Loading...
PZC Packets 0920940 oft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ambrosio Single Family Residence Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single Family Residence ZONING: PUD -2 Units COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Tom and Tere Ambrosio have submitted plans for Final Design Review approval of a single family residence on Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge, which is 5 76 acres The site slopes to the west at approximately 45%. The residence will contain three levels and stand 33' in height fhe residence will consist of the following materials. Roof Siding Other Fascia Soffits Window Window 'I nm D<x;r Door 1'nm Hand/ Deck Rail Flues Flashings Chimney Metal clad ext doors Garage door Materials Color asphalt Heritage Rustic Slate 8" lap Oly 920 rainbow rock stone or moss rock 2x 101120 cedar/pine forest green t&g cedar or pine Oly 920 metal clad forest green I x4 cedar or pine Oly 920 pine wood natural I x4 cedar or pine Oly 920 peeled logs natural metal black copper stone veneer forest green re cedar or pine ;,rest green The landscape plan consists of 2 cottonwoods at 6'. 5 bilue spruce at 6 high. and 4 junipers at 18" 1500 square feet of hydro seed is proposed around the perimeter of house Manual and/or natural irrigation is proposed REVIEW HISTORY The Commission has not conceptually review this design PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ambrosio Single Family Residence Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan submitted has contours at 5' intervals with a scale at 1" = 40', and the enlarged site plan appears to be at V = 10', however, it is not exact. Neither site plan indicates much of a grading plan. Although, from what has been submitted and the application, a retaining wall of approximately 10' high is proposed. Detail needs to be provided on the retaining wall and approved by Staff prior to the application of a building permit. The site plan indicates 2 parking spaces, which do not appear to meet the size requirements for back out space. Landscaping must meet the minimum Town standards, which is 2" minimum for deciduous trees, 6' high minimum for coniferous trees, and 5 gallon minimum for shrubs. Irrigation is strongly recommended. Revegetation of the utility cuts and site disturbance must include native bushes, in addition to native grass and wildflower mix. This may be done through the landscape plan, which can include native bushes. The applicant will have to work out Engineering concerns, should they arise. DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town. The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of a hich it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 30, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Ambrosio Single Family Residence Final Design Review The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goais, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this final design review with the following conditions - I . 'I'he site plan be re -submitted showing grading, drainage, and utility connections, and approved by Staff PRIOR to the application for z building permit. Should there be substantial changes affecting the design, the applicant must receive approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the changes. 2. 1'he retaining wall design be approved by Town Staff PRIOR to the application for a building permit. 3. Revegetation include native bushes. 4. Meters be placed on the building. 5. Prior to any site disturbance, a ccastruction/erosion control fence be placed on site. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, 41)"1 0.n,y/ Mary Holden 'town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ambrosio Single Family Residence Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (✓� ('ontinued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual. No Action ( ) Date 4 44 __Sue Railton, following conditions: 1. The landscape plan be brough back to t Commi sion. 2— The site -1p iin b�-r�=5mt1L il} connections, and approved by staff prior to the application for a design, the applicant must receive approval from the Planning and 3. The retaining wall design be approved by Town Staff prior to the application for a building permit. 4-Tievege ton riTQ[-ltattvl=-bUsht=�- —---------- 5. Meters be placed on the building. (r n --con true. f enrev be placed on site. I I 7.50' UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT BUILDING SETBACK I I I 58' sz -,. I LOT 31 ' 0 NQ 3 I •q •\ i C N 9RIVEWAY TO LOT 31 \(c� I s, \ A E. TAP ALL- tJ'fIL'"T II,7 PONE �- M.H. RIM REFERENCE El -EV =8203.0 ' _ � � 2 .0 �� P C EDGE OF ASPHALT / 18.0 I PeQ VJ I 1'' I UNE I,SCK \ p = 66'35'21" 125.00' ODE MAINTENANCE, R T = = 82.08' 5"0RAGE _ ;45.27' LOT 29 No il oll 41 I FF ik r .r J 1 r r4�� z W 1 l o� LO 1 6a ,no� LO to w K ik D _ LA (11 Ll C-,JULDE;k RETA,INvvia� STGedEL VENEER NDKTH ELF-V�, FT (3rA ;2%/= 11XTRIOR_ RNISH SCHEDULE c ,,ODF �x&/2,% 1J rE— -- SOFFIT- ,•r !:%�I: DEVGt- �o`�+'�r N,e ---- SIDI N6 - �" �'r11P LEVJ�rZ— �Ld1nP>L qZJ EKT, Lt�EaN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Pellerito Residence Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Single Family ZONING: PUD, One Unit COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: Sam Sterling has submitted an application for Final Design review of a single family residence on Lot 55, Block 3, which is .71 acres in size. The lot slopes to the west at approximately 25%, however, there are portions of the lot with slopes in excess of 401/0. The single family unit will contain three levels and height varies from 31' to 37.5'. The single family unit will consist of the following materials: The landscape plan includes the following. Spruce 4 8' high Aspen 2 4" caliper Aspen 4 2 1/2-3" caliper Jvniper 12 5 gallon Sod 600 s f bluegrass/mountain hybrid Seed 5000 s f. high mountain mix Drip and 2-3 sprinkler heads for sod area REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this project as a Conceptual at the June 7, 1994 meeting and commented on the following Materials Color Roof asphalt shingles tan Siding cement stucco dove white Fascia 2x 10 & 2x4 r.s. cedar sage gray