Loading...
PZC Packet 020789STAFF REPC.0 TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 7, 1989 Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA Located in Section 12 Township 5 South Range 82 west of the 6th PM and Section 7 Township 5 South Range 61 West of the 6th PM Town of Avon Previously Annexed As White Eagle River , Townhouse Annexation Informal Presentation Request for Zane Change from NC to and replat of Riverside Center Townhouse Annexation in conjunction Area Development Proposal SPA for Riverside Center and White Eagle River with a Speciailay Planned Peter Jamar, on behalf of Ken Kriz and Golden Buff Enterprises, owners of the above described properties, is requesting an informal presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 subdivisions and zone the entirety of the parcel SPA. This process will require a zoning amendment and a subdivision approval per the following: Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Proposed Riverside Subdivisicn SPA 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 Informal Presentation Request for Zone Change from NC to and replat of Riverside Center Townhouse Annexation in conjunction Area Development Proposal Page 2 of 3 SPA for Riverside Center and White Eagle River with a Specially Planned 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 Accomodation Unit Lodge with 5,000 sq. ft. of ancillary commercial 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 tracr is suitable for development as a riverfront recreation area. The remainder is steeply sloped or under water. The rypplicant 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. r� Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Proposed Riverside Subdivision SPA 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 Informal Presentation Request for Zone Change from NC to and replat of Riverside Center Townhouse Annexation in conjunction Area Development Proposal Page 3 of 3 SPA for Riverside Center and White Eagle River with a Specially Planned 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. The application for rezoning now appears complete and Mr. Jamar has requested that. the Public Hearing for the Zone Change and formal review be scheduled for February 21, 1989, at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission This is an informal presentation and no action is recommended. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Fritzlen Department of Community Development 11 r R w n w l STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 7, 1989 Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 24 Unit Residential Complex South Harbor Development Corporation Dan Hunter, Architect Side Setback Variance Public Hearing INTRODUCTION Dan Hunter on is requesting Lot 8, Block carport. The square feet. behalf of South Harbor Development Corporation a sideyard setback variance of varying width on 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, for an open area of encroachment is approximately 500 The proposed development consists of four buildings with six units each. The buildings are three stories high and are aligned with the southwestern or river edge of the property. Proposed parking is surface parking. The parking located on the northern property line, abutting the existing railroad fence, is proposed to be an open carport. Built improvements in a sideyard setback require a variance. The sideyard also serves as a utility and drainage easement. The applicant has provided an existing boundary and topographical survey, site development plan, typical floor plan and proposed south elevation. The proposal appears to be in compliance with the zoning code with the exception of the sideyard setback. Lot 8, Block 3 has 16 residential development rights, twelve of which are to be split in half to create a total of 24, 800 square foot dwellings. The remaining four are to be unused or transferred. Mr. Hunter has presented the following responses to the variance criteria stated on the application and staff comment is provided subsequently: The following practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship, inconsistent with the objectives of the particular regulation would result from the strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation: APPLICANT COMMENT: The unique triangular shape of the property creates design difficulties that preclude utilization of unit density permitted by existing zoning. Furthermore, the railroad fenceline violating the property line additionally reduces the effective area that can be Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 24 Unit Residential Complex South Harbor Development Corporation Dan Hunter, Architect Side Setback variance Public Hearing Page 2 of 6 built on. STAFF COMMENT: The triangle shape of the lot creates an interesting, but relatively inefficient site circulation and parking layout. The shape and size in combination are unique to Block 3. The second part of this comment is not particularly pertinent in that the railroad fence, although not located on railroad property, sits within the sideyard setback of Lot 8. The following exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district: APPLICANT COMMENT: The Rio Grande Railroad 300 feet right-of-way borders the entire sideyard of this property. The Eagle River borders the other sideyard. STAFF COMMENT: The Rio Grande Railroad does act as an audial and visual deterrent to the residential development of the site which is an allowed use. In order to minimize those impacts, the