PZC Packet 051788A ,
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - 5/17/83
Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek Place
Variance to Allow Parking Within 10 Foot Front Yard Setback
Public Hearing
INTRODUCTION:
Morter Architects, representing the owners of Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek, are requesting approval of a variance to allow parking within
the 10 foot front yard setbacks along both Beaver Creek Place and East Beaver
Creek Blvd. in conjunction with a retail development they propose for the site.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Plans submitted with this application indicate that the Applicant would like
to place the parking lot approximately 7 feet from the front lot lines.
Section 17 36.040 Approval Criteria, states_
Before acting on a variance application, the design review board shall consider
the following factors with respect to the requested variance:
A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or 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, or to attain the
objectives of this title without nrant of special privilege;
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, and public facilities
and utilities, and public safety;
D. Such other factors and criteria as the board deems applicable to the
proposed variance. (Ord. 81-9 S1(d)).
Section 17 36 050 Findings Required, states:
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;
--1
Staff Report to The Planning and Zoning Commission - 5/17/88
Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek Place
Variance to Allow Parking Within 10 Foot Front Yard Setbacks
Public Hearing
Page 2 of 3
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 difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title;
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone;
3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other pruperties in the same district. (Ord. 81-9 Sl(e)).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has prepared Resolution 88-5 which can be modified to reflect the
Commission's decision to grant or deny this variance request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Variance Request;
2. Presentation By Applciant;
3. Conduct Public Hearing;
4. Commission Review of Approval Criteria and Findings;
5. Act on Variance Request.
Respectfully submitted,
//a
righ
ngineering T:chnician
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission - 5/17/88
Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek Place
Variance to Allow Parking Within 10 Foot Front Yard Setbacks
Public Hearing
Page 3 of 3
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as Submitted (V Approved with Recommended Conditions ( )
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Cont'ed ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date FjIII I¢,Q Denise Hi 11, Secretary Y�lP�aiO� /j a
The Comnission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 88-5, Series
cf 1988; A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW PARKING WITHIN THE 10 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR LOT 69, BLOCK 2 BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK, citing findings
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 iniurous to properties or
improvements in the vicinity; C That the variance is warranted for the following
reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title; 2. There are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance
that do not apply generaliy, to other properties in the same zone; 3. The strict
or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
district.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - 5/17/88
Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek Place
Preliminary Design Review
INTRODUCTION:
The owners of Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek have applied for
Preliminary Design Review of a retail development they are proposing for the
site: The development generally consists of a single story building housing
retail shops served by surface parking. The Applicant has submitted a site
plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plan and building elevations for
review.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A review of the plans submitted for this application has resulted in the
following information:
Site Area = Approximately 25,700 square feet
Building Area = 8425 square feet or 13% of site (50% allowed)
Building Height = 31 feet (60 feet allowed)
Open Space = 18% (20% required)
Parking Requirements:
7244 square feet leaseable area @ 4 spaces/1000 square feet = 29 spaces
(29 spaces shown on site plan)
The site plan that has been submitted lacks building ties and dimensions, but
it appears that the roof overhang along the rear lot line encroaches into the
7.5 foot setback. The Zoning Code requires that setbacks be unobstructed from
the ground to the sky.
Although the site plan indicates sufficient parking spaces, there is only a
22 foot wide aisle in front of the building. The Loning Code requires all
parking spaces open directly upon an asile or driveway of a width of 24 feet.
The loading dock for the project is shown along the south property line for the
project. There is a 7.5 'pot utility easement on each side of this property
line and the applicant should be aware that there is a water line located there.
Consideration should be given to limiting construction in this area.
Open space for the project appears to be below minimum requirements. Consideration
should be given to alternatives that would allow additional open space.
The site plan shows a IS-gnage Tower" located on the corner of Beaver Creek Place
and East Beaver Creek Byrd. No details of signage for the project have been
submitted, but the applicant should be made aware that freestanding signs are
subject to a 10 foot setback from all property lines. A sign program should be
part of the submittal for final approval.
^ 00�
a
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission - 5/17/88
Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek Place
Preliminary Design Review
Page 2 of 3
77
The grading and drainage plan submitted does not appear to be satifactory.
Under this plan, drainage may enter the site from the street and flow through
the parking area and onto the adjacent property. There does not appear to be I
sufficient detention area to accomodate this amount of drainage. The
applicant should consider the use of some curb and gutter along the northeast
corner of the site with concrete pans at the driveway entrances, to direct
drainage along the street. An adequate detention area and treatment facility
for parking lot runoff should be developed.
Staff recommends that the Commission review this application in conjunction
with the following design review guidelines:
6.11. The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and
regulations of the Town of Avon.
6.12. The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials
of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be
located.
6.13. The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent
properties.
6.14. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography.
6.15. The v'- appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent
and oring properties and public ways.
6.16. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in
the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired.
6.17. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted
Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the Commission feels it appropriate, Staff recommends Preliminary Design
Review approval be granted subject to the following items being addressed prior
to final approval:
1. Final design include a fully dimensioned site plan conforming with building
setback requirements parking. and access, loading dock requirements, and
pedestrian circulation;
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission - 5/17/88
Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek Place
Preliminary Design Review
Page 3 of 3
2. Final design include a complete grading and drainage plan addressing
detention and treatment of parking lot runoff;
3. Final design include a Comprehensive Sign Program detailing sizes, locations,
and materials for all signage for the project;
Other conditions as required by the Commission to bring the project into
conformance with the Design Review Guidelines. (Note specific design
guidelines section numbers for additional condiuions)
Final design must conform with the requirements of the Zoning Code, Planning
and Zoning Commission Design Procedures, Rules and Regulations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Introduce Project;
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Commission Review of Submitted Material;
4. Act on Application.
Respectfully submitted,
W
Wrigh
Engineering Technician
PLANNING ANS. ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( )
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn
DateMw' 11 1q(M Denise Hill, Secretary
The Commission granted approval of preliminary design with the condition that the
Applicant continue to work with the Staff for direction toward final a royal and
address the following Staff recommendations: 1. Final design include a fully
dimensioned site olan conforming with building setback requirements parking and
_access loading dock requirements and pedestrian circulation; 2. Final design
include a complete grading and drainage plan addressing detention and treatment
of parking lot runoff; 3 Final design include a Comprehensive Sign Program
detailing sizes, locations, and materials for all signage for the project;
5. Final design must conform with the requirements of the Zoning Cole, Planning
and Zoning Commission Design Procedures, Rules and Regulations.
-1 '"�
To: Town of Avon
From: JF Lamont
RE:Project Review:
Date: April 27, 1988
Project: Beaver Creek Place
The following Design Guidelines have been reviewed and
are offered for consideration by the reviewing authorities
and the applicant. The recommendations made in this report
are subject to change; upon the submission of additional
information, the content of the public hearings, and the
results of additional research.
Section
6.00 Design Guidelines:
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: See Staff Report
6.12 The suitability of the improvement, including type and
quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the
site upon which it is to be located.
