Loading...
PZC Packet 041889STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 18, 1989 Page 1 of 7 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Residence Sideyard Setback Variance Monica Reynolds INTRODUCTION Monica Reynolds has submitted an application for a sideyard variance that would allow a proposed detached duplex proposal to encroach into the 10'-0" sideyard setbacks as setforth for the Wildridge Specially Planne.i Area. Proposed building encroachment would allow the building corners to come within 7.5' of the property line on the northwest and southeast. This parcel was approved for a duplex subdivision at the April 11, 1989 Town of Avon Town Council Meeting. (see exhibit) At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 a proposed duplex for this parcel was reviewed for Final Design Approval. The Commission tabled the item and directed the applicant to present at the following meeting, a perspective drawing depicting the proposed structures in order to better evaluate the project. At the February 21, 1989 meeting the applicant presented a perspective drawing, revised front elevations and a revised grading plan . These drawings had not been reviewed by staff at the time of the meeting. The Commission granted Final Design Review Approval subject to the condition that the staff finds the exceptions that were noted in the last meeting to have been corrected and that the applicant appear at the next meeting if necessary to ask f -r a variance." Meeting Minutes 2/21/89. The staff recommendation for the February 7, 1989 report was as follows: "It is recommended that this application be continued based on the following aspects of the application: 1. Driveway grades present a hazard to the occupants as well as vehicles on the adjacent street. Revised grading plan should be submitted prior to reconsideration that meets Town of Avon design criteria. 2. Breaking up building mass to better fit building slope should be considered. " s co Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 1989 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Reynolds Duplex, Sideyard Setback Variance Page 2 of 7 Staff has since reviewed the plans and elevations submitted February 21, 1989 and has the following commments in regards to compliance with the conditions: CONDITION #1: The revised grading plan indicates a proposed driveway length, from the drive entry at the property line to the garage entry of the western building, of approximately 210 linear feet, proposed rise is appoximately 20 faet creating an average driveway grade of less than 10%. Section 6.22 E,#2 of the Design Procedures Rules and Regulations states: ..driveway grades should not exceed 8% for multi -family residential and commercial projects or 10% for small residential projects." Staff recommends that although the submitted site plan conforms with the applicable regulation that an engineered grading plan, more thoroughly addressing disposition of offsite and on site drainage , necessary retainage and relational grades to structure be submitted prior issuance of a building permit due to the difficult topography of the site. CONDITION #2 The revised site plan and building elevations indicate a two foot drop from the living area to the garage level. Staff recommends that revised rear and side elevations and floc;r plans in accordance with the engineered grading plan be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. VARIANCE, COMMENTS: The applicant has provided the followinT response to the applicable criteria for the granting of a variance: Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 1989 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Reynolds Duplex, Sideyard Setback Variance Page 3 of 7 APPLICANT RESPONSE: This lot consists of .58 acres, 50% of which is unbuildable due to a steep slope. STAFF RESPONSE: The lot is relatively steep paticularly in the front setback. Average grade across the lot is approximately 18%. Typically a frontyard building setback rather than a sideyard variance is requested given these conditions. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This condition exists in many of the lots throughout the Wildridge 13ubdivision. CRITERIA: The strict or literal intlsrpretation and enJ oyed by the owners of other properties in the same district: APPLICANT COMMENT: The ability to develop a total lot is a rarity within this subdivision. STAFF COMMENT: Steep slopes do dominate the Wildridge Subdivision and special design considerations come into play but many projects in the subdivision have been approved without variances. The following are applicable criteria and findings for the granting of a variance: 17.36.040 Approval Criteria. Before acting on a variance application, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Staff Report to April 18, 1989 Lot 46, Block 1, Reynolds Duplex, Page 4 of 7 the Planning and Zoning Commission wildridge Subdivision Sideyard Setback Variance A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity; B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a specified regulation is ne:.essary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of a 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; D. Such other factors and criteria as the board deems applicable to the proposed variance. 17.36.050 Findings Required. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties 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 practical iifficulty 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, Staff Report to April 18, 1989 Lot 46, Block 1, Reynolds Duplex, Page 5 of 7 the Planning and Zoning Commission Wildridge Subdivision Sideyard Setback Variance 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. STAFi RECOMMENDATIONS If the Commission determines that there are adequate findings for the granting of a variance approval is recommended. Typically a variance is granted prior to Design Review approval and the variance is conditioned by any further conditions imposed through the Design Review process. In that this variance is being requested subsequent to a Design Review approval, conditioned by further staff review and approval it is suggested that the staff recommendations condition the variance. Staff has prepared Resolution 89-5 recommending granting of the variance with the following conditions: 1. An engineered grading plan, more thoroughly addressing disposition of offsite and on site drainage, necessary retainage and relational grades to the proposed buildings be submitted prior issuance of a building permit due to the difficult topography of the site. 2. Revised rear and side elevations and floor plans in accordance with the engineered grading plan be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Variance is limited to the area of encroachment of Parcel A and Parcel B as described on the approved subdivision plat. .,A, Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 1989 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Reynolds Duplex, Sideyard Setback variance Page 6 of 7 RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Presentation by Applicant 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Consideration By Commission 6. Act on Resolution 89-5 Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Fritzlen Department of Community Development Staff Report to the Pianning and Zoning Commission April 18, 1989 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Reynolds Duplex, Sideyard Setback Variance Page 7 of 7 PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with C,3nditions ( ) Approvedwi h Modified Conditions ( ) Cont;nued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date Denise Hill Secretary �/GNG4� 1,//C The Commission denied this request for a sideyard setback variance, stating the finding that the variance is not necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. __ __ G.0 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 18, 1989 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 51 Beaver Creek Place Retail Complex Amendment to Final Design Review Landscape Plan and Revisions to West Elevation Bruce Allen Owner Morter Architects, Mike Hazard Architect Page 1 of 4 INTRODUCTION Mike Hazard on behalf of Bruce Allen is requesting Design Review Approval for proposed revisions to the approved landscape plan and the addition of two gas meter shed rooves on the west elevation. This project received Final Design Review approval in June of 1988 and building construction is nearly complete. The majority of the site improvements are in place for the exception of the finish grading and the landscaping. Two of the tenant spaces have been issued temporary certificates of occupancy. The amended landscape plan proposes to delete low landscaping elements, at the drive entrances and adjacent to the project identification sign. The taller elements at the drive entries, being Green ash trees, will be maintained .(see exhibit). The reason for the requested amendment is concern on the owner's part for potential damage to low lying landscaping by winter snow plow operations. Additionally approval is being requested for shed rooves over the existing gas meters to protect them from falling snow and ice. Proposed rooves will encroach into the building sideyard/utility and drainage easement which is 7.5' from the property line. In that the rooves are designed as an accessory to a utility, a variance is not required.(see exhibit) 6.10 DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS 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: Section 15.28.060, Sign Design Guidelines,item E Landscaping, states "Landscaping is required for all freestanding signs, and should be designed to enhance the surrounding building landscaping." Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 1989 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 51 Beaver Creek Place Retail Complex Amendment to Final Design Review Page 2 of 4 The deletion of the approved landscaping surrounding the project identification sign does not meet the intent of this regulation. 6.12 THE SUITABILITY OF THE IMPROVEMENT, INCLUDING TYPE AND QUALITY OF MATERALS OF WHICH IT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND SITE UPON WHICH IT IS TO BE BUILT. COMMENT: Other landscaping plans in District One, the Shopping Center District, use a variety of landscaping elements both upright and prostrate. Quality and variety of landscape materials, paticularly adjacent to the public right of ways tends to be more varied and highly designed due to the lower percentage of total landscaped area required in the SC district. Berming the area adjacent to the right of way and parking lots appears to aid in protecting the plant material from snowplow operations. New rooves are to be identical to existing. 6.13 THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DESIGN TO MINIMIZE SITE IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. COMMENT: See comment for 6.12 6.14 THE COMPATIBLILITY OF PROPCSED IMPROVEMENTS WITH SITE TOPOGRAPHY. COMMENT: No topographical changes are proposed although increasing the height of the berm adjacent to the public right of way may help protection of plant material. 