Soffits wood sage gray Window clad wood white Window Trim 2x10 and 2xo sage gray Door clad wood white Door Trim Ix6 painted or stained sage gray Hand/Deck Rails wood sage gray Flues/Flashings metal tan Chimney stucco dove grav Garage steel paneled not indicated Other retaining walls 6x6 treated lumber or concrete w/ stucco finish The landscape plan includes the following. Spruce 4 8' high Aspen 2 4" caliper Aspen 4 2 1/2-3" caliper Jvniper 12 5 gallon Sod 600 s f bluegrass/mountain hybrid Seed 5000 s f. high mountain mix Drip and 2-3 sprinkler heads for sod area REVIEW HISTORY The Commission reviewed this project as a Conceptual at the June 7, 1994 meeting and commented on the following PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Pellerito Residence Final Design Review ■ Driveway grade, ■ Driveway turnaround, ■ Stucco with no second material, ■ Minimize mass of garage. ■ Variance for retaining walls in setback, ■ Height; ■ Color samples; ■ Brightness of stucco, and ■ Siding and roof color. At the September 6, 1994, the Commission tabled the application due to various concerns which included grades. building height, slopes, retaining walls, drainage, cutting in the 10' Slope maintenance easement and utility connections STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted a revised site plan addressing the concerns identified at the previous meetings. The only outstanding item is the building height. Site Plan Analysis: ■ The building height in the north (side) elevation exceeds the 35' height limit. Attached to the Staff report are the elevations which show how the height was calculated and the north side appears to exceed the 35' limit. ■ Staff is recommending a construction/erorion control fence be placed on site prior to any site disturbance It is par.icularly important for this site due to the steepness and building on the top of the site with everything sloping down. Des__W • Lighting has not been indicated or specified Lighting must be approved prior to the installation. • The type of fireplace has not been indicated on the floor plans. This must be resolved and indicated on the building permit plans DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: d rwi PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Pellerito Residence Final Design Review The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project. Conformance with the Zoning Code and other appli^able regulations of the Town. The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals. Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Should the Commission give Final Design Approval, Staff recommends the following conditions I. The building height be lowered to conform with the maximum limit of 35'. 2. The design of the boulder retaining walls be approved by Staff PRIOR to an application for a building permit 3 The building lighting be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Revegetation include native bushes. 5. Meters be placed on the building 6 Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3 Commission Review 4 Commission Action PLANNING AND ZONING ')SION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 55, Block 3, Wildrid,e Subd In Pellerito Residence Final Design Review Respectfully Submitted ( a -t -f Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions (--Y`� Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date q -to! _Sue Railton, ecretary _ C�ialk►Me*. The Commission granted final design approve wit the following conditions: 1. The building height be to ered to confo m iw h the maximum height of 35' 7_ The design of the oulder r*taininq w r hp approved by Staff prior to application for a building perm 3. The building lighting be approved by Staff p for to issuance of a buiioing permit. 4. Revegetation include native bushes. rr.— Meters -be pl aeed-on-ti. — 6. Prior to ary site disturbance, a construction/erosion control fence be 7. A sample of the sage color, on a piece of wpod that it is going to be used on, along with the stucco color be brought back before the --commission. 0 v —IQ s 'Sr u 6 F- `I PLANNING :,.Yd ZONING COMMISSION STAFr REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczyk Duplex Final Design Review Modification of Color PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: RD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES INTRODUCTION: The Nawojczyk's have submitted a revised body color for their duplex on Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The proposed color is a dark brown, similar to the color of the Municipal building. STAFF COMMENTS Staff has no concerns with the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve this application as presented. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. 1 produce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, -41 qr %' Mary Holder Town Planner PLANNING a,i1D ZONING COMMISSION STAFh REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 37, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczyk Duplex Final Design Review Modification of Color PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( LA� Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date q)2,1 L14- Sue Railton, S The Commission granted approval Denied ( ) color change as submitted. e A PLANNING AND ZONL.i � September 20, 1994 /r1 MISSION STAFi REPORT Lot 13, Block 1, Ben.hmark `,eaver Creek Beaver Creek Automotive Final Design Review-ldentifict,tion Sign PROJECT TYPE: Business Identification Sign ZONING: Industrial/Commercial COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Yes INTRODUCTION David Svabik, Managing Partner of Beaver Creek Automotive, has submitted .•n application requesting approval of a freestanding sign for their business REQUEST: Please refer to the attached plan of the building identification sign. STAFF COMMENTS "Sign Qpi lin " and review criteria from the Sign Code. Section 1528.060 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. 1 Iaterials. Quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood, interior -lit, individual Plexiglas -faced letters, or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -typo 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. F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed. PLANNING AAD ZONING COMMISSION STAFi .DEPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 13, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Automotive Final Design Review -Identification Sign G. Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is t:ecessary 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 corcealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturbing manner. H. Location. On multi -story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be limited to the ground level. Section 15.28 070 - Sign 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 sign designs: A The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located: Comment: The proposed sign is consistent with the Town's Sign Design Guidelines. B The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements Comment: The sign materials are consistent with allowed signs on adjacent and neighboring buildings C. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement Comment The quality of the proposed sign materials are acceptable D. The visual impact of any proposed improvement as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property Comment The visual impact of these proposed improvements will be consistent with existing area signs. E. The objective that no impro.ement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic . will be impaired. Comment The proposal meets the intent of this criteria F, Whether the type. height, size, and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign code and appear to be appropriate for the project: PLANNING iiND ZONING COMMISSION STAR REPORT Sep ember 20, 1994 Lot 13, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Automotive Final Design Review -Identification Sign Comment: The type, size and location of the proposed sign generally complies with the Sign Code. G. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian c affic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. Comment: These signs are primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning approve this application with the following conditions I The lighting be approved prior to placement of the sign. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4 Commission Action Respectfully Submitted Mary Holden Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFr REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 13, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Automotive Final Design Review -Identification Sign PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (Pj� Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) f Date�1Z.d �A- Sue Railton, Secretary'C44A L,U-44AJ ♦�; 71��I l�IIIII'i II � Hil�11'i j�.� ;i I;+ � � , I � I I•'li I ',l , ,ter � � ' 1 , M4 I NA e-rLA, LF I i �u LDIK6• ala e.u:.vwuCa 1 .1 ,. :_...., UCATIC✓ l I. _. d � .�kTucp ZD a%FRtunE ffIZI' �" wt 6 iTOS-y-Til ti I -N &S- LA&'S s c, .. ..... f•. - E±,sy �s lit=�wP R - �.11ffrM�FP� C - �T"F MiUTu-K: � I 'i�llil!1Ij11jIl���l{j�1jj��irIt �illllij�(j�t� ! i, • �e'1 K I = 32ro. 504' -T.�n.� _�tGta .�aPVl.1LA.TioU �VA�JIL- ��,ut2tt.tJ� �Tt.,S ahsfaa PLANNING t.AD ZONING COMMISSION STAFi ASPORT September 20, 1994 Swift Gulch Addition Town of Avon Public Works Site Amendment to PUD PROJECT TYPE: Public Works Facilities ZONING: PUD AMENDMENT COMPLIES WITH ZONING? THIS LS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD FOR SWIFT GULCH ADDITION. The Town of Avon is requesting an amendment and re-«,,stablisbment of a PUD on the property know as Swift Gulch Addition. The request is to allow for a public works facility and associated uses. STAFF COMMENTS DESIGN CRITERIA: The Zoning Code has established design criteria for evaluating a PUD. The criteria is listed below and comments pertaining to each. I. Conformity with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, goals, and objectives. Staff has identified some goals and objectives listed in the Comprehensive Plan the Commission should consider. They are: Goal A5. Provide municipal services and utilities to existing development, as needed, and plan for the extension oft he Town's infrastructure to accommodate future development. Goal D1. Public facilites should be developed as necessary to maintain the proper level of public servic-s in the Town.. 2. Cunformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, the sub- area design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town. This project is in Sub -Area 16, Swift Gulch, and the standards indicated in the Comprehensive Plan are attached to this Staff report. 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacentproperriev relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer Zones, character, and orientations. 1004, PLANNING f..VD ZONING COMMISSION STAF1 REPORT September 20, 1994 Swift Gulch Addition Town of Avon Public Works Site Amendment to PUD Existing land uses found in the area are as follows: North: Open space South: I-70 West: Commercial East: Nottingham Ranch and open space. Information has not been provided on the design of the buildings, however, the maximum building heights are proposed at 48'. 4. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The Comprehensive Plan indicates this area should be mixed use, which includes light industry. The Public Works facility use appears to be compatible with surrounding uses. S. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed The Town has met with the Division of Wildlife on site and they have no problem with the Town's proposal. b. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural feature, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The Town will be sensitive to natural features. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan. The circulation for the site is limited by access on Swill Gulch Road. The road will receive upgrades to accommodate the facility. & Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural feature, recreation, views and function. Landscaping has not been indicated at this time 9. Phasing plan or .subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. Phasing is proposed, however, at this time the scheduling is not know. PLANNING Y ,ND ZONING COMMISSION STAF'r REPORT September 20, 1994 Swift Gulch Addition Town of Avon Public Works Site Amendment to PUD 10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads parks, and police and fire protection. There will be adequate utilities to serve the site and proposed use. 11. That the eristing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposer! PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. The existing Swift Gulch Road will be upgraded by paving. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES STANDARDS: A. Permitted Uses: Offices, Mechanical Shops and Associated Storage, Outdoor Storage Yards for uses associated with Municipal Services, Water, Transit and Fire, to include but not limited to Cinder and Sand piles, Snow Plow and Streets Equipment, Transit vehicles, Town Vehicles, Bad Order parking, Horticulture Compound, CDL Drivers Course, Fuel Pump stand, Snow Storage. B. Maximum Building Height: Forty-eight (48') high. C. Minimum Building Setbacks: Front: Twenty-five (25') feet Side: Seven and one-half (7.5') feet Rear: Ten( IV) feet D. Maximum Site Coverage: Fifty (50%) percent E. Minimum Landscape Area 'Twenty (200%) percent STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for Commission to adopt Resolution 94-18, approving the re- establishment of a PUD for Swift Gulch Addition. RECOMMENDED ACTION I. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation AON l PLANNING PLND ZONING COMMISSION STAn REPORT • • September 20, 1994 40 i Swift Gulch Addition Town of Avon Public Works Site Amendment to PUD 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted, iN� Mold Town Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (✓Y Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) J Date— 9 M g4_Sue Railton, Secretary-}' The Commission approved Planning and Zoninq Co missi n Resolution 94- A Resolution Recommending to the von Town Cou cil Akproval of a PUD Development Plan 'and Development S dards ated t SwiFt Gulch Addition, Town of Avon, E3910 Cuutity, C Parcels 1 and 2 following findings: 1. The PUD is consistent with the development patterns and locations set forth in the Town of Avon Com rehensive Plan. e is Consistent wit t e ompre ensive Plan goals and o Jectives related to land use and proximity to the Town Core. es related to providing municipal ser;ices and utilities toexisting developments and accimmodating future developments. 4. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to the development of public facilities to maintain proper level of public services in the Town. • Minimize access points on East Beaver Creek Boulevard and Avon Road to simplify circulation. Develop these access points as shopping area entrances with special landscaping and pedestrian walks. • Investigate the possibility of designating Beaver Creek Place as a one- way street to enhance circulation in the area. • Within parking lots, define main circulation routes with planting islands. • Encourage existing development to add landscaped parking islands to interrupt large paved areas and provide partial screening. • Screen loading docks and service areas -- generally separate truck and passenger vehicle traffic. Coordinate the location of service and loading arras between businesses to minimize the land area devoted to those activities. • Limit building heights to three to four stories. Subarea 16: Swift Gulch is presently undeveloped, located between generally Swift Gulch south -facing slopes. As with most southern exposures in the mountains, the area has no trees to naturally soften development. Access to development will be off Swift Gulch Road, which should eventually become a collector that connects to mixed use parcels further east. Recommendations: Develop the entire area as a master planned development to ensure that (l) access points from Swift Gulch Road are minimized; (2) landscape buffering along the road is installed with the first phases of development: (3) an adequate, internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation system is provided for; (4) and steep slooes are protected from development. Building heights should be limited to three stories. Building materials and colors should be neutral to blend in with tl a hillsides. Offensive uses should be adequately screened with berms and landscaping. 5.23 EL �10 F E FA WTI • ,'� �/fid/./�//JI' � r ',� 'l l\ Q Ft i.l f D I MAR 0 Ab FUEL WIN Vf"ICLE STOkAGE n.wPUBLIC OFF"�6 -CE Mu TE"ANCE yaq Nb �EHQOSM 6 <1 "A to lie w m t f—.,. TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 18 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO PARCELS I AND 2, SWIFT GULCH ADDITION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY COLORADO (CURRENTLY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD) WHEREAS, the Town of Avon, owner of Parcels 1 and 2, Swift Gulch Addition, has requested approval of a Planned Unit Development Plan, and Development Standards on Parcels I and 2, Swift Gulch Addition, and WHEREAS, Parcels 1 and 2, Swift Gulch Addition is zoned Planned Unit Development, and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law at which the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the 'Zoning Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, that The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves and recommends to the Avon Town Council approval of a "Zoning Amendment, as defined in proposed Ordinance #94-19, to establish a Planned Unit Development Plan and Development Standards on Parcels 1 and 2, Swift Gulch Additic:n citing the following finding> 1. The PUD is consistent with the development patterns and locations set forth in the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan 2. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATLD TO PARCELS 1 AND 2, SWIFT GULCH ADDITION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY COLORADO (CURRENTLY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD) WHEREAS, the Town of Avon, owner of Parcels 1 and 2, Swift Gulch Addition, has requested approval of a Planned Unit Development Plan, and Development Standards on Parcels I and 2, Swift Gulch Addition; and WHEREAS, Parcels 1 and 2, Swift Gulch Addition is zoned Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law at which the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the Zoning Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, that: The Pltaming and Zoning Commission hereby approves and recommends to the Avon Town Council approval of a Zoning Amendment, as defined in proposed Ordinance #94-19, to establish a Planned Unit Development Plan and Development Standards on Parcels 1 and 2, Swift Gulch Addition citing the following findings: I. The PUD is consistent with the development patterns and locations set forth in the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 2. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to land use and proximity to the Town Core. 3. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objetives related to providing municipal services and utilities to existing developments and accommodating future development. 4. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to the development of public facilities to maintain proper level of public services in the T own APPROVED THIS_ 2&3 _DAY OE S t P9u4Yb;A— , 1094 Secretary • •O 4. The PUD is cons`stent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectivra related to the development of public facilities to maintain Proper level of public services in the Town. APPROVED THIS 2 k% DAY OF S t P9""OK-- 1994. Secretary PLANNING A 'v ZONING COMMISSION STAFF scEPORT September 20, 1 _.4 Lot 31, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Canton Duplex Variance - Side Yard Setback PROJECT TYPE: Duplex ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? No, Requires a Variance to Side Yard Setback Req:- rements This is a Public Hearing for a variance to the side yard setback on Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision. INTRODUCTION: Mr. Bruce Canton is requesting a variance for a 1.5' roof overhang encroachment into the west side yard :atback. REQUEST: As the application states, Alpine Engineering staked and verified the dwelling and the concrete contractor somehow shifted the A side of the dwelling over one foot to the west. By doing this, the roof overhangs, which are two feet, will extend over the side yard setback by 1.5'. The structure vrill sit .5' from the side yard setoack. 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 vatiance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Comment: The requested variance is in keeping with the surrounding uses and structures in the area. B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specill-I regulation is necessary to achieve compatibly and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Comment. The degree of relief being sought is minirr_al Hncroachment is I S' roof overhang and not the basic structure C. The effect of the requested %ariance on light and air, distribution of population. transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. t PLANNING A..D ZONING COMMISSION STAFF rtEPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Canton Duplex Variance - Side Yard Setback Comment. The effect of the request will have no negative impacts on light, air, population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities or public safety. D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. Comment. Staff has not identified any other factors for the Commission to consider. FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply g�-nerally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND hINDINGS: Staff recommendation is for approval of Revolution No. 94-19, A Resolution Approving a Variance From The Side Yard Setback Requirements As Stipulated in Title 17 of the Avon MunHpal Code for Lot ? t Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colotado. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I . Introduce Application PLANNING A.,D ZONING COMMISSION STAID AF.PORT September 20, 1994 Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Canton Duplex Variance - Side Yard Setback 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, -7"40..t..t( � Mary HoldGh Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (.-y' Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Concept,ial, No Action ( ) Date q4 Sue Railton, Sec7tary_ ii Lot 31, Blk 2, Wildridge Subdivision Variance Sideyard Setback September 20, 1994 The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-19, A Resolution Approving A Variance from the Sideyard Setback Requirements as Stipulated in Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code, citing the following findings and condition: Findings: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. Condition: 1. The overhang encroachment into the west sideyard setback extends a maximum length of 15 feet. 04 TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94 -19 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION APPROV!NG A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 31, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Bruce Canton, owner of Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision has applied for a setback variance from the "Side Yard Building Setback" requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Side Yard Building Setback Variance application, and WHEREAS, following said public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of A•,on has determined: 1. The variance is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. 2. Approval of the variance will not constitute a grand of special privilege: and 3. The requested variance will have no detrimental effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic !acilities, and public facilities and utilities, and public safety; and WHEREAS, the P' .nning and Zrrning Commission finds n.CJva.0 I lViv ,v". 14 - I v SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE. AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 31, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Bruce Canton, owner of Lot 3I, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision has applied for a setback variance from the "Side Yard Building S,aback" requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present cert.,,: information and reports regarding the proposed Side Yard Building Setback Variance application, and WHEREAS, following said public hearing, the Planning and "Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon has determined: 1. The variance is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. 