Comment: The suitability of the improvement is
consistent with the existing development in Development
District One.
The type and quality of materials is the same as or
exceeds the type and quality of materials used in the
construction of other structures in the vicinity.
The size of the structure exceeds the ability of the
site to accomodate required setbacks and site improvements.
Parking spaces fall short of optimium design due to
filter gallery design.
Driveways are more narrow than appropriate.
Turning radii in parking lot is inadequate.
Improvements are located in public right-of-ways.
a
page two
Pedestrian access through and accross the site is
undefined or inadequate.
Site and building lighting is insufficiently addressed.
Insufficient information exist to determine landscape
material and location.
6.13 The compatibility of the design to minimize site
impacts to adjacent properties.
Ccmment: The design does not appear to adversely effect
the distribution of light and air of adjacent properties.
The access of Fire Safety equipment to adjacent
properties may be adversely effected by the site design.
Site drainage and landscape plans are of insufficient
detail to determine there compatibility with existing or
proposed site plan of adjacent properties.
Snow drop areas, collecting snow from pitched roof may
adversly effect adjecent property as well as cause blocking
of rear exits and delivery walkway. Similar problems exist
on east side of building with snow dumping onto parked cars.
Insufficient interconnection of pedestrian circulation
with adjacent properties.
Insufficient interconnection with common driveways on
adjacent properties.
Insufficient interconnection of drainways with adjacent
properties.
Insufficient interconnection with landscaping on
adjacent properties.
6.14 The compatibility of proposed improvements with site
topography.
Comment: Curb, gutter and drainpans should included
around the perimeter of the site.
Insufficient information exists to determine if on-site
drainways are adaquate to eliminate flooding on-site or on
adjacent properties.
hi
page three
6.15 The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as
viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public
ways.
Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed
improvement does not inhibit principal views nor block the
solar exposure of adjacent and neighboring properties.
Insufficient information exists to determine if
landscaping will have an acceptable visual appearance from
the public ways.
Exterior and unenclosed parking areas are not located in
principal views from adjacent and neighboring properties and
public ways.
Insufficient information exists to determine if building
and parking lot lights will impair neighboring property.
6.16 The objective that no improvement be so similar or
dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or
aesthetic will be impaired.
Comment: The apparent mass of the one story pitched roof
structure is consistent with one, two and three story
structures on adjacent properties.
Building offsets are significant enough to be similar in
appearance of structure on adjacent properties.
The buildings exterior materials, architectural
detailing complements and enhances the standard of design for
the vicinity.
Provision should be made for adequate fire safety access
to adjacent properties.
Landscape improvements should be qualitatively and
quantitatively increased so as to maintain or exceed the
standards consistent with existing improvements in the
vicinity.
No information or standards are presently available
which indicates that either the proposed use nor the
aesthetics of the improvement are so similar or dissimilar to
others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic
will be impaired.
r.,
page four
6.17 The general conformance of the proposed improvements
with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of
Avon.
Comment: The proposed project is in substantial
compliance with the adopted development goals, policies, and
programs of the Town of Avon.
The appropriate goals,
Town of Avon are as follows:
goals and policies have been
and Policy statement and ar
member.)
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ONE
policies, and programs for the
( The Development District 1
n excerpted from the Town's Goals
e included for benefits of the new
*Development District One: The area West of the present
town boundary located between the City Market Building and
the STOLport terminal facility, and the centerline of Avon
Road; between the centerline of the Denver Rio Grande &
Western Railway right-of-way on the South and the centerline
of the Interstate 70 highway right-of-way on the North.
I. Economic Development:
A. Goals:
*1. Establish economic and development policies
which will cause the Central business district to become the
principal center of commerce and lodging in the Vail
Valley.
2. Permit the inclusion of lodging or residential
uses within commercial development, where it would provide an
incentive for providing commercial space, and would encourage
uses found in typical, year-round communities.
*3. Encourage the inclusion of low to moderate
residential density in development projects, provided that
there is an appropriate improvement in the mix of commercial
uses and an expansion of the pedestrian and vehicular
circulation system.
B. Policies:
1. Encourage the assemblage of parcels where it
would facilitate the development of commercial and lodging
uses.
2. Encourage the provision of recreational,
cultural and educational facilities in development projects.
page 2
3. Attract entertainment and resf-aurant uses.
4. Promote the inclusion of service and
professional offices within development projects.
activities.
5. Establish pedestrian -oriented commercial
6. Promote both day and nighttime commercial
activities.
*7. Encourage the annexation of those properties
which are located within or adjacent to the development
idstrict.
*8. Establish Residential Development Rights on
annexed properties which meet community master planning
standards.
*9 Encourage the transfer of Residential
Development Rights onto sites that can accommodate low to
moderate residential density.
C. Strategies:
II. Housing Development
A. Goals:
*1. Encourage the development of a wide variety of
residential housing types, particularly affordable dwelling
units, either by purchase or rental, to persons of all income
levels, visitor and resident alike.
B. Policies:
1. Promote tourist lodging.
C. Strategies:
III. Tranbportation and Circulation:
A. Goals:
1. Provide for both public and private mass
transportation and convenient mass transit facilities that
will reduce vehicular traffic congestion, as well as
encourage commercial and recreational patronage.
page 3
2. Promote the safe separation of pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicular traffic.
3. Encourage centralized puulic/private parking
facilities in areas where the shared use and access between
such parking facilities will improve pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
4. Improve the vehicular circulation system.
B. Policies:
*1. Encourage the provision of pedestrian, bicycle,
and vehicular ways on both developed and undeveloped sites.
2. Provide a vehicular access control plan that
will protect the safety of the streets and allow good access
to private property.
*3. Establish readily identifiable and safe
crossing points on Avon Road and East & West Beaver Creek
Boulevard that will provide ease of pedestrian access to
major activity centers.
*4 Provide for the extension of greenbelt,
pedestrian, bicycle, and street right-of-ways onto lands
adjacent to the town boundaries.
*5. Establish a central passenger transportation
terminal for air, bus, rental car, ski lifts, and rail
service that is integrated with the community's mass transit
and vehicular circulation systems.
6. Promote additional vehicular and pedestrian
crossings through the Interstate 70 and Denver Rio Grande and
Western right-of-ways.
C. strategies:
1. Promote a separated pedestrian and vehicular
grade crossing on Avon Road through the Denver Rio Grande and
Western Railroad right-of-way.
*2. Encourage the acquisition of right-of-ways for
the improved circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic
by means of easements and other appropriate agreements with
property owners.
page 4
*3. Promote the construction of an Interstate 70
underpass between Swift Gulch Road and an extension of East
Beaver Creek Boulevard.
IV. Community Facilities:
A. Goals:
*1. Encourage private c:evelopers to provide on-site
cultural, educational, and recreational facilities for their
guests.
*2. Promote open space, parks, and continuous
interior and exterior pedestrian malls between adjacent
sites.
*3. Encourage and provide for contiguous parking
facilities between adjacent sites that are available for use
by the general public.
