PZC Packet 032189STAFF REPCRT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 21, 1989
Page 1 of 5
Lot 51, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Duplex Residence
Sideyard Setback Variance
Monica Reynolds, Hugh Prior
Doug Doyle Project Representative
At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission March 7, 1989 this item was tabled and requested
to be represented to the Commission due to an incomplete
description of the requested variance on the Public Notice.
The applicant has rewritten the description and reposted and
distributed the revised notices.
The current wording of the description of the requested
variance is as follows: To allow the encroachment of; the
northwest corner and roof overhang of the building into the
building setback on the west side of the lot.
The applicant is represented by Doug Doyle of Reynolds
Construction.
Monica Reynolds is requesting a sideyard setback variance for
a duplex residence located in Wildridge. The duplex received
Design Review Approval at the regulary scheduled meeting of
the Planning and Zoning Commission June 24, 1987, a copy of
the staff report is included. The site improvement plan
submitted for the Design Review Application did not indicate
a need for a setback variance. The duplex subdivision plat
prepared subsequent to construction by Intermountain
Engineering indicates encroachment into the 10'-0" sideyard
building setback and the 7.5' sideyard drainage and utility
easement requirement for the Wildridge Specially Planned
Area.
The subdivision plat indicates that the building foundation
corner is located 8.2 ' from the property line and the
applicant has indicated that the roof overhang extends an
additional 16" or 1.34' beyond the foundation corner for a
total 'building encroachment of 3.14'. The total area of the
building encroachment is 5.86 sq, ft. into the building
sideyard setback. per Intermountain Engineering.
Monica Reynolds has submitted with the variance application a
signed statement by the utilities companies with the
following wording:
Staff Report to ,,he Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 51, Block 4, Wildridge, Sideyard Variance
March 21, 1989
Page 2 of 5
"Please be advised that this letter will stand on its
merit tha,� the undersigned are in full knowledge of Che
encroachment of the building into the utility easement
on the west side of the lot listed above (Lot 51, Block
4, Wildridge Subdivision.) The undersigned have seen the
the plat executed by Intermountain Engineering of Avon
Colorado and have agreed that there is no problem with
the encroachment . This also implies that the
undersigned will have no problem with the Town of Avon
granting final approval of the plat as it is designed."
The applicant has provided the following response to the
applicable criteria for the granting of a variance:
APPLICANT RESPONSE: "Small building area ", the
Contractor has built too close to the easement by
accident.
STAFF RESPONSE: Removing the built structure from the
easement would be a practical impossibility without
substantially modifying the design of the building and
incurring significant financial cost.
district.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: The site is located in an SPA zone
and setbacks are not easily determined by subdivision
plat.
STAFF RESPONSE: As in all SPA zone districts zoning
restrictions are determined by the adopted plat.
The following are applicable criteria and findings for the
granting of a variance:
17.36.040 Approval Criteria. Before acting on a variance
application, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider the following factors with respect to the requested
variance:
Staff Report to The Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 51, Block 4, Wildridge, Sideyard Variance
March 21, 1989
Page 3 of 5
A. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existing and 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 a 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.
17 36 050 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 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,
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.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 51, Block 4, Wildridge, Sideyard Variance
March 7, 1989
Page 4 of 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Commission determines that there are adequate findings
for the granting of a variance approval is recommended. Staff
has prepared Resolution 89-3 recommending granting of the
variance with the fol owing condition:
The variance is to allow an encroachment of
existing construction of approximately 3' into
the 10'-0" building sideyard setback.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Presentation by Applicant
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Consideration By Commission
6. Adopt Resolution 89-3
Respectfully Submitted,
1 i
Lynn Fritlen
Department of Community Development
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commissiun
Lot 51, Block 4, Wildridge, Sideyard Variance
March 7, 1989
Page 5 of 5
PLANNING AND ZONING ACT=ON
Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Conditions ( )
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( )
Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date 3-,-)1 -P'� Denise Hill Secretary �Iy /W /z
The Commission approved Resolution 89-3, "A Resolution Granting A Variance
From The Sideyard Building Setback Requirements As Stipulated in Title 17
Of The Avon Municipal Code for Lot 51, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Town
of Avon, Eagle County, :olorado
A
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 21, 1989
Lot 2, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Storky's Restaurant
Otto Stork, Mark Donaldson
Final Design Review
Page 1 of 4
Mark Donaldson on behalf of Otto Stork, owner and developer
of Storky's Restaurant is requesting Final Design Review for
a 3400 sq. ft. resta-irant and bar located at 111 Nottingham
Road immediately to the west of the Coastal Mart
grocery and gas station.