site plan proposes to turn the views towards the river and the parking towards the railroad. The carports will serve as a means of noise abatement as well as visual screen from the passing trains. The strict or literal interpr'atation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the following privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district: APPLICANT COMMENT: The ability to utilize the unit density permitted by zoning is precluded without the variance requested. STAFF COMMENT: Although the proposed density is allowed under the fractionalization, the procedure for Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 24 Unit Residential Complex South Harbor Development Corporation unr, iwn,.o, , untar Architect Side Setback Variance Public Hearing Page 3 of 6 approval does include a public hearing and review under separate, specific criteria. When reviewing an application for granting a variance, the following approval criteria and required findings should be taken into consideration: 17.36.040 Approval Criteria. Before acting on a variance application, the design review board shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of tr:atment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the object ves of this title without grant of special privilege; C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; D. Such other factors and criteria as the board deems applicable to the proposed variance. (Ord. 81-9-1(d)). 17.36.050 Findings Required. The design review board shall make the following written findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will no+; constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; 0)► s a Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 24 Unit Residential Complex South Harbor Development Corporation Dan Hunter, Architect Side Setback Variance Public Hearing Page 4 of 6 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 harddship 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. (Ord. 81-9-1(e)). STAFF RECOMMMENDATION If the Commission finds that the variance request meets the approval criteria and pias adequate findings to grant the variance, approval of Resolution 89-1, which includes the following conditions, is recommended: . Approval of the applicable utilities for use of the easement. 2. Final Design Review for the proposal as presentee in the variance application. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 24 Unit Residential Complex South Harbor Development Corporation Dan Hunter, Architect Side Setback Variance Public Hearing Page 5 of 6 3. Variance shall be subject to any further limitations which may be imposed as a result of the required Design Review process. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application; 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review of Submitted Materials 6. Approve Resolution 89-1. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Fritzlen Department of Commun ty Development Qcaff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 24 Unit: Residential Complex South Harbor Development Corporation Dan Hunter, `rchittct Side Setback Variance Public Hearing Page 6 of 6 PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( 4 Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) withdrawn () Date (V- -%, Denise Hill, Secretary 4/ ^ ynk, lf. 14A The Commission approved Resolution 69-1, Granting A Variance From Side Yard Building Setback Requirements As Stipulated In Title 17 Of The Avon Municipal Code For Lot 8, Bock 3, Benchmark At Beaver Creek. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 7, 1989 Lot 7, Block 1, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Duplex Residence South Harbor Development Dan Hunter, Architect Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Dan Hunter, on t=half of South Harbor Development is requesting Final Design Review for a conventional duplex on Lot 7, Block 1, Filing No. 1, Eaglebend Subdivision. Each unit is proposed to have approximately 1900 square feet of finished floor area, a 900 square foot basement and a two car garage. The proposal is similar but not identical to the duplex approved on Lot 12, Block 1, Filing No. 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, also by South Harbor Development. STAFF COMMENTS 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. The proposal appears to be in conformance with applicable codes with the exception of the following: 1. Driveway grades appear to exceed 10% at some points. At the time of this report Staff is awaiting an amended grading plan. 2. The basement has potential to become a second unit. A sliding glass door is indicated on the elevations with access from the basement to the rear yard. A,, the time of this report Staff is awaiting a basement floor plan confirming its intended use. Additional density is not allowed under current zoning. rA" Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 7, BlocK 1, Filing 1, Duplex Residence South Harbor Development Dan Hunter, Architect Final Design Review Page 2 of 4 Eaglebend Subdivision 6.12 - The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constru!:ted and the site upon which it is to be located. The proposed duplex is similar, but not identical, to a previously approved duplex on Lot 12. Applicant has responded to previous comments and design review criteria discouraging mirror image duplexes by modifying street elevations such that they are non -symmetrical and offsetting the two sides by 12 feet, although the riverside or south elevation is symmetrical. Approval of exterior colors should be based on distinguishing this duplex from its similar neighbor as well as other design criteria. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. This proposal does not unusually or unreasonably impact adjacent properties. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography. The applicant has been requested to submit an amended grading plan incorporating the following: 1. Driveway grade not to exceed 10%. 2. All new grading to be behind the top of river bank in order to minimize the potential for erosion. Applicant has agreed to do so and at the time of this report the requested revisions are still forthcoming. 6.15 - The visual appearance or any prnoosed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. f 1 Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 7, Block 1, Filing 1, Duplex Residence South Harbor Development Dan Hunter, Architect Final Design Review Page 3 of 4 Eaglebend Subdivision See comment for 6.12. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. An exterior color distinct from that approved for the duplex on lot 12, which was a brown grey stain with white trim, is recommended. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. There are no adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for Eaglebend. STAFF RECOMMMENDATION Final Design Review approval is recommended based on the following: 1. Receipt of a Staff approved amended grading plan and basement plan at the time of approval. 2. Approval of exterior materials, colors and lighting as presented at the meeting. 3. Inclusion of adequate hosebibs on building permit plans for irrigation of landscaping. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 19 Lot 7, Block 1, Filing 1, Duplex Residence South Harbor Development Dan Hunter, Architect Final Design Review Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application; Eaglebend Subdivision 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Commission Consideration of Submitted Materials; 4. Act on Application. Respectfully submitted, Lyn Fritzlen Department of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions (L/) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued c�( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) ' Date ,i-�-E-9 Denise Hill, Secretary fJ1161A ,l. i The Commission approved the request for a duplax residence on Lot 7, Block 1 Filing 1 Eaglebend Subdivision, with the inclusion of adequate hosebibs on the building permit plans and that the colors, blue and grey, and off-white stucco be used and that the chimney stacks will be increased in mass. ail STAFF REPORT Date: February 1, 1989 Applicant: Otis Company Project Location: Lots 65 & 66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Project Name: The Annex INTRODUCTION Otis Company has submitted plans for design review for development of Lots 65 & 66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The proposed development generally consists of a one story building with a floor area of 16,400 square feet plus a separate one story drive-in restaurant with a floor area of 2,386 square feet along with related parking, driveway, landscaping and drainage facilities. Proposed building materials include split faced block, stucco and pre -molded metal roofing. Color information and samples will be presented at the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS The following comments are based upon staff review of plans received January 24, 1989 and additional information as supplied by applicant in subsequent meetings and conversations. The proposed project is located in the SC (Shopping Center) Zone District and proposed uses appear to be in accordance with allowed uses in that district. The project is located on two lots and will require resubdivision to vacate the existing lot line in order to confirm with building setback and other requirements of the zoning code. Total area of the two lots is approximately 91,900 square feet. Information submitted with application indicates a proposed building area of 21,506 square feet. (23%) and paved parking and drive area of 44,744 square feet (49%). This leaves a useable open space area of approximately 25,662 square feet (28%). Indicated snow storage area is 8,991 square feet or slightly over the required 20% of parking and drive area. These areas along with the proposed building heights are in conformanG; with zoning restrictions for the SC Zone District. 0 Lots 65 & 66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek The following comments are related to site layout, grading, drainage and parking requirements: 1. Subsequent discussions with the applicant have revealed tnat the proposed development includes approximately 5600 square feet of loft space in addition to the 16,400 square feet of floor area in the mixed use commercial building. This additional space was not taken into consideration in the applicants calculations for parking requirements for this project. The applicant has stated that the intended use for this space is for office and storage related to the tenants located below the loft and not for separate tenants or additional retail display area. If the use of this space is restricted to these uses it may be appropriate to calculate parking requirements for this project as follows: 16,400 sq. ft. Retail @ 4/1000 65.6 Spaces 5,600 sq. ft. Office @ 3/1000 16.8 Spaces 505 sq. ft. Seating Area @ 1/60 8.4 Spaces Total Spaces 90.8 Spaces Maximum Allowed Reduction 15% -13.6 Spaces Minimum Parking Required 77.2 Spaces Minimum parking required 78 Spaces Parking indicated on site plan 81 Spaces This will meet minimum parking requirements, but does limit the types of uses which can be allowed in the larger commercial building as well as expansion of seating area in the drive-in restaurant. 