B. Policies:
*1. Promote the construction of a major conference
center, parking structure, maintenance facility, recreational
amenities, and regional transportation terminal.
C. Strategties:
*1. Encourage the joint funding with surrounding
jurisdictions of public facilities which fulfill a common
need.
V. Community Design:
A. Goals:
1. Protect the efficiency and safety of the area
by encouraging compatible uses to develop around its
perimeter.
2. Encourage proper site planning that orients
structures to optimum passive solar exposure and view
orientation, while providing view corridors for buildings on
adjacent sites.
3. Provide more flexible setback standards, shared
parking standards, and increased allowable lot coverage in
order to facilitate the development of commercial and public
uses.
page 5
*4. Encourage a minimum/maximum building size and
mass by providing design guidelines which reinforce the
emergence of a cohesive townscape.
5. Function as an auto accessible area.
6. Reduce the negative influences of noise from
Interstate 70 and the Denver Rio Grande and Western Railroad.
*7. Promote an urban townscape that provides for
structures, on the same or adjacent sites, of varying heights
from low to high profile, that incorporate and establish a
pedestrian scale; significant landscaping; continuous
interior and exterior public malls; interconnected, covered,
centralized parking; enclosed atriums, and interior open
space; community recreational, educational, and cultural
facilities.
B. Policies:
*1. Improve the landscaping and visual screening of
surface parking lots.
*2. Encourage development projects
distinctive architectural character, ease of
and that provide pedestrian malls and plazas
adjacent sites.
that -have
accessibility,
contiguous with
*3. Establish a pedestrian scale that considers the
height of surrounding buildings, solar exposure, the width of
streets, pedestrian ways, and the sense of enclosure.
*4. Permit the encroachment of appropriate,
pedestrian -oriented, commercial uses onto pedestrian ways.
5. orient entrances of commercial facilities to
pedestrian ways, while providing convenient access to
centralized parking areas.
*6. Locate service, professional and lodging uses
above grade level commercial uses.
*7. Provide for adequate snow removal and storage
facilities, as well as the retention and romoval of
pollutants from suface runoff.
page 6
*S. Provide protection for pedestrians and outdoor
recreational amenities against prevaling winter winds through
the use of appropriate landscaping and architectural
features.
*9. Provide for the location of utility easements,
lines,and facilities so that they minimize damage to native
vegetation, streets, walkways, and principal view corridors.
*10. Encourage requirements and standards for the
design and construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalks on
appropriate development projects.
C. Strategies:
1. Prepare design guidelines and procedures that
will achieve the community's desired architectural and
landscape image.
*************************************************************
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - 5/17/88
Lot 10, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Gosshawk Townhomes
Television Antenna
Design Review
INTRODUCTION:
Circut Doctors, Inc., representing Bolduc Realty and Management, is requesting
design review approval for a Master Antenna Television system to serve the
Gosshawk Townhomes in Wildridge. The proposed antenna tower would be mounted
on the exterior of Unit 6 as shown on the attached site plan. The proposed
tower and antenna will extend approximately 7 feet above the ridge line of the
building.
STAFF COMMENTS:
According to the Planning and Zoning Commission Design Procedures, Rules and
Regulations, the Commission should consider the following items when reviewing
applications for antennaes.
1. All antennas shall be located so as to be screened from view from any
public right-of-way or neighboring property. Screening may be accomplished
by,
subgoradethrough
placementsuse
or otherlandscaping
thatmaterials,
screenfencing,
antennaeexisting
andstructures,
appear
natural to the site;
2. All wiring and cable related to antenna installation shall be installed
underground or be incorporated entirely within the structure;
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Introduce Project;
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Commission Review of Submitted Material;
4. Act on Application.
Respectfully submitted,
a righ
// Engineering technician
01
r:
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission - 5/17/88
Lot 10, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Gosshawk Townhomes
Television Antenna
Design Review
Page 2 of 2
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as Submitted Approved with Recommended Conditions ( )
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continu ] _Denied ( ) Withdrawn
DateIj .i Denise Hill, Secretary
The Commission granted approval of this application as submitted.
4W
OD
a
•
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMMISSION
5/17/88
Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Otterman :and Associates
20 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Continued from 5/3/88
I NTFtODUCT I ON:
Thi =_s item was continued from the meeting of May 39 1988,
to give the applicant the opportunity to make revisions
to the plans in order to address a number of concerns
expressed by the Commission and Staff.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The revisions to the site plan appear to address many of
the issues raised at the previous meeting. The revised
grading plan reduces the area of the site which will be
disturbed during construction, provides access around
the buildings as requested by the Fire Department, and
provides a wildfire break around the development. A 4
foot wide walkway has also been added between the
building and the parking lot. As a result of the
revisions to the grading plan, there are some 1:1 slopes
shot -in. Use of 1:1 slopes will require special analysis
for slope stability and special provisions for
revegetation. Final design must also include adequate
provisions for treatment of parking lot runoff and
erosion control.
Some site lighting is shown on the building elevations,
but lighting should be provided for the parking lot,
especially at the entrance to the project.
Revisions to the building design include a combination
of flat and gabled roofs with some offsets in parapet
heights on flat roofed sections. Offsets have also been
incorporated into the building walls and small storage
units have been added along the parking lot side of the
building.
Staff recommends that the Commission review this
application in conjunction with the following design
review guidelines:
6.11.. The confor :e with the Zoning Code and other
applicable ...ies and regulations of the Town of
Avor.
Staff Report to the Planning and "Zoning Commission
5/17/88
Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Otterman and Associates
20 Unit: Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Continued from 5/3/88
Page 2 of 3
6.12. The suitability of the improvement, including
type and quality of materials of which it is to
be constructed and the sit.:, upon which it is to
be located.
6.13. The r.ompatibility of the design to minimize site
impacts to adjacent properties.
6.14. The compatibility of proposed improvements with
site topography.
6.15. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement
as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways.
6.16. The objective that no improvement be so similar
or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that
values, monetary or aesthetic will be inpaired.
6.17. The general conformance of the proposed
improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and
Programs for the Town of Avon.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the Commission finds that this application conforms
with the above Design Review Guidelines, Staff
recommends that Preliminary Design Review approval be
subject to the following items being addressed during
development of final plans.
1. Include slope stability analysis by soils engineer
for graded slopes steeper than 2:1.
2. Include special provisions for revegetation of
steeper slopes.
3. Include provisions for treatment of parking lot
runoff and erosion control.
4. Provide area lighting for parking lot and entrances_
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
5/17/88
Lot 3, Bloct' 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Otterman and Associated
20 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Continued from 5/3/88
Page 3 o+' 3
5. Provide fire protection facilities as required by
Fire Department based upon occupancy, available fire
flows and access.
b. Other conditions as determined to be necessary
for conformance with Design Review Guidelines.
