PZC Packet 0221891
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
February 21, 1989 w:
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA 9.3 Acre Parcel
Located in Section 12 Township 5 South Range 82 West of the
6th PM and Section 7 Township 5 South Range 81 West of the
6th PM, Town of Avon, Previously Annexed as White Eagle River
Townhouse Annexation. This property is located between
Highway Six and the Eagle River and between Avon Road and
Stonebridge Drive. Request for Zone Change from NC to SPA for
Riverside Center and White Eagle River Townhouse Annexation
inconjuction with a Specially Planned Area Proposal.
INTRODUCTION
Peter Jamar, on behalf of Ken Kriz and Golden Buff
Enterprises, owners of the above described properties, is
requesting approval for a zone change in conjunction with a
minor subdivision for a Specially Planned Area Development
Proposal.
Presently the portion of the White Eagle River Townhouse
Annexation consisting of 9.27 acres, owned by Golden Buff
Enterprises is split into the following:
Riverside Center Subdivision - 5.69 acres
Subdivided into the following:
Lot 1 - 1.2 acres Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial
Tract A - 4.4 acres Zoning: Openspace, Landscape
and Drainage
Yacht Club Specially Planned Area - 3.57 acres
This parcel was approved but never finally platted
for the following:
Lot 1 - 1.2 acres Zoning: SPA 20 RDR's
Lot 2 - .37 acres Zoning: SPA 8 RDR's
Tract A - 2.0 acres Zoning: SPA
Allowed Uses: Open Space
The owner would like to re -combine the subdivision and zone
the entirety of the parcel SP.,. This prccess will require a
zoning amendment and a subdivision approval per the
following:
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA - 9.27 acres
Subdivided into the following:
Lot 1 - 2.5 acres Zoning: SPA 38 RDR's
Allowed Uses: 150 Unit Accommodation Unit Lodge
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
February 21, 1989
Page 2 of 14
with 5,000 sq. ft. of ancillary commercil
Lot 2 - .37 acres Zoning: SPA 8 RDR's
Allowed Uses: 8 dwelling units - This portion of
the zone change request is identical to what was
previously approved.
Tract A - 6.40 acres Zoning: SPA 0 RDR's
Allowed Uses: Openspace, Landscape and Drainage
Approximately 1-1/2 acres of the tract is suitable
for development as a riverfront recreation area.
The remainder is steeply sloped or under water.
The applicant intends to dedicate Tract A to the
Town of Avon.
The intent of the owner once the approvals are in place is to
find a suitable party to carry out the development of the
lodge.
Architectural schematics have been prepared by Buff Arnold as
an exhibit to the application for a new SPA designation in
order to demonstrate the site's ability to handle the
requested density.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTEXT OF THE SITE
1. Existing and potential development on adjacent
properties.
The proposed Riverside Subdivision is bounded by Nottingham
Station, the Doll property and Eaglebend on the north, the
Folson annexation on the South, unincorporated Eagle Vail on
the east, and an unincorporated parcel on the west owned by
Vail Associates.
Nottingham Station and the Folson Annexation are both zoned
SPA, but as 3f yet there are no approved development
proposals for those properties. Their use and character is
yet undefined.
Eaglebend Area I and II sit between Stonebridge Drive and the
Doll property. Area I and II are zoned for 139 Residential
Development Rights that may be fractionalized at a ratio of
2-1/2 to 1. The lot area of Area I and II is 7.4 acres which
is equal to approximately 19 units per acre.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 3 of 14
2. Environmental character of the site and adjacent
properties.
Lot 1 of the proposed Riverside SPA is a long narrow parcel
tapering from approximately one hundred and sixty feet at the
center to eighty feet at the ends. The lot is approximately
1200 feet in length. The long narrow site configuration will
likely determine the building configuration, given the
density requesteC. Approximately one half of Lot 1 exceeds a
15% slope and approximately one third exceeds a 30% slope.
Slopes over 30% typically require more highly engineered
drainage plans, more cut and fill, more retainage and more
construction expense in order to be properly developed.
The configuration of Lot 1 in conjunction with a single point
of vehicle access would likely preclude any loop flow.
Vehicular emergency access to the riverside of the project
will also be difficult to accomplish given proposed
developemnt and site configuration.
It appears that the majority of Tract A is steeply sloped and
relatively vehicularly inaccessible. Access from Lot 1 to
Tract A should be a consideration in order to ensure
adequate maintenance of the proposed open space.
