Loading...
PZC Packet 022090Wo STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1990 Lot 4, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing INTRODUCTION The applicant, South Harbor Development, is requesting eight (8) feet of relief from the required twenty five (25) foot front yard setback. As proposed, a garage wall would encroach to within eighteen (18) feet of the front property lino. This variance application was proceeded by a Lonceptual design review hearing, at which time the setback requirements were adhered to through the project design. At that time the Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission objected to the encroachment of the building over the river bank. This application alleviates the river bank encroachment by requesting the front setback variance. Approximately 1/3 of the southern portion of this 16,700 square foot lot falls within the 100 year flood plain, and approximately half of the lot lies over the edge of the river embankment. The buildable area of the lot consists of a 60' x 60' area, approximately 3,600 square feet. The proposed building for Lot 4 has a footprint of 65 feet in length. STAFF COMMENTS Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: SECTION 17.36.40 Approval Criteria A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; STAFF RESPONSE: There have been several similar variance requests granted in this neighborhood, with hardship claims of topography and natural features (ditch) as approval criteria. The physical hardship in this case is similar, the river embankment does severely restrict the buildable area of this lot. The problem, however, is compounded by the applicants desire to utilize a set architectural program, which does not allow him the flexibility to design to specific site restraints. To this degree, a portion of the hardship is self inflicted. B. The degree to which relief from the strict or .ON;, Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 20, 1990 Page 2 of 4 Lot 4, Filing 1, Eagleband Subdivision Front Yard Setback Var;.ance Request Public Hearing Iitaral interpretation and enforcements of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vic,nity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; STAFF RESPONSE: The fact that there is a valid physical hardship on this lot allows for compatible and uniform treatment of this request with previous variance approvals in this area. The degree to which relief is necessary is being partially driven by the applicant's architectural program. A different design could utilize a greater portion of the buildable site area and eliminate or reduce the degree of variance necessary. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; STAFF RESPONSE: There is no negative impact upon this criteria. SECTION 17 36 50 Findings Required The 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 privilege inconsistent wit'r the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public healt.,, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to propert,es or improvements in the vicinity; STAFF RESPONSE: The Staff would prefer a front setback variance to encroachment ano destruction of a portion of the river embankment. The variance would have no detrimental effect to the street, or to adjacent private properties C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 20, 1990 Page 3 of 4 Lot 4, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally tc 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 Staff recommendation is for approval. Although we recognize that a degree of this hardship is self inflicted, there is significant impact caused by the amount of undevelopable area on this lot. The Staff would prefer to flex on front setback issues when river encroachment is an issue. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, lJ Rick Pylman Director of Community Development Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 20, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Lot 4, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted (Y") Approved with Recommended Conditions () Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date -Denise Hi 11 , Secretary The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 90-1. "A Resolution Granting A Variance From Front Yard Building Setback Requirements As Stipulated in Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code For Lot 4, Block 1, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado.", citing the finding that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The variance is for 8 feet reducing the front yard building setback from 25 feet to 17 feet. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 20, 1990 Lot 4, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision South Harbor Development Corp Single Family Residence Design Review INTRODUCTION South Harbor Development Corporation is proposing to construct a single family residence on Lot 4, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision. Lot 4 is 16,703 square feet in size, the proposed building footprint is 1980 square feet for a building area ratio of 11%. The building is sited on the northwestern portion of the lot and will require a front setback variance of eight feet (8). Please review accompanying memo for setback criteria. The building height is 32 feet, within zoning requirements. The site plan indicates sufficient areas for snow storage and useable open space requirements. The architecture is similar to existing South iarbor developments. Exterior materials are: cedar siding, cedar fascia, stucco, and aluminum clad windows. The applicant has made some response to Commission comments at the conceptual hearing. The west elevation has been amended by the addition of a stucco wall facade, and stucco elements on the chimney and fireplace detail. STAFF COMMENTS 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 will require approval of a front yard setback variance. Please refer to accompanying staff report. 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. ra n Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 20, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Lot 4, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivison South Harbor Development Single Family Residence Design Review COMMENT: The type and quality of materials is consistent with Town guidelines. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The residence is sited on the extreme western edge of the parcel and will present a relatively long unbroken expanse to its neighbor. Response to previous Commission concerns consist of introduction of an additional wall material. 6.14 - The compatibility of prolosed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: The re-siting of this residence vastly improves previous Staff concerns with river bank topography. 