The proposed restaurant is a one storey ribbed block and
stucco building with a partial basement. Parking sits on the
north side of the property and the restaurant sits on the
south with views facing I-70 and the town. Parking lot access
is from Nottingham Road and circulation is proposed to be one
way entry and exit.
At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission on March 7, 1989 this project received a
Preliminary Design Review. There were a number of items that
were requested to be submitted and revised prior to Final
Design Review. At the time of the preparation of this report
no additional information has been received therefore this
report is a reiteration of the March 7, 1989 Preliminary
Design Review report.
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: Application appears to be in conformance with
applicable rales and regulations. Project is located in the
RHDC zone district and proposed use is allowed.
The following items were not included in the application and
should be submitted prior to Final Design Review:
1. Specification on exterior lighting.
2. Landscape irrigation system.
n
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 2, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
March 7, 1989
Page 2 of 4
6.12 THE SUITABILITY OF THE IMPROVEMENT, INCLUDING TYPE AND
QUALITY OF MATERALS OF WHICH IT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND SITE
UPON WHICH IT IS TO BE BUILT.
COMMENT: Propose restaurant is sided by a commercial service
use, oriented to I-70 traffic, on the east and residential
condominiums on the west. Ideally the architectural design
will span the residential and commercial charactr of the
area. The proposed building is flat roofed with a sloped
mansard roof extension around the perimeter and a gable at
the porte cochere. Proposed exterior materials are stucco
block and metal roof. Roof forms and exterior materials are
both residential and commercial in character.
6.13 THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DESIGN TO MINIMIZE SITE IMPACTS
TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
COMMENT: Proposal does not appear to have significant or
unusual impacts on adjacent properties.
6.14 THE COMPATIBLILITY OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITH SITE
TOPOGRAPHY.
COMMENT: Site is gently sloped, approximately 8% over the
proposed developed area and easily accomodates proposed
improvements.
6.15 THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF ANY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AS
VIEWED FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND PUBLIC WAYS.
COMMENT: Staff has two concerns in regards to visual
appearance:
1. Rooftop mechanical equipment may be visible to
residents and motorists on Nottingham Road.
2. Parking lot will dominate view of propoued
development from Nottingham Road. Additional
landscaping at the drive entries and within the
parking lot is suggested.
6.16 THE OBJECTIVE THAT NO IMPROVEMENT BE SO SIMILIAR OR
DISSIMILIAR TO OTHERS IN THE VICINITY THAT VALUES, MONETARY
OR AESTHETIC WILL BE IMPAIRED.
COMMENT: Proposed building design is unique to vicinity,
proposed use and scale is similiar to the existing Pizza Hut
on the north side of Nol:tingham road.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 2, Block 1, B_,nchmaerk at Beaver Creek
Page 3 of 4
6.17 THE GENERAL CONFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
WITH THE ADOPTED GOALS POLICIES AND PROGRAMS OF THE TOWN OF
AVON.
COMMENT: The following are applicable goals, policies and
programs from District Four:
- Promote the development of a variety of commercial
uses which provide goods, services, and shelter to
Interstate travelers, as well as guests and residents
,n the Vail Valley.
-Encourage proper site planning which orients
structures to optimum passive solar exposure and view
orientation while providing view corridors for
building on adjacent sites.
-Reduce the negative influences of noise from I-70
-Improve the landscaping and visual screening of
parking lots as viewed from I-70.
-Encourage development projects which have distinctive
architectural character and have ease of
accessibility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Commission finds that the application meets the
applicable criteria Final Design Review is recommended
subject to the following:
1. Additional landscaping at the dri.,e entries and in
the parking lot is incorporated subject to further
Design Review.
