The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 092104September 21, 2004 f TRACT B BENCHMARK AT TOPOGRAPHIC MAP BEAVER CREEK '' HATCHED AREA IS AREA OF 40% SLOPE OR GREATER LOT 70-A, BLOCK 1, A RESUBDIVISION 7-1 7-r-x j OF LOT 70, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK ,-1 r==1--rm 7-y r Town of Avon, County of Eagle, State of Colorado Y.--"- â€žH -r{ r ./71 Fl- 2-1 r EU-4:r m M p-inmmm /-1-' - n M_>--0-1.-1 1 -C-He-4->r< IH HN..My-0-iyiye-uty-Urww" - SURVEY NOTES: 1 \ 1) ary.y DitÂ« 13 M 2004 . 2) Location of In~rov-ent~ Lot l~,- b'm/' =I M- lon W BRISTOL PINES A- Mot of A Reme<.40= 0f t~t 70, bam- d 10- Crelk - 4" CALIPER i *Iviv Menum-t, found -1-n hir-* ThÂ» ~i, do- not TOWNHOWS DECIDUOUS TREE ~----- 1 -:- - 1 -- - 1 1 N I , 1 4 GIVAT,0,4 OATUU: 7830.40 k the tcp 0 - 1 1/2' *k,m-n GIP - I m r~-. (LS ...u- A-Mr- m..4 - ,outhe-t o,rner of MMNI T-heâ€¢- li \ *) CONTOUR â€¢TERVAL: 1 M CENTEFUâ€¢E 30' ACCESS 11 : -h- 8) Utilleâ€¢ I *0- IP,goll,â€¢Wy -d *lad bi mid I'llid P'lu to N , EASEMENT FOR LOT 70-A SHOÂ¥04 ON CONDOMINIUM MAP ~ ;4 FOR BEACON HILL. PHASE NO. 1 0)1'.. Lonâ€¢ 8,â€¢m. dell not "-mt W Or,4. m â€¢-4 0 N , . -, 01*W O- ..Milid h Ion Inalon .IM -1 Mwp -4 ma/-, - I ' l 7) STREET AOORESS: N.t poited. \I - I 1 4. 4.-1 it I. uw., m. .r.......... ... .....,. ..., u. .....t -22-ZZ--Â«rÂ»J-/ RECEIVED p.rell, ION't<Al,0 to- '00'14 - pr~-* Aeo.- r,I.ni-t - UNCult - h,t-, .threâ€¢ 0110,ty p-ent ~epâ€¢ or,e-r. 0 /1, FOUND IUREY WOMAWDIT 1 1 1/2- AllÂ»,Ul CAP -.--~ TRACT B SEP O 1 2004 - -+:--rrt O,1 91=R,ZON,â„¢ \ LOT 70-A BENCHMARK AT =% BEAVER CREEK 6 Mata. i ' h.ill/'.d Prol.*.4 l.nd QI'= ' th, Sid'- Of Colorad. .:~=%=':l. 00.-c ...f ... d- by P (BOOK J , -4+ 1 1:= i Â« - REC. NO. 273210) mi or -i my -4 -, I _ 0_~04 ..d,, *wommunity Development 1 -% \I . 1 8.-do,a -to--M, Do.n--MIN,- h-- - 110 1 El + .is,1-----E--i-t~-3-------- ----- 0-1 of th.- -WE.E.~el"J4-4.--IN-k-I \ ,/14.Li . N ' . I - Ill. Land Â¥07- =.TU24- 50' DRAI GE AND UnLITY EASEMENT ' CALIF'ER /7-- -- : ~Â«Â«212 - ~ BEACON H!11. ~ >f'Jt:P '' 'FIR TREE~ - -- - PHASE NO. 1 --- - - 1 ' I '- -- I r- - -- 1 I I ' -- - - I 1 - - ---- -0' I I N , 1 I . . I // 1 .... fi :.1 L.--\ Â»48. Ce,~guE 36' 4 Ir ------ ; 1 m -- N | GRAPHIC SCALE PROPOSED ACCESS EAE)ENT LOCATION -â€ž--- I. .UTIL]Th: i :.1 WATER l.---2--%- 2/ 1 R,AWN 1,4 VALVE 6 1 //'74*â€¢A r., 4 f2 - - '' / / N> m . n 1 i. 8 \ '' ...... 1 2.11' ~~~--/1. I TELIEPHONE~--- -- ---- .3 PEDESTALS . 1- , ------- / ---4 1 1- Redâ€¢on- S-not,9 ISS *-31-04 < HÂ¥1~RANT .4----1-1-, ~ '.19 15,4 TOPOGRAMOC MAP ortgr'&1.=686â€¢.Al.mr=. MARCIN ENGINEERING LLC WATER ..046,2. EDGE OF A-HALT VALVE R - 4808.70' T -3180' .-..... 0-4.1- -0.. 0...... NOTTINGHAM ROAD (60' R-0-10 L - 86000 P.O. Box 1062 PO. Box 5018 Cl - N007/44=W al. USS DAm 13 Aug 2004 AVON CO 81620 EAGLE CO 81631 N.'Ce A-,-1 . C-- 1- }mu -mT 'amm-Im, '00 01 - 8101 01'r Â»,t mot dil"'.M .,1, 'll'* b, no ...,4 mly -, (970) 748-0274 (970)328-1900 0-n b,- ~- my da-t * - Dn~ -~ *- B- SRW m â€žk 0109610,02 (970) 748-90*1 FAX (970) 328-1901 FAX ootlm O,- ailln Iny d-et h ah mnly DO lail~llll - m- 01098 ..,1. 1 U.n W tam hm - d- d 0-Wlloilâ€¢1 1,- hlf-Â· Z:\01096\01096slope.dwg, 8/31/2004 5:27:18 PM, HP Desk.Jet 1220C Printera.pc3 -I m. ZE Al 7- â€ž46 Miâ€¢phon- A,,,ZE- --r-'.1p.'I-,-,&& 7.. -< MI S|te Summary Schedule 1.. 6%~ ----suu*~17 . CURRENT ZONING, DUPLEX NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, 2 ... 1, 0 FLR AREA AT EA DWELLING UNIT, 2884 S.F. (PLUS 430 ENTRY 6 GARAGE> V.' 1 TOTAL AREA BOTH UNITS, 5768 S.F. (PLUS 860 GARAGE & ENTRY) : : ir.x-__..4-- a BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED 35'-0- / PROPOSED, 34'-8.3/4' Z.--~ovid,/1= palitlv, *allnee. Al RECEIVED OFF STREET PARKING REQ, 6 / PROPOSED, 6 42 /-k X AREA OF SLOPES OVER 40% ... 940 S.F. / 9.9% : / ' -A '*i /i,6/v h- 1 Se- 51(~/ *l/vettor, TOTAL LOT AREA .. 9,438 S.F. .... /f -1 1.4(.4. S EP 0 1 2004 BUILDING AREA ... 3,340 S,F, / 35% PAVED AREA IN EASEMENT 614 S.F. h h Z~~S::2(It "Ir' 2~B~~ S~1 1 2~2.27. BRISTOL PINES TOWNHOMES , 11 1-1-1 7-1 1.06 SNOW STORAGE PROVIDED -0 574 SF. : 7- m Community Development WALKWAYS .,. N.A. Grading Calculations railroad tie ret.Intle ..1 AREA OF DISTURBED SOIL ... 8,498 S.F. (90.1%) ~TACIFUN~ED~L ~SEE PLAN) ... 940 SF. + C ir 233> ~/,- 1-- ll/1 + St R LTE, TRASH REIâ‚¬]VAL PER CONTAINERS o TO BE SET OUT FOR REMOVAL .D 17; . i lin, of orlglnal access oaserÂ·lent-~ . railroad tie . 1 1 retalâ€¢â€¢Ing wall 0 2 F. = k 11 .1 25 \ 7 L.TOLL 0 ~ g i/U / 0 - 0 6," 61 ..1 1 0 11: = ~~~50'-0- DRAINAGE EASEMENT 9 1 91 u. 1 LI: 1 i \7.. - existing asphalt drive Â· to Nmain unclisturbed O lin 1 -----g--* ) YIELD SIGN I . 1 0 ./ M h 1 I ~ - 6 - ->-lfiF~ + -4- BRISTOL PINE TOWN IOMES 1 ..,9 Â¥ slope 'at center line of .- -~ i: 4,4,<th .... .\ BLDG SITE ~ ac ss rand (5'0' In 62'7 ) 1 . ' .r ~3 **A-.+ 541 INTDOW RB - 4 - BEACON HILL PHASE 1 \ % ,\ paved are on property, 2095 5.f. f L M paved are in easement: 614 sf, 11 4 thâ„¢ -1 9 ~-cli-127 ..0- F *44.PL -40 - 400% in NOTTINGHAM RD .....g .19-\ ' rt" 1 / - 2,-36+~V i 7 L 0 Z ..% U INTERSTATE HWY 70 7/.B - = 4808.7' L= 65.00' --w=-1 ASHPALT PAVING 3 1 F... h.-- --- 12Â· IMP VICINITY MAP ... NO SCALE -t- v... NOTINGHAM ROAD (50.0' R-0-W> SITE PLAN .. 1" = 10,0' dat, 8-2344 --1 ./ *I,t 1/4 Â·1*9*1 3.00,0â‚¬7 33N3UIS 321 X31dn6 NVEHann ~ ~ 0(IV80103 'AiNA03 319V] 'NOAV 30 , -/ RECEIVED 444 SEP 012004 ..... 1 1 ~ ~ ~ Gommunly Development CE till -f=QL 46~| | 1 44 A,< | 7543.00 7543 1-1 '1111111111111 1~-==1.30â‚¬31 75?7,27 34 1- . 7,946 1 1 - 7533.66 line of graolâ€¢ at | North (rear) Elevation M 1 1 11 11111 . 0 -1 1 6 E 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 49 50 9-: East 0/42 8110?t 919/tm vatlon 10 2 , 42 - Â«-1 U Z Lid )\ , 1 1-1-1 1 1 -0.46 CE 1\. 4. i M I 7543.00 ... -- 4 - I. r Â· imil"lill/"1/ffii' 7537.33 - 11111111111111111111 i.........1. 1 1.....-1 lilli. -utul . 1 - 00 z 0 1 --- 1 ---- lin, of gracie at bullollne cent,r <T 1 L *-- - .7527 - %27-- ---- C] 1 7---- --- 26 ~ ~ | South (front) Elevation 05 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 AREA East (lift stole) Elevation 1/t Flr LIving Ar/a ... 1418 end Flr LIving Arla .., 1621 ./.-I. Garag- .1,1,11,1.,1.11, 267 ......../.I let Flr Porch ......... 120 2nol Flr Porch ......... 326 Shared Entry Hall ..... 262 -t, ~-23-04 Elevations - 3/16" = 1'-0" Pro.Â»It RGC $. auc*SU 0IIVEI0103 'AINA03 319V3 X330-InG NVWHN - ' 27'-6' 27'-6 l t-----L--0-1 I 1 4 i 1 1\ BATH~ ~BATH 1- M ' - 4 BR 2 BATH BATH BR 2 2-' = .1-J. c, 1 - 17'-3' 17'-3' â€¢ | 1- 1 1 1 , ><1 XII -1 1 1 -'-' I I 1 21 -1= i ub 64 1 1, i T BR 3 BR 3 =1> .: w 1 0 - <6= 1 15'-20 1 0 15'-2' 1 - 1 1 1 -1 M IIi L Â·) ni 1 r- Iii 11 1 11 FOYER | | FOYER %, - I I I 1 ., .. 1 U , 11>r J - NI I LII - 0 1 1 10,-0,1 ~ 10'-0' __1 - UTIL- - -- 'UTIL m 0, W FAM 7 - 1 M \ al -_ i . 11'-6. 11'-7' 11'-7' 11'-6- 1 chev chev tur,Ina ' N lur,Ina 0 - 1 M - 1 1 l 0 1 1 W I 1 . 1\ 10 * 1 N . 1 1 (u 1 GAR GAR i o 4 0---- 1 1 1st Floor Pkkn -4 3 -= 0 111 -..4 1st FLOOR PLAN ... 1/4- = 1'-0' '......... .//Ct-.El I 60'-0* --11 -- 33N3GIS3B X31dnG NVWHanA ~ ~E DGVN0100 'AINAO) 319,3 'NOAV JO N/â€¢\01 1'-0- 27'-6' 27'-6' Il'-0~ 1 1, - . - 1 - i - 1, , 1 1 1 41 0 01 3 1 1 \ BR 1 BR 1 - ' 1 ' 27'-0, 27'-8' - 1 r i---p i --0 1 1 11 1 1 1 L.p T In--1---1--IM 1 L JI 1 1. -J - 4MEDIA KE[ O MEDIAS! il "'"' - 1! m i 1 1 11 lill 1 11- - c. 1 4% 1 1 :th 61 1 - 13'.-8â€¢ , I 13'-8' , ./ R - C GREAT <3 1. CÂ·, GREAT I 1 28 Â¤ 4 ROOMÂ·, . m .,ROOM Il 1 KIT__ 10'-5- ~ 16'-3' 127 -- - alternote 9104 8Â£,n ! /3<~ 77 r tal, i.. , /6/<-~-I~~rl :. IN~ . 1. "11 covered I open : Porch '.Porch :zI F .-9 PEI OJ 1 34 2nol Floor Plan Alternâ€¢te kltchen plan shown ...... - -'.I ./ 1st FLOOR PLAN ... 1/4' = 1'-0' .-/.4 33N3GIS]B X3 =91 1 Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 21, 2004 Meetings Held At: Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road 12:00 pm Site Tour - Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision 77 Metcalf Road - Please meet on-site in the parking lot if attending 5:00 pm Commission Work Session (Discussion of Items on Agenda) - REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - (Please note that all times provided are estimates only) 1. Call to Order at 5:30 pm 11. Roll Call 111. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda: Approval of the September 7,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes [Tab 1] VI. Variance - Encroachments into Easements and Setbacks (5:35pm - 5:55pm) - PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/580 Nottingham Road Applicant. Jerald L. Wuhrman Owner: Jux and DW Family Trust [Tab 2] Description: Jerald Wurhman is proposing two alpine style side-by-side town homes with a central corridor entry on Nottingham Road. The proposed design would require encroachments into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement on the western lot line and 7.5' Building Setbacks on the western and eastern lot lines. VII. Sketch Design - Duplex (5:55pm - 6:10pm) Property Location: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/580 Nottingham Road App#cant: Jerald L. Wuhrman Owner: Jux and DW Family Trust [Tab 3] Description: Jerald Wurhman is proposing two alpine style side-by-side town homes with a central corridor entry. Each unit is proposed to contain 3 bedrooms and 3>6 baths. Each unit will have a single car garage and surface parking. Proposed materials include rough sawn natural cedar trim and textured white stucco exterior and cedar shake shingles for the roof. The proposed maximum height is 35' and each unit will be approximately 3,000 sq. ft. A Variance is required for the proposed site design. Vlll. Special Review Use - Preschool (6:10pm - 6:35pm) - PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/77 Metcalf Rd Applicant: Martha Peck Owner: Evans Chaffee Construction [Tab 4] Description: Mountain Montessori is proposing a preschool at 77 Metcalf Road that would consist of approximately 20 students. The school would operate Monday - Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm. In Posted on September 17,2004 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: â€¢ Avon Municipal Building, main lobby â€¢ Avon Recreation Center, main lobby â€¢ Alpine Bank, main lobby â€¢ City Market, main entrance bulletin board â€¢ On the Internet at http://www.avon.org / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions order to facilitate the school use, there would be a fenced playground area outside the building for the students. IX. Minor Project - Windows & Fence (6:35pm - 6:50pm) Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/77 Metcalf Rd ApplicanVOwner Evans Chaffee Construction [Tab 5] Description: Evans Chaffee Construction Company is proposing building modifications and a fence. The proposed fence crosses over the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement on the southern lot line and will terminate at the building on Lot 23. X. Minor Project - Fence (6:50pm - 7:00pm) Property Location: Lots 40&41, Block 1, Wildridge/ 2133A & 2121B Long Spur Applicants/Owners: Eddress Ahmad Jr. (Lot 40A) & Helen D. Rudy (Lot 41B) [Tab 6] Description: The applicants have built a fence, connecting both properties, constructed with rounded lodgepole wood. This application is in response to a field visit with Town staff and Ed. Ed was informed that design approval is required from the Commission for any fence located in the Town. There are a number of split rail fences in the vicinity. XI. Minor Project - Landscaping (7:00pm - 7:10pm) Property Location: Lot 45, Block 1, Wildridge/2400 Saddle Ridge Loop Applicant/Owner: Vera Miller [Tab 7] Description: A minor project was approved in July 2003 for landscaping improvements and a new deck and stairs. All improvements have been completed and 10 aspens trees have been planted along the rear property line in Spring 2004. The trees were not indicated or approved on the original plan. This item was tabled (at the request of applicant) at the last Commission meeting. XII. Other Business A. Comprehensive Plan Update XIII. Adjourn (7:15pm) Posted on September 17,2004 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: â€¢ Avon Municipal Building, main lobby â€¢ Avon Recreation Center, main lobby â€¢ Alpine Bank, main lobby â€¢ City Market, main entrance bulletin board â€¢ On the Internet at http://www.avon.orq / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions 4 1# Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission September 7,2004 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm. 11. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Evans. 111. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were two amendments to the Agenda. Item VI, Final Design Plan - 2 Triplex Units, Property Loca#on: Lot 8, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision/1031 West Wildwood Road and Item VII, Final Design Plan - Duplex, Property Location: Lot 18, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5650 Wildridge Road East, to the Consent Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest. V. Consent Agenda Commissioner Trueblood noted a change to the Meeting Minutes from the August 17th, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, Item IX, Final Design Plan - Duplex, Property Location: Lot 5, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/5039 Wildridge Road East, that he was referencing a previous meeting's denied project, Shane Bohart, and not this Application being reviewed. The Meeting Minutes were corrected. Vice Chairman Karow stated a correction to the Meeting Minutes regarding Item VI, PUD Amendment - Public Hearing, Property Location: Lots 54, 55, 89 & 90, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5190 & 5196 Longsun Lane/ 5767 & 5775 Wildridge Road East, that he disagreed with the 4,000 square foot living space limitation. The executed Meeting Minutes reflected all corrections. Commissioner Trueblood motioned for the approval of the Meeting Minutes from the August 17th, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; Item VI, Final Design Plan - 2 Triplex Units, Propeny Loca#on: Lot 8, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision/1031 West Wildwood Road and Item VII, Final Design Plan - Duplex, Property Location: Lot 18, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5650 Wildridge Road East, be approved on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\090704.DOC Page 1 of 5 VI. Final Design Plan - 2 Triplex Units Property Location: Lot 8, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision/1031 West Wildwood Road, Applicant: Stephen Richards, Owner: Steven McDonald Description: Stephen Richards is proposing a final design for two triplex units on West Wildwood Road. This lot is zoned for six units. Proposed materials include: wood siding and stucco. Each unit will be approximately 2,500 sq. ft., including garage space. The sketch design was approved at your July 20,2004 meeting. Moved to Consent Agenda. VII. Final Design Plan - Duplex Propedy Location: Lot 18, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5650 Wildridge Road East, Applicant/Owner: Tripp Plavec Description: Tripp Plavec is proposing a 6,000 sq. ft. alpine style duplex. This duplex will be accessed via two driveway entrances. The north unit of this duplex will share a driveway entrance with Lot 17. Proposed materials include: asphalt shingle roof, cedar siding and trim, stucco and stone. The sketch design was approved at your August 17, 2004, meeting. Moved to Consent Agenda. Vlll. Sketch Design - Duplex Property Loca#on: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/580 Nottingham Road, Applicant Jerald L. Wuhrman, Owner: Jux and DW Family Trust Descriptiont Jerald Wurhman is proposing two alpine style side-by-side town homes with a central corridor entry. Each unit is proposed to contain 3 bedrooms and 31/b baths. Each unit will have a single car garage and surface parking. Proposed materials include rough sawn natural cedar trim and textured white stucco exterior and cedar shake shingles for the roof. The proposed maximum height is 35' and each unit will be approximately 3,000 sq. ft. Vice Chairman Karow commented that Staff indicated the Applicant had not met the requirement of attending the meeting personally and recommended tabling this Application. Commissioner Trueblood motioned to table Item VI11, Sketch Design - Duplex, Property Location: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/580 Nottingham Road, Applicant Jerald L. Wuhrman, Owner: Jux and DW Family Trust. Commissioner Didier seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously, also requesting staff inform the applicant about concerns of the Commission mirroring those of staff. IX. Minor Project - Fence F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\090704.DOC Page 2 of 5 4 , Property Location: Lot 258, Block 1, Wildridge/2110 Long Spur Applicant/Owner: Matthew Kamper Description: The applicant is proposing a 4' high split rail fence on the rear and side property lines. All fences require specific approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Matthew Kamper, applicant/owner, approached the podium to discuss his reasons for a fence. The fence was to contain the dog and his child rather than tether both. He would install a split rail with chicken wire to contain dog. Commissioner Savage asked about the home's coloring and mentioned that colored wire was available. The applicant responded that the fence would not be noticeable from the road. It was determined that the existing fence was weathered. Commissioner Savage mentioned that he saw no good reason for denial. Commissioner Struve and Commissioner Smith both agreed there was a property line issue and this was a problem. Commissioner Didier had issues with the chicken wire. Commissioner Trueblood understood the applicant's concerns with containing the dog and child, but the property line issue was definitive. Commissioner Trueblood continued by mentioning that the use of an easement must be signed off its owner and to approve building on the easement was an ownership issue. Commissioner Karow understood the dog and child issue, mentioned that the design guidelines' wording for fences was to discourage them. Mr. Kamper mentioned that he would move the fence to the Town's desired location. Commissioner Didier suggested a different type of fence, smaller one, and have it moved to another location on the property away from the property line. Commissioner Struve mentioned that should the fence be moved to the easement line as a solution. Commissioner Savage suggested to move the fence back ten feet, along the building set back line Commissioner Savage motioned to approve Item IX, Minor Project - Fence, Property Location: Lot 258, Block 1, Wildridge/2110 Long Spur, ApplicanVOwner: Matthew Kamper, with the conditions that the fence be moved to the building setback line and to move the proposed Nonhwest section of the fence further east, as indicated on the large site plans. Commissioner Smith seconded this motion. The motion was amended to reflect that a split rail fence with no chicken wire would be installed. The motion carried 5 to 1 with Commissioner Karow opposing, X. Minor Project - Landscaping Property Location: Lot 45, Block 1, Wildridge/2400 Saddle Ridge Loop ApplicanVOwner: Vera Miller Description: A minor project was approved in July 2003 for landscaping improvements and a new deck and stairs. All improvements have been completed and 10 aspens trees have been planted along the rear property line in Spring 2004. The trees were not indicated or approved on the original plan. A F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\090704.DOC Page 3 of 5 , site plan was submitted to Staff with the location of the trees and will be available review at your meeting. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Dave Yoder, east neighbor of the property, approached the podium and found the trees objectionable. Sue Fontanese, another neighbor east of the property, voiced concern that her view would be blocked, how the trees were planted in a row and was concerned that her property value would decline since the view would be eliminated. The trees were not part of an approved Landscaping Plan for the subject property. Commissioner review began with Commissioner Trueblood commenting that landscaping in an easement was unapproved and was opposed to the location of the trees. Commissioner Didier asked if the applicant contacted the neighbors regarding the trees. Mr. Yoder said that the trees were planted in the Spring when he was in Florida. Ms. Fontanese stated that the Cottonwoods were planted while she was gone and were in the direct line with her picture windows. The Landscaping Plan was approved for 3-foot wild flowers and not trees. Commissioner Struve visited the site and mentioned that the trees were lined up like telephone poles and preferred the trees be grouped. Commissioner Savage agreed with Commissioner Trueblood and, technically as an appraiser, voiced that views are part of property value and the trees should be removed. Commissioner Smith mentioned that the plan called for wildflowers and not view blocking trees. Commissioner Karow mentioned that the Commission respects the views of the property owners and that trees are an enhancement but not in an easement. Commissioner Trueblood mentioned that a letter from the applicant was distributed requesting a delay of a motion of this application. Commissioner Didier commented that the placement of the trees should be more neighbor friendly. Commissioner Trueblood motioned to table Item X, Minor Project - Landscaping, Property Location: Lot 45, Block 1, Wildridge/2400 Saddle Ridge Loop, ApplicanVOwner: Vera Miller, until the Applicant could be present. Commissioner Didier seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor. Mr. Yoder hoped that the applicant would come in and discuss the issues. IX. Other Business Tambi Katieb discussed that Lot 61 was an item on the upcoming Town Council Work Session on September 14*1 2004, at 3:30pm and he encouraged all Planning and Zoning Commissioners to attend. Mr. Katieb continued with an update on the Comp Plan and commented that a draft of the Comprehensive Plan was distributed to the Steering Committee. He mentioned the discussion at the Comp Plan meeting related to completion of the document by November, and that the Steering Committee requested more time of Council in order to produce a document that would truly benefit the Town in the long term. F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\090704.DOC Page 4 of 5 I , Commissioner Struve questioned the Chateau (The Geneva Crown Club and currently named "The Gates") and was it moving forward? The developer intends to come back to discuss the deed restricted housing on the site through a PUD amendment. The Car Wash was mentioned with its expiration date of 12/10/2004 and that nothing has been heard to date regarding the project. The Lighting Ordinance has been bogged down due to the compliance deadline and several other business points, however, staff was hoping to bring this back to Council soon to pick up where it was left off. X. Adjourn Commissioner Trueblood made the motion to adjourn. Commissioner Didier seconded and the motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Andrew Karow Vice Chairman Terry Smith Secretary F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\090704.DOC Page 5 of 5 ~ 111-\RI' 01 x he \'i\I .1.IiÂ¥ Staff Report VARIANCE Affi COLORADO September 21, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date September 14, 2004 Variance type Encroachment of structure into 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement and 7.5' Building Setbacks Legal description Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Zoning Residential Duplex (2 Units) Address 580 Nottingham Road Introduction This Variance request is being reviewed in conjunction with the sketch design plan that was tabled at your September 7th,2004 Commission meeting. Lot 70A is zoned Residential Duplex. Section 17.20.060 (d)(3) of the Municipal Code indicates the following minimum building setacks; Front - twenty-five (25) feet; Side - seven and one-half (7.5) feet; Rear -ten (10) feet. The western lot line has a platted 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement. The eastern lot line does not have a platted 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement. If approved, the variance would allow encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement on the western lot line and 7.5' Building Setbacks on the eastern and western lot lines. The applicant must demonstrate that a hardship exists on this lot for the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve a variance. In 1984 a variance for Lot 70A was approved for encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement and Building Setbacks and 50' Utility and Drainage Easement. The review criteria for variances in 1984 is the same as the criteria used today. According to the minutes from the March 8, 1984 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the variance with the finding that "Exceptional and extraordinary circumstances consist of there being a 50' wide drainage easement across an open space tract adjacent to the easterly lot line, and there being no drainage and utility easement on the lot adjacent to the easterly lot line". This variance lapsed in 1985 due to construction not commencing within one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion. A technical issue that should be addressed, but was not part of this variance application, is that grading is proposed outside of the property boundaries into the OLD Zone District and 50' Drainage Easement. Additionally, specific approval by Town Council would be required for grading encroachment into the OLD Zone District and 50' Utility and Drainage Easement. Variance Criteria According to the Section 17.36.040, the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Town of Avon Community Development (970) 949-4280 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Side Lot Easement Variance September 21,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 4 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; The applicant states the requested variance has no direct impact to other adjacent properties as there is a 50' Utility and Drainage Easement on the eastern lot line (also located within the OLD Zone District). When the lot was purchased the title search and survey did not show the 7.5' easemenUsetback on the plat. Staff believes the title search and survey errors were not due to faults by the Town. The easement/setback information is available on the plat maps in the Community Development Department and the building setbacks are indicated for each zoning district in the Municipal Code. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement 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; The applicant states that relief requested was reviewed and granted per the Staff report and minutes at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 8, 1984 (Exhibits A and B) and similar criteria prevail today. The adjacent condo association to the west (Bristol Pines and Beacon Hill) and homeowner's to the east (Snowrun Unit C) have no objection to granting of requested variance (Exhibit G and H). Staff believes that although a side lot setback variance has been previously granted for this lot, it was 20 years ago. The Municipal Code and Design Review Guidelines have changed in the past 20 years. Also, the proposed design for the application in 1984 is different than the proposed design in this sketch application and does not appear to fit the lot appropriately. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; The applicant states the variance requested has no affect on any of the above considerations. Staff believes that public facilities and utilites may be affected. If, in the future, any utility maintenance and/or installation or drainage work must be completed within the easements in question the proposed duplex may pose an obstruction. The Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines state that disturbance in drainage and utility easements should be avoided and that dedicated easements shall remain unobstructed unless they are officially vacated. Staff believes that encroachment of the proposed duplex into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easements on the western lot line is considered an obstruction. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The applicant states the redesign of units, although possible, would not be as desirable to potential owners and would not seem to provide an improvement in utilizing this difficult site, which the applicant's engineer confirms can work for the proposed site plan. Staff would agree with the applicant in that this lot does pose some difficulties in terms of the lot's dimensions and access. This information was known to the applicant at the time he purchased the lot. Staff believes the applicant should design a structure that is compatible to the property boundaries instead of the boundaries being altered to be compatible with the Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Side Lot Easement Variance September 21,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 4 structure. Allowing encroachment into platted easements and grading outside the property boundary, in order to maximize square footage, does not meet the criteria of a "hardship". Findings Required According to Section 17.36.050 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & 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 privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; Staff Finding: In order for a variance to be granted the applicant must demonstrate that a hardship exists on this lot and that the hardship dictates the design that has been submitted as the only feasible option. Staff believes alternative design options could be used that would not require encroachment into the 7.5' easement/setback. The applicant should redesign the duplex to fit within the 7.5' easement/setback on the western and eastern lot lines. Granting this variance would be considered a special privilege. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties of improvements in the vicinity; Staff Finding: Granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety of welfare, or materially injurious to properties 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 deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe any of the three criteria mentioned above would warrant approving this variance request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the variance proposing encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easements and Building Setbacks on Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision for the following reasons: 1. A hardship has not been proven to exist on Lot 70A for a variance to be approved. Granting this variance would qualify as a special privilege to the applicant. 2. Encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement on the western lot line would be considered an obstruction within the easement. 3. Other design alternatives exist that would not require encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easements and Building Setbacks. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Side Lot Easement Variance September 21, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 4 Recommended Motion "I hereby move to deny a variance to allow encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement and Building Setbacks for Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision as outlined in Resolution Number 04-24 for the following reasons: 1. A hardship has not been proven to exist on Lot 70A for a variance to be approved. Granting this variance would qualify as a special privilege to the applicant. 2. Encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement on the western lot line would be considered an obstruction within the easement. 3. Other design alternatives exist that would not require encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easements and Building Setbacks. If you have any questions regarding this or any other project or community development issue, please call me at 748.4030, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respgctfully submitted, K â€ž* Rad~i C Kenneth Kovalchik Planner I Att: Exhibit A - March 8,1984 Staff Report Exhibit B - March 8, 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Exhibit C - February 23,1984 letter from Steve Erickson Exhibit D - September 10, 2004 Variance Application Exhibit E - September 15, 2004 letter from Jerald Wuhrman Exhibit F - September 15,2004 letter to Planning and Zoning Commission from Jerald Wuhrman Exhibit G - September 14, 2004 letter from Ron and Marci Tribelhorn, Snowrun Unit C Exhibit H - August 27,2004 letter from Board of Directors of Beacon Hill and Bristol Pines Homeowners Association Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Sep-03-2004 09:02am From-TOWN OF AVON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 09493T43 7-[ 3] P 03/0 14 F-097 6646* A STA~F REPORT TO PLANNING 8 ZON:NG COMMISSION - 3/2/84 'fariance Recucst - SidelÂ·ot Setback Requiremerit u U v / U-/1 7 BlocK 1, Banchwork Subtivision Lot 70-A, Brock 1, Benchmark Subdivision is zoned RMO, Setback reqjirements for the RMO zcne is 25 feet front, 7.5 feet side and 10 feet rear. This variance request is 'or the elimination of the 7.5 'oct sidelot setback requirement fom the eas rerly lot line. Special Conditions Related to Recuest: 1. Easterly lot line borders Tract B which is zoned OLD', 2. The 50 -oot wide area of Tract B, adjacent to the easterly line of Lot 70-A, is designated as drainage and utility easement; 3. The easterly side of Lot 70-A does not contain the 7.5 foot drainage and utility easement as provided on moft lots in the Town of Avon. Prior to making its decision, the Commission shall consider the following factcrs: 17 1 3Â§2 919- _.APE.93.3,1.-'. g.r.j..te.r.i..8- Before acting on a varionce aoplication. ~ P,anning and Zoninc Connission uhe ' shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: A. The relationship of the regwested variance to other existing or notential uses and structures in t.he vicinity; B. The degree to which relie' from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of specified regulation is necessary to achieve conpatibility and uniformity of treatrent among sites in the vicinity. or to attaln the objectives of this title without grant og special privilege; C. Tne effect câ‚¬ tne requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, traninortatinn and traffic facilities, sublic facilities and utilities, and public safety; D. Si,ch other factors ard criteria as the Commission deems applicaile to the prcposed variance. (Crd. c..