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: Again, the re-siting of this residence has alleviated previous concerns relative to the southern elevation. 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: This proposal is very similar to existing improvements in the vicinity, however, Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposal is in general conformance with adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 20, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Lot 4, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision South Harbor Development Single Family Residence Design Review STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that with the exception of a color board for the residence, the application is complete. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application (Staff); 2. Presentation by Applicant; 3. Commission Review/Discussion; 4. Commission action. Respectfully submitted, ,'C'c -P L Rick Pylman Director of Commu-ity Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as Submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions (✓) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn (^ �/' (�) Dater aO_gQ Denise Hill, Secretary k 14 The Commission granted final design review approval for Lot 4, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, with the condition that landscaping be added on the west side in particular, and that varying heights of evergreen trees and shrubs be used and some cottonwoods species be introduced on the south side STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1990 Lot 70, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a front ykard setback variance for Lot 70, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. The applicant is requesting eleven (111) feet of relief from the required twenty five (25') foot setback requirement. The applicant states that by reducing the required setback to fourteen (14') feet the driveway grade may be reduced from 8.5% to less than 5%. Lot 70 falls steeply off of Saddleridge Loop. The average slope of this lot, in the required twenty five (25') foot front setback is over 40% grade. STAFF COMMENTS Before acting on a variance apr,lication, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: SECTION 17 36 40 Approval Criteria A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; STAFF RESPONSE: The proposed use of this property is residential, and this use is compatible with existing properties in the neighborhood. The variance will allow this residence to be built with a lesser amount of disturbance and retaining walls then if the twenty five foot setback requirement is enforced. 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 th-s title without grant of special privilege; STAFF RESPONSE: The applicant has attempted to find a reasonable balance between the required front setback and the construction hardships and disturbance required to build on this lot. The Staff feel that granting of this variance will riot constitute a grant of special privilege, that the topography is a legitimate physical hardship. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 20, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Lot 70, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing traffic facilities, public facilities public safety; and utilities, and STAFF RESPONSE: There is no negative impact upon this criteria. SECTION 17 36 50 Findings Required The 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 privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of -the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for approval. Lot 70 is extremely steep and construction of a residence on this lot that met setback requirements would result in undue hardship and unnecessary site disturbance. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 20, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Lot 70, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Font Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, ��C -]�LVAAJ Rick Pylman Director of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( i Approved with Recommended Conditions Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date ), a Denise Hill, Secretary LlUjtlk SEE ATTACHED PAGE The Commission approved Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 90-2, "A Resolution Granting A Variance From Front Yard Building Setback Requirements As Stipulated In Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 70, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado.", with the condition that the retaining wall be a mix of stone and wood, citing the finding that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The variance is for 11 feet, reducing the front yard building setback from 25 feet to 14 feet. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 20, 1990 Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 182 Avon Corporation Revised Sign Program INTRODUCTION The owners of 182 Avon Corporation Building, 182 Avon Road, are requesting approval of a revised comprehensive sign program. In January of 1989 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a sign for Slifer Real Estate, with the proviso that any further amendments to the existing signage would require a submittal of a revised comprehensive sign program. The highlights of this program include a new entry awning, additional signage for the expanded Slifer Showroom and a new allocation formula for the businesses. The applicant has submitted sign program information in both narrative and graphic form. STAFF COMMENTS Although the applicant's method for allocation of sign square footage to tenants is a little different than previous applications, the total allowable square footage does relate to the building frontage. This method of allocating signage appears to be equitable, as well as justifiable within the definition of a sign program. Staff does have a few concerns with the program as proposed: 1. The first paragraph on page two of the applicant's narrative discusses allottment of unused square footage assigned to a particular lease space.. Because of the potential for conflict in the case of tenant turnover, the Staff feels that this provision is not in the best interests of the Town. We feel that unused squares footage should not be carried over to other tenants. 