(Specify specific Guideline with condition)
RECOMMENDED ACTION;
1. Introduce Project;
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Commission Review of Submitted Material;
4. Act on Application.
Respectfully submitted,
GJ
1/1
rig
ht
/� Y' g
/Engineering Technician
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION;
Approved as Submitted t ) Approved with Recommended
Condition=_ (If Approved with Modified Conditions t )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) r 1' Withdrawn ( )JyI o
DateDeni se Hi 11 , Secretary `� ulIO
SEE ATTACHED ADDITIONAL PAGE
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
5/17/88
Lot 3, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Otterman and Associates
20 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Continued from 5/3/88
Page 4 of 4
The Commission granted approval of the preliminary
design with the conditions that the Applicant continue
to work with the Staff and that the Staff
recommendations as follows be addressed
1 Include slope stability_analysis by soils engineer
for graded slopes steeper than 2:1.
2 Include special provisions for revecstation of
steeper slopes.
3. Include provisions for treatment of parking lot
runoff and erosion control.
4 Provide area lightina for parking lot and entrances.
5. Provide fire protection facilities as required by
Fire Department based upon occupancy, available fire
flows and access.
Other conditions were: A redesign of the storage
element at the entries of the buildina: Specific
emphasis on the soils analysis and engineering analysis
of the 1:1 slopes: the applicant provide landscaping
around the entrance to the site and provide landscaping
to try to help block the building mass on the downhill
side.
F-i_i !4NI Nt_ AND 2 ON 11'!L COi1D1i 11 S51 U!'•!
L..-! 1, OC F. :;, i'.h;dr- idoe Subdlvte!ior:
Otte,man end ASsgriatC-5.
2G ilnit (Jca-,daminiuITi F'roier_t
F'r'etlminary i,es.ian Review
Utter mar! anc• AesGClate_ 1,a_ oCsllEi: for F're1iriinary
L�es1 g.': F.evl e g(' a 2U Urllt CGIiGGO„Lllift, ': r'G jECt they
propose to construct on Lot 3. Block 5, 4!ildridoe
Sub L,ivision. The proposed two and tl,r-ee story buildings
have a flat roc,-' design with wood siding. Surface
parking is beino provided. The applicant proposes to
utilise the Town's Fractionalization Ordinance to build
the 201 one (1) bedroom units. A site plan, building
elevations and floor plan=_ have been =_uhmitted for-
Commie-sion review:.
STAFF COMMENTS:,
u.C— (':!:-
Guest ac=-E'� Ft:-.c•ni:iG L: o.0
7t I.EC.L6ret:
:i �±_•acee
_:?dcf-r provi dec )
..:f: c�. rilltrif IL F" =r: -r E'. LC• CC•15S t.r l'l t_ to ,E •,, CEi:'Cti:!.
L!ni is with app!-ca;:i mately 447 sgue.re feet each.
Accordina to the Town's Fractionalization Ordin nce,
each of these units will require 1/4 of a Development
Right for a total of 5 Development Rights. Town records
indicate that there are 5 residential Development Rights
assigned to this parcel.
The site plan which has been submitted appears to
conform with parking and access requirements but without
actual dimensions it is difficult to verify this. The
Fire Department expressed concerns regarding access
around the building, adequacy of water supply, and that
areas at each stairway accessing the parking lot be
des;cnated as emergency access lanes. Site lighting and
StafS RL:nr t tC: F1 ar:nini_• ..r,d Zor;no C:omn,i ss]or,
Lot _ . �% t ,. 4:i i dr
scc.t ate=
r, i un,F••UIECt
F'rElla:ine.y Lte:=_ion Rev Iew
F•aae _' o? 4
p.E•1::-.<: ::Clar•. ..: r CCU: Et 1 U'•• !r': ti?c' Ra.! 4: 11':g rt f3 �. P. Crjf:C Er its
t is E't. .i:UU_Cd• cs'_-.: !J C- di'tif E -SECT. f':"Et tm:. It at'V pi a:a Ci Cr not
lna: Lata F.i ng. p,;a j._c. (7 F.•t Wf_ti li tnE' fi_1id11;GE and the pizx ina
iul"Irng ;.ut 1iGlaing.
1'1-'e !,i i -e pl crt r15ii ] r;Ci catss tP;a: ti-,& applicant proUOEEs
to reutad�- the etitare s]t:e during
constri,ctiOr, ; de=-troyir:u virtually all natural
veeetation. Site development should be compatible with
site topuoraphy to preserve some of the natural
vegetation and to avoid patentis: erosion problem==_. The
final grading and drainage plan. must address snow
storage and treatment facilities for parking lot runoff
as required by the Zoning Code.
Staff recommend=_ that the Commission review this
a.pplicaticr, ir: conjunction with tl,e following design
review guiC-L'ii1;eS:
6.11. T!,e conf urr4ance w.'.li? the i C4?]nth CcUtr and ^t-ilfPr
r.ppliCe:tiie t'l/1 ES ar. .': rECU islUris C'•=' the Town o4
tI i ._
. .. r. C•:.n,_.•c' � i.r l'•= •SEE: G:.
. 1ct:1]�ct= tc•rc. t%+ca:,:_ f.l _c:err.lms.
6..14. The corraiil:ilily of croposed improvements with
6.15. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement
se viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways.
6.16. The objective that no improvement be so similar
or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that
values, monetary or aesthetic will be inpaired.
6.17. The genera] conformance of the proposed
improvements with the adopted Goal=_, policies and
Programs for the Town of Avon.
Staff Repot t to F'ianr-:inG and 2oninc Commission - 5/3/e2
dop Subdl vi =_i or,
`Jttel'mi+:t ?�Sti F,ssoclatee
-i} ! it: i i t:r.•nde!!a r,i um Pr L. jest
Fr r.; i no nae Desi un Review
P•aoe orf 4
,l"�;F:�' t=tr.'��i?P!hi't;!•:i'�rtC7L'!•!:
if t!:E Cc.mn,1=_,cIii flyds that ihiL' EC•pliratl On cont Orme.
w,th t1 -,E- above Desicn Revi en: Guidelines, or r_an be
mc -di f i ed to be brouu!-ft 3 nto confor mar•ce. Staf f
r eGon,•riends ihitt Pre! i m_ nae .• 11E i or R.: � i ew appr ova.i. be
granted, subJect tO:
;. Final de=_ion conform with Fire Department
regulations for emergency access, fire flows, etc:
?. Final desiort include a fully dimensioned site plan
addressing pedestrian circulation in the parl:ino
area and site lighting-
-Final
dr-sion to include revisions to actlieve
cc,m!:•atA b i 1 i tv of oropo=_ec! improvements with =_i to
'i 4 G15
r: rE
CU1 ral iltC-S.
otltBi cc-r:dii:i_`! 5'. dE regairErU bV i -1-e ;u:D!h_E9ICr• '!c'
t:r;r,u t!,r• nCG CeM&IsCt 0.t.1, t4 -,e i'E3ecr,
PE:COMMr'.N.iED Ac.? IC'N.
<. Fresentettion by Applicant:.
