feet. Based on the Town's building
height definition however, this building does fall within the
maximum building height requirement with an average height of
35 feet.
The house is located 30 feet from the west property line.
The total distance from this proposed structure to any
existing structures (Suncrest Townhomes to the west and
Skyview Condominiums to the south ) is over 60 feet.
A landscape plan indicating species and size, with a
revegetation plan for disturbed areas, and an irrigation
system is included with the submittal.
The building is a three story, wood trame building with gable
roofs. Exterior building materials include wood siding,
stucco and machine cut cedar shingles. The wood siding
(walls, fascia and eaves) will be vertical 1 x 6 tongue and
groove cedar siding, stained with Olympic No. 716 "Natural
Tone" semitransparent stain. Windows and skylights will be
white cladding wood windows. Decks will be constructed of 2
x 6 redwood with railings constructed of 2" x 2" vertical
pickets. All exposed columns will be 12" diameter pee ed
wood logs. Those portions of the building finished w.-�h
stucco will be color No. 10611 (color renderings and material
samples will be presented at the meeting). Any exposed
foundation concrete will be painted to match stucco color.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 4
Lot 7, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Michael Hazard for Dave Garton
Garton Duplex
Final Design Review
STAFF COMMENTS
The Commission shal consider the following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed project:
6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other
applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
COMMENT: This proposal is in conformance with all Avon
Zoning regulations.
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 both building and
landscaping materials are suitable with Town guidelines.
6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize
site impacts to adjacent properties.
COMMENT: The siting and landscaping of the building is
sympathetic to the adjacent residential property.
6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with
site topography.
COMMENT: The property slopes toward the
south/southeast at approximately 20-25%. The building has
been designed to "step down" with the slope of the hillside
and appears to work well with the existing topography of the
site. It does appear however, that the length of the common
hallway which connects the two halves of this building is
causing the east unit to be sited in such a manner that
portions of the unit hang out over the steep drop off on the
east side of the lot.
6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed
improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways.
COMMENT: The appearance of this residence from
neighboring properties and public ways seems acceptable with
the exception of that portion of the building which overhangs
Ntws OA
;TAFF REPORT TO
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 4
^ ,es
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Lot 7, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Michae Hazard for Dave Garton
cdarton Duplex
Final Design Review
the steep part of the lot and will be highly visible to
persons approaching or leaving the subdivision on Wildridge
Road below.
6.16 - The objective that no improvement, tic 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: The proposal is in general conformance
with adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of
Avon.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this design review application
with the following conditions:
1. The applicant should explore ways to reduce the impact of
that portion of the building which overhangs the steep part
of the lot.
2. A more detailed drainage and grading plan must be
reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building
permit.
a
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 4 of 4
Lot 7, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Michael Hazard for Dave Garton
Garton Duplex
Final Design Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Curnutte
Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
T
Continue (✓) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )-
L
Date �%�� Terri Jeppson, Secretary
-lY�
The Commission tabled this application to give the applica timt� o
provide a greater level of detail in respect to the elevations, so the
building plans read clearer. It was suggested that the applicant provide
a model, or a minimum of a roof pain, specifying all roof plains and
pitches. The applicant is to look at providing a full two car garage; a
more derailed landscape plan with respect to the landscaping adjacent to
the building; a treatment of the underside of the overhanging deck and the
stepping down of the deck.
+Ut
OWA ^
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19,1990
Lot 8, Blcck 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Sonnen Halde, Special Review Use
Transfer 2 Residential Development Rights
From Tract B, Eaglebend Filing 2
Public Hearing
INTRODUCTION
The Sonnen Halde Condominiums are located on Lot 8, Block 1,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek and is a 16 unit fractionalized
project, based on 8 development rights. The project is
designed as two separate 8 unit buildings with each unit to
utilize 1/2 of a development right. In order to accomplish
this all units must be under 800 square feet.
At the temporary certificate of occupancy stage, and while
reviewing the requested condo map, the staff realized that 6
of the existing 8 units exceeded 800 square feet. This
created a demand for an additional 1.5 development rights to
maintain zoning conformance.
The developer of the Sonnen Halde has secured two development
rights from Tract B, Block 1, Eaglebend Filing 2, and is
requesting approval to transfer those development rights onto
the Sonnei Halde site. Assuming the second phase of Sonnen
Halde will meet its size requirements, there will be an
excess of 1/2 of a development right on Lot 8, Block 1, upon
completion of the project.
STAFF COMMENTS
The following criteria should be considered regarding a
Special Review Use.
1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all
requirements imposed by the Zoning Code.
STAFF COMMENT: The use of this property, as well as the
sending property is residential and approval of this request
will not impact those uses. Both the sending and receiving
parcels are zoned for residential use.
2. Whether the proposed
objectives and purposes of
applicable zoning district
use is consistent with the
this zoning code and the
STAFF COMMENT: The Sonnen Halde is zoned Residential
Medium Density. This district suggests an average density of
7.5 units per acre. The Sonnen Halde, through
fractionalization approval, has 16 units on site. The
w>,
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 3
Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Sonnen Halde, Special Reiiew Use
Transfer 2 Residential Development Rights
From Tract B, Eaglebend Filing 2
Public Hearing
approval of this density transfer will not increase the
number of units, but will allow for utilization of a greater
number of development rights.
3. Whether the proposed use is designed to be
compatible with surrounding land uses and uses in the area.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed use is compatible with
surrounding medium density condominium, and townhouse
development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff recommendation for this request is for approval.
The sending zone has an excess amount of development rights
and will not be adveresly impacted. The receiving site will
not change in character. The development rights are
necessary to maintain zoning conformance due to the fact that
6 of the 8 units range from 10 to 26 square feet above the
maximum size for a 1/2 development right. While these size
increases are minor, their cumulative impact creates a demand
for, 1.5 additional development rights.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introdmce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Commission Review
6. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
�'Icx' '-qLM*-j-3
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 5, 1990
Page 3 of 3
Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Sonnen Halde, Special Review Use
Transfer 2 Residential Development Rights
From Tract B, Eaglebend Filing 2
Public Hearing
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date Terri Jeppson, Secretary
The Commission recommended to the Town Council approval of th Special
Review Use by adopting Resolution 90-6. to allow the transfer of two
residential development rights form Tract B, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaglebend
Subdivision to Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
004
� Pw
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANN'NG AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Jan Chenault for Casa Bella
Revised Sign Program and Design Review
of Proposed Awnings
INTRODUCTION
Jan Chenault is requesting approval of a revised sign program
and design review of two proposed awnings for the Benchmark
Plaza Building located on Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision.
AWNINGS
The applicant wishes to install two awnings on the Benchmark
P12za Building. One awning is proposed to be installed over
the middle tier of windows on the west end of the building.