2. Approval of proposed exterior lighting and proposed
landscape irrigation system as presented at the
meeting.
3. Approval or signage as presented at the meeting.
4. Adequate screening of rooftop equipment subject to
further- Design Review.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 2, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
March 7, 1989
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application
2. Presentation by Applicant
3. Consideration by Commission
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Fritzlen
Department of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Conditions ( ✓ )
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( )
Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date -�-aI-aq Denise Hill Secretary Aw zUze
The Commission granted final design review approval, with the condition
that the final sign designs would be brought before the Board at a
later date.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 21, +989
Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
16 Unit Residential Complex
Sonnen Haldi 16 Unit Residential Complex
Stephan Kaelin and Franz Elsigan
John Dunham Project Representative
Kim Weil Architect
Final Design Review
Fractionalized Project
Page 1 of 6
INTRODUCTION
John Dunham on behalf of Stephan Kaelin and Franz Elsigan is
requesting Final Design Review and approval of
Fractionalization for a 16 unit residential complex on Lot 8,
Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The lot is zoned is zoned
Residential Medium Density, RMD. The design review approval
is in conjunction with a request for approval of
fractionalization. The lot has 8 Residen::ial Development
Rights assigned to it, all of which are to be fractionalized
into halves to create a total of 16 residential units not
exceeding 800 sq. ft. each.
The proposed development consists of two buildings with eight
units each. The buildings are three levels high and are
aligned with the southern edge of the property. Proposed
parking is all surface parking (see exhibit). At the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission February 21, 1989 the proposed development
received an informal review.
The Planning and Zoning Commission acts on fractionalization
in conjunction with Final Design Review. Final Design
Approval includes approval of fractionalization of
residential development rights. A public hearing is held on
each design review application which includes
fractionalization of residential development rights.
The Plannirg and Zoning Commission in approving
fractionalization may prescribe appropriate conditions and
safeguards to mitigate impacts related to proposed
fractionalization.
A*'
Staff Repo t to
Lot 8, Block 1,
March 21, 1989
Page 2 of 6
STAFF COMMENT
the Planning and Zoning Commission
Benchmark at Beaver Creek
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 Review Procedures, Rules
and Regulations for the Torn of Avon, when reviewing a
project involving the frract:unalization of development
rights:
1. THE ADEQUACY OF THE 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
COMMENT: Access appears to be adequate.
2. THE NEED FOR AND AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
TRANSPORTATION TO SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT;
COMMENT: The site is in proximity to the Town of Avon town
center but is not on a regular public transportation route.
3. THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT UPON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SERVICES AND FACILITIES SERVING THE AREA;
COMMENT; There does not appear to be any unusual or
significant impact on public or private services by this
proposed development. The fire department has indicated there
is a hydrant on the opposite side of Nottingham Road that is
adequate to serve the proposed project. The fire department
has expressed concern that the rear of the buildings are
potentially inaccessible to fire hose and have suggested that
standpipes be incorporated into the design. Approval of the
fire department is suggested prior to issuance of a permit.
4. THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED UNIT SIZES AND UNIT MIX
WITH EXISTING AND POTENTIAL UNIT SIZES IN THE VICINITY
COMMENT: On the east is the Balas Townhouses and on the west
is the Sherwood Meadows Townhouses. There are 20 residential
units at Sherwood Meadows on 1.47 acres or 13.6 units/acre
and 18 residential units at the Balas and Balas West
Townhouses on 1.45 acres or 12.41 units/acre. SonnenHaldi
will have 16 units on 1.3 acres or 12.3 units per acre. It
appears that the density per acre is less than that of the
Balas Townhouses and Sherwood Meadows.
6.10 DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed project:
IS
Staff Report to
Lot 8, Block 1.
March 21, 1989
Page 3 of 6
the Planning and Zoning Commission
Benchmark at Beaver Creek
6.11 THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE AND OTHER
APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN OF AVON
COMMENT: Proposed signage appears to be within the ten foot
setback.