The area of District Five surrounding the proposed SPA will
likely develop in a manner distinct from that of central Avor
due to the natural and manmade boundaries defining the area
and the dominance of the Eagle River as a recreational asset
and Highway 6 as the main thoroughfare.
3. Evaluation of the following in relation to proposed
density on Lot 1.
a. Available access to the site.
Available access is from Highway 6 and a
Highway Department access permit will be required.
b. Existing and potential impacts on public
streets and roads.
Impact of current and proposed zoning should be
essentially the same.
C. Existing and potential transportation to the
site.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 4 of 14
At present public transportation is not available to nor
planned for this area. Planning for the future of the public
transportation system has been aimed primarily at the Town
Core. The developer should anticipate providing
transportation service to meet the needs of the proposed
project.
d. Buildable area.
Approximately 66,783 sq. ft. sit within the
proposed setbacks. The arts within the setbacks constitutes
61% of the lot. The requested maximum building area ratio
should be reduced to 50% to realistically reflect the
buildable area within the setbacks.
e. Availability of utilities.
Verification of utilities were provided
previously through the design review application requirements
for both the Yacht Club and the Riverside Center proposals.
Copies of these letters are included in Mr. Jamar's report.
EVALUATION IN RELATION TO WORKING GOALS, POLICIES AND
STRATEGIES
1. Point by Point Staff comment to working goals.
In order to evaluate the proposed zone change and
resubdivision, this report uses the adopted Goals, Policies
and Strategies for District Five as a framework for Staff
comment.
District Five Boundaries: The area South of the centerline
of the Denver Rio Grande & Western Railway right-of-way, to
the centerline of Highway 6 and the southern boundary of the
Folson Addition; bounded on the East by the eastern
boundaries of the Nottingham Station Addition, the Kriz/White
Addition and the Folson Addition; on the West by the western
most property line of Cottonwood Addition and the Folson
Addition.
I. Economic Development:
A. Goals:
1. Encourage the expansion of
residential density, for both short and long term occupancy,
provided that there is an appropriate improvement in the mix
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
FebruarY 21, 1989
Page 5 of 14
of commercial uses, recreational amenities and the expansion
of the pedestrian/vehicular circulation system.
COMMENT: Proposal includes ancillary commercial
and recreational amenities. Pedestrian and vehicular
interconnections with adjacent properties are not indicated.
2.
Encourage
the expansion
of
the
Central Business District
onto
adjacent sites
that
are
accessible by separated
or on -grade
railroad grade
crossings,
provided that there
is an
appropriate
mix
of
commercial/residential
uses, and
the extension
of
the
pedestrian and vehicular
system.
COMMENT: The site is relatively isolated from
adjacent properties by the Eagle River and Highway 6. Direct
pedestrian or additional vehicular interconnections to the
Town Center District are not easily accomplished. A
commercial hotel use, to date, is unique to the Highway 6
corridor, but location is highly suited to visitor oriented
use due to its proximity to a major traffic interchange and
adjacency to Beaver Creek ski area entrance and
transportation facilities.
3. Promote the development of
non-residential uses provided that they are compatible with
surrounding residential uses and accommodate improvements in
the pedestrian and vehicular circulation system.
COMMENT: The proposed use is buffered from less
intensive uses by the river and proposed open space.
B. Policies:
1. Encourage the assemblage of parcels
where it would facilitate the development of commercial and
lodging uses.
COMMENT: The proposed assemblage of the two
parcels consolidates site access and more efficiently
utilizes buildable area.
2. Encourage the provision of
recreational, cultural, and educational facilities in
development projects.
COMMENT: An amenities area for hotel guests is
incorporated in the plans.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 6 of 14
3. Attract entertainment and restaurant
uses.
COMMENT: Proposed commercial space would allow
incorporation of a theatre or entertainment use could
conceivably be included in the development given the proposed
zoning.
4. Promote the inclusion of service and
professional offices within development projects.
COMMENT: Hotel use is not highly compatible with
office uses.
5. Establish pedestrian -oriented
commercial activities.
COMMENT: Proposed commercial uses are ancillary to
hotel and will be accessed primarily from the interior of the
complex.
6. Promote both day and nighttime
commercial activities.
COMMENT: Previously addressed.