This awning would help protect merchandise from sun exposure
and reduce cooling costs. The awning is proposed to be made
of blue fabric and project 1'6" from the building face. The
awnings height will be 5' and it will be 58' long. A second
awning is proposed to be installed above the south side of
the building. This awning will also be made of blue fabric
and will project 4' from the building face. This awning will
be 4' high and 8' long.
SIGNS
A Comprehensive Sign, Program was approved for the Benchmark
Plaza Building on December 16, 1982. The "Exterior Sign
Specifications" found in that sign program included the
following wording, in part:
1. Exterior business signs are limited to the ground floor
occupant spaces having independent access from the exterior
of the Subject Property. The maximum area of each exterior
business sign shall be twenty (20) square feet. Color logos
shall be permitted, not to exceed 30% of the actual sign
area.
2. Exterior business signs shall consist of groups of
individual internally -lit channel -type letters. Letter face
shall be acrylic, matte finish.
3. Letter height shall not exceed 15".
4. Letters shall be mounted to the space provided by the
Condominium Association on the south "arcade' area of the
building.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 6
Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Jan Chenault for Casa Bella
Revised Sign Program and Design Review
of Proposed Awnings
Currently none of the existing signage at the building
complies with the above listed specifications.
In December of 1987, the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
approved the First Amendment to the Benchmark Plaza Sign
Program. The purpose of the amendment was to allow the major
building tenant (a tenant leasing more than 15% of the total
net rentable area of the entire building) to have up to 50%
square feet of signage to be mounted on the northwest and
southwest faces of the building. The major tenant at the
time was Avon National Bank.
Since Casa Bella does not meet the definition of 'major
tenant", it is not entitled to the 50 square feet of signage
approved for the Avon National Bank. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting an amendment to the sign program to
install two new signs. Both signs consist of 15" white
fabric letters to be placed on the previously mentioned
awnings. No information has been provided with regard to
proposed illumination of these signs. The sign area of the
west end sign is approximately 14 square feet. rhe sign area
of the south side sign is approximately 14.5 square feet.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Commission shall consider the following sign design
guidelines in considering this sign program.
SECTION 15.28.060. Sign Design Guidelines
A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location,
configuration, design, materials, and colors should be
harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the
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; routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough
cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass -faced
letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 6
Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Jan Chenault for Casa Bella
Revised Sign Program and Design Review
for Porposed Awnings
without indirect lighting, are encouraged.
Sign materials, such as printed plywood,
interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper 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. Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all
free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the
signage and surrounding building landscaping.
1. A minimum of five lineal feet out
from, and around the pFrimeter of, the sign shall be
landscaped.
F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are
not allowed.
G. Lighting. Lighting should be of no 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 con(,^led in such a manner that direct 1;ght does
not shine in a disturbing manner.
H. Location. On multi -story buildings, individual
business signs shall generally be limited to the ground
level. (Ord. 86-3 '(part)).
SECTION 15.28.070 Design Review Criteria
In addition to the Sign Design Guidelines listed above, the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the
following criteria while reviewing proposed designs:
A. The suitability of the improvement, including
materials with which the sign is to be constructed and the
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 4 of 6
Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Jan Chenault for Casa Bella
Revised Sign Program and Design Review
for Proposed Awnings
site upon which it is to be located;
COMMENT: Awning signs (fabric and otherwise) have
been used to advertise other retail businesses in Avon.
However, all other signs associates wit!' the Benchmark Plaza
Building are internally lit box signs located on the south
arcade area of the building.
B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring
improvements;
COMMENT: The Benchamark Shopping Center has a
comprehensive sign program which generally consists of 3' x
6' and 3' x 8' rectangular tube frames covered with a canvas
sign background and overlayed with 6" high white letters.
The Christie Lodge Building does include an awning sign
(Subway Subs).
C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in
any proposed improvement;
COMMENT: The quality of the materials proposed do
appear to be acceptable with the Town Sign Guidelines.
However, as mentioned previously, the proposed materials are
not currently authorized in the existing sign program for the
building.
D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement,
as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property;
COMMENT: The visual impact of the west sign is
magnified by its proposed placement on the large (58 linear
feet) surface of the awning. In addition, signage on the
large awning would seem to imply that Casa Bella owned the
entire building, thereby creating the appearance of an
imbalance in tenant distribution throughout the building. If
the awning is desired for functional and aesthetic reasons,
as indicated by the applicant, then staff would feel more
comfortable if no one tenant were allowed to display signage
on the awning.
E. The objective that no improvement will be so
similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that
.h
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 5 of 6
Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Jan Chenault for Casa Bella
Revised Sign Program and Design Review
of Proposed Awnings
values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired.
COMMENT: As mentioned previously, awning signs
have been previously approved in AVon, but not on the
Benchmark Plaza Building. It is difficult to determine the
proposed signs impact on the value of surrounding properties.
F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity
of signs generally complies with the sign code, and are
approDriate for the project.
COMMENT: In order to comply with the Town's Sign
Code, the proposed signs must comply with the approved sign
program for the Benchmark Plaza Building, which it does not.
It should be noted, however, that no signs at the Benchmark
Plaza Building comply with the approved sign program. An
amendment to the sign program for this building was submitted
at the time of the writing of this staff report. The
amendments proposed are confusing and do not appear to
alleviate the problems with the existing sign program or
allow for Casa Bella's request.
G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to
vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is
appropriate for the determined orientation.
COMMENT: These signs are primarily oriented to
vehicular traffic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the proposed signs and proposed awnings are Integral
to each other as currently shown, they can be reviewed and
approved separately if so desired by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Since these proposed signs are so dissimilar to
other signs at Benchmark Plaza, Staff would recommend that if
the Planning and Zoning Commission were to approve the Casa
Bella's signage as submitted (or an amended form) a sign
permit for its installation not be approved until the amended
sign program is reworded to the satisfaction of the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
'�",, 110�
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 6 of 6
Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Jan Chenault for Casa Bella
Revised Sign Program and Design Review
of Proposed Awnings
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
�L
C
Jim Curnutte
Planner
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved ��tted V') Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) A77,77-- oveo with Modified Conditions ( )
7` S,7 i -
Continued ( ) Denied Withdrawn ( )
Date C Terri Jeppson, Secretary
The Commission qranted final design review approval for th awning and
signage as presented forthe south side and denied approval for the awning
and signage as presented for the west side. The approval is conditional
upon the owners of the Benchmark Plaza building presenting a revised and
acceptable signage program for the entire building to the staff within
sixty days. Also, Staff shall grant final approval of the color sample.
e'1
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lots 2 -12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments
SPA Amendment
CHRONOLOGY
Late 1970's - The Eagle County Board of Countv Commissioners
approved the final plat of the Eaglebend Subdivision, which
was located in unincorporated Eagle County at the time.
