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