6.15 THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF ANY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AS VIEWED FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND PUBLIC WAYS. COMMENT: A variety of landscape material adjacent to the drive entries enhances visual identification as well as appearance. 6.16 THE OBJECTIVE THAT NO IMPROVEMENT BE SO SIMILIAR OR DISSIMILIAR TO OTHERS IN THE VICINITY THAT VALUES, MONETARY OR AESTHETIC WILL BE IMPAIRED. COMMENT: See comment for 6.12 Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 1989 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 51 Beaver Creek Place Retail Complex Amendment to Final Design Review Page 3 of 4 6.17 THE GENERAL CONFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ADOPTED GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS OF THE TOWN OF AVON. The following are applicable goals from District One: Community Design Policies: 1. Improve the landscaping and visual screening of surface parking lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Commission has adequate findings, approval of the additional rooves is recommended but deletion ofthe previously approved landscaping is not. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Presentation by Applicant 3. Consideration by Commission 4. Act on Request Respectfully Submitted, Lyn�tzlen Department of Community Development W Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 1989 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 51 Beaver Creek Place Retail Complex Amendment to Final Design Review Page 4 of 4 PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date ��QI I%T Denise Hill Secretary Ant dw The Commission approved the addition of shed rooves over the ezisting gas meters, but tabled the request for revisions to the landscape plan at the request of the applicant. PPO, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 18, 1989 Swift Gulch Annexation Sectit i 36 Inc. Real Estate Development Proposal Development Sign Variance Donald Chaplin, Vacation Properties P&ge 1 of 4 INTRODUCTION Don Chaplin of Vacation Properties on behalf of Section 36,Inc. is requesting approval of an existing real estate development sign, no; in compliance with applicable square footage limitations. The sign advertises that there are " 420 rooms" and the realtors logo. Total Sign area is approximately 34 sq. ft. The Swift Gulch Annexation has 105 assigned Residential Development Rights assigned to it and no approved SPA plan. Any development on a parcel zoned SPA with no approved plan must be approved by the Town Council as an ammendment to the zoning district map. Zone districts other than RHDC, TC and SC may fractionalize development rights at a ratio of 2.5 to 1. Real Estate Development Signs are allowed up to 16 sq. ft. of sign area per parcel and may be retained for up to two years. Development signs not meeting those criteria may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon determination a variance is warranted. On September 6, 1989 Thomas Backhus of Slifer Real Estate received a variance for a 32 sq. ft. sign advertising the property as for sale. The variance was determined to be warranted based on the exceptional size of the property and the vehicular orientation of the sign location. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 1989 Swift Gulch Annexation Development Sign Variance Page 2 of 4 STAFF COMMENTS The following are applicable criteria and findings for the granting of a variance: Chapter 15.28.090 - B. Variances 1. Purpose . The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the authority to grant variances from this regulation to prevent or lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships, inconsistent with the objectives of this title, as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement. 2.APoroval Criteria. Before acting on a variance application, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity; 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; C. Such other factors and criteria as the board deems appli<-able to the proposed variance. 3. Findings Required. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting, a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity; Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 1989 Swift Gulch Annexation Development Sign Variance Page 3 of 4 B. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. 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, ii. 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 vicinity, iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Planning and Zoning Commission has adequate findings that the granting of the variance is warranted, approval is recommended with the following conditions: 1. Information on the sign he amended to accurately reflect the status of the current zoning. 2. The sign be allowed to remain til September 6, 1990, two years from the date of the previous approved variance. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1, lntroduce Application 2. Presentation by Applicant 3. Commission Review of Application 4. Act on Request Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 1989 Swift Gulch Annexation Development Sign Variance Page 4 of 4 Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Fritzlen Department of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved wjxh Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Cc-nditions Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date �� ��h Cj Denise Hill Secretary f)0Ltj0A1'1iV The Commission ap2roved a 32 sq. fto. sign, with the staff recommendations as follows: 1. Information on the sign be amended to accurately reflect the status of the current zoning; and 2. The sign be allowed to remain until September 6, 1990, two years from the date of the previously approved variance,