-3 31,(.1.. 01-2 01'.i\\ r' 1.+19 41 -'ter: .' 1 F f- g.4 Findings Reauired ne Mlanning and Zoning Cornission :tkal i make the fol 7Â¢41Â·,Â·ir-Â·c v,ritten f indings before granting 2 variance: A. Thal 1:ho 9 ran line of the varicar'c c wi H nol (,1.nstitÂ·.itcÂ· c grant c f specia Z privi ege incorsistpnt with the limitations on otner properties classi=xed in the s ane. 0 1,4 1 V ., Sep-03-2004 09:02am From-TOWN OP AVON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 394Â§5749 T< 0, P C 4/014 F-C97 STAFF REPORT TO PLANNINO i ZONING COMMISSION - 3/8/84 Varance Reauest - Side or Setback Require."ent Lot 70-A, Block 1, dench'Trk Sub,jivi 5 i Â·35. 17.36.060 Findings Required, Con't. B. That rhe granting of the variance will not be detrimental to tte public health, safety, or we fare, or materially injurious tc properties ov Improve- pents in the vicirlity; C. That the variance is warranted for one cr wore c f the frirowing redisons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the soecified regulation would result in practical di'ficulty or unnecessary physic:i haraship 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 rot apply generally to 01.her prooarties in the same zone, 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specicied regulation would deprive the ai:plicant of privileges enjoyed by the Owners of other properties in the same district. (Crd. 81-9 51 (el'. A rrotion granting or denying a variance Should contain the specific criteria and findings Loon which the action is based. The granting of a variance may be conditicned on action by the app icant. Respectfulty Submitted, - ~:-7 / 2 - ./ L,1. 21-g> 7767, Norm Wcoc Directcr of Public Works Planning ecd Zoning Action' Approved as Rec' im'ended: ... 2.2~~2Â£- f > Ancroved with Medi 4, ed Conaitfnns: Continued: Denied: Dated: :31% 1% 4.. I 'f~.ttl,Â·<Oct L,- 7~ '4, 33 4â‚¬ Â·10 tkirs, Secretary Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes ExibtÂ·Â¥b 3/8/84 Page 2 of 5 Coldwell Banker Sign, Lots 29-32, Block 2, B.S., Con't. Cole made the suggestion that the lot on which the sign is placed may be sold shortly and will then remove the sign upon closing of lot sale. Any further signage for those lots would come before the Commission for approval . Cuny motioned that the Caldwell Banker sign met all criteria placed upon it in the motion for approval of the January 12, 1984 meeting. Watkins seconded. Meehan was opposed. Motion carried. Lot 7OA, Block 1, B.S. - Sidelot Setback Variance Norm Wood, Director of Public Works, presented application. Watkins stepped down from discussion due to financial interest in lot. Tom Maron of Maron and Associates, represented appl icant, Steve Erickson, owner of lot. Maron stated that variance is to allow construction of the type of building being presented, which is long and narrow. Wood stated that Lot 7OA is adjacent to Tract B, which is an open space tract. Setback requirements are 25 feet from front lot line, 10 feet from back lot line, ,id 74 feet from side lot lines. Proposed building location is 25 feet back from the front lot line, but balcony extends out over the setback line. Setback re- quirements are that space be open from the ground upward. Leon Lowenthal made public comment that he objected to the variance. He is owner of western most unit in adjacent development to the east. He felt he would lose his view and this project would be too close to his property. Bill Stroop made public comment that granting a variance would be detrimental to the lot because there would be no control of building size. Pierce and Commission reviewed and discussed Approval Criteria, 17.36.040 and Findings Required, 17.36.050. Pierce questioned if this was the smallest lot in the general area. Wood answered that it was. Steve Erickson, applicant, mentioned that there was a 74 foot easement on original plat, but Town Council requested that it be removed at time of re-plat and the variance request was in conformance with Town Council's intent at time plat was approved. Cuny motioned to grant the variance request of Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark Sub- division to allow building construction to the easterly side lot line due to the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the site in accordance with Section 17.36.050, Findings Required, number two of the Avon Municipal Code. Exceptional and extraordinary circumstances consist of there being a 50 foot wide drainage easement across an open space tract adjacent to the easterly lot line, and there being no drainage and utility easement on the lot adjacent to the easterly lot line. Meehan seconded. Landauer and Blair opposed motion. Motion car,ied. 1 1, Â·11'6Â£ 2 ' 4 Â·:1#-1.i.'',11 E*lit C Steve G. Erickson P.O. Box 116 Avon, CO 81620 February 23, 1984 Planning & Zoning Commission Town of Avon Avon, CO 81620 To Whom It May Concerns Back in the annals of the actions of that august body re- presenting the interests and responsibilities of the Town of Avon, decisions were made (although today not readily substantiated) in relation to the subdivision of Lot 70, Block 1, Town of Avon and the establishment of a drainage easement on said lot's easterly border. Summarily, when the above lot was subdivided, selling off that property now so described as Lot 70, Lot 70-A was created and retained. Certain accompanying decisions were made relative to the use and care of the adjacent "drainage" property to the east. One of the actions taken was to waive the eastern easement requirements of Lot 70-A, as evidenced by the recorded plat of the area. It was our understanding that, by so doing, development of the gite would therefore allow for placement of a structure on that easterly lot line. However, we have been advised that the set-back and easement restrictions are separate issues. Hence, this formal request for a variance of the set-back requirement relative to the eastern lot line. In that regard, please find attached a site plan reflecting our intent. Your consideration and appropriate action would be appreciated. Sincently, Steve G. Erickson SGE,mp . 846,4 -b VARIANCE APPLICATION Variance Review Fee: $ 300.00 COLORADO A#kant Ie 4- a/4 L . HAJ,r .1 UPI V Â·- 2.0 chcl - 6 _ Mamnt Addrms: /5 9 <:a m â€¢.10 clo,r UbcityÂ·. Jit p i-6.- state: FE zip: 37 Phouthiz/- 79,7 2 2 00 Â¥â€¢Elk 56/- 71/5-7319~tn *Â·37/Â·- 767 77 /7 Owner of Property: 4Tkv -*d 20 41/ grp,7, At 7; us+ Malling Address: 65;0*,4 e ~ City: State: ZiP: Phone #: F #: Cell #: Lot: 7OA Block: (1 ~ Subdiviston: elfn c h ..1 0,Â· k â€¢+ Seave, 4..el. HECEIVER Project Name: W~h r 41 zin 0 (A p/ex sEP 1 0 2004 Street Addras: 5-80 AJetting 6 2/v,1 2 4 Community Developmen current zoning: R M D CO uy Ie /4 De:cribe the Variance Requested: Re'a fp-rn,row trwl OF +Le ~â€¢ev,atu 1.vavted Varinnef e h Ynt AatinÂ¥ tlkt 7. 6-,+ 91444 5â‚¬+6â€¢rk ret-u'pr &,1 en #Â· e.-1 29-4- p vape,4~ L.ni. A. Deâ€¢cribe the relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: /@~c, ts 'tot Varia.er h a; NO difer+ 6,*pâ€¢ct +9 Orte. 8 0(j a re V,+ p fo fe v 41 es 4 1 there c 4 50' Open Spare Oetb-rah-4 8Â£ dIhIA-*fe evle v.*Mt 4-6 6-24+ of /82 mâ€¢,4 9416.r; le+ C.Al FL~ CLay*A +He folre, an A SUAVe , did AMT A-a Â¥â€¢ftivel Th-0- emw.4,4/ref ha,k - plâ€¢L Comrmmity Development, P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO ~620 (970)748-4030 Fax (970)949-5749 (reÂ¥. 12/27/00 Page 1 of 2 ( B. Deseribe the degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specific regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among site, in the vicinity, or attain the objectives of Title 17.36.040 without grant of special privilege: Râ€¢ h i f. reY" Arid torat Hevieveecl ~ae,1 ~Mbted- per st.f* repe:+ b#, r4444+91 9 f'Fl -e.b;v,7 0, 3/21/aY Â·an 4 r,Â·.u~1~, Criter,~ pve/al? tedâ€¢v . A;Ijare.+ Â«440*Ts< A w.it =J +wâ€¢.1 kiw e &u,0,-ev -te east have NO 0610Â·,1.eÂ·,4 + *.a,4 0,*Mâ€¢, 1, re,1,4 694 v'ail,aâ€¢ce. C. De:cribe the effect of the requested variahce on light and air, distribution of population, tranâ€¢portation and traffic facilitlea, public facilities and utilities, and public safety: Var,ane e .4 1u pa-L# hn& NO aff-ect uy' 71 VI V 9 +1. 9 F/6 0 ue . D. Any such other facton and criteria as the Planning Commission may deem applicable totheproposed variance: 49,0~â‚¬5 /9.Â¥ 2.al<-4, Elifi 8447 4 portili uÂ»*16 Aer 6 e .1 des}A 6 /e 41 O0644ers aMA wa u.giNOT Seâ€¢ - 46 prDVIAe 111Â£ i*,ip.uâ€¢,wm4 /4 ve#~01 +413 4*kfp â‚¬J f 51 le wL 1, *w\ ebq inee. 0, Ca n ojolk , fit vu ate A s i 4 4. I (we) represent that all information provided to the Town ofAvon in connection with this application as true and correct, that I (we) understand the Town of Avon regulations applicable to this project, and understand that incomplete submittals will delay application review. Owner designates Appli- cant as indicated to act as owner's representative in all application submittals related to this project. A#icant: C~GA~ C<~CUÂ».,.,v, Owner:JW .4 D w Fa- i/ v-7;ly (PrtniNâ€¢m,)fJ@ra/4 PA h,Â·*,7,7 (Muttiâ€¢mq: JÂ»4/ 4 Wi,ALâ€¢,40,1,- Ujfe D... el 30/09 Dak. 8~ 20 ~ 0 Y - Con,nunity Development, P.O. Box 973 Avon, CO 81620 (970)748.4030 Fax (970)949-5749 (rev. 12/27/01) Page 2 of 2 Nignatill.eN AS E 9/,9 ~ 07 1 4-,4:.40% 1 + on FBY 970 - 919 97F? A AL": te n A;2,t,~~F/; ,k f ke_. 978 -7 4# 40/ 7 110 : 1/yÂ« 67 #14 464 64 p (ek 1/219'22MCâ‚¬ I 9- "* ,(aÂ« ke .ru>-cli. -11" fe((4Â«.â‚¬.~71 5% 0~ / e 47-4 op ek p (4 4 m tâ‚¬ 641â€¢ T u>4Â«8<1 l Â£ 6< e 74Â« +O f ali 6-14 1-0 7(4 14 A Ck<g 8 0-0 â€¢ci 110,1 c *4 6 + 4& U->4-tt c <~Â·yt.~ Â°f 2,4644 /r the f r re-1.Â« C 6-01 cto a s s e orle A eÂ«J -ot-<41/ 1'=4 A sjaÂ·fr U.f f 42' f,k .Â« i /My*4 . r 7;1 / 4 e /4 0-7 0 -74~ e 76 - - A e M.1 i tdAA,-M.Â£4 f 9 - *te i i a 4, (7 40 fl Â¢ e ~5 + 4 Â£6 ' 6~,2) riay e af tel Sphet. . Tr,â€¢Â£+ -ftÂ£* u.,4 21 kzl,3 1M. gerlint r re.41.5,1 * 0-1 -0,1~ 6 k a A 6.Â« +0 F r a *=4 '4 1/1,9, fle p.2 *1 7~Â·~A*fl bu-+ ex?\vrol Viv,av~re Â¥ 19 89. RECEIVED 9*1-44 ~EP 1 5 2004 r AivE-FRUT Community Development Ely kt V Â· OCEAN VUE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 154 COMMODORE DRIVE JUPITER,FLORIDA 33477 PHONE 561-747-2200 PAX 561-745-7147 JWUHRMAN@,AOL.COM RECEIVED September 15,2004 ' SEP 1 5 2004 Community Development To: Avon Planning Commision Prom: Jerald Wuhrman, Applicallt/Wuhrman Duplex Subject: Eistern Sideyard Setbac~ Variance I would like toiummarize some k die backround for thlo variance request u follows: 1) The lot was purchaled in 199} baled on a tite report and sw-vey that did NOT reflect a â€¢de yard easement or set back requirement and there wu No evidence of a variance th;t had been granted in 1984 but expired one year later because the lot had not been built onl 2) My fint proposed conceptual pite plan in 1999 for development of the property utilized the platted access easement whiÂ® went within (1) foot of the front of the building and garie of the euterly end unit in ~histol Pines condominiumi. Staff did not like this and suggested redemignof the site pliA wilhaccess tomy lot thruthe 50 footaccels/draihage easement to the Snow Run Tow#homes. This pre:ented engincering/legal problem, mo we abandoned thil option In favor o[ negodating with the condominium *Mociations for vacating the original unfavorable,ccess easement on the west and realignining it further south on my lot u presently proposed. A revised,ite plan with(2) side by side townhouses with Southwest style wathetics Vas developed and presented with side entryways which encoached on the westerly side,rd setback and had drainage problems. 