II. Housing Development:
A. Goals:
1. Encourage the development of a wide
variety of residential housing types, particularly affordable
dwelling units, either by purchase or rental, to persons of
all income levels, visitor and residential alike.
COMMENT: There are other areas in District Five
that will more likely develop as long term, affordable
housing due to their greater suitability for residential
development. Those are the western portion of Eaglebend and
the undeveloped land near Sunridge Condominiums.
2. Encourage the physical separation of
low density residential development from mixed-use
commercial/residential or higher density residential areas.
COMMENT: Tract A and the ri\.er itself will serve
as a substantial buffer between existing and proposed
development on adjacent properties.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 7 of 14
B. Policies:
1. Promote tourist lodging.
COMMENT: This proposal clearly promotes tourist
lodging.
III. Transportation and Circulation:
A. Goals:
1. Provide for both public and private
mass transportation and convenient mass transit facilities
that will reduce vehicular traffic, as well as encourage
commercial and recreational patronage.
COMMENT: This site is not presently on a Town of
Avon Bus Route and is not within reasonable walking distance
to Avon -Beaver Creek Transit.
2. Encourage centralized public/private
parking facilities in areas where the shared use and access
between such parking facilities will improve pedestrian and
vehicular circulation.
COMMENT: Vehicular access easement from Lot 1 to
Tract A would allow ease of future development of Tract A as
a recreational area.
3. Provide for the safe separation of
pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic.
COMMENT: Pedestrian and bicycle traffic
improvements have been made on Highway 6.
4. Improve the vehicular circulation
system.
COMMENT: Consolidating access from Highway 6 to
serve a single project will help relieve future congestion.
5. Improve the vehicular circulation
system, particularly for service, delivery, emergency, and
mass transit vehicles.
COMMENT: Due to linearity of site and single
access point, vehicular circulation on site will not flow
easily.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 8 of 14
B. Policies:
1. Provide a vehicular access control
plan that protects the safety of the streets and allows good
access to private property.
COMMENT: Proposal accomplishes this.
2. Provide for the extension of
greenbelt, pedestrian, bicycle, and street right-of-ways onto
lands adjacent to the Town boundaries.
COMMENT: Dedication of Tract A clearly promotes
this policy.
3. Encourage the acquisition of
-ight-of-ways for the improved circulation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic by means of easements and other appropriate
agreements with property owners.
COMMENT: Previously addressed.
4. Encourage the provision of
pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular ways on both developed anrt
undeveloped sites.
COMMENT: Bicycle and pedestrian improvements have
been made along Highway 6.
5. Promote additional vehicular and
pedestrian crossings through the Denver Rio Grande and
Western and Highway 6 right-of-ways and the Eagle River.
COMMENT: Dedication of Tract A will enhance the
possiblilty of pedestrian connection across the Eagle River.
C. Strategies:
1. Promote the construction of
additional on -grade crossings and a separated pedestrian and
vehicular grade crossing on Avon Road through the Denver Rio
Grandy and Western Railroad right-of-way.
COMMENT: Not applicable.
IV. Community Facilities:
A. Goals:
1.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 9 of 14
1. Encourage residential developers to
provide on-site cultural, educational, and recreational
facilities for their guests and residents.
COMMENT: Previously addressed.
2. Promote natural and landscaped open
space, parks, playgrounds, and pedestrian malls.
COMMENT: Previously addressed.
3. Encourage and provide for contiguous
parking facilities between adjacent sites that are available
for use by the general public.
COMMENT: Previously addressed
B. Policies:
1. Promote the creation of a Riverfront
Park that provides for a variety of aquatic sports, passive
recreational activities, public access by means of continuous
paths and bikeways, the protection of streambank vegetation,
adjacent floodplains, wildlife habitat, historical buildings,
and residential privacy.
COMMENT: Dedication of Tract A clearly supports
this policy.
V. Community Design:
A. Goals:
1. Protect the efficiency and safety of
the area by encouraging compatible uses to develop around its
perimeter.
COMMENT: Site is surrounded by open space.
2. Encourage proper site planning which
orients structures to optimum passive solar exposure and view
orientation while providing view corridors for building on
adjacent sites.
COMMENT: View for adjacent properties are
primarily towards the river. Proposed height will be
substantially screened by existing conifers. Further
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 10 of 14
addressed through the Design Review Process.
3. Provide flexible setback standards,
shared parking facilities and increased allowable lot
coverage in order to facilitate the development of commercial
and public uses.
