PZC Packet 070588STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
7/5/88
Lot A, Avon Center, Benchmark at beaver Creek
Temporary Sign Variance Request
Continuation From 6/21/88
INTRODUCTION
At the 6/21/88 Planning and Zoning meeting, the Commission
continued this item to allow the applicant to return with
specific information regarding the type of sign to be
displayed and to provide an alternative to the request to
display the sign for 24 hours a day.
STAFF COMMENTS
Since no new information has been received regarding this
application, the Staff Comments from the 6/21/88 Staff Report
still apply as follows:
The proposed banner meets the new sign code ordinance size
requirements of Section 15.228.080, M. -I., but requires a
variance for the length of time requested to be displayed.
The following variance procedure is required: Section
15.28.090, B-
2. Approval Criteria: Before acting on a variance request,
the planning and zoning commission shall consider the
following factors:
a. the relationship of the requested variance to
existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity:
b. 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;
c. Such other factors and criteria as the
commission deems applicable to the requested variance.
Staff Report to the Planning
7/5/88
Lot A, Avon Center, Benchmark
Temporary Sign Variance
Continuation From 6/21/88
Page 2 of 3
and Zoning Commission
at Heaver Creek
3. Findings Required. The planning and zoning commission
shall make the following findinas before granting a variance:
a. That the granting of the variance will nut
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties in the vicinity;
b. 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 to other properties in
the vicinity;
iii. The strict of literal
interpretation and enforcemen`_ of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other- properties in the vicinity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Should the Commission decide to grant a variance for the
banner, it is recommended that approval be limited to special
event occasions through September 30, 1488. This would allow
the use through Labor Day and allow the Commission to
re-evaluate the banner at that time.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
7/5/88
Lot A, Avon Center, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Temporary Sign Variance
Continuation From 6/21/88
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
I. Introduce Project;
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Commission Review of Submitted Materials;
4. Act on Application -
Respectfully submitted,
ormai ood
Director of Engineering
and Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approvedwith Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( > Denied ?/) Withdrawn ( )
4
Date n � °''Denise Hill, Secretary 'y(.w� /�/�
The Commission moved to deny the Applicants' request and directed them to
pursue a permanent sign for their purposes. __
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
7/5/88
Portion Lot 46/47, Block 11 Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Mountain Resort Condominium Residences
Phoenix Discovery Group
Design Review
INTRODUCTION
Phoenix Discovery Group has submitted an application and
plans for design review for a 12 unit residential condominium
project on the easterly portion of Lot 46/47, Block 1,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek. This portion of Lot 46/47 was
separated from the Chambertin Townhomes project through a
Dc -ed of Trust/Court Action. The project is proposed for
con=_•truction on the existing foundation which was originally
constructed for the fourth building of the Chambertin
project.
The proposed project consists of twelve, one bedroom units, a
laundry room and vending area and fourteen covered parking
spaces. The proposed building is three story, and each of
the units will have about 594 square feet of floor- area.
Eight of the units are shown with fireplaces. Each of the
proposed units would utilize 1/3 of a development right under
the fractionalization provisions of the zoning code. The
property is in the RMD (Residential Medium Density) zone
district and is assigned four residential development rights.
Building materials include stucco (Pratt & Lambert Ceylon
Ivory II, Y352W), 1 x 6 tongue and groove redwood siding
(Pratt & Lambert Tarragon II, 0269P) and clad windows (Dark
Bronze). The metal portion of the roof is proposed as Moss
Green and accent band and metal rails are proposed to be
Pratt & Lambert Rockingham Green 11, YG524A. Landscape
materials consist of white clover with 20% wildflower mix,
red osier dogwood, purple -leaved sand cherry, flowering
crabapple and cottonwoods. Landscape irrigation will be by
hand from 4 hose bibbs located around the perimeter of the
building.