3. Commission Review of Submitted Material;
4. Act on Application.
Respectfull
y submitted,
fiCiC/
rioneerina Technician
Stafd Repot -1. t�-• Vlar•nin? and 2oni:,g Com.r,iesit'!-t - 5/3/80
Lot - $IC -C, Wi;C-t 1s:O6• SuboivIS101f
041 e, a! ti:bLCi&iel�
2:i ointi Cu-dt?nn ni Lfm PI oJeC.t
Pt C:; : Iba I:RY 3'J£S: on Rev? ew
Pace 4 of
F!_F;fJIJ;iJ6.ti1•E1; ZLII-)IF1LI_ACI IOYJ_
Approved as 5tit•nlltted t ) Apc-vved Wit.:, RE•Lt:•:Ifi11EYi0Ed
Cerldi i., L•1a: ) Appr ovBd 1-:1
Continued Denied ) Withdrawn ( )
Late • -Secretary _L__;_
The_Com!nission continued this application in order to give the
applicant time to present a—more acceptable re -design of the buildings.
TA042888
Tc: Town of Avon
From: JF Lamont
RE:Project Review:
Date: April 27, 1988
Project: Beaver View
The following Design Guidelines have been reviewed and
are offered for consideration by the reviewing authorities
and the applicant. The recommendations made in this report
are subject to change; upon the submission of additional
information, the content of the public hearings, and the
results of additional research.
Section
6.00 Design Guidelines:
6.10 Design Review Considerations:
The Commission shall consider the
following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed Pro
6.11 The conformance I•:ith the Zoning Code and other
applicable rules anu regulations of the Town of Avor:.
Comment: See Staff Report
6.12 The suita'i�ili ;' c t.:e is rG'.'e
15
❑'allt'y G1 Hlaterlala G:: 1•: 1':1 C:i '_- .0 COnSL!'UC �E :1 57:('1 tIl
site upon which it is to be lcc tec.
Ccmme::t :
Lot 3 and 6, Block 5:
0717 ••s� f'Cr talc sites will
have the following impacts:
1. The introduction of a government subsidized, uniform
housing type will encourage transient economically unstable
residents stable
persnb�which is remote
fromemploymentandonalservicecenters,
2. The remoteness of the proposed subsidized housinq
project indicated that transportation needs of residents
mato
require dependence upon mass transportation to g
ain accessemployment and personal services. Present uses in the
subdivision do not require mass transportation services.
3. The compatibility of small one bedroom units in a
subdivision which encourages units in excess of the proposed
square footage is not apparent.
page two
4. Building type and site plans being proposed do not
provide for a compatible relationship with existing site
conditions.
5.• Building design does not provide for viewing of
parki,ig lots from residential units in order to provide
security to project residents. To place parking lots
downfall side of residential building is unacceptable as
project only proposed recreation amenity is grassed open
space.
6. Fire safety access is needed on downhill side of
residential buildings.
7. Sidewalks for pedestrian circulation and safety are
necessary between building and parking lot.
8. Building design emphasis uniform and monolithic
building mass. Building mass should be refined with less
emphasis on flat roofs and woodsiding. Blank walls should be
eliminated.
9. Additional recreational amenities should be
considered such as a childrens playground.
10. nandicappec access and units should be includ c-
11. r Mere sensitive approach to on site landscapi:.g -•;,u
ai lding loca=ior. sho.le: ed be consicicrin order to pr.otec:
o:iidli.fe habi_at, migration corridcrs, and threat from
irc.
6.13 The compatibility Of the design to minimize site
impacts to adjacent properties.
r
Comar,ent: The desiC: doe.
the distribution of light and air of adjacent properties.
In case of wildfire the access of Fire Safety equipment
to adjacent properties may be adversely effected by the site
design.
Site drainage and landscape plans are of insufficient
detail to determine there compatibility with existing or
proposed site plan of adjacent properties.
Preliminary grading plans show that all native
vegetation will be stripped from sites, steep hillside may
experience erosion and offsite mud flows may result.
page three
Loss of isolated Aspen groves and productive grassland
in area of winter wildlife habitat and migration corridors
will effect adjacent greenbelt areas.
6.14 The compatibility of proposed improvements with site
topography.
Comment: Insufficient information exists to determine
the impact upon soils movement due to stripping of native
vegetation and the substantial recontouring of the land mass
Limitedeffort or emphasis has been placed upon the
compatibility of the proposed improvement with site
topography.
6.15 The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as
viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public
ways.
Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed
improvement does not inhibit principal views nor block the
solar excs:= of adjacent and neighboring properties.
Insufficient information exists to determine if
replacement landscaping will have an acceptable visual
apr.earance from the public ways or adjacent and ncichco
•.2-c7:,erLie£ .
xtericr and unenclosed pal-kl:ic %rCzls '_-c7 Ch :I,GSt
not locaL_C in `'YinciDai \'ic"'S '-. ai: I- ce n`. In
neighboring properties and public ltia _"5.
6.16 The objective that no improvement be =_o similar or
dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or
-st otic ,.ill re iMpaired.
Comment: The apparent mass of the three story flat rooi
structure is inconsistent with two and three story structures
with pitched roofs on adjacent properties and as required by
subdivision design guidelines.
Building offsets are not significant to be similar in
appearance to structure on adjacent properties and in the
vicinity.
Exterior materials, architectural detailing and color
can be modified to emphasis wood and stucco siding which is
the prevalent siding material in the vicinity.
Provision should be made for adequate fire safety access
to the downhill side of the structures.
401
401
•1
page four
Landscape improvements should be qualitatively and
quantitatively increased and maintained to the standards
consistent with existing improvements in the vicinity.
No information or standards is presently available that
indicates that either the proposed use nor the aesthetics of
the improvement are so similar or dissimilar to others in the
vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be
impaired. However, the intent and language of the
Fractionalization ordinance permits development rig')ts to be
fractionalized into a "combination" of smaller units. The
type and number of units being proposed for the vicinity
does not attain the intent of the fractionalization
ordinance.
The uniformity and amount of residential unit types
proposed in the improvement may remove the desirability of
a broader range and quality of housing types that could be
located on adjacent properties and in the vicinity.
6.17 The general conformance of the proposed improvements
,.itis the adopted Goals, Policies and Progra.ns for the Town o*7
Avon.
Comment: insufficient information is presently available
to Determine that the proposed lmprovem-ent co; ormns with the
u GCj7 ✓E :� Coals, and proara:::s for zhc Town of
.-.**�,+s.*****.***t*****s*****i**********I- *************.*-r**-'.
April 27, 1988
T0: Norm Wood
FM: Charles Moore
RE: Beaver View Condominium Units
1 have reviewed the plans submitted and have the following comments.
There appears to be a conflict with UFC Sec 10.207 �a) and (c) which
deal with dead end fire department access, and access to the perimeter
of the building.
As we discussed this morning, the access to the perimeter can be resolved
by a walking space on the downhill side of the building, accessible through
each stairwell. The flattened area should be sufficient to extend a ground
ladder to the window of the highest floor, plus a walking space of 4 feet.