COMMENT: The requested SPA zoning allows for
greater flexibility.
4. Encourage a minimum/maximum size and
mass of building by providing design guidelines that
reinforce the emergence of a cohesive townscape.
COMMENT: The SPA zone designation will set forth
maximum height and building footprint.
5. Promote an urban townscape that
provides for structures, on the same or adjacent sites, of
varying heights from low to high profile, that incorporate
and establish a pedestrian scale; significant landscaping;
continuous interior and exterior public malls;
interconnected, covered, centralized parking, enclosed
atriums, and interior open space; community recreational,
educational, and cultural facilities.
COMMENT: The architectural schematics illustrate
inherent site constraints. The buildable area is linear,
approximately 750 feet in length. The building height stays
relatively consistent for the length of the building. The
site grades, area and linear configuration in combination
with the proposed use and density require an extremely
efficient building and site circulation plan which limits
design flexibility and tends toward architectural simplicity
and monumentalism.
6. Encourage design standards which
protect structures against damage from natural hazards.
COMMENT: Geology repo,t recommends no construction
on river bank. 30'-0" setback from mean annual high water
mark should be preserved.
7. Reduce the negative influences from
visual blight and noxious odor.
COMMENT: Hotel and retail commercial uses are
environmentally desirable "clean industries" which help
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 11 of 14
preserve the natural scenic beauty of the area while still
contributing to its economic base.
8. Reduce the negative influences of
noise from Highway 6 and the Denver Rio Grande and Western
Railroad.
COMMENT: The proposed buildable area lies 15'-0"
below Highway 6, which will mitigate noise at the first two
stories. Landscaping in the front setback should be
considered at the design review level as a further abatement
measure.
B. Policies:
1. Locate service, professional, and
lodging uses above grade level commercial uses.
COMMENT: This has been accomplished.
2. Provide for adequate snow removal and
storage facilities, as well as the retention and removal cf
pollutants from surface runoff.
COMMENT: Design review issue.
3. Provide for the location of utility
easements, lines, and facilities so that they minimize damage
to native vegetation, streets, walkways, and principal view
corridors, or renders platted property unbuildable.
COMMENT: Design Review issue. Vegetation
inventory required for evaluation.
4. Discourage the construction upon, or
removal of, native vegetation from steep slope areas in order
to prevent erosion, landslides and unsightly scarring.
COMMENT: Previously addressed.
5. Provide protection for pedestrians
and outdoor recreational amenities against prevailing winter
winds through the use of appropriate landscaping and
architectural features.
COMMENT: Design Review issue.
6. Improve the landscaping and visual
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 12 of 14
screening of surface parking lots.
COMMENT.* Design Review issue.
7. Encourage development projects that
have distinctive architectural character, ease of
accessibility, and that provide pedestrian malls and plazas
contiguous with adjacent sites.
COMMENT: Previously addressed.
8. Establish a pedestrian scale that
considers the height of surrounding buildings, solar
exposure, the width of streets, pedestrian ways, the sense of
enclosure and proximity to the Eagle River and other
significant water courses.
COMMENT: Proposed height is greater than currently
allowed zoning.
9. Permit the encroachment of
appropriate, pedestrian -oriented, commercial uses onto
pedestrian ways.
COMMENT: Design Review issue.
10. Orient entrances of commercial
facilities to pedestrian ways, while providing convenient
access to centralized parking areas.
COMMENT: Design Reviev; issue.
11. Protect the Eagle River and its
streambanks as well as other significant water courses from
non-essential filling and dredging, removal of trees and
other established vegetation, confinment of its floodplain,
and the incursion of pollutants.
COMMENT: Previously addressed.
12. Encourage requirements and standards
for the design and construction of curb and gutter, sidewalks
on appropriate development projects.
COMMENT: Design Review issue.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 13 of 14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION
The following are recommended conditions to the approval for
the requested zone change prepared by Staff:
1. Provide a Town of Avon access and maintenance easement
from Lot 1 to Tract A as part of zoning and subdivision
approval.
2. There shalt be no intrusion into the rear setbacks for
built recreational facilities as proposed.
3. Maximum building area ratio shall be reduced to 50% to
realistically reflect the area within the proposed setbacks
that is suitable for development.
4. Exception to the 10'-0" parking setback from the front
property line shall be limited to a maximum of 200 ft. to
allow for the construction of access ramp to underground
parking facilities.
