Loading...
PZC Packet 100692STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Lot 4, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Lube and Car Wash Shop Special Review Use Public Hearing INTRODUCTION: Louis Medeiros and Dan Newell are requesting Special Review Use approval for a lube and car wash shop on Lot 4, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Due to the need for more complete information regarding this project, Staff recommends tabling this application to the October 20th regularly schedr:led meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Presentation of Application 2. Applicant's Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Fo, `yu,-�J Rick Pylman Director of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date Patti Dixon, Secretary This application was tabled until the next meeting on October 201 1992 to allow the applicant to provide more complete information • C�] STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Lot 25, Block 2. Ben&,mark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Christie Lodge Setback Variance For Awning Public Hearing INTRODUCTION The ioain lobby entrance to the Christie Lodge is along east Beaver Creek Boulevard. The Christie Lodge would like to locate an eight foot wide, twelve foot long awning canopy at the entrance. The purpose of the canopy is to provide the entrance with a positive identity and to provide some weather protection to pedestrians entering or leaving the property. East Beaver Creek Boulevard is currently undergoing widening as part of the Town of Avon Streetscape Plan and Transportation Plan improvements. The widening of East Bea,,er Creek Boulevard to five lanes required the purchase of additional -fight-of-way along both the Christie Lodge and Benchmark Plaza properties. A strip of Christie Lodge property approximately eight feet in width has been converted to road right-of-way in order to facilitate this project. rhe transfer of this property has created a new property line approximately twelve feet away from the building in the area of the main entrance. Since there is a setback requircment of 25 feet from property line a variance is required to place the awning in the desired location. The awning will project from the building to the new property line, which coincides with the back of the new sidewalk 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: Prior to the readjustment of property lines the existing entrance was approximately 20 feet from the property line. The Benchmark Plaza Building presents a long unbroken elevation to East Beaver Creek Boulevard that is within seven feet of the property line, an encroachment well into the required 25 foot setback. STAFF REPORT TO October 6, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Lot 25, Block 2, Christie Lodge Setback Variance Public Hearing THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Benchmark at Beabver Creek Subdivision For Awning 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; STAFF RESPONSE: The front entrance or the Christie Lodge encroached approximately five feet into the required setback prior to the road widening project. The new property lines left a thirteen foot encroachment into the setback. The placement of an awning eight feet in width up to the property line represents a minor addition to the degree of existing encroachment. The transfer of property due to the road widening project certainly presents a legitimate hardship to improving or expanding this elevation of the building. 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: This request presents no negative impacts to this criteria. In fact, from an urban design perspective, the awning location is very positive. In an urban environment, such as this location, a sidewalk edge awning makes a very good connection of public and private property. From ai architectural point of view, the awning helps define what is currently a poor entry statement.. SECTION 17.36.50 Findings Required The Commission shall make the following written before granting a variance; A constitute limitations district; That the granting of the variance a grant of special privilege inconsistent of other properties classified in findings will rot with the the same STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Christie Lodge Setback Variance For Awning Public Hearing 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 ur 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 The Staff recommends approval of this request. The adjusted property line presents a legitimate hardship to the improvement and/c^ renovation of the entryway of this building. Staff believes that approval of this variance is not a grant of special privilege. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Lot 25, Block 2; Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Christie Lodge Setback Variance For Awning 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, mak• d� Li�r�'� r � Rick Pylm n Director of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted (✓) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn r-1\----�� Dateatti Dixon, Secretary -- See attached Sheet STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark At Beaver Creek Christie Lcdge Setback Variance for Awning Public Hearing The roof color review was postponed to a later date. The Commission granted approval of the front yard setback citing the following findings: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege incosistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; B. Tha` the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, o- materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would re3ult in pratical difficulty (' unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING ANF) ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Lot 16, Block 1, Wildrldge Subdivision Dawn Osoff Andrews, Attorney at Law Special Review Use/Home Occupation Public Hearing INTRODUCTION Dawn Osoff Andrews is requesting Special Review Use approval to conduct a business out of her residence, specifically, an attorney's office. The appl;cant has indicated that there will be no client traffic, no signs of any kind, no physical alterations to the premises, and no employees. All client contacts w4ll be either by phone or off-site. Written permission approving this request has been provided from the Homeowners Association representative. STAFF COMMENTS The following criteria as listed in Section 17.48.040 of the Avon Zoning Code, should be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission when review'ng a Special Review Use application. A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code; COMMENT: The Avon Zoning Code defines a home occupation as an "occupation, profession, activity or use that iG conducted within a dwelling unit which: A. Is clearly incidental and subordinate to the use of the dwelling unit as a residence; B. Does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential character of the neighborhood; and C. Does not require or allow employees to work on the property." The applicants' proposal complies with phis definition. Ali other requirements imposed by the Zoning Code are being complied with. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIOi4 October 6, 1992 Page 2 of 3 Lot 16, Flock 1, Wildridge Subdivision Dawn Osoff Andrews, Attorney at Law Special Review Use/Home Occupation Public Hearing B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan; COMMENT: Goal #A-1 (Land Use) and Objective #B2 (a) (Econo.nic Development) in the Avon Comprehensive Plan seem particularly relevant to this application. They are as follows: Goal #A-1: Ensure that all land uses are located in appropriate locations with apprrjpriate controls. Objective 132 (a): Provide for increase!:' opportunities for development of service oriented commercial and light induatrial uses, with proper controls to ensure compatibility. Staff feels that the proposed home occupation is an affirmative step to further the above listed goal and objective without negatively effecting adjacent, property owners. C. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Such compatibility may be expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features, site design, and the control of any adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc. COMMENT: Staft believes the requested home occupation will be very compatible with adjacent uses. The applicaiiz has indicated that she is not interested in putting up any signing, has no employees and will not be visited by clients. The primary use of tha dwelling will be as a residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for approval of the request with the conditions that the building retain it's residential character by not installing any business signirg on the property or the building, and that this approval is for this specific applicant and this specific use only, at this particular location. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Page 3 of 3 Lot 16, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Dawn Osoff Andrews, Attorney at Law Special Review Use/Home Occupation Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review F. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Nick Pylman Director of Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions (� Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn l ) Date A-wPatti Dixon, Secretary See Attached Lot 16, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Home Occupation, Special Review Use Public Hearing in The Commissior, granted approval of the Special Review Use for a Home Occupation for Dana Osoff Andrews, with the condition of a review at six months and with the following staff conditions: 1. The building retain it's residential character by not installing any business signing on the property or the building; 2. This approval is for this specific applicant and this specific use only, at this particular location. Unless there are complaints that have to be reviewed by this Commission during the six months, final approval may be accomplished by Staff review. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Lot 35, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Brust Residence Design Revisions Eft: INTRODUCTION: In May of this year Clark Brust received final design review approval for a single family home. Mr. Brust has identified some desired revisions during the construction process. - The landscape plan has been amended and upgraded as requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission. - Additional fenestration has been added to the south elevation. - River rock on the north elevation has been revised (some added, some eliminated). - Stucco has been substituted fur siding on the garage. - Fenestration has been added to west elevation, a window replaces the glass block. The major revision to this project is the increased exposure of the west and north elevations due to changes in the grading plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As this request is for revisions to an existing approval, Staff did not compare the revisions to the design criteria. We do not believe a recommendation is necessary. The Commission should review and comment upon the changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Presentation of Application 2. Applicant's Presentation a. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, 1 �Cl�^ Rick Pylman Director of Community Development a STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Lot 35, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Brust Residence Design Revisions PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( " Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) 4 Date Patti Dixon, Secretary The Commission approved all five design revisions as proposed, and the colors as presented. However, the applicant is to resubmit a new grading plan and a new landscape plan to address the actual height of the building, which should be measured, and to include some sort of screening and rock retaining walls put together with landscape sufficient to mitigate the excessive height, and the applicant is to work with staff in determining the height and the possible need for a variance. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Lot 67, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivsion Hoff Single Family Residence Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Lot 67, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision is a .43 acre duplex lot located at the corner of Saddleridge Loop and Fox Lane. The lot slopes away from the road, toward the northwest, at a 16% grade. The building is a two story Miles Home design with a two car attached garage. The total square footage potential is about 3,000 square feet, although at this time the walk out basement will be unfinished. The roof form is gable and exteri-r building materials consist of cedar siding, stucco and an asphalt sh9ngle roof. Building colors are Asteroid Grey for the siding, October Frost for the stucco and White White for the fascia, soffit, windows and doors. All setback requirements, building height and site coverage req!iirements are well within the zoning code allowances. The Staff does have a concern with the current driveway grade and alignment. 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: This proposal is in conformance with the zoning code and other 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 two story gable building form, cedar siding, stucco and heavyweight asphalt shingles are suitable for the site and for Wildridge in general. A specific shingle type and color should be specified to assure compliance with design review board policy. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Page 2 of 3 Lot 67, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Hoff Singla Family Residence Final Des gii Review 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The house as sited should have minimal impact on the views of adjacent properties. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: The current driveway grade and layout are a concern of the Staff. It is my understanding that a revised driveway plan will be completed prior to the review hearing. 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: The appearance appears to be positive. 