It appears that on lot 3, a turnaround space would be difficult. if it
could not be provided, the department would accept a dry standpipe in the
stair corridors as a compromise to ibis requirement.
�{ ' 7�9 (aotklr ��
4/27/ 88
Fire Flow Calculation
data:
unit square fnotage 20'-4" x 23 = 466
stairwells 20 x 10 x 0.5 - 100
Laundry building 300
Since the buildings are continguous, the total for the complex is used.
Required -€low flow can be reduced by 50% by an approved fire sprinkler system.
Additional required fire flow can be achieved through additional hydrants,
or building separations.
APPENDIX D — SAMPLE FIRE FLOW ESTIMATE CHARTS
FIRE FLOW ESTIMATE
�- Date
Cit J`xyl State
Y Eng. —
Bound Block or Complexby streets, etc: Previous Fire Flow No. _
Fire Flow No.
Phantom No.
/ t!� Route No.
Address (name of occupant if prominent) Sanborn Vol. _ Page
D 4 �) _ jMD p Type Dist.
1000
Fire Area Considered t a2 D � —
r_
Types of Construction:_ VV-,"
Ground Floe, Area q�
Total Fluor Area (it needed)
Fire Flow From Tab .:
Occupancy:'
No. of
_Stories
Add or btracj
Automatic Sprinklers, rye— Subtract
Exposures: Distance f Exposure
1. Front
2. Left C^JA'o✓
3. Rear `�
4. Right
Notes and/or Calculations:
Draw Sketch on other side if needed..
gpm(a)
Sub Total ipm(b)
Sub Total
Add %
Total %
Use —% x b = +
AP[`r•n�lix ]5
Total __ gpm
Fire Flow Required rn
E
^N ,1014�
11
The value obtainer) in No. 2 above is reduced by the percentage (if any) determined in No. 3
above and increased by the percentage (if any) determined in No. 4 above.
The fire (low shall not exce•cli 12,000 gpnt not be less Than 500 9111".
Note 1: The guide is not expected to necessarily provide an adequate value for
lumber yards, petroleum storage, refineries, grain elevators, and large
chemical plants but may indicate a minimum value for these hazards.
Note 2: Judgment roust he used for business, industrial, and other occupancies not
specifically mentioned.
Note 3: Consideration should he given to the ronfiguration of the building(s) being
considered and to the fire department accessibility.
'Note' 4: Wood frame stnitames separated by less than 10 feet sha11 be considered as "
one lire arca.
Note 5: Party \falls — Normally an unpierced party (common) tial) may warrant up
ton I0'r exposure charge.
Note G: Iligh one-story buildings — When a building is stated as 1 = 2, or more
stories, the number of stories to be used in the formula depends upon the
use being made of the building. I example, consider I = 3 -story building. If
the building is being used for high -piled stock, of for rack storage, the
building would probably be considered as 3 stories and, in addition, an
inereawtl percentage for occupancy may be v.arr:ntled. However, if tilt
6nildine is being used for steel fabrication and Ilrc extra height is provided'
oltly Ic f.tcilitatemovement of objects by a rrane, the building would.
nsa 1-slc,:t 111iidim9a^:::tic:re.•xupementagefor
oecup:uuy may be warranted.
Note 7: If a buildin:, is exposed within 150 feet. norm:,'! solar percentage increase
for exposure will be made.
Note 8: Where wood shingle roofs could conttiblac to spreat'i:1g fires, add 500 gpm.
Note 9: Any noncombustible building is considered to w:,rant -:1 0.8 coefficient.
Note 10: Dwellings — For groupings of 1-famil3' and small 2 -family dwellings not
exceeding 2 stories in height, the following short method may be used. (For
other residential buildings, the regular method should be used.)
Exposure distances Suggested required fire (low
Over 100' 500 gptll
31 - 100' 750 - 1000
1 1 -30' 1000 1500
10' or less 1500 - 2000'
If the buildings we continvow; use a minimum of 't
'iuA,.dn capytirhted mstettsl ar t: a ,. � '-- i e^ Druce with Its permin •11. ;
lnpendl:: 3
. . - set,iett omtr.
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
bib rl!N[c. FO•:,. vu! t01 Cl4ap0 nle!l
I lOr
is %<110
April 28, 1988
mr. Norman Wood, P.E.
TOWN OI' AVON
Post Office Boa 973
Avon, Colorado 81620
RE: BEAVER VIEW PROJECT - LOTS 3 AND 6, WILDRIDGF.
FIRE HYDRANT FLOW TEST
Dear Norman:
The following is the data recorded of the above -referenced floe test:
Static Pressure 152 psi
Flaw Conditions Flow > 1300 gpm
Rcsidual Pressure > 60 psi
This test was performed on the upper hydrant, by Lot 6, on April 27, 1988, 0
Iistrict personnel.
I1 you have an, unostinns, or rommunt•. please cuntaca me at .:b iM.
FSH: das.8
5incerel).
1'11�11-1{?R FAGI.F. F,1Ll.iY CONSo1.I DA11 U SANITATION DI`• PP H "
Fred S. Hasl.ee
Engineerinn Technician
PARTICIPATING OI$TNICTS - AW -110 ME 1 - .�f %'1 E1 • P! -': 1.-P. RLEH M[igO' f -TCR • DER'. 1j CI IH METRO WATER.
:LLLL 0CLEAN!
;L 1_1.111.1 ".!1 • 11dL F 1 M1L'/CrvSUlIUAtIaJ tiANI'f 41Tr'
1 .IIV'J
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMMISSION
5/17/88
Lot 6, Block 5, WildridgE Subdivision
Otterman and Associates
24 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Continued from 5/3/89
INTRODUCTION:
This item was continued from the meeting of May 31 1988,
to give the applicart the opportunity to make revisions
to the plans in order to address a numbe- of concerns
expressed by the Commission and Staff.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The revisions to the site plan appear to address many of
the issues raised at the previous meeting. The revised
grading plan reduces the area of the site which will be
disturbed during construction, provides access around
the buildings as requested by the Fire Department, and
provides a wildfire break around the development. A 4
foot wide !4alkway has also been added between the
building and the parking lot. As a result of the
revisions to the grading plan, there are some 1:1 slopes
shown. Use of 1:1 slopes will require special analysis
for slope stability and special provision=_ for
revegetation. Final design must also include
runoffadequate
provisions for treatment of parking
lot nd
erosion control.
Some site lighting is shown on the building elevations,
but lighting should be provided for thc. parking lot,
especially at the entrance to tha project.
Revisions to the building design include a combination
of flat and gabled roofs with some offsets in parapet
heights on flat roofed sections. Offsets have also been
incorporated into the building walls and small storage
units have been added along the parking lot side of the
building.
Staff recommends that the Commission review this
application in conjunction with the following design
review guidelines:
6.11. The conformance with the Zoning Code and other-
applicable
therapplicable rules and regulations of the Town of
Avon.