June 10, 1986 - The Avon Town Council approved the Petition
by Eaglebend Partnership for annexation into the Town of
Avon, SPA Zoning of the property and the preliminary plan,
all at the same time. Exhibit l;" (Zoning Plat for
Eaglebend) of Ordinance 86-12 established the allowed
densities, uses and zoning criteria (building heights,
se'backs, etc.) for each of the six development areas shown
on the plat.
July 22, 1986 - The Avon Town Council approved the
Subdivision Improvements Agreement and the final plats for
all four filings of the Eaglebend Subdivision. At that time
the approved SPA development plan for Lots 2 - 12 and Tract
A, Filing 4, consisted of a 90 unit `,ighrlse building (6
stories of residential over a 2 story covered parking
structure), approximately 13,000 square feet of commercial
area, 11-12 plex buildings, two acres of open space (Tract
A), and recreational amenities (clubhouse, swimming pool,
tennis courts, children's play area, bike path, etc.).
INTRODUCTION
Although currently approved for the type of use and density
shown on the recently submitted plan, the applicant is
proposing to amend the existing SPA for the purpose of
reapportioning the density across the property in a different
manner than the previous approval.
The applicants would like to vacate all interior lot lines to
facilitate the placement of 20 - 12 unit buildings across the
property for a total of 240 units. Since there are currently
139 development rights assigned to the property, the
applicant has submitted a fractionalization application in
conjunction with this SPA Amendment.
Upon vacation of interior lot lines, the resulting land area
would total approximately 9.314 acres (including tract A).
1�4s 00► ^ 00�
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 4
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments
SPA Amendment
The amount of open space remaining after full buildout of
this project is significantly less than the previously
approved plat at approximately 51% (including Tract A). This
figure has not been verified by Staff.
The applicants are proposing to adjust the existing boundary
lines of Tract A (open space/recreation) to promote efficient
site design and building layout. No information has been
provided to date indicating the full extent of the proposed
line adjustment.
Based on recommendations from the Town Staff, the Planning
and Zoning Commision, and the applicants on-site management
consultants, the applicants have chosen to include a
community building for the use of their residents. No
information has been provided to date concerning this
building. The addition of the community building has
necessitated a new project entrance off of Stonebridge Drive
and the reconfiguration of buildings and parking areas. The
final layout of this reconfiguration has not yet been
submitted for staff review.
No topographic, draingage or grading plans have been
submitted for review.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Staff suggests that the following criteria be used in
evaluating an SPA Amendment.
1. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the
efficient development and preservation of the entire SPA.
COMMENT: The proposed amendment involves a change
in the previously approved density, building coverage and
layout, open space, site parking, etc. The site plan has
changed significantly in the past few weeks (mostly to
incorporate the suggestions made by the P & Z Commission at
their June 5, 1990, meeting). The latest version of the plan
has not reached our office at the time of the writing of this
staff report. Staff does not have sufficient information
necessary to review the proposed amendment for conformance
with the above criteria.
eu% ,"�'
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 4
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filiong 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments
SPA Amendment
2. That the proposed amendment does not affect in a
substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of the land
abutting upon or across the street from the SPA or the public
interest.
COMMENT: The proposed amendment should not
adversely impact adjacent private or public properties,
however, the full impact of the amendment cannot be
identified at this time until the staff receives additional
information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff recommends that this SPA Amendment application be
tabled until the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on
July 3, 1990, in order to allow staff sufficient time to
review all outstanding information.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application (Staff);
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Commission Review/Discussion;
6. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Curnutte
Planner
a
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 4 of 4
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments
SPA Amendment
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Ccnditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdraw l )
Date /jjjCj CTerri Jeppson 93 -
The Commission approved recommending to the Town Co cil the approval of
the Spa Amendment as requested, with the foloowing conditions:
1. The physical boundaries of Tract A be defined with the Staff; 2. The
zone designations of Tract A be confiemed with the Staff; 3. A firm
commitment to a minimum 2,000 square foot community building be made and
the timing of that commitment be in Phase II or no later than Phase III;
4. the project receive all additional approvals required by the Town of
Avon.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments (240 Units)
Fractionalization of Development Rights
INTRODUCTION
Jeff Spanel, on behalf of the Eaglebena Partnership is
requesting approval of a Fractionalized Project on Lots 2 -
12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision. A request
for Final Design Review and an SPA Amendment has been
submitted in conjunction with this fractionalization
application. The property currently has 139 residential
development rights assigned to it. If approved, the
fractionalization will result in the creation of 240 dwelling
units on the property, providing 360 bedrooms (combinations
of one, two and three bedroom units).
The proposed development consists of 20 buildings containing
12 dwelling units each. There will be 80 units not exceeding
600 square feet each (1/3 of a development right), 120 units
not exceeding 800 square feet each (1/2 of a development
right each), and 40 units not exceeding 1200 square feet each
(3/4 of a development right each). Total development rights
used will be 117, with a remainder of 22. Six different
floor plans will be utilized in each building. The square
footage totals and fractions of development rights is
summarized as follows:
DWELLING TYPE
2-A-18edroom
2-13-113edroom
2-C-1Bedroom
2-D-38edrooms
2-E-113edroom
2-17-213edrooms
12 Dwelling Units
FLOOR AREA
528
Sq.Ft.
638
Sq.Ft.
612
Sq.Ft.
1021
Sq.Ft.
524 Sq.Ft.
796 Sq.Ft.
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
.33 D.R.
.50 D.R.
.50 D.R.
.75 D.R.
.33 D.R.
.50 D.R.
The Planning and Zoning Commission acts on
x 2 =
.66
x 2 =
1.00
x 2 =
1.00
x 2 =
1.50
x 2 =
.66
x 2 =
1.00
5.82 D.R. 'a
per bldg. x
20 bldgs. _
116.4 =
117 D.R's
used
fractionalization
applications in conjunction with Final Design Review. Final
design approval includes approval of fractionalization c`
residential development rights. A public hearing is held x:
each design review application which inclines
fractionalization of residential development rights. The
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 4
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments (240 Units)
Fractionalization of Development Rights
Planning and Zoning Commission in approving fractionalization
may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards to
mitigate impacts related to proposed fractionalization.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the
foil -)wing factors in addition to the Design Review Guidelines
listed in Section 6.00 of the Design Procedures, Rules and
Regulations for the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
Town of Avon when reviewing a project involving the
fractionalization of residential development rights:
1. The adequacy of access to the site with respect to the
width of the adjacent streets, their grades, intersection
safety, visibility and entrance into the lot to be eeveloped.