3) Beed onsta& commenti we reconsidered that option and developed the presently propoled lite plan with Alpine Meathetic, the revised acces: easement fr~m the west, a dual center corridore entry to each #the two dde-by-side minimum width townhou,e, with sideyard setbacks on the welt of ~7 M ft and on the el,t of 2 ft. 4) Thi. design was bucd on ..Mming the previously approved variance could be reamrmed on the same basis it wu origin,14 granted including: A) Hard,hip in deign to permit desirable and functional units on this very narrow " (60" wide) duplq lot which is the smallat In the area. B) There 13 * 50 ft. wfde open space drainage easement immediately to the east so my lot 18 not contiguous to the adjacent lot which does not have a aide yard setback provided.1 C) When lot 70 w. geplatted to establish lot 70A, the records Bhow it was the desire of the then Comminion to not call for and incorporate a sideyard euement/setback requirement for lot 70A!! and for the additional present considerdons of: D) Our propooed draillâ€¢ge plan will work with the proposed itc plan and we will NOT encroach into the 50 It dralpage easement with * 2 ft west.midc wtback. E) The owner of the lot to the east does NOT object to the grinting of our requested variance and the condominium asiodations to the west also do not object. Based on the above, we respecÂ®lly request your approval of our application to reafflrm the priorgnnted variance- This will pennit ul to develop a tÂ»wnhouse duplex project that will functionally fit the lot and be an asset to the communig without creating a problem for the Town or the neighborhood. Sincerely, a * iD-6-Ap~ Sip[*ture RECEIVED :rp 1 5 2004 Community Development SUN: Sldâ€¢ Yard S*tback REC_ /ED Eikil C Date: 9/14/2004 8:48:39 PM Eastern D*light Time SEP 1 5 2004 From: tribel@netbeam. net TO: 6...)------. -- Sent from the Internet ([hinital Communay Development Jerry--we have no objection to your proposed variance to the side yard setback. Given the 50 foot separation for the drainage and access held by the town of Avon your variance of three feet does not adversley impact us. Ron and Marci Tribelhom 520 Nottingham Rd. #C Avon. CO ..... A... Q.I.*.-1... 1 C ,Arld A mortra nnlineÂ· TwilhrmAn i "RB,â€¢17IRK'In Sep 14 04 02:39p Bolduc Realt, 970-349-5565 EÂ«4\- 4 RECEIVED SEP 1 5 2004 Attgubl 27.2004 Community Development Mr. Jerry Wuhrinan 154 Cut'nmodollic Drive JIipiter. FL 33477 Dear Mr Wwhrman. Ilie Boat'd of Directors of Beacoil Hill und Bristl,1 PineS hollieon'Ite!'9 91;SOCiations Opprove '0111' propo.Sal to rclocine the access easement to l or 704 underÂ· the followlilg le,125 811(1 0011(liT]lins. 1. lhe Z lope ilt the pat,ifig from Lol 704 10 The exismig drwewo> will be 110 glÂ·eatel' Th MI'l :911owed by rhe Town or' A, f,n 2. There must be a trough drom where the new dlive adioills the presenI pavenient 3. A yield sign must be placed whele elte drive from I.rn 70.4 joins rhe main driveway i The develover of Lot 70A and/or Â£,thsequent owne,Â·c will 1,11 ji,tin the Jitch from t],e south end ot the rrough drain tu the road J s nece51,12Â·>Â· ro prevent waterÂ· trom Ilic d iÂ·nÂ·r spihiny t.tn' n 111Â¢ naeÂ·, Cast Inent. 5. The develope, of Lot 70A and/or s,ibsed-ll:!11 ow,!ers will share the cost 0l mailithin ny the 9<Â·c/95 tusement with rtic Beacon lihil mid BI'isic,11>,ne, as:,oriatit,n< 6. Tile parking spaces Oil Thc Cast endef the original acce,18 euvcmÂ¢nt will reinaM unchinted, 7. 3 ou agite to substitute a low growing allrub for the Cottonwood tree at [lie solithweit corner of yawÂ· duplex. 8, Should it be necessary zo relocate tile Brisml Pine sign and 11]e electrical power tileÂ·eto yoN will pay [he eosrof <Ic,Ing 60 9. You wil] Â©over the eos! 01' having tlw legal documents prepared relocating 111Â¢ eacenÂ·ent and the et,Mr o f an actorne>Â· of our choice reviewing ir 10. You will deposit nvice the eatimateld cowl of land.caping and psving with a lorÂ·Â·al (it!- comp e ny In be held iii escrow to enswe t}wÂ· work is completed. Evidence of ruch,Â¥41 be provid, d. l'he HOA'sdo not object to thesel baek variance on the e:; end o f the propert>Â·lint 51131,ted m 1084 Assuming you agree to the above and the 1-own ofAvon approves your p lans subject :0 1 ze .'.bove we leok t"rward lo >Â·Â·outÂ· project complinwliting out-a Sincer.4. Beacon Hil: Hollrowners Aunciation 82Â·:stol Pines Honieâ€žwiver: Afsociation bx. -- ...... - ..... ...- - - I.- . Â». TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-24 A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE LOT EASEMENT AND SETBACK ON LOT 70A, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO HEREAS, Jerald L Wuhrman has applied for a variance to construct a duplex which would encroach into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement and 7.5' Building Setback on Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, as described in the variance application dated September 9,2004 and sketch design plans dated August 26,2004 as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and HEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Variance application; and HEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission ofthe Town of Avon has considered the following: A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; and B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a specified regulations is necessary to achieve compatibility and uni formity o f treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; and C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution ofpopulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; and D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed Variance. F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Resolutions\2004\Res 04-24 670A Bl BMBC side lot setback variance.doc ~OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town o f Avon, Colorado hereby denies a Variance allowing encroachment into the side lot easements/setbacks on Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision as described in the application dated September 9,2004 and sketch design plans dated August 26,2004 as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and based upon the following findings: 1. That the granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; and 2. Encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement on the western lot line would be considered an obstruction within the easement; and 3. Other design alternatives exist that would not require encroachment into the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easements and Building Setbacks. DENIED ON THIS 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2004 Signed: Date: Chris Evans, Chair Attest: Date: Terry Smith, Secretary F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Resolutions\2004\Res 04-24 [-70A B 1 B MBC side lot setback variance.doc ~ Ili-ART of [he VALLEY Staff Report Affi Sketch Design COLORADO September 7,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date September-1, 2004 Project type Duplex Legal description Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Zoning 2 Units - Residential Duplex Address 580 Nottingham Road Introduction Jerald Wurhman is proposing two alpine style side-by-side town homes with a central corridor entry. Each unit is proposed to contain 3 bedrooms and 314 baths. Each unit will have a single car garage and surface parking. Proposed materials include rough sawn natural cedar trim and textured white stucco exterior and cedar shake shingles for the roof. The proposed maximum height is 35' and each unit will be approximately 3,000 sq. ft. Staff Comments This application was tabled from your September 7,2004 meeting and is being reviewed under the revised Design Review Guideline process. On two prior occasions the applicant has submitted designs for Lot 70A. In February 2002 a final design application was officially withdrawn and in February 2003 a sketch design application was officially withdrawn (Exhibits A and B). In reviewing both applications Staff stated technical issues that should be addressed, such as concerns with positive drainage and retaining walls, driveway grades, encroachment into the side lot setbacks, and that drainage may be inadequate to carry storm water runoff flows and debris flows that may occur from the slope located to the north of the proposed building. This sketch plan application is proposing the same floor plan and massing as the prior two submittals. There are two distinct differences in this submittal compared to the two previous submittals: 1) the exterior architectural style has been changed from a southwestern style to an alpine style and 2) the driveway access to Lot 70A is being proposed to be closer to Nottingham Road. In 1984 a variance for Lot 70A was approved for encroachment into the side lot setbacks (Exhibit C). This variance lapsed in 1985 due to construction not commencing within one year of the date if issuance and diligently pursued to completion. Considering the sketch design submitted is using the same floor plan the applicant will be required to apply for a side lot setback variance. The applicant must demonstrate that a hardship exists on this lot for the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve a variance. Staff Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Sketch Design September 7,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3 believes the applicant should redesign the duplex to fit within the side lot setbacks/easements and property lines so as to not require a variance. Staff does not favor approving a variance for encroachment into the side lot setbacks/easements for this lot. A technical issue that should be addressed is that grading is proposed outside of the property boundaries into the OLD Zone District and 50' Drainage Easement on the north and east side of the property, Nottingham Road right-of-way on the south side of the property, and Lot 70. Specific approval by Town Council would be required for grading encroachment into the OLD Zone District, 50' Utility and Drainage Easement, the ROW and Lot 70. The Commission should also consider Section 17.20.120 of the Municipal Code, which states the intention of the OLD Zone District is for 'areas to remain primarily as they exist and to be public or private undeveloped open spaces. Some landscaping and drainage control work may be necessary and desirable'. Staff believes allowing grading encroachment into the OLD Zone District, for the purpose of residential development, would violate Section 17.20.120 (a)(b)(c) of the Municipal Code. Upon reviewing the current sketch plan application it appears the applicant has not addressed many of the issues that Staff indicated in the previous two applications (Exhibits A and B). Considering this design is very similar to the previous two applications Staff would request the applicant to review and address the issues stated in the two letters before submitting a final design application. Design Review Considerations The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria: A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning Code. B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines. Staff will prepare a memo to the Commission highlighting anticipated areas of discussion for the submittal materials. The Commission will take no formal action on the sketch plan application. Rather, direction on the design will be given to the applicant from Staff and the Commission to incorporate in the final design application. Staff will provide full plan sets for you to provide written comments and guidance to the applicant at your September 7,2004 meeting. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4017, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, ~-T v---,v -- / Y LUA' L Kenneth Kovalchik Planner I Att: Exhibit A - letter dated February 6,2002 and letter dated November 7, 2001 Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Sketch Design September 7,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3 Exhibit B - letter dated January 7,2003 and letter dated October 4,2002 Exhibit C - March 8, 1984 Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and March 8, 1984 Staff report to Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 fk:64 71 11 1 \ 14 1 I, :"l \\111 b WON )LORADO February 6,2002 Mr. Jerald Wuhrman 154 Commodore Drive Jupiter, FL 33477 Via Fax - 561.745.7347 (Mail-copy to follow) RE: Lot 704 Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Final Design Plan submlttal Dear Mr. Wuhrman: On November 6*, 2001 the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission formally adopted new Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines. As of January 1 st, 2002 all final design applications were required to comply with these new standards and application procedures. Your application for final design review of Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek was not yet complete or sufficient and therefore not scheduled for review with the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the adoption of the new guidelines. Additionally, the application has been inactive for over 3 months and is being officially withdrawn. We understand that a new design is being prepared for submittal on this project. Please be advised that your new submittal will be required to conform to the standards of the new design guidelines (available online at www.avon.org). Please contact me at 970.748.4002 with any questions you may have. Kind Regatds~-- Tambi Katieb, AICP Community Development CC: File F-DR2001-35 Anne Martens, Asst. Town Engineer Post OFIce Box 975 400 Benchmark Romtesign Review\Benchmark at Beaver Creek\BMBC Block 1\Lot 70A Bll BMBC Withdraw doc Avon, Colorado 81620 970-748-4000 970-949-9139 Fax 970-845-7708 TTY ~ lIEART of the \ .\1.1 EY VON COL. OR A 9 0 FILE November 7, 2001 Mr. Jerald Wuhrman 154 Commodore Drive Jupiter, FL 33477 Via Fax - 561.745.7347 RE: Review Comments on Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Final Design Plan submittal Dear Mr. Wuhrman: The following are sufficiency review comments on your Final Design application for a duplex residence 540 Nottingham Road, Avon, Colorado. Once these items are resubmitted, reviewed, and deemed corrected by Staff, the file will be scheduled for the next available Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Please address the following: â€¢ While you have attempted to correct and differentiate existing topographic lines from proposed lines, the plan is still unclear and in certain areas, proposed grades do not appear to work. Please redraw the plan so it is clear that all proposed topographic lines 'finish' (such as proposed 7526 across the parking area). â€¢ You are required to 'shade' areas over 40% that exist on this site plan. These areas are to remain undisturbed, yet according to the plan submitted, this design requires significant grading in this area. Additionally, the proposed grading at the back of the home appears to exceed a 2:1 slope in several areas. â€¢ Please revise snow storage to provide the 25% amount required by the zone district (Residential Duplex). â€¢ There still remain no inlet, outlet elevations, or sizing dimensions on the proposed culvert at the driveway. Additionally, the culvert does not correspond to the topographic survey of the existing asphalt driveway and will not work as proposed. The exit of the culvert is not adequately designed to capture the drainage flow, and will potentially result in flow sheeting across the access drive for Bristol Pines and Beacon Hill. â€¢ The window proposed on the east side of the structure is buried below grade. Additionally, drainage on that side is flowing right into the window. Pow ()rtic I liu.r 0 73 . Drainage is towards the rear and side of the structure. We require positive -11)f) Benchmark Romi drainage away from the structure, even with the installation of a French drain. .-1\ f,/1, C '0/f gmh; .4/420 970-7.1.4-4(HH) 970-949-91 39 Fin 970-845-7708 7 TY â€¢ The retaining wall at the east side of the structure will require grading beyond the property line. â€¢ The driveway grade will not be permitted over 10% in slope. It is currently at 13.5% in places. Heating the driveway will not be allowed to intersect the existing access for Beacon Hill, since the poured concrete will not 'pan' as asphalt and cause vehicles to bottom out upon exit. Additionally, the driveway on Lot 70 needs to be indicated on the site plan in order to review how the driveway and grading ties into the existing conditions. â€¢ The drainage swale on the west side of the building is shown incorrectly. The finished grades are pushing the water towards the side of the home and stairwell, and there is no method to carry drainage across the driveway and below the parking area. â€¢ The proposed stairwell on the west side appears to encroach into the 7.5' setback and the 7.5' drainage easement. Please clarify and label and dimension this stairwell and its associated retaining wall. â€¢ The extent of the use of moss stone is unclear. Please clarify. Mr. Wuhrman, there are yet a number of outstanding issues related to this submittal that will require modification of this design plan. Additionally, we will not schedule this application until we receive (in writing) a signed agreement from the Bristol Pines and Beacon Hill Homeowners Associations approving the intent of moving the existing access easement to your proposed location. Additionally, should you receive design plan approval with the new access as proposed, you will be required to vacate the existing easement and confirm the amended easement via an amended plat for Lot 70 and Lot 70A prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. Thank you for your submittal. Please contact me at 970.748.4002 if you need further assistance or clarification on what submittal items require correction. Kind Regards, Tambi Katieb, AICP Town Planner 11 CC: File F-DR2001-35 Anne Martens, Asst. Town Engineer FAirt 15 Iii \14[ aliu\\111, m - )L ORADO January 7,2003 Mr. Jerald Wuhrman 154 Commodore Drive Jupiter, FL 33477 RE: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Sketch Design Plan submittal Dear Mr. Wuhrman: Your sketch design plan application for Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek has remained incomplete and inactive since October 4,2002 and is formally being withdrawn. It is the policy of this department that all incomplete zoning and design review applications submitted and without activity for over 90-days shall be withdrawn. At such time as you are ready to resubmit this application or another application for this property, please be advised of this policy. Please contact me at 970.748.4004with any questions you may have. Kind Regards, A Ruth O. Borne Director of Community Development CC: File S-DR2002-15 Anne Martens, Asst. Town Engineer Post Office Box 975 400 Benchmark Road Avon, Colorado 819:(besign Review\Benchmark at Beaver Creek\BMBC Block 1\L70A Bl BMBC Withdraw It.doc 970-748-40(M) 970-949-9139 Fax 970-845-7708 TTY xm COLORADO October 4,2002 Mr. Jerald Wuhrman 154 Commodore Drive Jupiter, FL 33477 Via Fax - 561.745.7347 (Mail-copy to follow) RE: Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Sketch Design Plan submittal Dear Mr. Wuhrman: Thank you for your submittal of sketch design plan for a duplex project on Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Unfortunately, we are unable to schedule this application at this time due to the following issues: 1. The variance approving the side-lot setback has lapsed. The variance was approved in 1984, and per the Town Code (as adopted under Ordinance #81-9) at that time "The variance shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion". It is this department's determination that per this code requirement the variance lapsed in 1985, requiring this design to conform to standard setback requirements. Additionally, the building also appears to encroach on the western side-lot setback when scaled. 2. Parking spaces proposed do not meet minimum size requirements of a minimum width of nine feet and minimum depth of 18 feet. Additionally, it appears that the hammerhead does not provided adequate back out space for the parking stales. 3. A revised topographical survey stamped by a Registered Professional Land Surveyor needs to be provided due to recent debris flows. 4. There is no scale on the elevation plans. The 'observation deck' appears to encroach beyond the 35-foot height maximum. 5. The west side lot boundary line in incorrectly labeled as N 01Â° 30' 00" E. This boundary should be labeled as S 01Â° 39' 00" W 6. It appears that the drainage provided around the north portion of the building is inadequate to carry the storm water runoff flows and debris flows that may occur from the slope located north of the proposed building. 7. The proposed driveway for Lot 70A, Block 1, BMBC is not within the approved access easement provided by Lot 70, Block 1, BMBC for Lot 70A 8. Details need to be provided for the culvert size and invert elevations located under Lot 70A's driveway. 9. The Drainaqe and Utility Easement, Building Setback Easement, and all adjacent Town of Avon Right of Ways need to be shown and labeled on the site Post Ollice Box 975 400 Benchmark Road plan. Avon, Colorado 81620 970-748-4000 97()-949-9139 Feix 97()-845-7708 TTY 111 IR I Id Ch\\111, 10. The Drainaqe and Utility Easement shown adjacent to the west property boundary is only shown to be 7 feet in width. This easement width needs to be 7.5 feet for the west property boundary. 11. It appears that proposed grading extends beyond the property line and outside of the access easement. 12. Existing topographic grade lines should be dashed and the proposed topographic lines should be solid. It is very difficult to read the site plan and unclear which is topographic lines or other elements. 13. Top of Wall and Bottom of Wall measurements need to be provided on the site plans for all retaining walls. 14. Proposed grades cannot exceed 2 foot (horizontal): 1 foot (vertical). 15. Positive drainage needs to be provided away from the building. This is of particular concern for the north and northwest portions of the building. 16. Spot elevations need to be provided for the proposed garage slab elevation on the site plan. 17. The boulder retaining wall shown on the South Elevation Drawing is not shown on the site plan. The site plan and elevation drawings need to be consistent. 18. A graphical scale needs to be provided for the elevation drawing. 19. The proposed and existing grades need to the shown on the elevation drawings. 20. The Lot, Block, and Subdivision need to be included in the Title Block. 21. The driveway grades on lot 70 needs to be indicated on the site plan in order to review how the driveway and grading ties into the existing conditions. 22. The driveway slopes exceed the maximum allowable slope of 10%. 