Loading...
PZC Packet 122088STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 20, 1988 Lot 15, Block 1, Filing No. 1 Eaglebend Subdivision Continuance of a Home Occupation Special Review Use INTRODUCTION At the regularly scheduled meeting, December 6, 1986, the review of a Special Review Use for a Home Occupation at the Ekrem residence was continued in order to allow the Commission a site visit as offered by the applicant. The site visit was scheduled for Tuesday, December 20, 1988, at noon. There was an extended discussion, much of which centered on the proposed ironworko production. Concerns were expressed in regards to the potential noise generated by the work and the commercial vehicles necessary to deliver raw materials to the site. The impact of these concerns will be more apparent as the neighborhood develops out. STAFF RECOMMMENDATION If the Commission finds that the application falls within the definition of a home occupation, staff recommends considering additional conditions be added to the Resolution 88-11 of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to address the concerns expressed in this report. 1. There shall be no noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat or glare noticeable at or ;,eyond the property line as a result of the home occupation. 2. Selling stocks, supplies or products on the premises shall not be permitted, provided that incidental retail sales may be made in connection with other permitted home occupations. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 15, Block 1, Filing No. 1 Eaglebend Subdivision Continuance of a Home Occupation Special Review Use Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Project. 2. Presentation by Applicant. 3. Commission Review of Application. 4. Adopt Resolution 88-11 as amended. Respectfully submitted, Ly" Fritzlen Director of Planning PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted (40) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( V) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date 1,3.1 I 9�,i�Denise Hill, Secretary U,ku&r0r The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 88-11 with the addition of a fourth condition as follows: Special Review Use shall be reviewed at the first regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1990 to evaluate conformance with conditions and conformance with Home Occupation regulations. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 20, 1988 Lot 17, Block 1, Filing No. 1, Eaglebend Subdivision John Railton Architect Front Yard Building Setback Variance Request Public Hearing INTRODUCTION John Railton, on behalf of Ron Jameison, is requesting a front yard building setback variance of 5'-0", from 25'-0" to 20'-0", for a proposed duplex on the subject property. Mr. Railton has provided a site development plan showing existing topography and proposed building and driveway locations as well as floor plans and building elevations. Mr. Railton has presented the following responses on the variance application: #9. The`, following practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship, inconsistent with the objectives of the particular regulation would result from the strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation: APPLICANT'S COMMENT: 1. The driveway grade becomes too steep. 2. The house gets too close to the Metcalf Ditch and river bank, creating a small rear garden area. STAFF COMMENT: 1. In order to preserve existing grades and maintain an 8% slope, it is advantageous to site the building closer to the front property line. This was a limitation that the Siebert duplex on Lot 12 encountered. They ended up raising the floor level ceveral feet and exposing additional foundation. 2. Pushing the house further towards the ditch would lessen a proposed garden area. #10. The following exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district. APPLICANT'S COMMENT: The existing two developments on this Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 17, Block 1, Filing No. 1 Eaglebend Subdivision John Railton, Architect Front Yard Building Setback Variance Request Public Hearing Page 2 of 5 street both have lesser setbacks than the 25'-0". The lots are considerably reduced in depth by the Metcalf Ditch Eaaement. STAFF COMMENT: #11. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the aoplicant of the following privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district: APPLICANT'S COMMENT: 1. Lesser cetbacks (have been approved on adjacent properties). 2. Pushing the house forward (to the river) restricts the view by existing and future houses on each side of the lot. STAFF COMMENT: 1. `aetcalf ditch does lessen the buildable area. There are approximately three lots that are significantly affected by the ditch; Lot 19, Lot 18 and Lot 17. Lot 19 did receive a setback variance. Lot 18 is yet undeveloped. Lot 15 did not require a variance. 2. There is no provision to encourage staggering of buildings for more view privacy in our regulations, therefore, staff does not feel that this is an applicable justification. When reviewing an application for granting a variance, the following approval criteria and required findings should be taken into consideration: There are three occupied resiocnces in Filing No. 1, two on Lot 19 and one on Lot 15. Lot 19 received a front setback variance. This lot is similar to Lot 17 in that it is reduced in depth by the Metcalf Ditch Easement. Going west the ditch easement has a lessening impact. #11. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the aoplicant of the following privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district: APPLICANT'S COMMENT: 1. Lesser cetbacks (have been approved on adjacent properties). 