Parking provisions include 12 full size covered spaces, 2
compact covered spaces and 8 full size surface spaces for a
total of 22 spaces. Parking required for 12 one bedroom
units include 1-1/2 spaces per unit plus 4 guest spaces for a
total of 22 spaces.
Staff Report to the Planning
7/5/88
Portion Lot 46/47, Block: 1,
Mountain Resort Condominium
Phoenix Discovery Group
Design Review
Page 2 of 5
STAFF COMMENTS
and Zoning Commission
Benchmark at Beaver Greek
Residences
The following comments are provided for consideration of the
Commission in the review of this project. These comments are
based upon plans received through June 29, i9BB.
1. The proposed project does not conform with
requirements of the zoning code as amended by Ordinance
No.88-11 and adopted by the Town Council on June 28, 1986.
The zoning code allows a maximum of ten units on a property
assigned four residential development rights. The proposed
project exceeds this by two units.
2. The application does not conform with the
notice requirements for public hearing required prior to
final design approval as stipulated in the Administrative
Procedure for Fractionalized Projects as adopted by the Town
Council on June 28, 1988.
When reviewing this project, the Commission should consider
the following Design Guidelines from Section 6.00 of the Town
of Avon, Planning and Zoning Commission, Design Procedures,
Rules and Regulations:
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 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 impaired.
Staff Report to the Planning
7/5/88
Portion Lot 46/47, Block 1,
Mountain Resort Condominium
Phoenix Discovery Group
Design Review
Page 3 of 5
and Zoning Commissiok
Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Residences
6.17 The general con:ormance of the proposed
improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs
for the Town of Avon.
In addition, the Commission should consider the following
crite,ia as outlined in the Administrative Procedure for
Fractionalized Projects:
1. The adequacy of access to the site with respect
to the width of the adjacent streets, their grades,
intersection safety, visibility and entrance to the lot to be
developed;
2. The need for, and availability of public or
private transportation to serve the proposed development;
3. The impact of the proposed project upon public
and private services and facilities serving the area;
A. The compatibility of the proposed unit sizes
and unit mix, with existing and potential development in the
vicinity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Preliminary Design Review approval of the
proposed site plan and general exterior building design for
Mountain Resort Condominium Residences on the easterly
portion of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek,
subject to compliance with the following conditions prior to
final design review approval:
1. The number of residential units be reduced
to a maximum of 10 units to conform with the
fractionalization provisions of Ordinance
No. ee-i1 for the four development rights
assigned to this site.
2. Required Notices of Public Hearing be mailed
to the owners of all property located within
::i00 feet of the proposed project site at
least twelve days prior to final design review
action in accordance with the provisions in the
Staff Report to the Planning
7/5/88
Portion Lot 46/47, Block 1,
Mountain Resort Condominium
Phoenix Discovery Group
Design Review
Page 4 of 5
and Zoning Commission
Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Residences
Administrative Procedure for Fractionalized
Projects as adopted by the Avon Town Council on
June 28, 1988.
3. Other design modifications or details as
determined necessary by the Commission for
conformance with design guidelines and
fractionalization criteria.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1. Introduction;
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Commission Review and Comment;
4. Preliminary Design Review Approval Subject
to Appropriate Conditions
Respectfully submitted,
Norman Wood
Director of Engineering
and Community Development
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
7/5/88
Portion Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Mountain Resort Condominium Residences
Phoenix Discovery Group
Design Review
Page 5 of 5
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions (V�
Continued t ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn
Date Denise Hi 11, Secretary
The Commission nranted preliminary approval to site plan and exterior
building design, with the condition that they comply with the Fractionalization
Ordinance 88-11 regarding the maximum of ten (10) units and the Administrative
Procedures requirements for Public Hearing Notices.