COMMENT: Access on and off the property appears to
be adequate and the Town's driveway/entrance standards will
be comlied with.
2. The need for, and availability of public or private
transportation to serve the proposed development;
COMMENT: At full occupancy upon buildout this
project will house well over four hundred people. Public
transportation services will most likely be necessary to
accomodate the needs of these future residents. Since the
applicants are proposing to phase the construction of this
project the effect of the above mentioned density will not be
realized for some time. In addition, this property is not
presently on a designated bus route. The applicants have
shown two locations on their property where future bus
shelters will be located. When the population of this area
reaches a level which necessitates the provision of public
transportation services, the shelters will be constructed and
bus service will be provided.
3. The impact of the proposed project upon public and
private services and facilities serving the area;
COMMENT: A project of this magnitude will
certainly have a substantial impact upon public and private
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 4
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spinel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments (240 Units)
Fractionalization of Development Rights
services and facilities serving the area. It should be noted
however, that this property has already been reviewed and an
approval has been granted for a project very similar and in
some respects more impactive than the current plan. The
effect of this fractionalization request is actually a
reduction in density from the previously approved plan.
Impacts on local road systems associated with this proposal
have beer mitigated previously by the construction of
accel/decel lanes on Highway 6, a bridge over the Eagle
River, and Stonebridge Drive and West Eaglebend Drive. Other
impacts associated with this project will be partially
mitigated on site, i.e. recreational amenities, child care
facilities, on-site management, etc.
4. The compatibility of the proposed unit sizes and unit
mix with existing and potential development in the vicinity;
COMMENT: Unit sizes and unit mix is compatible
with existing and potential development in the vicinity.
This property is adjacent to multi -family development on its
south and east sides. The property to the north (.Stolport)
is vacant at the present time and the property to the west is
approved for a duplex. The lot to the west will be screened
with berming, landscaping and an B foot high wood fence.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of this Fractionalization request is recommended
conditioned by the following:
1. Final approval of the Fractionalization request should be
contingent upon final approvals of both the Final Design
Review and SPA Amendment requests.
.-WS
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 4 of 4
4D
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision w
Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments (240 Units)
Fractionalization of Development Rights
r
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Open Public Hearing for Fractionalization
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Consideration by Commission
6. Act on Request
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Curnutte
Planner
6)L7 it yv
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( vl Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Mod.fied Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn
Date G G 1 Terri Jeppson, Secretary
The Commission granted approval of the fractionalization development
rights as presented.
-TAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spanel foer Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments
Conceptual Design Review
INTRODUCTION
Jeff Spanel, on behalf of Eaglebend Partnership, is proposing
to construct 20 - 12 unit buildings and a community center
building on Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, F ling 4, Eagiebend
Subdivision. This Design Review application is being
submitted in conjunction with a request for Fractionalization
and a SPA Amendment application.
The applicants would like to vacate all existing lot lines
associated with lots 2 - 12 and Tract A to facilitate the
placement of the 20 apartment buildings and the community
center building. The resulting land area would total
approximately 9.314 acres (including Tract A). Each building
will include 12 covered parking spaces, a laundry or storage
room and a choice of six different floor plans.
The applicants have indicated that the combined buil ing
coverage of the buildings is approximately 2.21 acres fc a
building area ratio of 24%. The coverage of the remai ing
impervious surfaces (parking lots, roads, sidewalks, etc.) is
2.33 acres, or 25%. The total open space/landscaped area is
4.77 acres, or 51%. Each of the 12 -unit buildings has a
floor area of 8,238 square feet. The combined floor area of
all buildings is 98,856 square feet for a floor area ratio of
approximately 24%. The maximum height of the buildings is
44' from finished grade to the peak of the highest ridgeline.
The proposed buildings are
with pitched roofs (12/12).
with orefinished hardboard
shades of grey. Windows
remainder of the trim will
grey. The roof materials
fiberglass shingles.
three story wood frame buildings
Exterior walls will be covered
lap siding painted two different
and some trim will be white. The
be painted an intermediate color
are proposed to be charcoal grey
Three access drives are cu,rently shown entering the property
(two from Eaglebend Drive and one from Stonebridge Drive).
Driveways, parking lots and sidewalks will be either asphalt
or concrete. A minimum of 410 parking spaces are required
for this project. Two hundred forty (240) spaces will be
covered (12 per building) and 170 spaces will be uncovered
surface parking.
�-N ^ ioA
STAFF REPORTR TO THE °LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 5
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments
Conceptual Design Review
A landscape plan indicating plant species and size along with
a revegetation plan for disturbed areas and an irrigation
system is included with the submittal.
No detailed information has been provided (elevation
drawings, proposed materials, colors, etc.) with regard to
the community building.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed project:
6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Corte and other,
applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
COMMENT: Since the design and layout of the proposed
buildings, parking, driveways, open space, recreational
amenities, etc., are substantially different than the
originally approved SPA plan, Final Design Review approval of
this project can only be granted in conjunction with the
proposed SPA Amendment request. Approval of the SPA
Amendment will establish the "zoning" for the property.
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 both building and
landscaping materials are suitable with Town guidelines.
With the exception of the north bank of the eagle river, the
property is virtually flat and therefore, very suitable for
development. Water and sewer lines currently traverse the
property. The suitability of the community wilding cannot
be determined at this time.
6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize
site impacts to adjacent properties.
COMMENT: The siting
and landscaping of the
buildings
appears to
be sympathetic to
adjacent properties.
Buildings
have been
designed to step
down in height as they
approach
the river
and have been set
back from the edge to
preserve
the natural
character of the
river riparian zone.
A wood
..,
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 5
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments
Conceptual Design Review
fence has been installed along the north side of Eaglebend
Drive and the applicants propose to install an 8' high cedar
fence along their west property line.
6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with
site topography.
COMMENT: As mentioned aoove, the buildable portion of
this property is virtually flat. The proposed buildings,
driveways, parking lots, etc. appears to work well with
existing site topography. It should be noted however, that
as of the writing of this report no drainage or grading plan
has been submitted for staff review.
6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed
improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways.
COMMENT: The appearance of the improvements as viewed
from neighboring properties and public ways seems acceptable.
Landscape clusters have been provided throughout the project
to breakup building mass. Muted building colors will be used
to further reduce visual impacts. The visual appearance of
the proposed community center building cannot be determined
at this time.
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: Although different than the existing
buildings in the area, it would not appear that the
architecture of the proposed residential buildings or
community center will substantially impair the monetary or
aesthetic values of the surrounding area.
6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed
improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of
the Town of Avon.