6.12 THE SUITABILITY OF THE IMPROVEMENT, INCLUDING TYPE AND
QUALITY OF MATERALS OF WHICH IT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND SITE
UPON WHICH IT IS TO BE BUILT.
COMMENT: Materials and design appear to be compatible with
site and surrounding development.
6.13 THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DESIGN TO MINIMIZE SITE IMPACTS
TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
COMMENT: Proposal does not appear to have significant or
unusual impacts on adjacent. properties.
There is an easement on the western portion of the property
that carries drainage from above Nottingham road to the
I-70 right of way. The applicant has been requested to
provide a narrative on the effect of the proposed grading
within the easement in relation to the the disposition of
offsite drainage.
6.14 THE COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITH SITE
TOPOGRAPHY.
COMMENT: Site is moderately sloped and building design steps
with site. Ti.z-e is proposed retainage on the western side of
the parking lot that is seven feet high. Applicant had
considered using the existing access easement that is shared
by Sherwood Meadows but felt that the driveway grade was too
steep to easily integrate an access to the proposed
project.
6.15 THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF ANY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AS
VIEWED FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND PUBLIC WAYS.
COMMENT: The view of the project from Nottingham Road will be
dominated by the parking lot and the view from the highway
will be of the balconies of the units. The north, east and
P"I
Staff Repurt to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
March 21, 1989
Page 4 of 6
west elevations are relatively lacking in architectural
detail and fenestration in comparison to the south side.
Additional landscaping near the building perimeter on these
sides is suggested to soften building edges.
Exterior building materials are wood shakes, horizontal wood
siding, exposed timber columns, balcony fascia, and balcony
rail.
The visual character of the project wi'il likely be dominated
by the long sloping roofs and the rustic materials which
reflect the european alpine theme.
Appliacant has addressed exterior site lighting with low
pedestal fixtures at the walkways. Parking lot lighting has
not been indicated and it is suggested that additional
fixtures be added at parking lot corners and entry.
6.16 THE OBJECTIVE THAT NO IMPROVEMENT BE SO SIMILIAR OR
DISSIMILIAR TO OTHERS IN THE VICINITY THAT VALUES, MONETARY
OR AESTHETIC WILL BE IMPAIRED.
COMMENT: The proposed buildings are identical to each other
but are offset and angled which will mitigate the
regularity.
6.17 THE GENERAL CONFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
WITH THE ADOPTED GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS OF THE TOWN OF
AVON.
The following are applicable goals for District Four:
ENCOURAGE THE PROVISION OF RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL AND
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
COMMENT: The project provides for a sodded lawn area between
the two buildings that could accomodate passive or active
recreation but no ammenities improvements are proposed.
ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPEMNT OF A WIDE VARIETY OF RESIDENTIAL
HOUSING TYPES, PATICULARLY AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS, EITHER
BY SALE OR RENTAL TO PERSONS OF ALL INCOME LEVELS, VISITOR
AND RESIDENT ALIKE.
�o
Staff Report to
Lot 8, Block 1,
March 21, 1989
Page 5 of 6
the Planning and Zoning Ccmmission
Benchmark at Beaver Creek
COMMENT: The project is targeted toward long term residents
employed within the region. The smaller unit size is intended
to make them more affordable.
ENCOURAGE THE PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELPMENT FROM HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
COMMENT: Proposed density appears to be compatible with
surrounding densitites.
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.
COMMENT: Views and balconies are oriented south. Development
above Nottingham road will be at a higher elevation and
nominally obstructed by development on the south side of
Nottingham Road given proposed height.
REDUCE THE NEGATIVE INFLUENCES OF NOISE FROM INTERSTATE 70
AND THE RIO GRANDE RAILROAD.
COMMENT: Although views and solar orientation are south so is
the audial impact of Interstate 70.
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT HAVE DISTINCTIVE
ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER, EASE OF ACCESSIBILITY, PROVIDE
PEDESTRIAN MALLS AND PLAZAS CONTIGUOUS WITH ADJACENT SITES
AND HAVE A COHESIVE ARCHITECTURAL RELATIONSHIP WITH BUILDINGS
ON SURROUNDING SITES.