0% IW4
To: Town of Avon
From: JF Lamont
RE:Project Review:
Phoenix Discovery Group
Condominium Residences
A part of Lot 46/47, Block 1 BMS
Date: June 30, 1988
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: Provided that sufficient investigation has been
conducted of soils conditions the site is suitable for a wide
variety of residential structures. The type and quality of
materials of which the proposed structure is to be
constructed is consistent with standards for multi -unit
residential structures.
6.13 The compatibility of the design to minimize site
impacts to adjacent properties.
Comment: 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.
101 -
page two
6.14 The compatibility of proposed improvements with site
topography.
comment: Insufficient information exists to determine
the impact upon soils movement and landscaping of retaining
wall on north side of exterior parking lot.
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.
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 three story flat roof
structure is consistent with two and three story structures
on adjacent properties.
Building offsets on the south elevation are significant
enough to be similar in appearance of structure on adjacent
properties.
Exterior materials, architectural detailing and color
can be modified to emphasis wood siding which is the
prevalent siding material in the vicinity.
Provision should be made for adequate fire safety access
to adjacent properties.
Landscape improvements should be qualitatively and
quantitatively increased and maintained to the standards
consistent with existing improvements in the vicinity.
*Insufficient information is available to determine if
either the proposed use or the aesthetics of the improvement
are so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that
values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. The proposed
architectural style does not presently exist in the immediate
vicinity of the project.
page three
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 should be review for
substantial compliance with the following specified
development goals, policies, and programs of the Town of
Avon.
Development District Three
District Three Boundaries: The area from the centerline
of Benchmark Road and Buck Creek greenbelt, to the western
boundary of the Benchmark Village Mobile Home Park, between
the centerline of the Interstate 70 right-of-way on the
North, and the centerline of the Denver Rio Grande and
Western right-of-way on the South. Further, the area West of
the centerline of Buck Creek Road and Buck Creek Greenbelt
to the western lot line of the Beacon Hill Townhouses and
from the existing northern town boundary to the centerline of
Interstate 70 on the South.
I. Economic Development:
A. Goals:
1. Encourage the inclusion of short and long term
residential uses on specific sites provided that improvements
are made in the pedestrian, vehicular, and mass transit
circulation systems.
2. Establish residential and lodging uses on
appropriate sites that provide for the inclusion of
recreational, cultural, and educational facilities.
B. Policies:
2. Encourage the provision of recreational,
cultural, and educational facilities in development projects.
II. Housing Development:
A. Goals:
1. Encourage the physical separation of low-
density residential development from higher density
residential areas.
2. Encourage the development of a wide variety of
residential housing types, particularly affordable dwelling
units, either by sale or rental, to persons of all income
levels, visitor and resident alike.
B. Policies:
1. Promote tourist lodging.
3. Promote the incorporation of economically
diverse housing for all income levels of permanent residents
on appropriate sites.
c. Strategies:
III. Transportation and Circulation:
A. Goals:
1. Provide for both public and private mass
transportation service and mass transit facilities that will
reduce vehicular traffic and promote covenient access to the
area.
2. Promote the safe separation of pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicular traffic.
3. Improve the vehicular circulation system,
particularly for service, delivery, emergency, and mass
transit vehicles.
4. Encourage centralized public/private parking
facilities in areas where the shared use and access between
such parking facilities will improve pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
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.
4. 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.
7. Provide for the extension of greenbelt,
pedestrian, bicycle, and street right-of-ways onto lands
adjacent to the town boundaries. 40
8. Encourage the acquisition of right-of-ways for
the improved circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic v
by means of easements and other appropriate agreements with
property owners.
IV. Community Facilities: •
A. Goals:
1. Encourage the development and use of public and
private facilities that provide for the educational,
religious, recreational, cultural, service, and ritual needs
of the community.
2. Promote natural and landscaped open space,
parks, playgrounds, ball fields and pedestrian malls.
3. Encourage and provide for contiguous parking
facilities between adjacent sites that are available for use
by the general public.
B. Policies:
V. Community Design:
A. Goals:
1. Protect the efficiency and safety of the area
by encouraging compatible uses to develop within and around
its perimeter.