5. Zoning approval shall be contingent upon approval and
recording of Final Subdivision Plat conformiong with proposed
zoning.
6. The Assigned Density for Lot 1 be revised to read: No
Residential Development Rights are assigned. Development
shall be allowed in accordance with Allowed Uses.
7. The Allowed Uses for Lot 1 be revised to read: 150
Accommodation Unit, Hotel, Lodge or Motel, with a maximum of
5,000 net square feet of commercial use which may consist of
retail shops, restaurants, personal service shops, cocktail
lounge and office.
Staff has prepared a Planning and Zoning Comission Resolution
recommeding approval to the Town Council with the above
conditions for consideration by the Commission.
20
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA
February 21, 1989
Page 14 of 14
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Introduce Application;
2. Presentation by Applicant;
3. Open Public Hearing;
4. Close Public Hearing;
5. Consideration by Commission;
6. Act on Application.
Respectfully submitted, 7�
Norman Wood /
Lynn Fritzlen
Department of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended
Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions (t,/)
Continued (
) Denied ( ) Withdrawn (_ )
The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 89_2,
recommending to the Town Council that the Council adoot Ordinance 39-5,
Series of 1939 with the conditions 1 through 3 as presented, condition
4 to remain at 60 develooable area and condition 5 to remain as stated,
and condition 5 to state the assigned density for Lot 1 to be revised to
read- 150 accommodation unit development rights are assigned, which may
be developed only in accordance with allowed uses; and condition 7 to
remain as stated.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
February 21, 1989
Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
24 Unit Residential Complex
South Harbor Development Corporation
Tony Seibert'
Preliminary Design Review
Fractionalized Project
Page 1 of 4
INTRODUCTION
Tony Seibert of South Harbor Development Corporation is
requesting Preliminary Design Review for a 24 unit
residential complex on Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek. The lot is zoned Residential High Density and
Commercial. The Design Review application is in conjunction
with a request for approval for fractionalization. The lot
has 16 Residential Development Rights assigned to it, twelve
of which are to be split in half to create a total of 24
residential units not exceeding 800 sq. ft. each.
The proposed development consists of four buildings with six
units each. The buildings are three levels high and are
aligned with the southwestern or river edge of the property.
Proposed parking is primarily surface parking. The parking
located on the northern property line, abutting the existing
railroad, is proposed to be an open carport. Built
improvements within a sideyard setback require a variance
which was approved February 7, 1989 at the regular meeting of
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
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: It appears that the individual units may exceed the
800 sq. ft. limit for 1\2 of a Residential Development Right
by 20 to 40 sq. ft. Additional dimensional information is
needed to make an exact determination.
The balconies of the east side units of the easternmost
building appear to be encroaching into the 25' front building
setback.
The staff has concerns that the westernmost buildings may not
be accessible to fire protection. Additional onsite fire
Staf` .deport to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 8, Blcck 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
February 21, 1989
Page 2 of 4
protection may be required.
Compact parking spaces are indicated in an exterior
loacation.
6.12.
The suitability of the improvement, including type and
quality of materials of which it is to constructed and site
upon which it is to be built.
COMMENT: The proposed development is similiar to adjacent
Sunridge in regards to neight, type of exterior materials and
fenestration. The buildings themselves thougi are not as
large as those of Sunridge and are probably more desirable in
terms of scale for a residential project.
6.13 The compatilbility of the design to minimize site
impacts to adjacent properties.
COMMENT: The site is relatively, isolated Dy the river and the
railroad. The project has no unusual or signifi•.ant impacts
on adjacent properties.
The applicant has shown improvements including a gravel path
and picnic area as part of the proposal on the adjacent
openspace tract. District Five Goals and Policies encourage
the incorporation of recreational facilities within proposed
development. Permission of the owner of the tract should be
obtained prior to approving site development as presented.
6.14
The compatibility of proposed improvements with site
topography.
COMMENT: The site is gently sloped and easily accomodates the
proposed improvements. Proposed buildings sit behind the
beginning of riverbank.
6.15
The visual appearance of any proposed improvemnt as viewed
from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways.
COMMENT: This project will be screened from the north and
south by the railroad fence and the river vegetation,
respectively. The primary view of the project wil be from
Deaver Creek Place. Landscaping is proposed at the drive
entries.