2. Pushing the house forward (to the river) restricts the view by existing and future houses on each side of the lot. STAFF COMMENT: 1. `aetcalf ditch does lessen the buildable area. There are approximately three lots that are significantly affected by the ditch; Lot 19, Lot 18 and Lot 17. Lot 19 did receive a setback variance. Lot 18 is yet undeveloped. Lot 15 did not require a variance. 2. There is no provision to encourage staggering of buildings for more view privacy in our regulations, therefore, staff does not feel that this is an applicable justification. When reviewing an application for granting a variance, the following approval criteria and required findings should be taken into consideration: Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 17, Block 1, Filing No. 1 Eaglebend Subdivision John Railton, Architect Front Yard Building Setback Variance Request Public Hearing Page 3 of 5 17 36 040 Approval Criteria. Before acting on a variance application, the design review board sha"I consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: A. The relatiorship 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 grant of special privilege; C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; D. Such other factors and criteria as the board deems applicable to the proposed variance. (Ord. 81-9-1(d)). 17 36 050 Findings required. The design review board shall make the following written findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That -the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 17, Block 1, Filing No. 1 Eaglebend Subdivision John Railton, Architect Front Yard Building Setback Variance Request Public Hearing Page 4 of 5 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 properties in the same district. (Ord. 81-9-1(e)). STAFF RECOMMMENDATION If the Commission finds that the variance request meets the approval criteria and has adequate findings to grant the variance, approval of Resolution 88-12 is recommended. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application; 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Open. Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review of Application; 6. Approve Resolutior: 88-12. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Fritzl�h Director of Planning Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 17, Block 1, Filing No. 1, Eaglebend Subdivision John Railton, Architect Front Yard Building Setback Variance Request Public Hearing Page 5 of 5 PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted (t-/) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date is�)c Denise Hill, Secretary A✓ttdf- The Commission approved Plann'ng and Zoning Resolution No. 88-12 which includes the finding that the variance is warranted because there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in Oe same zone. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 20, 1988 Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Bucchieri & Lochet, Inc. Sign Variance Request INTRODUCTION Linda Rodgers, sign administrator of the Benchmark Plaza sign program, is requesting a variance for a proposed sign not in compliance with the Benchmark Plaza Sign Program, in regards to content and depending on interpretation, not in compliance with the size limitations. The Benchmark Plaza Sign Program limits sign verbage to the trade name of the business only. The proposed sign is dominated by a description of services "Taxes, Investments". The applicant has indicated that the Securities and Exchange Commission has certain signage requirements they must adhere to. The Avon Sign Code does not regulate content of a sign, therefore the sign is not in compliance with the Benchmark Plaza Sign Program, but is in compliance with the Avon Sign Code. The Town of Avon policy requires that a sign not in conformance with an approved sign program receive Planning and Zoning Commission. approval. For the purpose of determining the sign area it could be given our definition interpreted two ways. Our sign area definition reads as follows: "Sign area" means the entire surface within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of writing, representation, emblem or any figure or a similar integral part of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the background against which it is placed. The sign area for signs with display area on more than one side shall be the largest total area of all sides which could be visible from a single point. The first interpretation would define the sign area as that within the outer limits of the letters. This is approximately 18 square feet and would be in compliance with the Benchmark Plaza Sign Program 20 square foot limit. This is the interpretation that Linda Rodgers has taken in the past. Each permanent sign board is 36 square feet. The second interpretation would define the sign area as the entirety of the sign board which is 36 square feet. This intrepretation is justified in that the entire sign area is lit. This intrepretation would require a variance. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Bucchieri & Lochet, Inc. Sign Variance Request Page 2 of 4 Considerations for a sign variance are as stated below: B. Variances: 1. Purpose. The planning and zoning commission shall have authority to grant variances from this regulation to prevent or lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships, inconsistent with the objectives of this title, as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement. 2. 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 t.3 achieve comaatibility and uniformity or treatment among sites in the vicinity; C. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the requested variance. 3. Findings Required. The planning and zoning commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: a. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the 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; Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Bucchieri & Lochet, Inc. Sign Variance Request Page 3 of 4 ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. It is my observation that there is a conflict between the physical accommodation for signage on the Benchmark Plaza Building and the sign program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Commission finds that the sign area justifies a variance and in turn finds the sign meets the criteria for granting of a variance, approval is recommended. RECOMMENDED ACTION Introduce Application; Interpretation of Sign Area in regards to Application 2. Discussion of Criteria & Findings for Variance if needed. 3. Approval of Sign and Granting of Variance RespectfuOPhing d, Lykrfi Frit Director Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Bucchieri & Lochet, Inc. sign Variance Request Page 4 of 4 PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted (✓) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) 1 �� 7 Date L E�r Denise Hi 11 , Secretary LYIi (L1�---- The Commission approved the sign variance for Bucchieri & Lochet, Inc. citing as a finding that the variance is warranted because there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: December 20, 1988 Lot 1 & Lot 2, Sunroad Subdivision Replat of Lots 29, 30, 31, 32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Chris Eddy, Sunroad Properties Development Sign Variance INTRODUCTION Chris Eddy of Sunroad Properties, located in San Diego, California and owner of the above described lots, has requested variances for two development signs located on Lot 1 and Lot 2, Sunroad Subdivision. Both signs are to be identical and are proposed to be 32 square feet in area. Town of Avon sign code limists square footage of development sign to 16 square feet. I have requested that Mr. Eddy amend his application to reflect a 15 square foot sign on Lot 2, adjacent to Beaver creek Boulevard, due to the pedestrian orientation. Mr. Eddy agreed during a telephone conservation of 12/19/88. Sunroad Properties has allowed the use of their undeveloped property in conjunction with several Town of Avon Special Events in the past. This year the property will be used by the Vail Foundation for the Alpine Championships Parking. Mr. Eddy has indicated that Sunroad is more than happy to continue to cooperate in the future with any similPr requests, although he -is concerned the land continue to appear salable. If it is not to remain completely vacant, he feels that there is a need for signage. Ons 16 square foot development sign is allowed for each contiguous group of parcels under one ownership, therefore a variance is needed for a second sign. A variance is also required for the proposed 32 square foot size sign on Avon Road. When granting a variance the following should be taken into consideration: B. Variances: 1. Purpose. The planning and zoning commission shall have authority to grant variances from this regulation to prevent or lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships, inconsistent with the objectives of this title, as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 1 & Lot 2, Sunroad Subdivision Replat of lots 29, 30, 31, 32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Chris Eddy, Sunroad Properties Development Sign Variance Page 2 of 4 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 or treatment among sites in the vicinity; C. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the requested variance. 3. Findings Required. The planning and zoning commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: a. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the 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 diffi%ulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by thea owners of other properties in the vicinity. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 1 & Lot 2, Sunroad Subdivision Replat of Lots 29, 30, 31, 32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Chris Eddy, Sunroad Properties Development Sign Variance Page 3 of 4 STAFF RECOMMMENDATION The granting of the variances could be justified for the following reasons: 1. The combined area of Lots 1 and 2 is 4.9 acres. This is one of the largest undeveloped parcels within the Town proper. The lot is large enough that it would be difficult for the passerby to determine the extent of the property without a second sign. 2. The parcel has two frontages, Avon Road and Beaver Creek Boulevard. This is a unique aspect to this parcel, further justifying the need for a second sign. 3. The proposed Avon Road sign is more vehicularly oriented, therefore, a larger sign is required for adequate readability of vehicular travelers. 4. The signs will be visually competing with the parking lot use for recognition. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application; 2. Commission review of Application; 3. Approve Sign Variance for Second Sign; 4. Approve Sign Variance for Size; 5. Approve Signs as Presented. Respectfully submitted, L Fritz en en Director of P1 ning Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 1988 Lot 1 & Lot 2, Sunroad Subdivision Replat of Lots 29, 30, 31, 32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Chris Eddy, Sunroad Properties Development Sign Variance Page 4 of 4 PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( V-� Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date 1� 1,�C � �Z Denise Hill, Secretary_ ,'�_f(�E The Commission approved the variance for one 15 square foot sign and one 32 square foot sig•„ citing the finding that the variance is warranted because there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other prooerties in the vicinity, with the condition that the 32 square foot sign be moved to the center of the property prior to the first of May.