2. Function as an auto accessible area.
3. Encourage proper site planning that orients
structures to optimum passive solar exposure and view
orientation, while providing view corridors for
commercial/residential buildings on adjacent sites.
4. Encourage a minimum/maximum building size and
mass by providing design guidelines which reinforce the
emergence of a cohesive townscape.
5. 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.
6. Reduce the negative influences of noise from
Interstate
B. POI
1.
surface park
surrounding
2.
existing uti
future const
vegetation,
view corridc
3.
of, native k
prevent ero:
scarring.
4
recreationa
through the
features.
facilities,
pollutants
design and
development
distinctive
provide ped
sites, and
building or
height of
streets, PE
1;
design and
appropriat(
TA063088
SIAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
7/5/88
Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ridgeline Condominiums
Phoenix Discovery Group
Des.rgn Review
INTRODUCTION
Phoenix Discovery Group has submitted an application and
plans for design review for a 10 unit residential condominium
project on Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. The
proposed project consists of four, 796 square foot, two
bedroom units in one building and six, 592 square foot, one
bedroom units in a second building. The proposed project
utilizes the fractionalization provisions of the zoning code,
using four development rights to construct ten residential
units. The proposed project is located in an SPA zone
District with four residential development rights assigned to
the property.
Both buildings are three story with a garage for each unit on
ground level and living units above. Building materials
include tongue and groove redwood siding (Olympic
Semi -Transparent Stain #718). Stucco (Pratt and Lambert Icy
Morn I #G582W), clad windo.is (Dark Bronze) and wood shingles.
Facias/Trim is proposed with Olympic semi -transparent stain
#723 on redwood. Landscape materials include serviceberry,
potentilla, pfitzer juniper, cottonwood, blue spruce,
flowering crabapple and kentucky bluegrass sod. Irrigation
system is riot noted.
Parking is provided with one garage for each of the ten
units, sir, spaces in central parking area and four spaces in
front of the four -plea garages.
STAFF COMMENTS
The following comments are provided for consideration of the
Commission during review of this project. These comments are
based upon plans received June 28, 1988.
1. The proposed project appears to generally
conform with requirements of the zoning code, including the
Amendments in Ordinance 88-11 as adopted by the Town Council
on June 28, 1988.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
7/5/88
Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ridgeline Condominiums
Phoenix Discovery Group
Design Review
Page 2 of 5
2. fhe application does not conform with the
notice requirements for public hearing as stipulated in the
Administrative Procedure for Fractionalized Projects as
adopted by the Town Council on June 28, 1988.
3. Elevations for the four -plea do riot appear to
match the floor plan. Differences appear to be in the garage
entry area.
4. Four of the required 20 parking spaces are
located in front of the four--plex garage entries.
5. Site topography does not a,.tund to the asterly
lot line. Grading behind six-pler, units extends beyond
existing topography limits. Due to steep grades in this
area, care should be taken to assure that fill slope can tie
into existing grades without exceeding maximum slope c<
1 1l2: 1.
6. Limited drainage details do not appear to
provide positive treatment of parking lot runoff.
Concentrated drainage discharge could create serious erosion
problems due to steepness of grades on this and the adjoining
properties.
7. Irrigation system for proposed landscaping is
not shown.
8. Design details for trash enclosure have not
been provided.
9. Entrance sign and lighting details have not
been provided.
When reviewing this project, the Commission should consider
the +ollowing Design Guidelines from Section 6.00 of the Town
of Avon, Planning and Zcning Commission, Design Procedures,
Rules and Regulations:
6.11 The conformance with the Zoning Code acid
other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
6.12 The suitability of the improvement, including
tvpe and quality of materials of which it is to be
consCructed and the site upon which it is to be located.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
7/5/98
Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ridgeline Condominiums
Phoenix Discovery Group
Design Review
Page 3 of 5
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 impaired.
