Loading...
PZC Packet 110686STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 11/6/86 Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Special Review Use (Transfer of Residential Development Rights from Unassigned Unit Pool) Public Hearing - Continued from 10/21/86 Regular Meeting INTRODUCTION: This item has been continued from the October 21, 1986 meeting. The original application had requested that the applicant be allowed to transfer four (4) Residential Development Rights from the Unassigned Unit Pool to Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Due to discrepancies between Town records, Benchmark Company records and the applicant's records, Staff has asked the applicant to submit an amended application for the Planning and Zoning Commission to act on in order to clarify the Development Right situation on Lot 12. The Staff recommends, and the applicant requests, that this item be continued again so that the proper Public Hearing notices can be made. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce application; 2. Public Hearing; 3. Continue application. Respectfully Submitted, right n neering Technician Planninq & Zoning Action: Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued (>C) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date— Patricia Cuny, Secretary"% - f._ . _ -�,- xe _ O RW/mml STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 11/6/86 Eaglewood at Vail - Conceptual Review Meyers Ranch Annexation INTRODUCTION: This project was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for conceptual review at the October 7, 1986 meeting. Following the review, the Commission requested that the applicant consider alternate architectural styles and the possibility of including a limited commercial area within the project. The Commission further noted that adherence to minimum parking and snow storage regulations will be required and that special emphasis should be given to the design of public, pedestrian and vehicular ways in the development of the project plans. The applicant presented a revised conceptual plan at the October 21, 1986 meeting. The revised plan provided for 185 residential units and indicated that minimum parking requirements would be met if the Commission granted the maximum 15% reduction from parking requirements. The basic site layout and architectural style was essentially the same as presented at the previous meeting. Following a review, the Commission denied conceptual approval of the proposed project based upon non-conformance with the Design Review Guidelines of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The revised drawings show the same basic building configuration, parking lot layout and architectural style as previously presented. Revisions include the addition of a bus drop-off area along Highway 6, a covered pedestrian cross- walk between Buildings A and D, and an area in Building D designated as Reception/Community Center. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed revisions attempt to address some specific items which must be dealt with in the design review process. The revisions do not address the major issues related to the proposed project. The major issues revolve around the ability of the site to absorb the proposed density within building design constraints outlined by the applicant, and the Design Review Guidelines of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The revised plan does not indicate any signifi- cant progress in this area. The following comments are directly related to proposed density and building design constraints: 1. Accel-decel lanes have not been taken into consideration with bus stop area location. It is anticipated that accel-decel lane requirements will move the bus lane to within 10 to 15 feet of Building D: 2. Based upon field observations, it appears that grading for the bus stop area will virtually eliminate the existing trees in that area; 3. Although design details are not available, it appears that 4 parking spaces will be lost with covered pedestrian crosswalk installation; Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 11/6/86 Eaglewood.at Vail - Conceptual Review Meyers Ranch Annexation Page 2 of 3 4. Some snow storage areas appear to be against buildings. This would seem to be aesthetically unacceptable as well as creating a potential for future building maintenance problems; 5. The easterly parking area is located at the property line and the proposed landscape buffer area is located entirely on the Sunridge property. If this is acceptable, it should be confirmed in writing by the appropriate legal body authorized to represent the Sunridge owners; 6. Site grades and drainage have not been addressed on the conceptual plan. This could have significant impact, particularly in the area between Buildings B and D. Due to site location, driveway and entrance grades are extremely critical. Based upon the limited progress which has been made in addressing the above concerns, it appears that a new direction in the project design is needed. This direction could be in the form of lower density with smaller or fewer buildings, taller buildings requiring less building area, or reconfiguration of proposed buildings with the addition of structured parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Commission reconfirm its previous action denying conceptual approval of Eaglewood at Vail based upon non-conformance with Design Review Guidelines as outlined in the Planning and Zoning Commission Rules and Regulations and Town of Avon Development Goals and Policies. Direction should be given to the applicant to consider other site development options such as: 1. Lower density with smaller or fewer buildings; 2. Taller buildings requiring less building area; 3. Reconfiguration of proposed buildings and the addition of structured parking. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE: 1. Introduce application; 2. Presentation by applicant; 3. Staff comments; 4. Commission review and action. Respectfully Submitted, J/� Norm Wood Director of Engineering and Community Development Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 11/6/86 Eaglewood at Vail - Conceptual Review Meyers Ranch Annexation Page 3 of 3 Planning & 'Zoning Action: Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( Denied c�( } Date 11�7�— Patricia Cuny, Secretary Withdrawn !II -j/ nmil e STAFF REPORI LANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - 11/6/86 Lot 1, The i ..t Club Addition The Yacht C', o - Preliminary Design Review INTRODUCTION: The Roupp Group has applied for design review approval for a mixed use project on Lot 1, The Yacht Club Addition. Lot 1 is zoned SPA and Ordinance 86-20 established an assigned density of 20 Residential Development Rights and allowed uses consisting of: Time-share, condominium, hotel and limited commercial uses consisting of retail shops, restaurant and office space. Total commercial area is limited to a maximum of 14,500 square feet. Additional zoning criteria included: Maximum Building Area Ratio - 70% Minimum Open Space (Pervious) Area Ratio - 30% Front Setback - 25 feet Side Setback - 12.5 feet Rear Setback - 30 feet from mean annual high water line of the Eagle River Parking - Per Title 17 of Avon Municipal Code Exception - Not required to be on Town bus route for 15% reduction Maximum Building Height - 7,540 feet above MSL Not more than 30% above 7,485 feet above MSL Not more than 50% above 7,470 feet above MSL The preliminary plans are generally in accordance with conceptual plans previously presented for, and use.; as, a basis in establishing the SPA Zoning Criteria for this site. The prelim nary plans show 21 residential units using 19 D-velopment Rights, approximately 9,700 square feet of commercial area, and approximately 7,300 square feet of swimming pool and recreational amenities area. The proposed building basically consists of a series of towers of varying heights up to seven stories. Parking spaces are provided by a combination of surface lots and underground structured parking. The actual number of parking spaces cannot be verified due to discrepancies between architectural and engineering drawings. The engineering drawings have been revised to show elimination of the easterly ramp to the underground parking structure. This change basically increases the number of available parking spaces and results in an at grade connection to the proposed kiverside Center project. The architectural drawings have not been revised to reflect this change. Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 11/6/86 Lot 1, The Yacht Club Addition The Yacht Club - Preliminary Design Review Page 2 of 4 Other basic changes shown on the engineering drawings but not reflected on architectural drawings include: 1. Clipping of a corner on Tower C to avoid encroachment into rear setback; 2. Installation of a walkway and retaining wall in the rear setback. STAFF COMMENTS: The primary issues with this project seem to be: 1. Will encroachment be allowed in the rear setback, and if so, what forms will this encroachment be allowed to take? 2. What level of plans and detail will be required for final design review approval? Issue Number 1: a. The proposed walkway and retaining wall is shown as encroaching approximately 10 feet into the 30 foot rear setback. This retaining wall and encroachment appears to make it possible to match the grade elevations reflectec; on the north elevation shown on the architectural drawings. Based upon the site plan contour map, it appears that the lowest floor level will. be substantially above grade on the north side if the wall is not constructed or other design revisions made; b. Roof overhangs are not shown but one drawing does refer to a four foot overhang. If this is the case, it may also create a rear setback encroach- ment situation. Possible solutions to this potential problem suggested by the applicant include, clipping the offending tower corners, the use of dormers to eliminate the overhang in those areas or the granting of a variance to allow the encroachment. Issue Number 2: a. The current submittal does not match from drawing to drawing. This does not create a major problem for preliminary review as long as it is clearly understood which drawing depicts the actual design being proposed. This does not seem to be acceptable for final design review approval. The final design review drawings should accurately and consistently depict the building appearance, materials, dimensions, location and relationship to existing terrain. Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission - 11/6/86 Lot 1, The Yacht Club Addition The Yacht Club - Preliminary Design Review Page 3 of 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: With the exception of encroachment into the rear setback, the proposed project appears to conform with the conceptual design used as a basis for establishing the SPA Zoning Criteria. Based upon ;.his, Staff recommends preliminary design review approval for The Yacht Club subject to the following considerations in development of final design review drawings and documentation: 1. Elimination of retaining wall, walkway and grading in rear setback; 2. Elimination of roof overhangs in rear setback, and consideration should be given to reducing size of Towers C and G to eliminate encroachments and maintain integrity of building design. Note: Building appearance may be significantly changed by use of dormers to eliminate encroachment. 3. Final design and uses conform with all requirements of Ordinance 86-20; 4. Final design review submittal include all applicable information and documentation required by Chapter 17.22 of the Zoning Code as applies to Fractionalization of Development Rights; 5. Driveway entrance design and related improvements be approved by the Colorado Department of Highways; 6. The final grading and drainage plan include desi^n calculations and provide for erosion control in critical areas; 7. Final design review submittal include all information and documentation required to accurately and consistently depict the building appearance, materials, dimensions, location and relationship to existing terrain as required by Section 2.40 of the Planning and Zoning Commission Rules and Regulations; 8. Recording of Final Plat for the Yacht Llub Subdivision. Note: Council approval expires if not recorded within 90 days of Council action approving the plat. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce application; 2. Presentation by applicant; 3. Commission review and action. Respectfully Submitted, 4:i � or o Director of Engineering and Community Development t ._ 1 I _ _ ,I } .. •, • - `� . . �: I _ _ ,I } � , • - `� 1 .I a ..