COMMENT: The Eaglebend Apartments are located within
Towr Subarea 10 (Rivertront District). This proposal appears
to incorporate the following design recommendations `or this
district:
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 4 of 5
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spanel for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments
Conceptual Design Review
Set buildings back from the river to preserve its
natural character.
Limit building heights to three to four stories, use
sloped roofs, indingenous materials and muted
colors.
Desigi: nuildings to step down in height as they near
the river.
Provide public river access for public enjoyment and
encourage the construction of a recreation trail along
the river.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In order for staff to offer a recommendation of this design
review proposal, a more complete application is necessary.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
discuss and offer recommendations to the applicant in order
to facilitate the Final Design Review approval scheduled for
July 3, 1c90.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
/%N
Jim Curnutte
Planner
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 5 of 5
Lots 2 - 12 and Tract A, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision
Jeff Spare' for Eaglebend Partnership
Eaglebend Apartments
Conceptual Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ` Denied ( ) Withdrawn
Date C C C Terri Jeppson, Secretary-�.
The Commission granted final design review approval with t conditions
that the applicant return with the specs on the community building at
the second phase of the development and that the staff give a final
technical site plan review.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Grand on Avon
Front Yard Setback
Public Hearing
INTRODUCTION
Variance Request
The applicant, Grand on Avon Partnership, is requesting a
variance to allow a built structure to encroach within six
inches (6) inches of the front property l,ne, and to allow
narking within ten (10) feet of the front property line.
The Grand on Avon Partnership is requesting these variances
in order to reconfigure the previously approved surface
parking area and to add a front entry and porte cochere to
the existing building.
The existing building lacks a well defined front entrance,
which is detrimental to the building image architecturally,
and creates functional problems for both the retail and
residential operations. A porte cochere will alleviate some
of these problems and add some architectural interest to the
front expanse of the building.
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: There are no existing situations
that relate to this variance request. This project is a
retail and residential mixed use building that was originally
designed and partially constructed without a well defined
entry. This type of feature is essential to the operational
needs of the residential units. The Town's Engineering and
Public WQ-ks departments have reviewed the request and
support the requested variance, with the understanding that
th applicant will be responsible for realigning Benchmark
Road to the center of the road right-of-way.
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 treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to
attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
*4s P
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 4
Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Grand On Avon
Front Yard Setback
Public Hearing
privilege;
Variance Request
STAFF RESPONSE: The
existing
building
is
approximately 32 feet from the front
property
line. In
order
to add a porte cochere, maintain -ime surface
parking
and
work with the grades required, there
is no way
to avoid
these
variance requests.
If this were new construction, it would certainly be possible
to design an appropriate solution without requiring a
variance. The existing building however, presents quite a
hardship in working a solution to the lack of entry. For
this reason approval of this request would not be a grant of
special privilege.
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: The encroachment of the porte
cochere to within six inches o` the Benchmark Road
right-of-way line has been reviewed by the Public Works and
Engineering departments. The applicant will be required to
realign Benchmark Road to the center of the right-of-way and
construct that road to acceptable standards.
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 classifies 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:
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 4
lot. 53 Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Grand On Avon
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Public Hearing re
1. The strict, literal interpretation
and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in
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 RECOMMEt'!0ATION
Staff recommendation is for approval. The existing building
location is a legitimate hardship. The new construction is
warranted to solve a legitimate design flaw with the existing
structure. The approval is conditional upon the applicant
realigning Benchmark Road to appropriate location and
construction standards.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Commission Review
E. Commission Action
n
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 4 of 4
Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Grand On Avon
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Public Hearing
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ✓) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions (
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn
0 Tera Te Sly s
Date Secretary
The Commission approved Resolution 90-7 granting the requ ed variance
stating that the variance is warranted because there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the
vsr=ance that does not apply generally to other properties in the same
r+,
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING C0MMISSIUN
June 19, 1990
Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Grand on Avon
Final Design Review
INTRODUCTION
The Grand on Avon is requesting final design approval for
several exterior changes to the existing building. These
changes include a new porte cochere entry on the south
elevation, new surface parking configuration on the south and
west sides of the building, new color scheme, fenestration
changes to the west end retail area and a new sign program.
The sign program is addressed under separate cover.
The most dramatic change to the existing structure is the
addition of the Porte cochere on the south elevation. The
support columns of the roof mimic the strong monolithic form
of the building. A setback variance will be required in
conjunction with this design request, and has been submitted
concurrently.
The parking lot changes are driven by the addition of this
porte cochere and the revised circulation required to allow
it to function properly.
The fenestration changes on the west end open up a blank wall
that currently presents a negative image to the street and to
Nottingham Park.
A conceptual landscape plan is shown on the architects site
plan and a more detailed plan will be presented at a later
date.
The building color scheme will be presented at the meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed project:
6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other
applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
COMMENT: The porte cochere will require a front setback
variance. The south side parking will require a variance to
allow parking within 10 feet of the property line. The rest
of the proposal is in conformance with the Zoning Code and
other applicable rules and regulations.
6.12 - The suitability of the improvement, including
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSON
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 4
Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Grand on Avon
Design Review
type and quality of materials of which it is to be
constructed and the site upon which it is to be located.
COMMENT: The requested improvements to the Grand on
Avon building are quite suitable and add a great deal o
favorable aesthetics to the built" ng. The porte cochere is a
needed feature, both architecturally and functionally. The
window additions to the west end open up an unfriendly
appearing blank wall from the outside and create some
tremendous views of Nottingham Lake from the inside.
6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize
site impacts to adjacent properties.
COMMENT: The Public works and Engineering staffs have
reviewed the proposed improvements. These departments are
supportive of the porte cochere development. but are
concerned about two issues: The possible conflict of
automobile traffic at the southern entrance and exit; and
The design of the western parking area.
The western parking area is located on Town of Avon property
and, while it may be used to serve the Grand, it will also be
public parking for Nottingham Park. Ficial Town staff
approval will be required for design of this lot.
The detailed configuration of the east and west access points
from Benchmark Road should be conditional upon final approval
of the Town Engineer.
6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improveme-t with
site topography.
COMMENT: The proposed porte cochere must climb fairly
steeply (5%) to meet the floor level of the building. This
does create the need for some retaining walls along the
southern edge of the drive. The architect has utilized :.hese
walls as planting terraces to help soften the impact of tr.ose
wa;ls. The floor level of the building is several feet above
street grade. The porte cochere actually improves the visual
appearance of the building and better defines a retail
streetscape.
6.15 - The visual appearar,,;e of any proposed
improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
04e P
06", .am,
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 4
Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Grand on Avon
Design Review
properties and public ways.
COMMENT: The visual appearance of these improvements is
positive. A final landscape plan is the only missing Element
and should be required of the applicant.