6.17 The general conformance of the proposed
improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs
for the Town of Avon.
In addition, the Commission should consider the following
criteria as outlined in the Administrative Procedure for
Fractionalized Projects:
1. The adequacy of access to the site with respect
to the width of the adjacent streets, their grades,
i.nterse,:tion safety, visibility and entrance to the lot to be
developed;
2. The need for, anti availability of public or
private transportation to serve the proposed development;
3. The impact of the proposed project upon public
and private services and facilities serving the area;
4. The compatibility of the proposed unit sizes
and unit mix with existing and potential development in the
vicinity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Preliminary Design Review Approval of the
proposed 10 Unit, fractionalized four residential development
right project (Ridgeline Condominiums) on Lot 4, Block 1,
Wildridge Subdivision, subject to compliance with the
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
7/5/88
Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ridgeline Condominiums
Phoenix Discovery Group
Design Review
Page 4 of 5
following conditions prior to final design review approval:
1. Required notices be mailed to neighboring
property owners, in accordance with the
provisions in the Administrative Procedure
for Fractionalized Projects, prior to final
design review public hearing and action.
2. Final Design Review submitted be amended to:
a. reszil\,e dif+erences between four-plex
elevations and floor plan;
b. two additional parking spaces be
provided to allow the four spaces
located in front of the four-plex
garage entries to function as guest
parking spaces for those units:
C. existing site topography be extended
to assure that proposed grades can
tie_ into existing grades without
exceeding a maximum slope of 1 1/2:1;
d. detailed drainage plans be prov'ded
showing positive treatment of parking
lot runoff and distribution of dis-
charge to reduce erosion potential;
e. include information regarding pro-
posed irrigation system for
landscaped area;
f. provide design details for trash
enclosure;
g. provide entrance sign and lighting
details.
3. Other design modifications or details as
determined necessary by the Commission, for
conformance with design guidelines and
fractionalization criteria.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
7/5/88
l.ot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Ridgeline Condominiums
Phoenix Discovery Group
Design Revi�)w
Page 5 of 5
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1. Introduction;
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Commission Review and Comment;
4. Preliminary Design Review Approval Subject
to Appropriate Conditions
Respectfully submitted,
Norman Wood
Director of Engineering
and Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions (V")� Approved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
�l CX
Date ` ,I I ' -Denise Hill, Secretary E I'C(io t _
The Commission canted oreliminar� sign appro al for lot d_ Black 1.
Wildridga, Ridgeline Condos, with the SlAff conditions.1• •1111'1•.
except• •II IIend •1 • additional parking—sparps to be • • •'•
• to inglude thp. use Qf natijral vegetation •1 1' •• • instead of •• 011 h '• slapp arpa and madifications, In the
garage side of the 6-plex to reduce the concentration of snow -fall in that area.
I I
e
•
''1 ewy e'`) '^
To: Town of Avon
From: JF Lamont
RE:Project Review:
Date: June 30, 1988
Project: Ridgeline Lot 4, BLK 1, Wildridge
The following Design Guidelines have been reviewed and
are offered for consideration by the reviewing authorities
and the applicant. The comments 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:
1. The suitability of the improvement is inconsistent
with existing development in the subdivision in the following
manner.
a. Surrounding developments are primarily town houses,
portions of the proposed development are not.
b. Surface parking will be substantially increased
beyond those required for a fourpler.. Recreational
landscaped area will be diminished.
c. Adjacent development is consistent with original
allocation of density.
d. Location of dense population adjacent to cliff face
presents a hazardous condition, particularly for families
with small children.
e. Location of proposed structure will obstruct primary
views from existing development on adjacent property.
/0%
page 2
,�.
2. 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.
3. The size of the structure exceeds the ability of the
site to accommodate required setbacks and site improvements.
Front setback not identified. Proposed structures
should be relocated or architectural modified so as to
minimize view blockage from adjacent sites.