2. Approval of the variance will not constitute a grand of special privilege: and 3. The requested variance will have no detrimental effect on light and air, distrif:ution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, and public facilities and utilities, and public safety, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of r special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, Safety, or welfare, or material!y injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation ,vould deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a setback variance of 1.5' from the "Side Yard Building Setback" requirement of Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot '1 1, Block 2, Wild idge Subdivision, Town of Aron, Eagle County Colorado, subject to the following condition: 1. The overhang encroachment into the west side yard setback extends a maximum length of 15 feet. ADOPTED THIS Z _DAY OF—titM bl,-d l 99 Secretary iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a setback variance of 1.5' from the "Side Yard Building Setback" requirement of Title 17 orthe Avon Municipal Code for Lot 31, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County Colorado, subject to the following cond;tion: 1. The overhang encroachment into the west side yard setback extends a maximum length of 15 feet. ADOPTED THIS 20*-" DAY OF ,I bt d 1994 Secretary Planning and —oning Commission Staff Report September 20, 1994 T. J. Connor Building Special Review Use — Above Ground Power Lines to Building Lot 14-15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek PROJECT TYPE: Special Review Use -Above Ground Power Lines -- Public Hearing ZONING: IC COMPLIES WITH ZONING? Upon Approval of SRU This is a Public Hearing; to allow above ground power lines to run to the structure. INTRODUCTION Peter Sullivan, on behalf of T. J. Connor, has submitted an application for a Special Review Use to allow above ground power lines to run to the building The application states they were unable to obtain the easement through the adjacent property to run their power lines underground STAFF COMMENTS New buildings being constructed in the Town of Avon have been under grounding the power lines. Buildings with power lines above ground are the older structures in the Town. Following are the criteria, as listed in Section 17.48.040, to consider for approval of a special review use: A Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, COMMENT: The proposed use complies with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code. B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan, COMMENT: The proposed use would not comply with Goal Il: "Ensure that a high quality visual image of the Town is established through both public and private sector activities." Object (e) states "Improve the appearance and image of the service district along Nottingham and Metcalf Roads through enhanced design, screening of activities, and landscaping. C. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses Such compatibility may be expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features, site design, and the control of any adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc. 1 r0+ Planning ani Zoning Commission Staff Report September 20, 1994 T. J. Connor Building Special Review Use -- Above Ground Power Lines to Building Lot 14-15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek COMMENT: Adjacent uses may have above ground power lines. however, they were built prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the goals and objectives. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt Resolution 94-20, which denies the Special Review Use -- Above ground power lines, which include the findings for denial. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1 Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Comnut=;ion Review b. Commission Action Respectfully Submitted, Mary Holden Town Planner Planning and � oning Commission Staff Report September 20, 1994 T. J. Connor Building Special Review Use — Above Ground Power Lines to Building Lot 1415, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued (vf Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) i— Date qZ0 Sue Railton, Se�ary GI allow the applicant time to pro otner possiDie alternatives. 0 ABSC LP P. v. Box 3456 Gaithersburg, MD 20883 301 299.4381 (VOICE/MESSAGE TAX) June 9. 1994 Ted Huskey Engineering Service Supervisor Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. 3799 Highway 82 P O Drawer 2150 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear :fir. Huskey, Your request for an underground easement through our driveway to the Lots 15 and 16 has been received. The proposed easement is not only disruptive to our operation during you construction, but also presents a problem in the future, should your utility needed any service, Therefore, your request is denied and not granted. Sincerely. S, S Chang Post -It' Fax Note 7671 pate-,Y—,Y—, ��'r� pages! 1 COJD*'P' c- r Pnont PnoGC aY FAX M k� � if o PoS V.-L,�Ac \0 �A Orr, Lv oE,S BENCHMARK Ar BEAVER CREEK BLOCK 1 LOT J NAIL AVON LOMME;RCIAL I 10 Q e G a N EXHIBIT A P3 ;V-'°, p,,;al,�s 0{ s -c f ke Al l EGEND L lylo EXISTING QV4RHEgD %ICI Ar ELEcrrIG LINE • EXISTING POIN6R POLE --F�f— EXISTING LJNG ERGROUN PRIMARY ELE=T.CIc LINE — — — PROPOSiD UNDERGROUND Flel"A,CY ELECTRIC L/NE JEA IS r/N6 rNiPEC- PNAS1E PAD- MOUNT TRANSFORMZP ® PROPosEp THREE- PHASE PAD- MeuMr TRANSFOICM61C LOT 1-i \ J e \ — w - F LOT- 15 0 U �O Q 3 LOT 1G L -LEGEND NO EX15rING OVERHEAD PRIMA Ay ,E4-Ec T?iC L/NE 9 EXISTING PO;NER POLE// —iFF- EXI5TINC CJH06RGRd411V � PRIMARY ELCcT.cic LINE -• — PROPOSED Li RGROUN P!i/MA.CY ELEcrRIc LINE' ® EA Is M/yr. �I,CEE-PHASE P.ac-Mo wv'r TRANSFORME.