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 the Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Condition approval of parking and access upon Town
Engineer Approval.
2. Request a detailed landscape plan.
3. Design approval for the oorte cochere should be
conditional upon approval of the setback variance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
a
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 4 of 4
Lot 53, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Grand on Avon
Design Review
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
PLANNING AID ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date C L Terri Jeppson, Secretary
The Commission granted final design approval to Lot 63, ock 2. Bench-
mark at Beaver Creek, Grand on Avon, with the following conditions:
1. That this approval excludes civil enginerring and the design of the
intersections of the parking access with the Town. of Avon road and the
parking lot on the Town of -Avon property. 2. This approval excludes
final landscaping and signage 3 The roof form over the porte cochere
be modified as discussed at the meeting. 4. The final colors of the
building be presented during a site visit to the Commission and this
approval excludes final colors.
�..'� 14411 ice\
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lots 67/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Expansion and Remodel
Final Design Review
INTRODUCTION
The City Market Corporation is planning an expansion and
remodel cf their Avon Store. The program includes a 5000
square foot expansion to the south that will be leased by the
Town of Avon and contain the Resort Association and an annex
of the County Library; a 10,000 square foot expansion of the
store area to the north; 14 residential employee units on the
second floor; new parking configuration and landscaping; and
a new sign program.
The project also includes new entry architecture, which was
granted final design approval at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting of June 5, 1990.
The store expansion and residential units create a total
parking demand of approximately 209 spaces, utilizing the
allowable 15% large lot reduction. The reconfigured site
plan indicates 229 parking spaces will be provided, leaving
and excess of 20 parking spaces on site. The store loading
area will remain in the same location with some slight
reconfiguration to allow for better truck turning radius.
The entry locations have been slightly amended to promote
better on site circulation., the parking lot grades have been
changed to promote better drainage. The Town Engineering
staff has reviewed entry locations, circulation and drainage
and has no problems wish the design. A final drainage plan
will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
A new landscape plan is provided that details species oy size
and location and provides for irrigation details and
pedestrian walkways. The site plan includes a dumpster
location and a community recycling bin. A lighting plan is
indicated on the landscape plan.
The residential units are approximately 400 square feet each.
There will be seven units on the northern: portion of the
building, located on the second floor, and seven units on the
southern portion of the building, also located on the second
floor.
The primary materials will remain masonry, to match existing,
with stucco accents and a small portion of sloping metal
roof. The majority of building roof will remain as a flat
built up tar and gravel.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 4
Lots 67/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Expansion and Removal
Final Design Review
A new sign program has been designed. The program entails
removal of the existing pole mounted sign and replacement of
all existing building signage. This program has been
addressed under a separate memorandum.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed project:
6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other
applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
COMMENT: This proposal is in conformance with all
applicable rules and regulations of the Twon of Avon.
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 materials matches
the existing materials on the building, with the exception of
the small area of metal roof. That roof style does match the
existing architecture of the area and has been discussed and
approved in a previous hearing. The improvement adds a great
deal of architectural character to the existing building,
while still maintaining a strong identity.
6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize
site impacts to adjacent properties.
COMMENT: There should be no adverse impacts to
adjacent properties. The grading and drainage issues are
being addressed, and pedestrian intera:tion with the shopping
center will be enhanced.
6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with
site topography.
COMMENT: This renovation will improve the site
topography considerably.
6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed
improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways.
4,Mw
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 4
Lots 67/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Expansion and Remodel
Final Design Review
COMMENT: The visual appearance of this project is
positive from all adjacent private and public properties.
The additions and renovation add a great deal to the visual
appearance and the sit improvements and landscaping
compliment the building.
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 the Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff feels this is a complete application. The sign program
is addressed under a separate memorandum.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
OU -11
0
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 4 of 4
Lots 67/68, Block 21 Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Expansion and Remodel
Final Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions (•/ Approved with Modified Conditions (
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date Qaw�Terri Jeppson, Secretary
The Commission granted final design approval wit the foll ng conditions:
That secondary doors be installed in fire exit quarters of the living
units; final approval of curb and gutter by the Town Engineer; add 5
choke cherries around each of the retaining walls on the north side of
the parking lot.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lots 67/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Sign Program
Design Review
INTRODUCTION
The City
Market Corporation is undertaking
a significant
expansion
and renovation of the
Avon store.
A part of that
overall scenario is a new sign
program.
The existing pole mounted sign will be removed amid all
building mounted signage will be replaced.
The sign code allows one square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of building frontage for a single use business.
City Market frontage, as a corner lot, is 544 lineal feet.
The proposed sign program for City Market consists of two
City Market logo signss of 161 square feet each. One sign
will be located on the west elevation and one on the southern
elevation. The west elevation will also include an area of
signage that identifies various departments available within
the store. These signs, a total of six, will be constructed
of individual pan channel letters 18 inches in height. Total
square footage for this sign area is 162 feet.
The total sign area requested is 484 square feet. As
previously mentioned, the lineal frontage is 544 feet, so
this proposal is within the size limits prescribed by the
sign code.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Commission shall consider the following sign design
guidelines in considering this sign program.
SECTION 15.28.060. Sign Design Guidelines
A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location,
configuration, design, materials, and colors should be
harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the
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.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 5
Lots 67/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Sign Program
Design Review
C. Materials. Quality sign materials, including
anodized metal; routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough
cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass -faced
letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or
without indirect lighting, are encouraged.
Sign materials, such as printed plywood,
interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper 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 surruundiny structures.
E. Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all
free-standing signs, and should be designed to enhance the
signage and surrounding building landscaping.
1. A minimum of five lineal feet out
from, and around the perimeter of, the sign shall be
landscaped.
F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are
not allowed.
G. Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater
wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at ni7ht,
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.
11. Location. On multi -story buildings, individual
business signs shall generally be limited to the ground
level. (Ord. 86-3 l(part)).
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing proposed designs
A'A 1L.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 5
Lots 67/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Sign Program
Design Review
SECTION 15.28.070 Design Review Criteria
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 materials of the proposed signs are
compatible and consistent with existing signs in the shopping
center district. The number and location of the signs is
appropriate for the building, but it is the opinion of the
staff that the size is excessive. We believe this signage
could be reduced in size and still present an effective
identity to the building. A total of 484 square feet of sign
area, while within the strict interpretation of the
allowances, may adversely relate to the scale of the
building.
B. The nature of adjacent and neighboring
improvements;
COMMENT: The adjacent properties in the shopping
center district are all similar to the City Market building.
The majority are single story, single or multiple business
buildings. The scale of the proposed signs may relate to the
Wal-Mart sign but will dominate the rest of the district.
C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in
any proposed improvement;
COMMENT: The quality of materials is consistent
with the shopping center district.