4. Parking lot design fall short of optimum design
standards.
5. Driveway may be excessively narrow for its length
and use.
6. Pedestrian and wildlife access through and across
the site is undefined or inadequate.
7. Site and building lighting is insufficiently
addressed.
The impact of Parking lot lighting upon adjacent
residential property should be considered.
8. Parking lot landscaping particularly at the entrance
to residential structures is inadequate. Insufficient
information exists to determine the quality of landscape
material and location. Irrigation system was not noted.
Particular attention should be payed to mitigating loss of
primary views by adjacent property owners with suitable and
qualitative landscaping.
9. Insufficient information exists to determine if trash
container and enclosure are adequate.
6.13 The compatibility of the design to minimize site
impacts to adjacent properties.
Comment:
1. The design does not appear to adversely effect the
distribution of light and air of adjacent properties.
2. The design does appear to adversely effect the
primary view of the adjacent properties. View blockage can
be mitigated by improved landscaping, relocation of the
structures as well as modification of architectural form.
page 3
3. Insufficient information exist to determine if the
access of Fire Safety equipment to adjacent properties may be
adversely effected by the site design.
4. Site drainage and landscape plans are of
insufficient detail to determine their compatibility with
existing or proposed site plan of adjacent properties.
5. Snow drop areas, collecting snow from pitched roof
may adversely effect adjacent property as well as cause
blocking of exits and driveways. Problems exist with snow
dumping onto parked cars.
Flat roofs will eliminate snow dump on adjacent parking
spaces.
6. Insufficient information to determine
interconnection of pedestrian circulation with adjacent
properties.
7. Insufficient interconnection with common driveways
on adjacent properties. Common Driveway appear to narrow
for adequate access.
8. Insufficient information to determine interconnection
of drainways with adjacent properties.
9. Insufficient interconnection with landscaping on
adjacent properties.
6.14 The compatibility of proposed improvements with site
topography.
Comment:
1. Insufficient information exists to determine if on-
site drainways are adequate to eliminate flooding or erosion
on-site or on adjacent properties.
2. Safety fencing should be provided along cliff
hazard.
6.15 The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as
viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public
ways.
Comment:
1. The visual appearance of the proposed improvement
does inhibit principal views. Insufficient information exist
to determine if there is a blockage of solar exposure to
adjacent and neighboring properties.
page 4
Architectural design is incompatible with the siting of
existing buildings in the vicinity.
2. Insufficient information exists to determine if
landscaping will have an acceptable visual appearance from
the public ways.
3. Exterior and unenclosed parking areas are located in
principal views from adjacent and neighboring properties and
public ways.
4. 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:
1. The architectural mass of the three story structures
is incompatible with development on adjacent properties.
View blockage may well impaired the monetary and aesthetic
values of adjacent properties.
2. Proposed structures are similar in appearance to
building on adjacent properties.
3. The buildings exterior materials, architectural
detailing complements but does not enhances the standard of
design for the vicinity.
4. Provision should be made for adequate fire safety
access to adjacent properties.
5. Landscape improvements should be qualitatively and
quantitatively increased so as to maintain or exceed the
standards consistent with existing improvements in the
vicinity.
6. Insufficient information or standards are available
to determine that view blockage caused by the proposed use
and the aesthetics of the improvement are so similar or
dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or
aesthetic will not be impaired.
6.17 The general conformance of the proposed improvements
with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of
Avon.
page 5
comment: The proposed project should be evaluated in
comparison with the proposed development goals,
policies, and programs for Development District 7.
II. Approval Criteria for Fractionalized Projects
A. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the following factors in addition to the Design Review
Guidelines listed in Section 6.00 of the Design Procedures,
Rules and Regulation for the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the Town of Avon, when reviewing a project involving the
fractionalization of residential development rights:
1. The adequacy of access to the site with respect to
the width of the adjacent streets, their grades, intersection
safety, visibility and entrance into the lot to be developed;
a. Driveway grades from adjacent street does not permit
relocation of structures.
b. Driveway width may be inappropriat: for the number
on existing and factionalized units being proposed. Parking
spaces will increase.