StafF Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
5/17/88
Lot 6, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Otterman and Associates
24 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Continued from 5/3/88
Page 2 of 3
6.12. The suitability of the improvement, including
type and quality of materials of which it is to
be constructed and the site upon which it is to
be located.
6.13. The compatibility of the design to minimize site
impacts to adjacent properties.
6.14. The compatibility of proposed improvements with
site topography.
6.15. The visual appearance of any proposed improvement
as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways.
6.16. The objective that no improvement be so similar
or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that
values, monetary or aesthetic will be inpaired.
6.17. The general conformance of the proposed
improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and
Programs for the Town of Avon.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION_
if the Commission finds that this application conforms
with the above Design Review Guidelines, Staff
recommends that Preliminary Design Review approval be
subject to the following items being addressed during
development of final plans.
1. Include slope stability analysis by soils engineer
for graded slopes steeper than 2:1.
2. Include special provisions for revegetation of
steeper slopes.
3. Include provisions for treatment of parking lot
runoff and erosion control.
4. Provide area lighting for parking lot and entrances.
,•
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
5/17/88
Lot 6, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Oatterman and Associated
24 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Continued from 5/3/88
s
Page 3 of 3
• 5. Provide fire protection facilities as required by
Fire Department based upon occupancy, available fare
flows and access.
6. Other conditions as determined to be necessary
for conformance with Design Review Guidelines.
(Specify specific Guideline with condition)
RECOMMENDED ACTION;
1. Introduce Project;
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Commission Review of Submitted Material;
4. Act on Application.
Respectfully submitted,
a r i g lh�
Engineering Technician
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION;_
Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions (v ) Approved with Modified Conditions (
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date 5 1i eni se Hill, Secretary' /LL Hr
SEE ATTACHED ADDITIONAL PAGE
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
5/17/88
Lot b, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
otterman and Associates
24 Unit Condominium Project
Preliminary Design Review
Continued from 5/3/88
Page 4 of 4
The Commission granted approval of the preliminary
design with the conditions that the Applicant continue
to work with the Staff and that the Staff
recommendations as follows, be addressed
1 Include slope stability analysis by sails engineer
for graded slopes steeper than 2:1.
2 Include special provisions for revegetation of_
steeper Slopes -
3. Include provisions for treatment of parking lot
runoff and erosion control.
4 Provide area lighting for parking lot and entrances -
5. Provide fire protection facilities as required by
Fire Department based upon occupancy, available fire
flows and access.
other conditions were• A redesign of the storage
element at the entr;es of the building• Specific
emphasis on the soils analysis and engineering analysis
of the 1.1 slopes• the applicant provide landscaping
around the entrance to the site and provide landscaping
to try to help block the building mass on the downhill
side.
TA042888
TO: To.an of Avon
From: )F Lamont
hL:Projoct Rcview:
Date: April 27, 1988
project: Seaver Vier:
The following Desicn Guidelines have been reviewed and
are offered for consideration by the reviewing authorities
and the applicant. The recommendations made in this report
are subject to change; upon the submission of additional
information, the content of the public hearings, and the
results of additional research.
section
6.00 Design Guidelines:
6.10 Design Review Considerations:
The Commission shall consider t' --e following items in
reviewing the design of a pr000sec ':rC GcZ:
6.11 The conformance with the Zonirc Cors and other
E:i:)licable rules and regulatlOnc c t:ie TG�':n Of nl'C:S.
CC!;--C-'.)t: See staff: 'C_ -.0
CL _
Lot 3 and 6, L1oC
he suitab_ c_ c;•. ,c:,_,_ -"-
have the following i^.pact`:
1. The introduction of a government subsidized, uniform
housing type will encourage transient economically unstable
residents in a stable residential subdivision which is remote
from employment and personal service centers.
2. The remoteness of the proposed subsidized housing
project indicated that transportation needs of residents may
require dependence upon mass transportation to gain access to
employment and personal services. Present uses in the
subdivision do not require mass transportation services.
3. The compatibility of small one bedroom units in a
subdivision which encourages units in excess of the proposed
=core fcotace is not apparent.
_ _JL t•NO
4. Puildinc type zinc site plans being r,ropesed do not
j.rovide for a cc•npati.ble relatidnship with existing site
conditions.
B::il<iindesign docs Fact p
c rovide for vic"inc Or
1.arM. ng lots from residential units in crdtr to ro:ide
security to project residua=_. 'io place parking lots
downhill side of residential building is unacceptable as
i;roject onl',' p:'cLoseO recreation amenity is grassed open
space.
G. Fire safety access is needed on downhill side of
residential buildings.
7. Sidewalks for pedestrian circulation and safety are
necessary between building and parking lot.
8. Building design emphasis uniform and monolithic
building mass_. Building mass should be refired with less
er.:phasis on flat roofs and woocsiding. Blank walls should be
eliminated.
9. I:dditional recreational amenities sGcilc Inc'
consideree s'.!c'i as a childrens playgrounc.
ane cams s
lU. P,ancicar_�ed aceess :;c�ec c
u.. _.._,.._:.t .:. _
1T.7Ja Ct c' to aC ;acent ::rcDcrtiCC.
In case of wildfire the access of Fire Safety equi_r_ment
to adjacent properties may be adversely effected by the site
design.
Site drainage and landscape plans are of insufficient
detail to determine there compatibility with existing or
proposed site plan of adjacent properties.
Preliminary grading plans short that all native
vegetation will be stripped from sites, steep hillside may
expe::ience erosion and offsite mud flows may result.
page three
Loss of isolated Aspen groves and produc_ive grassland
in area of winter wildlife- habitat and migration corridors
i11 effect adj::cent greenbelt areas.
.1; The compatibility of )reposed improvrv:•nts with site
topography.
Comment: Insufficient information exists to determine
rhe irpact upon soils movement due to stripping of native
vegetation and the substantial recontcuring of the land mass.
Limited effort or emphasis has been placed upon the
compatibility of the proposed improvement with site
topography.
6.15 The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as
viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public
ways.
Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed
improvement does not inhibit principal vievs nor !Acc the
5claz e :_'o sure of a6?acent and n21c:`.:lorinc-
rC:erLlEB.
c
Inssufficient info" atlor e?:1518 tC CEte!":nL --
re:iacement landscaping t•:ill have an accer__a'::.c vi5ua-
::C-8rance fro'� the t:'llc wa\-E GT ac-z.cr:. G.... .._: C::: =. _.
: r -n C1.t1C8.
..__- :•Gr 1::C :1.. _. __ _: is :. .. .....0 ..
6.16 The objective that no i;ul rove:;,er.t h c se- 5irll.3.ar Cr
dissimilar to others in the vicinity that va's'.:es, meneta! or
Comment: The apparent mass of the three story flat roof
structure is inconsistent with two and three story structures
with pitched roofs on adjacent properties and as required by
subdivision design guidelines.
Building offsets are not significant to be similar in
appearance to structure on.adjacent properties and in the
vicinity.