COMMENT: Proposed development appears to accomplish a
distinctive but complimentary character.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Final Design Review and Fractionalization Approvai is
recommended conditioned by the following:
1. Approval of the drainage plan and fire
protection by the staff prior to issuance of
building permit.
2. Relocation of signage such that it does not
encroach into frontyard setback of 10'-0".
Staff Report to
Lot 8, Block 1,
March 21, 1989
Page 6 of 6
the Planning and Zoning Commission
Benchmark at Beaver Creek
3. Additional landscaping within the front
setback and adjacent to building perimeter on
east, west and north.
4. Additional parking lot lighting at drive
entries and lot corners.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Introduce Application
2. Presentation by Applicant
3. Open Public Hearing for Fractionalization
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Consideration by Commission
6. Act on Request
Respectfully
/Submitted,
L �Fritzlen
Department of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Conditions ( ✓)
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( )
Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date 3-')14q Denise Hill SecretaryY'V 1 /LW&
The Commission granted final design review approval to Lot 8, Block 1,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek approval to include the following conditions:
1 Approval of the drainage plan and fire protection by the _Staff prior
to issuance of building permit. 2. Relocation of signage such that it does
not encroach into frontward setback of 10'
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
March 21, 1989
Page 7 of 7
3. Additional landscaping within the front setback and adjacent
building perimeter on east west and north. 4. Additional parking
lot lighting at drive entries and lot corners.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 21, 1989
Page 1 of 6
Lot 17, Filing No. 3, Eaglebend
Duplex Residence
Sideyard and Frontyard Building
in Conjunction with a Replat of
Eaglebend Subdivision
Wiliiam Loughridge Owner Lot 18
John Appleby Lot 17
Subdivision
Setback Variance
Lots 17 and 18, Filing No. 3,
John Appleby and John Loughridge are requesting a sideyard
and frontyaw:4 setback variance, in conjunction with a replat
of Lots 17 and 18, for two separate residences located within
Filing No. 3 in the Eaglebend Specially Planned Area and
Subdivision. The request for a variance is in conjunction
with a minor subdivision or replat that relocates and
reconfigures the existing lots 17 and 18 (see exhibit). The
relocation and reconfiguration of Lot 18 is within the
applicable setbacks but Lot 17 is not. If the variance is
approved, the applicants will pursue Final Subdivision
approval for the proposed replat from the Town Council.
Filing No. 3 is currently platted for 19 townhouse units. Of
those 19 units twelve have been developed and are commonly
known as the Stonebridge Townhomes. There is one Residential
Development Right assigned to each of the lots.
Lots 1 through 19 as platted represent the area directly
beneath the existing and proposed townhouses. The common area
outside of the lots is Tract B anO is owned in common by the
Stonebridge Condominium Association. The applicant has
procured the written approval of the Stonebridge
Condominimium Association Board of Directors, William Ramsey,
Clyde Johnson and Kurt Kazmierski for the proposed replat and
variance (see exhibit).
The newly platted lots 17 and 18 would allow for two detached
residences with a common driveway rather than the townhouses
with no direct vehicle entry as originally proposed.
Filing No. 3 has a 16'-0" front building setback along is
northern length on Eaglebend Drive and a 100'-0" setback from
the eastern property line adjacent to Lot 19, Filing No. 1.
Eaglebend Subdivision owned by John Railton. The purpose of
the sideyard setback was to buffer the higher and lower
densities between Filing No. 3 and Filing No. 1.
John Railton architect has provided architectural schematics
for site improvements related to the development of lot 18
and 17 and architectural schematics for the proposed detached
residence on Lot 18.
rl�%
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Lot 17, Filing No. 3, Eaglebend Subdivision
March 21, 1989
Page 2 of 6
The proposed location of Lot 17 would require a variance of
6'-0" from the 16'-0" front building setback locating it
10'-0" from the public right of way and a 20'-0" variance
from the 100'-0' building sideyard setback locating the
building 80'-0" away from Lot 19 of Filing No. 1.
The applicant has provided the following response to the
applicable criteria for the granting of a variance:
of the regulation.