2. While the method for measuring sign size in the applicant's program is similar to the Town of Avon method, Staff believes that should any conflict arise regarding measurement, the town of Pvon decision would prevail. This language should be added to the program. According to the Sign Code, the Commission has discretionary powers in approving a Sign Program. The total sign allowance Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 20, 1990 Page 2 of 4 Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 182 Avon Corporation Revised Sign Program fo! ,a projec, may be increased and/or reapportioned by a Sign Program approved by the Commission. Staff recommends that the Commission review this submittal in conjunction with the following Sign Design Guidelines from the Sign Code. SECTION 15.28.060. Sign Design Guidelines A. Harmonious with Town Scale. Sign location, conficuration, design, materials, and colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood, and with the townscape. B. Harmonious with Building Scale. The sign should be harmonious with the building scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs cr call undue attention to itself. C. Materials. Quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass -faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials, such as printed plywood, interior -lit box -type plastic, and paper or vinyl stick -on window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to the location, at the sole discretion of the Commission. D. Architectural Harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures. E. Landscaping. Landscaping is required .-or all free-standing signs, and should be designed to ennance the signage and surrounding building landscaping. 1. A minimum of five lineal feet out from, and around the perimeter of, the sign shall be landscaped. F. Reflective Surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed. s M r. 40 M Staff Report February 20, Page 3 of 4 to the Planning and Zoning Commission 1990 Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 182 Avon Corporation Revised Sign Program G. Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturbing manner. H. Location. On multi -story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be limited to the ground level. (Ord. 86-3 1(part)). STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of this sign program with the following two condition:, - 1. Sign square footage as allocated to each lease spe.:e may not be transferred to another lease space. If existing lease spaces change size the proposed formula will '.re adjusted accordingly. 2. Language be inserted in the Program to clarify that the Town of Avon method of measuring sign square footage prevails over the Program. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Rick Pylman Director of Community Development Staff REport to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 20, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 182 Avon Corporation Revised Sign Program PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( j Approved with Modified Conditions (V --,)' Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn () � Date Ar -90 Denise Hi l I, Secretary ,(.!'(� ( 11[ 1c x1W The Commission granted approval of the signage program provided for Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with the condition that the paragraph involving the redistribution of the allowable signage area, paragraph two of page two, be struck from the document, and also, the conditior, that if there is a dispute or conflict over how the particular r the sign is measured the Town of Avon's calculations and processes would prevail STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 20, 1990 Lot 1, Lodge At Avon Subdivision Avon Towne Square Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION Lot 1 of the Lodge at Avon Subdivision is the parcel of land at the southwest corner of the Avon Road and Benchmark Roa1 intersection. The parcel is zoned Town Center and currently has 70 development rights available. The applicant is proposing a mixed use commercial development. The plan includes a total of 45,000 square feet of developed area in two building sites. A 5,500 square foot free standing restaurant is located in the northwest corner of the site with a 39,500 square foot, 3 story retail and office building in the south east portion of the site. No residential units are included in this development scenario. The primary building steps back on both ends to present second floor deck space and on the east end of the building continues to step up in a series of hip roof forms. Primary building materials are stucco with a green metal roof. Specific architectural form and materials for the secondary building have yet to be defined. Specific sign materials and sizes have not yet been defined. The site plan proposes 213 surface parking spaces. Final parking calculations have not yet been determined, but it appears that the plan is 15-30 spaces short of meeting Town of Avon requirements. Along the south and east property lines a setback variance �•r.il be required to allow parking up to the property line. One loading berth has been provided for the free standing restaurant. Total building site coverage is approximately 22%. Walkways and parking area coverage is approximately 64%. Impervious open space totals approximately 13% of the site. STAFF COMMENTS The Staff feels the following issues should be addressed in conceptual discussion of this building. - The general issue of the level of development Gn this site. The parking requirements of the Town are -.ot being met, yet the amount of impervious open space is a very small percentage of site area. - The building pad for the restaurant is very close to a road easement. This building pad for the restaurant may require a setback variance. -- N Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission February 20, 1990 Page 2 of Lot 1, Lodge At Avon Subdivision Avon Towne Square Conceptual Design Review - The east access point way be too close to Avon Road to allow adequate stacking distance. - An access point and pedestrian walkway should align with the bus stop across the street. - The western access point may be a safety concern with its location relative to the road curves. - The width of the access/parking area on the south side of the building is not adequate to meet loading needs. - Benchmark Road is a primary Town Center streetscape. Curb and gutter treatment may be appropriately installed as the site is developed. As this is a conceptual review, the Staff presents no formal recommendation at this time. Respectfully submitted, Rick Pylman Director of Community Development ,,YU'W /ja , Date a -do , 1990. Denise Hill, Secretary As this was a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken. However, the Commission provided several comments on concerns regarding loading docks, a possible heated gutter system and the vast amount of parking space. The Commission suggested underground parking which the applicant feels is prohibitive. The Commission suggested the applicant provide a site model___ showing the locations of the buildings, proposed landscaping and pedestrian walkways.