D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement,
as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property;
The staff is concerned with the relationship
between the scale of the signs and the scale of the building,
but other that that, there is no other adverse impact.
E. The objective that no improvement will be so
similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that
values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired.
COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this
criteria.
"'l'i OiN
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 4 of 5
Lots 67/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Sign Program
Design Review
F. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quantity
of signs generally complies with the sign code, and are
appropriate for the project.
COMMENT: Staff believes the type, materials,
number and location of the proposed signs are appropriate and
well designed. We do have reservations about the proposed
size.
G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to
vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is
appropriate for the determined oritentation.
COMMENT: These signs are oriented to vehicular
traffic which is appropriate for this use and location. The
size of these signs however, appears to be larger than is
necessary for easy identification from both local streets and
from Interstate 70.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
This is a complete application.
RECOMME14DED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
�. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
- �
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 5 of 5
Lots 67/68, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
City Market Sign Program
Design Review
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions (-,-
/
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
i
Date k- G GC) Denise Hill, Secretary
The Commission granted final design approval to the City arket Sign
Program with the revision of the six specialty item signs being dropped
from 18 inches to 12 inches and would be compressed both vertically and
horizontally, and that the north elevation City Market logo be spaced
the same distance from the top of the parapet wall. __
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Valley Business Center
Revisions to Design Review
INTRODUCTION
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek is a 1.02 acre
parcel located on the northeast corner of Highway 6 and west
Beaver Creek Boulevard. The property is zoned RHDC and has
no development rights assigned to it.
On March 20, of this year the Commission granted final
approval to a car wash, restaurant and office space in a
single bui'ding. On June 5, 1990, the Planning and Zoning
Commission denied a request for modification of the site
plan. The modification created two separate buildings,
breaking off the car wash portion of the building and
providing separate access and traffic flow. The changes were
denied on the basis of negative impacts to traffic flow and
car wash queuing.
The applicant has revised this site plan in an attempt to
eliminate those problems. The Town engineering and planning
staff has reviewed the proposal and has no problems with this
site plan.
At the June 5, 1990 meeting the applicant also requested and
received approval for an asphalt shingle roof material. This
approval was contingent upon presentation of a material
sample. The applicant will present this sample at this
meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed project:
6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other
applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
COMMENT: This proposal is in conformance with all Avon
Zoning regulations. The Town Engineer has reviewed and
approved traffic circulation patterns and access points.
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 materials is unchanged
from previous reviews. The applicant will present a roof
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 3
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Valley Business Center
Revisions to Design Review
material sample as previously requested.
6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize
site impacts, to adjacent properties.
COMMENT: The building design and associated
landscaping should minimize any visual impacts to adjacent
properties. A drainage plan will be required at building
permit application.
6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with
site topography.
COMMENT: This lot is relatively flat, topography
should not be a factor in this review.
6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed
improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways.
COMMENT: The visual appearance of this project appears
satifactory.
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: The proposal is in general conformance
with adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of
Avon..
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 3
Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Valley Business Center
Revisions to Design Review
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff feels this is a complete application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ('/�
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn (
Date C '(-' Terri Jeppson, Secretary_
Tho rnmmizcinn annrnved the revisions of Lot _3,
Beaver Creek to the design review with the addition of the sidewalk
along the west property line that will be split on both sides of the
property line and that the curb between the car wash and the main
building be approved by staff.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19,1990
Lots 87 and 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ken Sortland
SPA Amendment
Public Hearing
INTRODUCTION
As described in the accompanying Special Review Use
m9morandum, Ken Sortland is the owner of Lots 87 and 89,
Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. He is requesting a transfer
of Gne (1) development right from Lot 87 to Lot 89.
Currently both lots are assigned four (4) development rights.
In order to accomplish this transfer both a Special Review
Use and a SPA Amendment are required.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Staff suggests that the following criteria be used in
evaluating an SPA Amendment.
1. That the proposed amendment is consistent with
the efficient development and presentation of the entire
Planned Unit Development.
COMMENT: This amendment does not change the use of
either lot. Both will remain multi -family residential. The
change in density will not adversely effect the character of
that specific neighborhood, as the majority of lots in that
area are zoned for four or more units.
This amendment should maintain consistency with the intent of
the Wildridge SPA.
2. That the proposed amendment does not affect in
a substantially adverse manner either the enjoynment of the
land abutting upon or across the street from the Planned Unit
Development or the public interest.
COMMENT: This proposed amendment should not
adversely impact adjacent private or public properties. This
transfer merely allwos for more site sensitive development of
Lot 87. This lot is impacted by both topography and setback
requirements, while Lot 89 provides a very suitable
development site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is for approval. This amendmert to the
Wildridge SPA facilitates more sensitive site planning while
maintaining the character and integrity of the SPA as a
whole, and of that neighborhood in particular.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 2
Lots 87 and 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ken Sortland
SPA Amendment
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,
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( // Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Dat!V Den i se—Wi-1 1 , Secretary
e
The Commission approved Resolution 90-8 allowing the SPA Amendment for
Lot 87 and 89, Block 1, Wildridge, as submitted.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19,1990
Lot 87 and 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Special Review Use to Transfer 1 Development
Right From Lot 87, Block 1, W.R. to Lot 89, Block 1, W.R.
Public Hearing
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Kenneth Sortland, is the owner of both Lot 87
and 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Each of these lots
is currently assigned 4 development rights. The applicant is
requesting to transfer 1 development right from Lot 87 to Lot
89. This would leave Lot 87 with three (3) development
rights and Lot 89 with five (51 devF,lopment rights. The
applicant will then request fractionalization approval to
construct six (6) units on Lot 89 (Please refer to the
accompanying memo). A transfer of development rights within
a SPA zone also requires a SPA amendment. This is addressed
in an accompanying memo.
STAFF COMMENTS
The following criteria should be considered regarding a
Special Review Use.
1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all
requirements imposed by the Zoning Code.
STAFF COMMENT: Both Lot 87 and Lot 89 are SPA zoned,
multi -family lots, adjacent to one another. Lot 87 is
impacted by two front setback requirements and by extensive
cut and fill work required when construction of the Wildridge
street system occurred. Lot 89 has a gentler topographic
layout and, according to the developer, is better suited for
construction. This transfer will not impact the potential
uses of either lot and will allow for more sensitive
development of Lot 87.
2. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the
objectives and purposes of this zoning code and the
applicable zoning district
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed use of these properties
remains as multi -family residential. This is consistent with
the previously approved uses. The memo addressing the
amendment to the SPA zone district will discuss the
consistency with the zone district.
