Loading...
PZC Packet 101789STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 17, 1989 Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Buck Creek Plaza Building Parking variance Public Hearing INTRODUCTION The Buck Creek Plaza building was constructed under county regulations, prior to incorporation of the Town of Avon. Consequently, the majority of the uses in the building have been considered as pre-existing conditions and have not been required to conform with Town of Avon Parking Regulations. Current parking regulations would require forty-two (42) spaces for existing uses in the building. There are approximately twenty-five (25) spaces on site. In 1984 a Special Review Use was approved for the addition of seven (7) off-site parking spaces at Christie Lodge to allow expansion of the applicant's business into a previously undeveloped and unoccupied portion of the building. This variance application is for the elimination of the parking requirements for the 1405 square feet of business floor area which was added at that time. he conditions of the Special Review Use approval were met through a lease between the applicant and Christie Lodge Owner's Association. Provisions within the lease permit permits the Town of Avon to cancel and rescind any Certificate of Occupancy that was issued to the applicant based upon the availability of parking spaces cove -ed by the lease agreement. Approval of this variance woulc negate the need for the previously approved Special Review Use. STAFF COMMENTS Section 17.36.040 - Approval Criteria. Before acting on a variance application, the Design Review Board shall consider the follcr:ring 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; COMMENT: The requested variance is of greater magnitude than any previously granted parking variance in the vicinity. All buildings constructed under Town of Avon regulations have met parking standards. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 1989 Page 2 of 5 Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Buck Creek Plaza Building Parking Variance Public Hearing B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; COMMENT: A variance, referred to by the applicant in his application, was granted for a building on Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. After detailed site and parking layout analysis, the variance was requested for three (3) parking spaces. The variance was denied by the Planning Commission, and appealed to the Town Council. The Town Council approved a variance for one (1) parking space and required that the remaining two (2) parking spaces meet the size standard for compact car parking spaces. The one parking space variance was granted because, if the space had been provided, its location would have interfered with access to loading and trash facilities. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distrubution of population. transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; COMMENT: The variance request does not appear to significantly effect light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. However, the lack of availability of overflow parking may cause traffic congestion at the driveway entrance during peak traffic periods of the year. The adjacent street intersection could be adversely effected from the standpoint of public safety. D. Such other factors and criteria as the board deems applicable to the proposed variance. COMMENT: No specific traffic survey and parking usage information exist to verify the actual usage of on-site parking and traffic flows for the building. Financial hardship, as stipulated in the application, is not usi'Ally considered as a practical difficulty or unnecessary Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 1989 Page 3 of 5 Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Buck Creek Plaza Parking Variance Public Hearing physical hardship in the review of a variance request. Generally, all sites in the zone district would qualify for the off-site parking provision of the zoning code as a remedy for parking deficients. This provision is typically used to insure that the amount of parking is kept in balance for the entire zone district. No parking decisions have substantially affected the amount of parking necessary to insure that the zone destruct will have sufficient parking at full development and occupancy. Section 17.32 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures, provides for remedy of nonconformance of structures which existed prior to the existence of the Town of Avon. Because of the off-site parking lease agreement, the applicant appears to not have been deprived of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zone district. Section 17.36.050 - Finding: Required. The design review board shall make the following written findings before granting a variance; A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges 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 improvemen`cs 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 Staff Repor': to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 17. 1989 Page 4 of b Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Buck Creek Plaza Building Parking Variance Public Hearing 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 RECOMMENDATION Insufficient information has been submitted to determine that the applicant has been deprived of privileges granted to other property owners in the district. Insufficient information has been submitted that the providing of required on-site parking through a off-site parking lease would cause practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 89-12 has been prepared for denial of the variance application. The Commission should amend this Resolution to incorporate the appropriate findings and the desired action of the Commission. This Resolution can be easily amended to incorporate the required findings for approval as well as denial. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 1989 Page 5 of 5 Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Buck Creek Plaza Building Parking Variance Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application (Staff); 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review/Discussion 6. Amend Resoultion as Apprcpriate 7. Adopt Resolution No. 89-12 as amended Respectfully submitted, James F. Lamont PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( )) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued (✓) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date 0 11 i t'l Denise Hi 1 l , Secretary The Commission continued this application for a period of 30 days to allow the applicant to approach the Town Council. 