2. The site grading and drainage plans show a rather large and deep filter gallery with relatively steep sides near the south easterly corner of the larger building. It appears that the depth of this required facility could be reduced substantially if off-site storm drainage was separated from the on-site flows. If this is possible, it seems the drainage treatment facilities could be incorporated as an attractive design feature in the site landscaping. 3. The applicant has agreed to dedicate a 50 feet wide public access easement along the southerly lot line. This easement would essentially provide a direct link from Avon Road to the Shopping Center. This should provide postive benefits to both the proposed development and the existing Shopping Center. However, the proposed site plan does not provide a direct connection from the easement to the shopping center. The proposed connection between the two projects is located near the center of the easterly lot line. It appears that a direct connection between the easement and the shopping center is feasible and would provide better site circulation for both projects. It also appears that this 4�r Lots 65 & 66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek alignment of the connection point could potentially increase the available parking spaces for the proposed project and reduce the number of spaces lost on the existing shopping center site. A pedestrian connection at the indicated driveway location should be compatible with the proposed development and the existing shopping center, especially with the future Wal-Mart expansion. A pedestrian interconnection at this point should be effective in reducing vehicular movements in the area. 4. The proposed sidewalk location along Beaver Creek Place does not appear to match the location of existing sidewalk at the shopping center site. It is recommended that this sidewalk be located inside the property line. This should match existing sidewalk as well as result in improved safety by providing a greater separation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Snow removal from the sidewalk should also be improved with the greater separation from the street. 5. Curb & Gutter is not shown along Beaver Creek Place. The addition of curb & gutter in this area would be compatible with recently approved development in the area as well as improving drainage control. 6. Limited information is provided in the vicinity of the drive-in restaurant and no dimensions have been provided. No floor plans have been provided for the restaurant but it does appear that there may be some discrepancies between the site plan and the proposed elevations. The only information regarding restaurant size and seating area is contained in the project data on Sheet No. A-2. The site plan does not show whe-e trash from the restaurant will be stored or how it will be screened. 7. Current plans do not show parking lot or building exterior lighting. Parking lot lighting should be designed to be compatible with adjoining properties and to provide adequate light levels at driveway entrances and pedestrian ways. 8. The project sign adjacent to Beaver Creek Place appears to encroach into the 10 foot setback from the street right-of-way. This could present a safety hazard by obtructing views of oncoming traffic. 9. The proposed site plan is shown with an entrance from Avon Road. The applicant has chosen to proceed with this plan without confirming with the State Highway Department what improvements, if any, will be required in conjunction with this e,itrance. The loss of this entrance could have a significant impact on site circulation as well as traffic on East Beaver Creek Blvd. and Beaver Creek Place. Lots 65 & 66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 10. The plans as submitted show some information regarding proposed project signage but a complete sign program as required by Chapter 15.28 of the Avon Municipal Code has not been provided. 11. The attached letter from Intratect identifies three areas of concern as expressed by owners of the adjacent Tract Q. These are: a. Additional landscaping at the west side of the southerly portion of the main building to buffer views from the dining deck of the Hole in the Wall Restaurant. b. Cooperation on solving mutual drainage problems on the mutual drainage and utility easement along the common property line. C. Assurance that common north access is properly completed to serve both properties with an appropriate common access. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant has requested approval of the proposed project subject to conformance with specified conditions. This approval is requested prior to preparation of revised plans which would show conformance with those conditions. Based upon this request, staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1. Approval is limited to uses which have no higher parking requirement than 4 spaces per 1000 square feet. parking shall be provided for loft area at the rate of 3 spaces per 1000 square feet and loft, uses shall be limited to office and storage space for tenant located directly below loft area. Drive-in restaurant shall have a maximum seating area of 505 square feet. Other uses or additional seating area may be considered on a case by case basis by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Approval shall be based upon availability of excess parking spaces which may result from revised site plan. 2. Site grading and drainage plans be revised to separate off-site storm drainage from parking lot drainage and design of parking lot drainage treatment facilities be redesigned to provide required runoff treatment and to be compatible with other site development and landscaping. 