The carports are enclosed in a long uninterrupted structure
and may benefit from varying the parapet height or some other
means of creating visual interest.
a;
•
Staff Repot to the Planning
Lot 8, Block 3 Benchmark at
February 21, 1989
Page 3 of 4
and Zoning Commission
Beaver Creek
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.
SOMMENT: The proposed buildings are identical to each other
but are offset and angled which will mitigate the regularity.
6.17
The general confo-mance of the proposed improvements with the
adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon.
Thi following are applicable Goals for District Five:
Encourage the development of residential housing types,
paticularly affordable dwelling units, either by purchase or
rental to persons of all income levels visitor and resident
alike .
Promote the creation of a Riverfront Front Pa,k that
provides for a variety of aquatic sports, passive
recreational activities, public access be means of continuous
paths and bikeways, the protection of streambank vegetation,
adjacent floodpl.ains, wildlife habitat, historical buildings
and residential privacy.
Approval for Fractionalized Projects
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the
following factors in addition to the Design Review Guidelines
listed in Section 6.00 of the Design Procedures, Rules and
Regulations for the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
Town of Avon when -eviewing a project involving the
fractionalization of residential developemnt rights:
1. The adequacy of access to the site with respect to the
width of the adjacent streets, their grades, intersection
safety visibility and entrance into the lot to be developed.
COMMENT: Access appears to be adequate.
2. The need for and availability of public or private
transportation to serve the proposed development;
COMMENI: The site is immediately adjacent to a Town of Avon
bus stop although there is no service at this time.
The impact of the proposed project upon public and private
services and facilities serving the area;
•
Fsl
.N
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 8 Block , 3 Benchmark at Beaver Creeks
February 21, 1989
Page 4 of 4
COMMENT: There does not appear to be any unusual or
significant impact on public or private services by this
proposed developement. This site was originally assigned 31
residential development rights with the original platting of •
of the Benchmark Subdivision. 15 of those RDR's were
trnncforrpd to the Sunridae Phase II propoerties in 1980.
4. The compatibility of the proposed unit sizes and unit mix
with existing and potential development in the vicinity;
COMMENT: Unit sizes are similiar to the adjacent Sunridge
projects.
Staff Recommendations:
This is a Preliminary Design Review and no formal action will
be taken. There are a number of items that must be submitted
prior to final review which include: drainage plan,
information on the exterior lighting, proposed irrigation
System, detailed dimensioned floor plans and permission of
the adjacent property owner for the proposed improvements in
the openspace tract. Design modifications to the proposed
carports are recommended. Lastly comb ,ct parking spaces are
not allowed in an exterior location. Proposed spaces on the
west should be redimensioned .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Introduce Application
Presentation by Applicant
Consideration by Commission
Respectfully Submitted
Lynn`Fritzlen
Department of Community Developemnt
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
February 21, 1989
Page 1 of 3
Lot 16, Block 1, Filing 1, Eaglebend
Detached Dupex Residence
John Railton
Final Design Review
INTRODUCTION
John Railton is requesting Final Design Review approval for a
detached duplex proposal on Lot 16, 41ock 1, Filing 1,
Eaglebend. The east and west residences are 2200 sq. ft and
1800 sq. ft. respectively and share a common drive and
interconnecting deck.
STAFF COMMENT ,.
6.10 DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS
THE COMMINSSION 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 REGULATION OF THE TOWN OF AVON.
COMMENT: The application appears to be in conformance with
all applicable regulations.
6.12 THE COMPATILBILITY OF THE DESIGN TO MINIMIZE SITE
IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
COMMENT: The site slopes moderately from the road down to the
Eagle River Bank. Building design steps with slope. It
appears that approximately 100 sq. ft. of deck encroaches
beyond the edge of the river bank. Given the 'imited site
depth above the river bank on the west side of the property
it would be difficult to pull the west building behind the
river bank without a front setback variance. It is
recommended to limit all new grading and landscape
improvenments to the area behind the bank. This would require
minor modifications to the landscape and grading plan.
6.13 THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DESIGN TO MINIMIZE SITE IMPACTS
TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
COMMENT: The design has no unusual or significant impacts on
adjacent propoerties.
6.14 THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITH SITE
TOPOGRAPHY.
COMMENT: The proposec improvements appear to be compatible
with site topography.
we
w
i 1
GO
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 17, Block 1, Filing 1, Eaglebend
Page 2 of 3 fflll�
6.15 THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF ANY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AS
VIEWED FORM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND PUBLIC WAYS.