6 TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 12 SERIES OF 1939 A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS STIPULATED IN CHAPTER 17.24 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 72, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK. AT BEAVER CREEK WHEREAS, C. J. Corporation, Rick and Pat Cuny, Louie Jordan, has submitted a variance request for a reduction in parking requirements, below the minimum requirements stipulated in Chapter 17.24 of the Avon Municipal Code, for Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing on the variance request; and WHEREAS, after considering the information provided by the applicant, and input from the general public, the Planning and Zoning Commission has found: A. That the granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same dsitrict; B. That the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS STIPULATED IN CHAPTER 17.24 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 72, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK WHEREAS, C. J. Corporation, Rick and Pat Cuny, Louie Jordan, has submitted a variance request for a reduction in parking requirements, below the minimum requirements stipulated in Chapter 17.24 of the Avon Municipal Code, for Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing on the variance request; and WHEREAS, after considering the information provided by the applicant, and input from the general public, the Planning and Zoning Commission has found: A. That the granting of the variance -would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent wit: the limitatio,is on other properties classified in the same dsitrict; B. That the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. #4 A 2. There are not exceptional oe 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 will not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies a variance request for a reduction in parking requirements, below the minimum requirements stipulated in Chapter 17.24 of the Avon Municipal Code, for Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. ADOPTED THIS Denise Hill, Secretary day of , 1989. Frank Doll, Chairman C STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 17, 1989 Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Peregrine Building Sign Variance INTRODUCTION The applicant requests that a sign having two sign faces with different copy on each face be given a variance for the size of the sign from the required 16 square feet to that of 24 square feet. STAFF COMMENTS 15.28.090-2. Approval Criteria. Before acting on a variance application, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; COMMENT: The proposed sign does not appear to have an adverse relationship with existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief fror the atrict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of ;-eatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; COMMENT: No existing sites in the vicinity have been granted similar size variances for development signs. Compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity has been consistent. a. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; COMMENT: The size variance does not appear to adversely effect light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. b. Such other factors and criteria as the board deems applicable to the proposed variance. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 1989 Page 2 of 3 Lot 63, Block 2, 3enrhmark at Beaver Creek Peregrine Building Sign Variance COMMENT: No other factors and criteria appears to be applicable to the proposed variance. 3. Findings Required. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following written findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same vicinity; B. 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; ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the var-ance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Insufficient information has been submitted to determine that the applicant would not receive a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the same vicinity. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 1989 Page 3 of 3 Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Peregrine Building Sign Variance RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application iStaff); 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Staff Comments; 4. Commission Review - AC*:Ion Respectfully submitted, James F. Lamont PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ; Approved with Recommended Conditions Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date 411 �(�_Denise Ni l l , SecretarydJ wa� I�L 40 L- 41 a STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 17, 1989 Lot 2, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision Inter -Mountain Engineering Ltd. Color Change Design Review INTRODUCTION The applicant requests that the exterior color for the residence located on Lot 2, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision be changed from Cape Cod Gray to a natural cedar color. STAFF COMMENTS Before actino 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: The project appears to meet applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. 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. COMMENT: The type and quality of proposed color is compatible with the existing structures in the vicinity. 6.13 The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The compatibility of the color appears to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. 6.14 The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography. COMMENT: Not applicable. 6.15 The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: The visual appearance of the proposed color does not appear to pose any deleterious effects from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 1989 Page 2 of 3 Lot 2, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision Inter --Mountain Engineering Ltd. Color Change Design Review 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. COMMENT: The proposed color change does not appear to impair monetary and aesthetic values. 6.17 The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposed color change appears to be in general conformance with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Specific color samples should be available for review by the Commission. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application (Staff); 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Staff Comments; 4. Commission Review - Action Respectfully submitted, James F. Lamont Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 1989 Page 3 of 3 Lot 2, Block 1, Fiuling 2, Eaglebend Subdivision Inter -Mountain Engineering Ltd. Color Change Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted (V/) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date TI Denise Hill, Secretary ffi & j u The Commission approved the color change for Lot 2, Block 1, Filing 2, Eaqlebend Subdivision, from the previous gray to Devoe ST92 Desert Beiqe, as presented by the applicant.