3. Town Council approval and subsequent recording of a subdivision plat vacating the existing lot lines between Lots 65 & 66 and dedicating the agreed upor, 50 feet wide public access easement across Lot 65. 4. Revise site layout and grading plans to provide for a direct vehicular connection between the public access easement and the shopping center site. Lots 65 & 66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 5. Replace the proposed vehicular connection point between proposed project and the shopping center site with a pedestrian walkway. 6. Relocate proposed sidewalk along Beaver Creek Place to match existing sidewalk alignment at shopping center and within property line. 7. Revise plans to include curb and gutter along Beaver Creek Place. 8. Provide additional site and building information including dimensions for drive-in restaurant. Site Plan should also address trash storage and screening. 9. Revise plans to show proposed exterior building and parking lot lighting. Parking lot lighting should provide adequate light at driveway entrances and pedestrian areas and also be compatible with existing lighting on adjoining properties. 10. Relocate proposed project sign adjacent to Beaver Creek Place to conform with 10 foot setback requirement and so as to not obstruct views from vehicles entering or leaving the site. 11. Revised plans shall include a detailed sign program for the project including design details for project signs as well as required information for individual business signs per Chapter 15.28 of the Avon Municipal Code. 1::. Approval is contingent upon continued use of existing access from Avon Road. If the Colorado State Highway Department should require improvements to maintain this access those improvements shall be considered as a part of this approval. Due to the number of conditions recommended for any type of approval by the Commission, it is also recommended that the applicant be required to submit the final revised plans to the Commission for review to confirm that they generally conform with the approval and that the attached conditions have been complied with. 0'" 4 Lot 65 & 66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application; 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Commission Consideration of Submitted Materials; 4. Act on Application. Respectfully submitted, Norman Wood Director of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date � -7-89 Denise Hill, Secretary Alwe // ill The Commission approved The Annex on Lots 65 and 66, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with the Staff recommendations 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 as written, and subject to approval of the loft area at the next Planning and Zoning meeting, and number B, that the footprint and building site come in subject to DRB approval and that the acces to the Wal-Mart parking lot be changed to the southeast end in alignment with the easement. To: Norm Wood From: Lynn Fritzlen Date: February 2, 1989 RE: Parking Requirements for Commercial Uses The following are parking requirements for various local municipalities: MKM— GLENWOOD SPRINGS: General Retail - Parking Area must equal Floor Area (approximately 1/320 sq. ft.) Floor Area definition excludes common and storage areas. BRECKENRIDGE Commercial - Required Parking is 1/400 sq. ft. of Gross Floor Area Gross Floor Area includes all enclosed space but planning department has been open to justifications by applicants for reductions for interior mall areas. John Cole Planner says the definition has caused problems and suggested the parking requirements be related to the net leasable. Breckenridge also has a Parking Improvement District in their Downtown area that a developer may participate in in order to offset requirements. FRISCO Commercial Retail - Required Parking is 1/250 sq. ft. of Net Leasable Area although there is no definition of Net Leasable Area in their zoning code VAIL Retail Stores, Personal Services and Repair Shops - Required Parking is 1/300 sq. ft. of Net Floor Area Net Floor area is defined as "the total area within the the enclosing walls of the structure not including the following: 1. Areas specifically designed and used for mechanical equipment to operate the building. 2. Stairways 3. Elevators 4. Comr-in hallways 5. Common Lobbies 6. Areas designed and used for parking. 7. Corrimon Restrooms B. Areas designed and used as storage which do not have direct access to an individual office or retail store, not to exceed 5% of the total proposed net floor area for office and not to to exceed 810 of the total proposed net floor area for retail. 'Re s F' 04 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 7, 1989 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Detached Duplex Reynolds Corporation Monica Reynolds Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Monica Reynolds, on behalf of the Reynolds Corporation is requesting Final Design Review for a detached duplex proposal in Wildridge. The two units are similar, but not identical, in appearance and floor plan and are both served by a common driveway. The four bedroom unit on the west has a partial second story which differentiates it from the three bedroom unit on the east which is single story. The average slope of the lot on the lower half of the lot exceed,. 