2. The need for, and availability of public or pri-ate
transportation to serve the proposed development;
The vicinity in which the project is proposed will have
sufficient density to warrant the need for alternative public
or private transportation to service area residents. No
proposal has been made to provide for alternative
transportation services to the residents of the proposed
project.
3. The impact of the proposed project upon public and
private services and facilities serving the area;
No commercial services are presently available within
walking distance to the neighborhood.
Insufficient information exists to determine impacts
upon public and private services and facilities; serving the
area.
4. The compatibility of the proposed unit sizes and
unit mix with existing and potential development in the
vicinity;
No existing development has similar unit mix. The
number of proposed units may contributed to the view blockage
of adjacent properties.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANN1Niu AND ZONING COMMISSION - 7/5/88
WRL-MAR1
220 Beaver Creek Place
Temporary Banner - Variance Request
INTRODUCTION
Wal -mart is requesting a variance to hang two temporary signs
(banners) to promote sidewalk sale activities at various
times during the summer. A banner would be mounted on the
wall on each side of the entrance. The proposed banners are
ft. by 18 ft. for a total area of 54 sq. ft. each. the
proposed use conforms with the provisions of the sign code
for temporary signs. A variance is required for the total
sig.r area as reque=.ted.
STAFF COMMENTS
Section 15.28.020 - 27 defines a temporary sign as: An/
sign, banner, pennant, or other device that directs persons
to a special event, location or offering that is not
permanent in nature.
Section 15.28.O80 - M. Permits temporary signs, but they
must be limited to a maximum size of thirty-five square feet
and not to be in place for more than one week per event.
Also, the sign may be displayed for only one event in any
thirty day period.
The proposed banners meet the new sign code ordinance
for `.he length of time requested to be displayed, but
req.�res a variance for the total sign arep. o+ the two
banners.
The following variance procedure is required: Section
15.28.090 - B
2. Approval Criteria: Before acting on a variance request,
the planning and Zoning Commission shall consider- the
following factors:
a. The relationship of the requested variance t:3 exsting
and potential uses and structures in the vicinity;
b. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation
is necessary to achieve compatibiiity and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity;
C. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems
applicable to the requested variance.
0
re
4 1
4WR
r
Staff Report to Planning and Zoning Commission - 7/5/88
Wal-Mart
220 Heaver Creek Place
Temporary Banner - Variance Request
Page 2 of 3
3. Findings Required. The Planning and Zoning Commission
shall make the followirri `indings 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 variance is warranted +or- 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 treat do not apply 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 the other properties in the vicinity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Should the Commission decide to grant a variance for the
banners, the approval should be limited to a specific time
frame such as until September 30, 1988. This would allow the
use through Labor Day and allow the Commission to re-evaluate
the variance at that time.
Staff Report to Planning and Zoning Commission - 7/5/88
Wal-Mart
220 Beaver Creek Place
Temporary Banner - Variance Request
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Introduce project;
2. Presentation by applicant;
3. Commission review of submitted materials;
4. Act an application.
Respectfully Suc.::.itted,
Norman Wood
Director of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION:
Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( > Approved with Modified Conditions (V 3
Continued ( >D''enied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) pp��77
Denise Hill, Secretary_D_'4' al.CJ�l L-----
_ The Commis on granted approval for one (1�_3 x 18 temp0rar_y_si�cn,_for
a 3 day period over_Labor_Day,_citin�_exceptional_ or, extraordinary____
Circumstances applicable to the site of the variance that do—not appL
---------------------
-------------
o other properties in the vicinity in that the square footage of the _
---------------------------------
building is large enough to support the size of the sign_—________—_
—