APPLICANT RESPONSE: 1.1. The houses get too close
together to provide adequate driveway, parking and snow
storage areas. 2. The houses get too close to the river
to provide a safe distance from the river and rear
landscape. 3. The views from existing units are obscured
without this variance.
STAFF RESPONSE: Given the proposed lot configuration the
the applicant's response is correct.
district.
one
APPLICANT RESPONSE: Sites are small in dimension from
the street to metcalf ditch easement. 2. Lesser setbacks
have already been recognized by setback distances
varying from street and by variances granted to date.
STAFF RESPONSE: Filing three narrows substantially on
its eastern end. Given the proposed depth of the
building envelope of Lot 18 and existing grades the
applicant's response is correct.
Wk
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Lot 17, Filing No. 3, Eaglebend Subdivision
March 21, 1989
Page 3 of 6
APPLICANT RESPONSE: 1. Adequate river bank yard space,
garden and landscape. 2. Interface with river views by
existing houses on the ea3t and west of proposed
applicant's houses. 3. Driveway grades get too steep
as garages are moved back further from the street.
STAFF RESPONSE: The existing setbacks were established
in relation to a phased multi unit townhouse complex.
The proposed use departs from the original concept and
consequently has site impacts not anticipated in the
original layout. The 100'-0" sideyard setback was
originally proposed to buffer differing densities of
development but the proposed detached duplexes are now
more similiar to adjacent development on the east than
the Stonebridge Townhomes.
The frontyard setback is acceptable to staff if the turn
around area is adequate to allow vehicles to manuever
such that they are not backing out into the public right
of way.
The following are applicable criteria and findings for the
granting of a variance:
17.36.040 Approval Criteria. Before acting on a variance
application, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider the following factors with respect to the requested
variance:
A. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existing and 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 a 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;
STAFF REPORT TO THc PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Lot 17, Filing No. 3, Eaglebend Subdivision
March 21, 1989
Page 4 of 6
D. Such other factors and criter;a as the board deems
applicable to the proDos-d variance.
17 36 050 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 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,
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.
STAFF RECOMENDATIONS
If the Commission determines that there are adequate findings
for the granting of a variance approval is recommended. Staff
has prepared Resolution 89-4 recommending granting of the
variance with the following conditions:
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Lct 17, Filing No. 3, Eaglebend Subdivision
March 21, 1989
Page 5 of 6
1. The approval of the variance is
contingent upon approval of the Final
Plat of Lots 17 and 18, Filing No. 3,
Eaglebend Subdivsion as presented with
the application.
2. The variance, resubdivision and
subsequent building and site design
review approval does not allow the
proposed openspace to diminish below 60%
as required for Filing No. 3 for the
existing and approved future development.
3. Any further conditions as imposed
through the design review process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Introduce Application
2. Presentation by Applicant
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Close Public Hearing
5. Consideration By Commission
6. Act on Variance Request
7. Adopt Resolution 89-4
Respectfully Submitted,
L n Fritzlen
Department of Community Development
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Lot 17, Filing No. 3, Eaglebend Subdivision
March 21, 1989
Page 6 of 6
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as Submitted ( L,"'�) Approved with Conditions ( )
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( )
Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) /,
Date Denise Hill Secretary XlF62liZC �GGc
The Commission approved Resolution 89-4, "A Resolution Granting a
Variance From the Sideyard and Frontyard Building Setback Require-
ments as Stipulated in Title 17, Filing No. 3, Eaglebend Subdivision,
Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado" which includes the following
conditions: 1. The approval of the variance is contingent upon the approval
of final plat of lots 17 and 18, Filing No. 3, Eaglebend Subdivision as
presented with the application; 2. The variance, resubdivision and
subsequent building and site design review approval does not allow the
R
openspace to diminish below 60' as required for Filing No. 3
for Filing No 3. for the existing and approved future development.
3. Anv further conditions as imposed through sisview process
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 21, 1989
Lot 68, Block 4 , Wildridge Subdivision
Kunis Single Family Residence
Bob and Kathy Kunis
Steve Hyland Project Representative
Final Design Review
Page 1 of 4
INTRODUCTION
Steve Hyland on behalf of Bob and Kathy Kunis is requesting
Final Design Review for a single family residence located on
Lot 68, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision (see exhibit). The
street address of the project is 5301 Ferret Lane and is
located on a cul de sac serving six other lots none of which
have been developed. The lot is located in the Wildridge
Specially Planned Area and is assigned two residential
development rights. The house is two storys and has a pitched
roof. Exterior materials are diagonal wood siding and a
composition roof.