COMMENT: All four elevations have visual interest and
variety. 540
6.16 THE OBJECTIVE THAT NO IMPROVEMENT BE SO SIMILIAR OR
DISSIMILIAR TO OTHERS IN THE AREA THAT VALUES, MONETARY OR
AESTHETIC WILL BE IMPAIRED.
COMMENT: The two sides are neither identical in size or
elevation but are complimentary in form and detail.
6.17 THE GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE ADOPTED GOALS, POLICIES
AND PROGRAMS OF THE TOWN OF AVON.
COMMMENr: There are no adopted goals for the Eaglebend
Subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Final Design Review approval is recommended conditioned by
the following:
1. Approval of exterior material samples and colors as
presented at the meeting.
2. Approval of exterior lighting as presented at the meeting.
3. the inclusion of adequate hosebibs on the building permit
plans to maintain the approved landscape materials.
4. All finish grading and landscape and building improvements
with the exception of the western deck, be located behind the
top of the Eagle Riverbank.
Recommended Action:
1. Introduce Application.
2. Presentation by Applicant.
3. Consideration by Commission.
4. Act on Request.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 16, Block 1, Filing 1, Eaglebend
February 21, 1989
Page 3 of 3
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Fritzlen
Department of Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved wiA Conditions ( )
Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( )
Denied ( )Withdrawn ( )
Date Denise Hill Secretary iignm0
Final Design Review approval was granted, subject to the Staff recommendations
of approval of exterior colors, approval of exterior lighting. the inclusion
of adequate hosebibs on the building permit plans to maintain the approved
landscape materials and all finish grading and landscape and hjilding
improvements, with the exception of the western deck. he located hehind the
top of the Eagle River bank and also the relocation of the fireplace rhace,
Go
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
February 21, 1989
Page 1 of 2
Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Christy Lodge Unit C-19
Subway Subs Canopy and Sign
Sign Variance and Design Review
Jim Comerford
INTRODUCTION
Jim Comerford owner of Subways Subs located on the ground
floor of the Christy Lodge Building is requesting Design
Review Approval for a canopy and signage for the entry to his
business. The canopy and sign are not in conformance with the
approved sign program for the Christy Lodge. Mr. Comerford
does not have the written approval of the Christy Lodge
owners association or sign program administrator included
with his application. As of the date of prepartion of this
report no dimensional or graphic information has been
submitted with the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Due to the incomplete nature of the application denial
recommended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Introduce Application
2. Presentation by Applicant
3. Consideration by Commission
4. Act on Application
Respectfully Submitted,
L7nn
Department of Community Development
is
n
0
0
0
40
Staff Report to The Planning and Zoning Commission
Subway Subs Canopy and Sign •
February 21, 1989
Page 2 of 2
40
PLANNINu AND ZONING ACTION
Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Conditions 1 )
Approved ( ) Apprcved with Modified Conditions ( )
Continued ( ✓) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( )
Date�i a� �1 Denise Hill Secretary _ OV11110t 11
This item was tabled until the next meeting to allow the applicant to
apply for a variance.
Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
February 21, 1989
John Dunham, Kim Weil
Informal Review
1NTRODUCTION
John Dunham on behalf of Sefan Kaelin and Franz Eisigan is
requesting an informal review under Other Business of a
proposed 16 unit residential project. Tile property has a
assigned Residential Development Rights that are proposed to
be fractionalized into 16 units 800 sq. ft. or lesF each .
The applicant has submitted architectural schematics. This is
an informal review and there are no formal staff
recommendations.
Respectfully Submitted,
J
Lynn Fritzlen
Department of Community Development
4M]
r-.
•
I -
MEMO
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, February 21, 1989
Page 2
Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Christie Lodge Unit
C-19. Subwav Subs Canopy and sign, Sign Variance and Design Review
This item was tabled until the next meeting to allow the applicant
to apply for a variance.
Lot 8. Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, John Dunham, In£
No action was taken on this item, however, the Commission agreed
that the concept of this project was desirable.
Lot 46, Block 1
Subdivision, Final
,
The Commission approved this final design review application with
the condition that the staff finds the exceptions that were noted in
the last meeting to have been corrected and that the applicant
appear at the next meeting if necessary to ask for a variance for
the building setback.
SINCE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE INFORMATION UNTIL THE MORNING OF FEBRUARY 21,
1989, NO STAFF REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM
do
410
O