Exterior materials, architectural detailing and color'
can be modified to emphasis wood and stucco siding which is
the prevalent siding material in the vicinity.
Provision should be made for adequate fire safety access
to the downhill side of the structures.
pac:i': 'o -'r
Landsca-pe improvements should be qualitatively and
cuisntitatively increased and maintained to the standar(-,
Ccnsistcnt wit)' existing improvements in the vicinit\'.
!.o informnation Cr standards is presL'ni]•d avi:llable that
r.dicates that either the proposed use ncr the ac_t'netics or
c,c imprcvement are so similar or dissimilar to others in the
Vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be
impaired. 11owcvcr, the intent end language of the
Fractionalization ordinance permits development rights to be
fractionalized into a "combination" of smaller units. The
type and number of units being proposed for the vicinity
doe=_ not attain the intent of the fractionalization
ordinance.
The uniformity and amount of residential unit types
proposed in the improvement may remove the desirability of
a broader range and quality of housing types that could be
located on adjacent properties and in the vicinity.
E.17 The general confcrmance of the proposed ir_:reremcnts
_t.. ti'.c adc_.tcd Goals, Poiicies and Pronram!i :c. the
.vcn.
aVi i1
CC::J.`.e: I:]El:ff lClE rt information is i: -1•_£E.'. :. � •'
t•
.']at the sir OpC£CC Cr': C;. _.S 4:1i..
... lr...', C.C.-.._ •..... ���.- ♦.. ___ ..� 1�.
1°S1.
l:orr,: Wood
;•;; charivs Moore
g• .Eta::: \aw ConaOlt iinio:a Uiits
hacc tt^.:cwcd the Plans sol+mit:cd and have the follnwin;; tmTeni
zrs to be a conflict with t•FC Sec 10.207 (a) and (c)
)ih
There aptt ar:men; acct ss, and access to the perimeter
dta. with dead end fir,- dep
o: the bu:lding.
4s
we discussed this morning, the access to the perimexer can be resolved
accessible through
round
��. a wall:. -.a space on the downhill side of the building' ace of 4 feet.
each s:a.rwell• The flattened arca should sufficien a g
ladder to the window of the highest floor, p
It appears that on lot 3, a turnaround space would be difficult -
el in the
co41d not be provided, the department would accept a dry standpip
s:a:r corr:dors as a compromise to this requirement.
AAIJ: 17.1
ii
NOR
_7icF
... Flow Caiculatiun
2" = 466
<_t�ir' clic x 10 x 0.5 = 100
.a.:ndry building 300
Si^ce the buildings are continguous, the total for the complex is used.
c.eeuired-f c- flow can be reduced by 5074 by an approved firo sprinkler system.
P.ddit`iona'. reeuired fire flow can be achieved through additional hydrants,
cr building ecparations.
40
•
a
Cily
APPENM,„ D — SA65f LE FIRE rLOW ESTIMATE %,iiARTS
FIRE FLO%Y ESTIh4ATE
State
Bound Block or Compler.. by streets, etc:
Add-ess (name of occupant it prominent)
riD 4
t
Fire Area Considered t G = 12
ID
e5 of Consituetion:
�.cL:nd Floor Area
—,:E' Floor Area fit needed)
=ire F ior: From Tab'.,-: —
:.p_sures
CC.:.,,2. Left
3. Rear
4. Right
Eng._
Previous Fire Flow No.
Fire Flory No.
Phantom No. —
Route No.
Sanborn Vol. Page
Type Dist.
-I
e A-- vr'15i-
No.Of VM✓,1L_
Stories
�1r
DistanceI Exposure
Notes and/or Calculations:
(�fUn1 ���esi
G,ay. Sf:ctch on other, side it needed
,
Total
Usr:
i
SJR I: ••.�_ � �._� I
Total gpm ��
Fire Flow Required e5qm
I 5. 111c rah,c obtained in NO 2-Il,nvr is reduced by the pcn'r,aapc (,f :my) delcr,nined in No
above and inncased b 'he micnitape (;f any) drW"W"ed in ly-4 at"'
i 7hc fire flow shall not r,c,•+.. ,:,UtIJ rpin nae hr les. lum, 500 pian.
Note l: The ruit!, is not ex;,retcd in necessarily PIOVI,!: :n: aJr.;uatr ealue fol
lu„ILcr yards, Petroleum siorare, ref,ncries. Slain chw:otors, and large
ehem;e::l pl:,nts but may indicate a miNnn"n v::h:e fnr these hazards.
Nolc 2: Judgni s! muss be used for b16;nvss. huhm 7i i, nk Wer occupancies not
spfciricag- mentln„ ed.
Nolo 3: Cnnsi'Imilion should be given to the ronfigru:linn of Ihr buildings) being
enasidt•red and to the fire delmInienl accessibility.
`KoIF'4`. NV-ood framc•siluciurcc separated by less than 1(t feet shall be considered as
One 111C arca. _ ..
Note 5: Party Walls — Non11311y an unpierced party (common) wall may warrant up
Ina 107, expnwre charge.
Note E
Iliph oneminry
buildinps - whell a building is st:aed as 1 = 2, or more
stnrir,, rile
nunilx•r or sln;ies 11+ be u,rd ;:; t':: ;+`:::::aa
depends upon thr i
use hflC;
i:,a if t' Ot lllf hUlld lllr. ,
is I+rinp used fol l:i;•:r, ::'. s: ,1:.
rt. :'i: stnrzgr, the I
bv:iltn
'n;:
w'milit prnhahly he considered as 1 0-7h,
.^. ui, i.i addition, an
t
i 100,Y41
ei rtaY;lpc .....
for
. •.
+,,:i^p used :': .,ter! .. .. ..
.. .. ,
r.;
.,.... __ ..,. •. e; .. ..
..: i:.!. - ver -..,
if I
rill
:
i:oic f,:
1';lac;r ...
,1 si:inple ;ncfs cnu.. �• ..
ad 500 cn.
.., � •'� ,
Note 10:
ihwellin,
— For pinupings of 1 •f:n d y no S::ai:
Mr; - dwellings not
exceedinr
? stories in height, the follov:i g s':ra :ncfl;o&
may be used. (For
other residrntird buildings, the regular method MM
he used.)
Exposure distances
Suggested required fire now
Over 100'
500 gpm
31 - 100'
750 - 1000
11 • 30'
1000 - 1500 .
10' or less
1500 - 2000•
o..... •..: v
• if the buildings me rnntinrnus, use a mininlum or'c(lfl , '
11hH r.......
UFFLF% EAGLE VALLEY
21:
"0:
Lois 3 ARD 6.
BEAVD, V I 1Y 1)1'0" 1
FIRE SiY?iRA�7 )Uw TEST
';r rman:
oi jawing is the data recorded of the aI)E,,vL—I-tj erenced I 10w
tet
c Pressure 152 psi
F'1 nu Colldilioll% F]()%: > 1300 '811111
Residlial > 60 },Si
.- -1 -n : c a S . 8
1 j
CLEAN
0.6 D157u:cls