30%. This is an ample (.58 acres) duplex lot, but difficult to build on. Built improvements are proposed on the gentler but difficult to access upper portion of the lot. STAFF COMMENTS 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. Proposed driveway grades exceed 10% for the entirety of the driveway access. Average grade is 16% for driveway and vehicular manuevering area. Elevations do not accurately reflect proposed grade relationships. 6.12 - The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located. The floor plans and elevations appear to be better suited to a level site. Consideration should be given to a split level or stepped approach for the bu11ding and minimizing cut and fill. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize .° s Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Detached Duplex Reynolds Corporation Monica Reynolds Final Design Review Page 2 of 4 site impacts to adjacent properties. Placing the built improvements on the upper portion of the lot maximizes driveway length and associated site impacts. Consideration should be given to moving the garages closer to the front propoerty line. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography. see comment for 6.12 and 6.11. Off site drainage should be addressed on grading plan. 6.15 - The v,'sual appearance or any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring oroperties and public ways. The character of this project will be dominated by the driveway. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Varying the appearance of the two dwellings, as proposed, will render them complimentary but not identical. This aspect of the design is desirable. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. There are no adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for Wildridge. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Detached Duplex Reynolds Corporation Monica Reynolds Final Design Review Page 3 of 4 STAFF RECOMMMENDATION It is recommended that this application be continued based on the following aspects of the application: 1. Driveway grades present a hazard to the occupants as well as vehicles on the adjacent street. Revised grading plan should be submitted prior to reconsideration that meets Town of Avon design criteria. 2. Breaking up building mass to better fit building slope should be considered. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application; 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Continue Application to Next Meeting. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Fritzl�:, Department of Community Development O Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Detached Duplex Reynolds Corporation Monica Reynolds Final Design Review Page 4 of 4 PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ✓) Deni3d ( ) Withdrawn ( ) p Date J--4-P,9—Denise Hill, Secretary P0 �7P k�.Q.l fhe Commission tabled this item until the next Planninq and Zoning Commission meeting with the idea that a three dimensional drawing be provided and a better definition of the grading after the buildings are lowered be provided. Cl Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lots 1 & 2, Sunroad Subdivision Christopher Eddy, Sunroad Enterprises Development Sign Variance Request for Amendment of Approval INTRODUCTION Chris Eddy, on behalf of Sunroad Enterprises, has requested that the approved 32 square foot sign located adjacent tc Avon Road be allowed to remain for the entirety of the allowed period of two (2) years in its present location, which is approximately 30'-0" back from the existing fence. This is in difference to the Planning and Zoning Commission", request that it be moved to the center of the lot by May 1, 1989. The center of the lot could be interpreted as approximately 200'-0" back from the property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Commission finds that the requested amendment meets the intent of the original approval, approval of the request for amendment is recommended. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application. 2. Consideration by Commission. 3. Act on Request. Respectful ly,5,ubmi tte Lyn Fritzlen Department of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted 0-/ Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date a. --I-f Denise Hi 11 , SecretaryThe Commission approved the requested amendment to the development sign variance for Lots 1 and 2, Sunroad Subdivision • t . Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1989 Lot 2, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Storky's Restaurant Mark Donaldson, Architect Conceptual Review Mark Donaldson, on behalf of Otto Stork, owner of Lot 2, submitted an application for Final Design Review on February 1, 1989 for review at the February 21, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The lot is zoned RHDC and a restaurant is an allowed use. The property is located immediately to the west of the Costal Mart grocery and gas station at the I-70 interchange. Mr. Donaldson has requested an informal review at the February 7, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Staff has no comments or recommendations at this time. The applicant is aware that no formal action will be taken by the Commission at the conceptual review level.