STAFF COMMENT
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: Proposed use is in conformance with applicable
regulations. The applicant has not indicated whether the
additional RDR is to be transferred or to be developed on the
same lot at a later time.
The following information was not included on the plans and
should be addressed prior to Final Design Review
consideration:
- Adequate dimensions from building to adjacent property
lines to locate proposed improvements are not indicated on
the site plan.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 68, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
March 21, 1989
Page 2 of 4
-Exterior lighting.
-Applicable wetbacks are not shown on site plan. It appears
that from scaling the plan there is an encroachment into the
front 25'-0" building setback and the 10'-0" front parking
setback.
-Proposed landscaping irrigation.
6.12 THE SUITABILITY OF THE IMPROVEMENT, INCLUDING TYPE AND
QUALITY OF MATERIALS OF WHICH IT IS TC BE CONSTRUCTED AND
SITE UPON WHICH IT IS TO BE BUILT.
COMMENT: Exterior materials are similiar to others in
Wildridge. Proposed residence is compatible ,ith existing and
surrounding uses.
6.13 THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DESIGN TO MINIMIZE SITE IMPACTS
TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
COMMENT: Roof and driveway drainage will sheet off the sit,:
onto Lot 67 below. Directing site drainage into sideyard
drainage easements prior to leaving the site is suggested.
6.14 THE CGMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITH SITE
TOPOGRAPHY.
COMMENT: The natural grade slopes at approximatley 10% from
the Ferret Lane on the north to the end of the lot on the
south. The proposed grade slopes similiarly down the east
and west elevations with the siding coming within six inches
of grade.
6.15 THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF ANY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AS
VIEWED FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND PUBLIC WAYS.
COMMENT: The rear or south side of the house will be the most
visible to residents of Wildridge. Windows and overhangs and
on the south elevation are nominal, additional overhangs may
add architectural interest as well as protect the residence
from a surplus of solar gain.
A satellite dish is proposed on the downhill side of the lot
that is screened by three evergreens on the north but nothing
on the south. Additional screening is suggested.
�01
StaFf Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 68, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision,
March 21, 1989
Page 3 of 4
6.16 THE OBJECTIVE THAT NO IMPROVEMENT BE SO SIMILIAR OR
DISSIMILIAR TO OTHERS IN THE VICINITY THAT VALUES, MONETARY
OR AESTHETIC WILL BE IMPAIRED.
COMMMENT:There is very little development in the immediate
vicinity to compare to.
5.17 THE GENERAL CONFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
WITH THE ADOPTED GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS OF THE TOWN OF
AVON.
There are no adopted goals, policies, and programs for the
district Wildridge is located in.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As proposed the residence would require a frontyard building
setback variance in order to be approved for Final Design
Review. It is recommended that the item be tabled until a
variance approval is granted or the site plan has been
revised to show improvements outside of applicable setbacks.
Additionally it is suggested that the following items
be addressed prior to Final Design Review.
1. Adequate dimensions from bu';lding to adjacent
property lines to locate proposed improvements.
2. Exterior lighting.
3. Proposed landscaping irrigation is not addressed.
4. Additional satellite dish screening.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Applicaticn
2. Presentation by Applicant
3. Consideration; by Commission
4. Table Final Design Review
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 68, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
March 21, 1989
Page 4 of 4
RespectFully Submitted,
v��
L nn Fritzlen
Department of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Conditions (Lz)
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( )
Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date 3 ?j_K Denise Hi 11 Secretaryril]!j JLC
The Commission granted final design review approval with the condition
that the appli-ant meet the following Staff Recommendations: 1. Adequate
dimensions from building to adjacent property line to locate proposed
improvements; 2. Exterior lighting; 3. Proposed landscaping irrigation
be addressed; and 4. Additional satellite screening