3. Whether the proposed use is designed to be
compatible with surrounding land uses and uses in the area.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 3
Lots 87 and 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Special Review Ues to Transfer 1 Development
Right From Lot 87, Block 1, W.R. to Lot 89, Bloch. 1, W.R.
Public Hearing
STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed use is residential and is
compatible with adjacent uses. The specific deisgn ofthe
development plan will be addressed through a design review
hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff recommendation for this proposed transfer of one
(1) development right from Lot 87 to Lot 89 is for approval.
This action will alleviate development pressure on the more
difficult site to work with, while allowing ample review
process to ensure quality development of Lot 89.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Commission Review
6. Commission Action
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
i
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 3
Lots 87 and 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Special Review Use to Transfer 1 Development
Right From Lot 87, Block 1, W.R. to Lot 89, Block 1, W.R.
Public Hearing
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( K Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved �lth Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date (J Terri Jeppson, S-acretary
The Comm'ssion approved Resolution 90-8, recommending approval the Special
Review Use to transfer one development right from Lot 87 to Lot 89, Block
1, Wildridge, as presented. _ __
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ken Sortland, Deer Ridge
Fractionalization of Development Rights
Public hearing
INTRODUCTION
Ken Sortland is proposing an overall development plan for Lot
89, Block 1, Wildridge which includes a request for -
fractionalization. This overall scenario entails a transfer
of one development right onto Lot 89, which will create a
total of 5 development rights assigned to Lot 89. Mr.
Sortland then wishes to fractionalize those development
rights in order to construct six (6) units. There will be
four (4) units under 1200 square feet, which will require 3/4
of a development right each, for a total of 3, and two units
of approximately 1800 square feet, which will require a full
development right each.
A Fractionalization approval must be presented and approved
in conjunction with Final Design Approval. Please refer to
the accompanying design review memorandum for specific design
considerations.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the
following ractors in addition to the Design Review Guidelines
listed in Section 6.00 of the Design Procedures, Rules and
Regulations for the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
Town of Avon when reviewing a project involving the
fractionalization of residential development rights:
1. The adequacy of access to the site with respect to the
width of the adjacent streets, their grades, intersection
safety, visibility and entrance into the lot to be developed.
COMMENT: This site is currently assigned four
development rights. Through a separate action, the applicant
is attempting to secure an additional development right for
this site. The fractionalization proposal is for a total of
six units. The access to the site is off Old Trail Road and
is sufficient to serve all six units.
2. The need for, and availability of public or private
transportation to serve the proposed development;
COMMENT: The addition of this one unit has a
minimal impact upon the total density of the Wildridge
Subdivision. The issue of public transportation service to
Wildridge is a greater issue which will be addressed at some
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 3
Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ken Sortland, Deer Ridge
Fractionalization of Development Rights
Public Hearing
future time.
3. The impact of the proposed project upon public and
private services and facilities serving the area;
COMMENT: The size and scale of this proposal will
not create any impact upon public or private services and
facilities in the area. The concept of fractionalization and
its overall potential could create substantial impacts upon
the Wildridge street system, and this will need to be
addressed in the future. This particular project however,
has very little identifiable impact.
4. The compatibility of the proposed unit sizes and unit
mix with existing and potential development in the vicinity;
COMMENT: The unit size and mix is compatible with
the character of the neighborhood, and with the Wildridge
SPA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this proposal is for approval. The
project appears to meet or exceed the fractionalization
criteria. This proposal will add to the variety of housing
stock available with the Town of Avon.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Open Public Hearing for Fractionalization
4. Close Public Hearing
J. Consideration by Commission
6. Act on Request
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 3
Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ken Sortland, Deer Ridge
Fractionalization of Development Rights
Public Hearing
Respectfully submitted,
1, q_"�
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted (c� Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date. &741,96 Terri Jeppson, Secretary .�
J
Wildridga,�presentpd
,S", A*n..
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ken Sortland
Deer Ridge, 6 Unit Development
Final Design Review
INTRODUCTION
Ken Sortland is proposing to construct six (6) units in
three (3) buildings on Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge
Subdivision.
Lot 89 is 34,848 square feet (.8 acre) and is currently
assigned four (4) development rights. Through a concurrent
SPA amendment, density rights transter and fractionalization
request the applicant is seeking the rights to develop this
density. The buildings cover 17% of the site, are a maximum
height of 30 feet and are served by 16 parking spaces, eight
of which are covered. There is one access drive onto the
site, 18 feet in width, a project identification sign and a
common trash enclusure. A landscape plan is included with
the submittal.
The three buildings have gable roof torms, 6 inch cedar
siding and stucco as primary materials with an asphalt
shingle roof.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed project:
6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other
applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
COMMENT: In order to conform with the Town of Avon
Zoning Code, an approval of an SPA Amendment, Special Review
Use and Fractionalization will be required. These
applications have been submitted concurrently with the final
design review 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 primary building materials, stucco and
cedar siding, as well as the gable root f rm are suitable for
this area and have been utilized extei. vely in previous
Wildridge development. Compatibility of asphalt shingles
with this design, and in this neighborhood should be
discussed by the Commission.
STAFF REPORT TO 'THE PLANNING AND ZONING, COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 3
Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ken Sortland
Deer Ridge, 6 Unit Development
Final Design Review
6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize
site impacts to adjacent properties.
COMMENT: The site was originally assigned four (4)
development rights. The applicant's plan to construct six
(6) units may have some additional impacts upon this site.
The applicant's plar does however minimize these impacts
through its low scale design. As opposed to four large
townhouse units, there are three modest size duplex
structures. This scale of development has the opportunity to
present an interesting transition from single family/duplex
to multi -family structures.
6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with
site topography.
COMMENT: In previous townhouse submittals, the
applicant has struggled with the topography of this lot.
While this plan will require some small areas of retaining
wall, it works much better with the topography than the
previous plans. The separation of buildings allows for more
interesting site work and landscaping.
6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed
improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways.
COMMENT: The improvement should present a positive
visual improvement to all adjacent private and public
properties.
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: The conformance of this proposal is
contingent upon approval of concurrent zoning requests.
°WN
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 19, 1990
Page 3 of 3
Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ken Sortland
Deer Ridge, 6 Unit Development
Final Design Review
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff feels this is a complete application. The proposed
roof material and a color scheme should be discussed.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Commission Review
4. Commission Action
Respectfully ',^ submitted,�
Wim ll" -
Rick Pylman
Director of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date Terri Jeppson, Secretary_
The Commission approved the design review for Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge
with the revisions :o the driveway to the middle unit as specified; the
chimney details lowered to the ground and moved off of the corner; the
landscaping be excluded from this approval and to be brought back; and
woodruff shingles to be used. These revisions to be brought back prior
to issuance of building permit.