•C ® PROPOSED THREE- PHASE PAD- MoUYr TRANSFO/CMER M TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 20 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE TO ALLOW FOR ABOVE GROUND POWER LINES CONNECTING TO A BUILDING ON LOT 14-15, BLOCK I, BENCHMARK AT BEAVEK CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, T. J. Connor has filed an application with the Town of Avon for approval of a Special Review Use to allow for the installation of above ground power lines, on Lot 14-15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town o; Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, and; WHEREAS, this location is zoned Industrial and Commercial, in which above ground utilities may be approved as a Special Review Use; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use; and WHEREAS, following such public hearing and consideration of such information as presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows A. The proposed use is not consistent with the objectives and purposes of the comprehensive plan, and B. The proposed use is not designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and newer uses in the area SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE TO ALLOW FOR ABOVE GROUND POWER LINES CONNECTING TO A BUILDING ON LOT 14-15, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, T. J. Connor has filed an application with the Town of Avon for approval of a Special Review Use to allow for the installation of above ground power lines, on Lot 14-15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado; and; WHEREAS, this location is zoned Industrial and Commercial, in which above ground utilities may be approved as a Special Review Use; and; WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use; and WHEREAS, following such public hearing and consideration of such information as presented, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows: A. The proposed use is not consistent with the objectives and purposes of the comprehensive plan, and B. The proposed use is not designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and newer uses in the area. W., NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies a Special Review Use for the installation of above ground power line on Lot 14-15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF Secretary Chairman 1994 ADOPTED THIS DAY OF Secretary Chairman 1994 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Mountain Coast Homes Variance - Building Height PROJECT TYPE: Four-plex ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING? No, Requires a Variance to Building Height Requirements This is a Public Hearing for a variance to the Building Height, on Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision. INTRODUCTION: Michael Waste, on behalf of Mountain Coast Homes, is requesting a variance to the maximum building height of 35' allowed for Wildridge Subdivision. REQUEST: The proposal is to allow the structure to be built 4 1/2' over the maximum building height of 35'. The applicant is citing the topography as the reason for the variance request. The application is attached the for Commission review. STAFF COMMENTS: Staffs main concern with the request is that a height variance has never been approved in the Wildridge Subdivision. Building height is one of the controls en bui�ding bulk utilized to achieve compatibility and conformity of treatment among sites. Upon reviewing the project, there appear to be changes that could reduce the height, such as design and site layout. Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Section 17.36.40. Approval Criteria. A. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Commem A height variance has not been granted in this area of Wildridge Subdivision and could be considered a grant of special privileges. B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibly and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Mountain Coast Homes Variance - Building Height Comment. The degree of relief being sought is 4 1/2' over the maximum height limit. However, granting of the variance may not be compatible or uniform with how other sites have been treated in the vicinity. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Comment. The effect of the request may have no negative impacts on light, air, population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities or public safety. However, should this variance be approved, others may apply for the same reason, potentially impacting the population and creating larger, more massive structures in the area. D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. Comment. Staff has not identified any other factors for the Commission to consider. FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall male the following findings before granting a variance A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety" or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: I. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title: ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity: iii. The strict or literx[ interi,retation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the app:i..iit of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Mountain Coast Homes Variance - Building Height STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommendation is for adoption of Resolution No. 94-21 which denies the requested variance from the maximum height limit of 35' based upon the following findings FINDINGS A, That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons. i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, ii. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity, iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I Introduce Application 2 Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 20, 1994 Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Mountain Coast Homes Variance - Building Height Respectfully submitted. -"q C. - Mary Hold Town Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued (.-' Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date _A[2D1g4- Sue Railton, Secretary tKul�y. J The Commission tabled this appli/ation to allow the applicant time to MOUNTAIN COAST HOMES, INC. RFCEOVFp A� 303 949-4425 Phone & Fax 303949-7020 S F �; 994 P.O. Box 1123 • Avon, Colorado 81620 Scptembero7,t994 TOWN AVON 'town of Avon RE: Proposed l leight Variance Lot 3• Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision 110 Box 975 2810 OYNeal Spur, Avon, Colorado Avon, CO 81620 Ikar Resident - I wanted to contact you personally regarding the above referenced subject. My name is Michael Waste and I am the Project Manager of the project. When we submitted our proposed Project to the'fown of Avon, our architect, Robert Kautinan. AIA, had designed a building wluch we Iclt met the Planning and Zoning Owdehnes. I lowever, the Town of Avon stab has calculated that our building does not tall within the Building Height Ordinance. tMere is mare than one methal to calculate the building height, as the Building Height Ordinance is somewhat gtmenrl. 'Ibis is proven by tote existing buildings which did not lave to go through the variance process After reviewing several projrxas the the Wildridge Subdivision, I came to reali7c that there are many buildings which exceed the height limitation =ording the method of calculation that the Planning Staff uses today The following, area few of these buildings: 'Wildwoxd Towtilnomes Unit B' Developed Mthe Mown of Avon 1': ight 38.90' 2670 i3ear Trap I [eight 38.(XY 3083 Wildridge Road Ileight 42.30' 'there are several determining factors which lead its to believe tinct we have the support of the majority of the Planning and /ming Board mernWrs. A few of thew fmrors are listed as follows: I A difficult) in ascertaining a consistent method of interpreting the Bcight Ordinance 2. The consideration that our property has a steep slope 3. 'that another design would result in a building whoa: massing would be of a lir greater impact to adjacent property owners. 4 the mujonh of or building will star below the street elevation 1 would like to point out additionally that or design takes advantage of existing grades, utilities and views lin the most elLcicnt floor plan, with the least impact on the site I would appreciate any questions or comments that you ray have regarding our proposed building Please feel fiec to call me at(30)949-4425 lhank you for your time and consideration Sincerely, Michael Write Mouetain Coast I Ionics, Inc APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE The undersigned hereby requests that a VARIANCE from the terms of the Town of Avon Municipal Code be granted. In support of this application, the undersigned states: 1. The specific variance requested is To allow the height of the building toesceedthe 35'-o" height [mutation. a5CURCBLI� GOICUIaIed b\' Statl'_ pl ced hria'ht of IN, huilding to M -/_ 2. Legal description of property: Lot I 131 k I N'ildn gr Ct Mucic nn ..Caunii of Fggl 3. Address of property: 2810 O'Neal Spur. Avon. Colorado 4. Owner of described property: Mountain Coast Ho=c 5. Applicant for variance: Mountain Coast Homes 6. Zoning Classification of property: RLD 7. Existing improvements on property consist of None 8. The duration of the proposed variance is: Permanent X Temporary Years 3. The following practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship, inconsistent with the objectives of the particular regulation would result from the strict, literal interpretertion and enforcement of the regulation: A building whose massing because of a larger footprint and parallel to the front property line would be of far greater impact to the adjacent property owners 10. The following exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district: 11. The strict literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive tale applicant of the following privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district: The ability to utilize a design that takes advantage of the existing grades. utilities, and views for a more efficient and economical floor plan. with the least impact to the site. 9 �� i'r_ b o Y + J ^ U J � tip � O � `-" � T n VZ a � P O i c � Y] r� TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 21 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Michael Waste, owner of Lot 3 , Block 2, Wildridge, has applied for a variance from the mrximum building height requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Building Height Variance application and has considered I The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, 2 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege, 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS ST_..'ULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Michael Waste, owner of Lot 3 , Block 2, Wildridge, has applied for a variance from the maximum building height requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Building Height Variance application and has considered. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, 2 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege, 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. a SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION DENYfNG A VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING DIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS STIPULATED IN TITLE 17 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Michael Waste, owner of Lot 3 , Block 2, Wildridge, has applied for a variance frcm the maximum building height requirements as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning and 'Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Building Height Variance application and has considered: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the 6cinity, 2 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed vanance. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds: A. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, ii. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity, iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified egulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies the requested variance from the building height regulation of Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF Secretary Chairman 1994 40 of • w welfare, or materialiv injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, ii. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies the requested variance from the building height regulation of Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF Secretary Chairman 1994