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: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Progre.ms of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposal is in conformance with the adopted goals, policies and programs of the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION This project has not had the benefit of a conceptual review. The specific design and arrangement of materials should be reviewed by the Commission. An appropriate driveway solution must be presented prior to the hearing. A specific shingle product should be specified. With these issues identified, Staff recommends approval of the proposal. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 6, 1992 Page 3 of 3 Lot 67, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Hoff Single Family Residence Final Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review/Discussion Res,,)ectfully submitted, R i ck�y 1 man Director of community Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( Denied ( ) Withdrawn l r DateCif -Patti Dixon, Secretary_ After considerable discussion, the general consensus of the Commission was that this application was more at the conceptual design level than the final design level. Several suggestions were made for the applicant to consider and this application was tabled to the Octo-er 20, 1992 meeting. STA REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONIi4G COMMISSION Octc � 6, 1992 Lot 33, Block Sharpf/James Final Design INTRODUCTION 3. Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Review Lot 33, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision is a .73 acre duplex lot with an approximate slope of 15% rising from west to east. The lot is a flag lot with the building site situated about 200 feet from Flat Point Road. The proposed duplex meets all setback and tuiiding height requirements. The site coverage is 11.5% and there is approximately 4300 square feet of driveway and parking area. Each unit is approximately 2200 square feet in size. The building is a two story hip roof form with predominant building materials of hardboard siding and stucco. The roof will be an asphalt shingle in a weathered wood color. 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: This proposal is in conformance with the Zoning 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: This project is suitable for the site and the neighborhood. All materials appear to be appropriate. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The improvements have been designed to work well with the adjacent properties. The relatively low profile of these buildings will minimize encroachment into views of the neighboring properties. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING 1:OMMISSION October 6, 1992 Page 2 of 3 f Lot 33, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Sharpf/James Duplex Final Design Review 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: The improvements have been designed to work well with Site topography. 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: The design solution for this duplex is fairly simple and straightforward. The material selection and mix, the building and roof forms and the scale of the project are all appropriate for this site. 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be sr similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the acopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposal is in general conformance with the adopted goals, policies and programs of tie Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this design review STAFF REPORT TC THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 15, 1992 Page 3 of 3 Lot 33, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Sharpf/James Duplex Final Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, ICS �L Rick Pylman Director of Community Development OLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( i Continued ( Denied ( ) Withdrawn Date Patti Dixon, Secretary_ Considerable concerns were voiced by the Commission regarding the use of hardboard siding, the width of the driveway, the pitch of the garage roofs, the height of the garage doors, the window sizes, exterior lighting, and the need of a better drawn landscape plan. The Commission tabled this until the October 20, 1992 meeting. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND LUNiNG i,uMMISSiON October 6, 1992 Lot 55, Block 2, Benchmark Two Story Office Building Conceptual Design Review INTRODUCTION at Beaver Creek Subdivision Shapiro Development Co. has submitted conceptual plans for a two story commercial/office building on Lot 55, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Lot 55 is zoned Town Center. The allowable building height is 80 feet, allowable uses include commercial, restaurant, office and resiaential uses. The allowed density is 20 dwelling units or 60 accommodation units. The proposed development consists of 31 surface parking spaces, 15 underground parking spaces, a ground level of 4800 square feet of gross leasable area and a second boor of 4475 square feet of gross leasable floor area. The building utilizes a hip roof form and is approximately 38-40 feet in height. The roof will be standing seam metal and the color choice is a patina copper tone. Stucco is the exterior building material with storefront window and door systems As a conceptual review, Staff has no formal comments or recommendation. RECOMMENDED ,CTION Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review/Discussion Respectfully submitted. Rick Pylman Director of Community Development MEMO October 16, 1992 Hcnorable Mayor and Town Council Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda, October 6: 1992 Page 3 Other Bsiness Lot 33, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision S.iarpf Duplex, Final,_Cesign Review Tony Sharpf returned to the meeting and requested that the Commission, reconsider their action of tabling this item and requested that they grant final design review approval. The Commission reiterated that there were too i:,any concerns that need to be considered before final design review could be granted, therefore, their decision to ta'_)le would stand. Lots 2 and 4, Sunroad Subdivision, Denny's Restaurant, Reouest_ed Changes The Commission had no problem with the request to rework the driveway configuration to square it offj as long as they worked with staff. The Commission had no problem with them removing the berm next to the building as long as landscaping was adequate. The Commission felt that if the applicant could get permission from the Highway Department to plant landscaping in the right-of-way, the they would have no problem with the extra parking. The Commission was not in favor of the applicant removing the vrall between the: entrances, as they felt that this was an integral part of the design. Lot 47, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Koehn Residence, Landscape Plan Discussion. The Commission felt that the applicant needs to consider terracing and using retaining walls to work with the slope and needs to expand on what he has already done. The applicant r=eds to present a completed landscape plan to the Commission for approval. Lot 25, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivis'on, Iron Horse Pizza Banner Since the Iron Horse Pizza sign has been removed to allow for the work being done on the siding, the Commission had no problem with the applicant putting up a banner along the grass area for the duration of the work around his eatabliEhment.