23. Window located on the east side of the structure appear to be below the proposed grade. Jerry, a number of these comments carry over from our review of your previous submittal (November 7, 2001 letter) and appear to remain unresolved. At such time that the above-listed items are finally corrected, and the plans revised to conform to setback and height requirements, we will schedule the application for sketch plan review with the Planning and Zoning Commission. As always, please contact me at 970.748.4002 with any questions you may have. Kind Regards, da:=27---- Tambi Katieb, AICP Community Development CC: File F-SR2002-15 Anne Martens, Asst. Town Engineer F \Design Review\Benchmark at Beaver Creek\BMBC Block 1\Lot 70A Bll BMBC Sketch 2002.doc 6I\41- C Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 3/8/84 Page 2 of 5 Coldwell Banker Sign, Lots 29-32, Block 2, B.S., Con't. Cole made the suggestion that the lot on which the sign is placed may be sold shortly and will then remove the sign upon closing of lot sale. Any further signage for those lots would come before the Commission for approval . Cuny motioned that the Coldwell Banker sign met all criteria placed upon it in the motion for approval of the January 12, 1984 meeting. Watkins seconded. Meehan was opposed. Motion carried. Lot 70A, Block 1, 8.S. - Sidelot Setback Variance Norm Wood, Director of Public Works, presented application. Watkins stepped down from discussion due to financial interest in lot. Tom Maron of Maron and Associates, represented applicant, Steve Erickson, owner of lot. Maron stated that variance is to allow construction of the type of building being presented, which is long and narrow. Wood stated that Lot 7OA is adjacent to Tract B, which is an open space tract. Setback requirements are 25 feet from front lot line, 10 feet from back lot line, '9d 74 feet from side lot lines. .Proposed building location is 25 feet back from the front lot line, but balcony extends out over the setback line. Setback re- quirements are that space be open from the ground upward. Leon Lowenthal made public comment that he objected to the variance. He is owner of western most unit in adjacent development to the east. He felt he would lose his view and this project would be too close to his property. Bill Stroop made public comment that granting a variance would be detrimental to the lot because there would be no control of building size. Pierce and Commission reviewed and discussed Approval Criteria, 17.36.040 and Findings Required, 17.36.050. Pierce questioned if this was the smallest lot in the general area. Wood answered that it was. Steve Erickson, applicant, mentioned that there was a 74 foot easement on original plat, but Town Council requested that it be removed at time of re-plat and the variance request was in conformance with Town Council's intent at time plat was approved. Cuny motioned to grant the variance request of Lot 70A, Block 1, Benchmark Sub- division to allow building construction to the easterly side lot line due to the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the site in accordance with Section 17.36.050, Findings Required, number two of the Avon Municipal Code. Exceptional and extraordinary circumstances consist of there being a 50 foot wide drainage easement across an open space tract adjacent to the easterly lot line, and there being no drainage and utility easement on the lot adjacent to the easterly lot line. Meehan seconded. Landauer and Blair opposed motion. Motion cart-ied. , A ' Â·Â·Â· -Â·' f 0 1. . .1 . 1 . I . L . .i t. t. STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & /CNING COMMISSION - 3/8/84 Variance Request - Hidelot Setback Requirement Lot 754, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision Lot 70-A, Flock 1, Cenchipark Subdivision is zoned RMD. Setback requirements for the RMD zore is 25 feet front, 7.5 feet side and 10 feet rear. This variance request is for the elimination of the 7.5 foot sidelot setback requirement from the easterly lot line. Sp.Nia.1 Cypdj_tien_s Re_lated to_ Req-ues_t: 1. Easterly lot line borders Tract B which is zoned OLD; 2. The 50 foot wide area of Tract B, adjacent to the easterly line of Lot 70-A, is designated as drainage and utility easement; 3. The easterly side of Lot 70-A does not contain the 7.5 foot drainage and utility easemert as provided on moqt lots in the Town of Avon. Prior to making its decision, the Commission shall consider the following factors: 17.36..0,10___Approval Criteria Before acting on a variance application, the Planning and Zoning Conimi'.sion shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: A. The relationship of the roguested variance to other existing or potential uses and structurÂ¢J,; ill Ule vii inity i B. The degree to which relibf from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibilit) and uniforipity of treatment among sites i n the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; C. The effect of the requested pariance on light and air, distribution of population, tran:,portation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and sublic safety; D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variantr. (Crd. 21-9 51(d) 3. Further: 17.36_.9)_59 - Findip.-9-5. P-0-qppicil The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the followirq written findircs bof irc granting a variance: A. That the granting of the Ydriance Will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent witb the limitations on other properties classified i n the Save d i s tri et; STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & 7CNING COMMISSION - 3/8/84 Variance Request - Sidelot Setback Requirewent Lot 70-A, Block 1, Bencl'111,1,1 >ubdivision 17.36.050 Findings Required, Con't. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improve- ments in the vicinity; C. That the :ariance is .Â·, arn-intel for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict, litcroi interpretalicil and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physiol hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the kariance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, 3. 1-he 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 Sl (e);. A motion granting or denying a variance should contain the specific criteria ord findings upon which the action is based. The granting of a variance may be conditioned on action by the applicant. Respectfully Submitted, , .1 ,Â· W Norrn Wood Director of Public Works P U p_n-jr-9--9-0.4 Z Â®_in~g_ ff .t_ion: f L,Â· Approved ras Recommended: Approved with Modified Conditiong: Continued: Denied: Dated: --3 1 .3 1 ..1 4 -fj'l ~i<. L'Utle-- i - 0-1-4 n t, W~t kins, Secretar'/ NW/mml 3/6/84 Staff Report Minor Project COLORADO m September 21, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report Date September 13,2004 Project Type Minor Project - Window and Fence Addition Legal Description Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Address 77 Metcalf Road, Suite 102 Introduction The applicant is proposing to install (2) 3'x4' aluminum clad windows and a4' high split rail fence with chicken wire. The proposed fence will cross the 7.5' Utility and Drainage Easement on the southern lot line and will terminate at the Ruggs Benedict building on Lot 23. The applicant has stated that a letter from the owner of Lot 23 will be provided stating they allow permission for the fence to be constructed on their property. Design Review Considerations According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4.10, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: 1. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed. A variety of quality, durable building materials is proposed which include: aluminum clad windows and wooded split rail fence. 2. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. No negative impacts should be experienced as viewed from adjacent properties. 3. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. As proposed, the window and fence addition should not impair monetary or aesthetic values in the vicinity. 4. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The proposed split rail fence is reviewed according to Section 5C o f the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines. Requirement 5 in the 'Fencing and Screening' section states "fences should be either one of three types in commercial areas: two (split) rail open fences, four-foot solid fence, or a six-foot solid fence. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 I-rr-TiTTE-LiC-L 1 ; Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Minor Project - Window and Fence Addition September 21,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 2 No chain link is permitted." Staff recommends the section o f fence along Metcal f Road be located in the inside of the large pine tree and not the outside, as indicated on the site plan.. Due to the close proximity o f the playground to Metcal f Road Staff would recommend the fence be a four-foot solid fence and not the proposed split rail fence. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the window and fence addition for Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. A letter shall be provided from the owner of Lot 23 allowing permission for the fence to be installed on their property. 2. The section of fence along Metcalf Road shall be located on the inside of the large pine tree. 3. A four-foot solid fence be installed instead of the proposed split rail with chicken wire fence. 4. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. I f you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please do not hesitate to call me at 748.4017 or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, D <r ffÂ«"44 4.simcltuti Kenneth Kovalchik Planner I Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Staff Report .1,~/ Minor Project-Fence AVON COLORADO September 21, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report Date September 14,2004 Project Type Minor Proj ect - Fence Legal Description Lots 40A & 41B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Address 2133A & 2121B Long Spur Road Introduction This application in response to a meeting on-site with Ed Ahmad on August 31 st* The fence construction was almost complete when staff met with the applicant to discuss that approval must be granted from the Planning Commission in order to install a fence within the Town. A site plan showing the fence in relation to the existing houses and the property lines is attached for your review. The fence is located in the Town Right-of-Way and connects the two properties. Photographs of the fence are also attached for review. Design Review Considerations According to the Cemmission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4.10, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: 1. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed. The guidelines state that "wood fences are generally more acceptable than metal." The fence is constructed with rounded lodge pole wood. 2. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. There are a number of split rail fences in the immediate vicinity, some of which are visible and front Long Spur Road. 3. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. As proposed, the fence should not impair monetary values in the vicinity. There are a number of fences in the area. Aesthetic values in the vicinity may be impaired. 4. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The Town of Avon Design Guidelines state that "Fencing is discouraged, and will only be permitted where it compliments the character of the property, existing grades and landforms, Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 lili.-U-fUIC-FTEiT)-1 Lot 40A & 41 8, Block 1, Wildrit. Subdivision, Minor Project - Fence September 21St, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 2 and compliments the landscaping rather than contain the property. Fencing that delineates property boundaries are not permitted." It does not appear that the fence compliments the character of the property and the fence clearly delineates the property boundary. Staff does not support the fence due to its location within the Town Right-of-Way. The entire design review guidelines for 'fencing and screening' are attached for your evaluation and consideration. Staff Recommendation 1. Staff recommends denial of the fence application for Lots 40A and 41B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision due to its location in the Town Right-of-Way and conflicts with Section 4C (Fencing and Screening) of the Residential Design Review Guidelines. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please do not hesitate to call me at 748.4017 or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Planning Technician 9%./- * . 3, Â£,14Â· Â· ' ' Â· ~ I .AJ . r h , bp- t./Ae . Â·Â·.11 . .: , . 4 :,2 ..r '. '3' t. Â·~ CÂ· 2. Â· '~Â· U' ': . ... . Â· Â· Â·Â· p . ~ Â· Â·.1'64 Â· 0' 23'31Â·24 â€¢. ... 4-1- , 104* 0% j .5. 91#.. . I Â·/ :i' L'Â·4'.pÂ· Â»Â»eâ€ž -..1.- 94" â‚¬ 4- 11. ./4 i i 00 -4 3.2 ti i ~ 1 01 **f#k_--2*42% r.,j -4:.,i: /- 1 1114 15 I* 6 -- .1,4. - 1 --6 .-- -4 Of t-- - 1-, - - -,11 4 1 7 ' . 4.Fv - 2.- /61Â¥.414/8 ' Â· -12.Emi 1=19!0.4-04 4 * 1,11- -11 ... 0.â€¢**K. 'r./.-4; e, ./: 41* L- 6/lill:'ll/"Illi Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 1;Â£1 -.'-T~~~ 60. Droinage & Utility Easemen - -222 -1- -- -- Building--Setback - -- ------- 7-- 1 -/ N 62-03'43' E ~ 9 V. 73' 119.637- lot 1 4% ~ESS ESMT. FOR LOT 4OA ~ 4 Â·84 S 62'03'43' W N /40'ce)Â»~ 0.79 408 ~ 35.0814 7/47 ~7\~ Obre -- -ln , ACCESS ESMT.| v. 00 Fof LOT 408 8 - -- U 2.45 4 . 1 1% 1 h S 62~03'43' W 48.19' - 1. S~ 62'03~43' W.~/6 S 62'03'43' W 5~ 27. 6, 38.00' _ I * r - ---i ---7 tor 1 81 1 9 5 - 80/ 1 5 2.8 45.16, LOING / \ 0 r* ver- .1 7/Ar ~ 2- - X- N MI I Building Setback L --- -1- -- -12 - -F- 4 70.00 Drainage & Utility Easement 1 1 UTILITY * DRAINAGE EASEMENT (BOOK 330, PAGE 78) 420 r- --I ~1~-~~~~ -------t- i Aol / 1 â‚¬74% 1 1004â‚¬88~2r 4, r f-- -- 2727~4(8~ i Z 1 094 Â£ ONG ,9,Â°08 ,2 (brl,449 *' 1 11. '446. - 1, Ne or ocÂ»<4 h i~ - 1 1 1. Ay _1-,6640.49"'F .* *4 le*88 /*42% - loo f Op 1, 8/47 1 *885 196 \ 10 212?40 1 IM 40.. 1 1 JUeLUeS03 48.10 19 060up.Jo >looqGEZ'uiptine *- - ~N 2756'17' 91.94' Slope Maintenance ge & Snow ~rage Easement O 1/ C - 1 1.r.lit / Fencing and Screening Fencing is discouraged, and will only be permitted where it complements the character of the property, existing grades and landforms, and compliments the landscaping rather than contain the property. Fences that delineate property boundaries are not permitted. Requirements: 1. Fences, walls, or similar type barriers shall have a separate approval of the Commission, except that functional or decorative fences or walls may be approved as an integral part of a building and landscaping design. Wood fences are generally more acceptable than metal. Limited use of fences, such as to screen trash areas and utility equipment, is encouraged. 2. Fence materials shall be compatible with the site and the materials of the structures on the site. No chain link fences shall be permitted in residential areas, except for use as a temporary construction fences or for use in public recreational facilities. The use of chicken wire, or metal screening, with split rail fencing is discouraged. However, should the fencing comply with the requirements of this section, the fenced area must be less than 1/4 of the perimeter of the property and no more than 4 feet in height. 3. Where noted by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), accepted wildlife corridors shall be accommodated to a reasonable degree on all properties when considering the layout of site disturbances. .2 W. -1 7 liflll i-1 -_ 11.11 Fencing should not delineate property lines. This type offencing is no longer acceptable. Erosion Control Erosion control is essential at all building sites. Design plans must indicate the type, method, and placement of erosion control structures on the property. A surety may be required to ensure proper installation and maintenance of these items. Required erosion control techniques and Best Management Practices (BMP's) for small residential projects are listed in the Pollution Control Plan (Appendix 4). All other projects will need to reference the Avon Master Drainage Study, available in the Community Development Department. e- , - --a. Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines Page 20 Adopted November 6, 2001 Staff Report AWN Minor Project - Landscaping COLORADO September 21, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report Date September 15,2004 Project Type Minor Project - Landscaping Modifications Legal Description Lot 45, Block 1, Wildridge PUD Address 2400 Saddleridge Loop Introduction The applicant, Vera Miller, received partial approval at your July 15, 2003 meeting for a new deck and entryway, along with various landscaping improvements. Most of the work for the approved design changes has been completed. In early July of this year staff was informed that a row of aspen trees had been planted along the rear portion of Vera' s property. Aspen trees were not part of the design application from last year. The trees (15 total, approximately 10' tall) were planted along the fence line behind the house where "3' wildflowers" were indicated on the plans. The installation of the trees is being treated as another design mc lification and is now under review by the Commission. Attached t,) this report are letters from neighboring property owne; s. This item was tabled at your last meeting (per the applicants request) after public input wa; received. Design Review Considerations According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4.10, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: 1. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed. Aspen trees are included in the Design Guideline's Recommended Plant List (Appendix 1). 2. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. The residential landscaping guidelines state that landscaping "should harmonize the building site with both natural topography and existing vegetation." One of the landscaping requirements is that "consideration should be given to use of landscape material for snow fencing, visual screening, and wind breaks." As evidenced by the attached photographs from a neighbor, the trees do create a visual impact as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties. The guidelines state "fences, walls, or similar type barriers shall have a separate approval of the Commission." A row of tall trees may be considered a 'barrier,' requiring specific Commission approval. 3. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinily that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 ul "i i i Lot 45, Block 1, Wildridge Subdiv _-t, Additional Landscaping September 21, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 2 Aesthetic values appear to be impaired with the placement of the trees. Monetary values could also be impaired with the trees. 4. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The Residential Guidelines discourage landscaping improvements located in easements whenever possible, and state that improvements should "compliment the landscaping rather than contain the property." Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the revised landscaping for Lot 45, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must remove some of the aspens out of the platted easement or relocate some of the aspens into groups, in order to compliment the landscaping rather than contain the property. 2. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please do not hesitate to call me at 748.4017 or stop by the Community Development Department. Container Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker J Planning Technician I ./ .. i . 1 1 I . , Â·r 1 .Â®.* 1% ... 41Â· . :10 4. t f' 63 . t . =, - 4/ : Li i,&114 j,56#;+6-Â· It, .-,4 + -4- 4 Â· Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 k Post Office Box 975 AV Il f 400 Benchmark Road Colorado 8 143 970-748-4(*)() COLORADO 97()- 949-9/39 An- 97(}-845-77(18 -rn' September 8th, 2004 Vera Miller P.O. Box 1636 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Minor Project for Additional Trees Tabled Lot 45, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Vera: At their September 7th, 2004 meeting, the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission tabled your Minor Project application for additional aspen trees on Lot 45, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. As discussed Vera, the Commission received public input from two neighboring property owners concerning the aspen trees planted in the rear of your property. It was the general consensus that the trees were more acceptable if moved out of the 10' Utility and Drainage Easement. Should you have any questions or would like additional information please don't hesiate to call me at 748.4413. Kind Regards, CE=42-2=< Matt Pielsticker Planning Technician CC: File (M-DR2003-31) F \Planning & Zoning Commission\Meeting Letters\2004\090704145 Bl WR aspen trees tabled.doc 4 1 he Yoders 213711 Longspur, PO Box 516 \, on, C olot ado 81620 August 12, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon P. 0. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 bear commissioners, Please review the attached pictures which were taken from our back yard. They clearly indicate the new trees which were planted by our neighbors to the west sometime this spring while we were not at home. beciduous trees are useful in the summer for shade and thus for energy conservation when a residence can be at least partially shadowed during the day. These same type of trees would provide privacy only during the summer season. As you can see from the pictures, there are mature trees growing adjacent to the residence which provide the benefits noted above. We believe the recently planted trees along the property line serve no useful purpose except to excessively block our views to the west and are definitely in violation of the spirit and intent of the fence restrictions even though they are not "man made". Si~,c~rely, 4~442 David and Judy'yoder 2 - t~'242Â·13'3â‚¬Jy*4Â·Â·Â·2:k '9*.. .. > .rf . 1- % Â·A * f 1 "1 11 . r. I 0~* L _ --f -h~it -1 .4 -1 -- 1Â¥t *-= -J . i 4 4,4 1.Zt- 1 - - A A ,4 1 - - . 7--F r,E T- - 1 t - .4 4 6- 4'N. Â·63 L '11 , 1~**~ ~ 4 . 1/ lili .,7 TL-.-~ 7-4 3-Frkr - - -i- 4 - a. YUL 2 1-1 1 . 3.-r + 24Â¥ ..1 2 43 + 46 1â€žlA. )-'6.-4.1.i.3 "h: 6, '....0. I. Â·1133+ r :-15:.3*f :,-4,..r 4/ Â· /2-Â·Il-.:- ..LÂ· Z . -- .. ..3.4 :045)...2. - : 43' -- .- Â·.14 ., I' 92'i :IiI- h--:- - '- : Â·20"I '1 1 I - 2..m.1 < * ./Â·6-1 ,4 321 4 0 9- - , 5 /4 Ant -i ~ : .~.4 -,1. ' .t:, f.. Iti.3 3442.-.~,9-Â£;:. :Ip. . D. 7/ I . ' Â·23:Â·PÂ·-Â»Â·7-0-' Â·*'Â·'~2*64 0 #-%. E4: , 4 %&.Vtâ„¢.r # 2 1 +4 1 / ' ?193: '~0 9. 4*... 4 'P J 13?4957 I 1 2 Â·p Â»/2505.4 , L /9 14â€¢. ' .v- 4. : 1Â«9Â·4962 '**2*'* fÂ». 4. %. .. .MN : Jâ€¢' 9 4 . ' A. . . 2Â»tftiop-Â·. 1Â¥-- ~ ~ 4. I - 4~341 -- :- .'- .- 4 - b AÂ·-'Â·i: : IR.:- :~6: i- .. A 4 C. ~ :er -Wt'.1:.Â· f C *94.2 t , 0 . 3 Suzanne L. Fontanese P.O. Box 695 Edwards. CO 81632 970-845-9110 font@vail.net TREES - NOTES 9/7/04 Avon P&Z Commission Meeting 1) The planting of 12 aspen trees along our west property line/easement in direct view from our back window is of great concern to me as a property owner. These trees (approximately 10 feet tall now-with the potential to grow much taller and certainly fuller), the height of the house (built about 5 years ago) and the 6 other cottonwood trees planted approximately 2 years ago by the previous owners, eliminate all mountain views from 2137A Long Spur. It is also possible for many more aspen trees to appear as feeders from the roots of existing trees. I also don't want to have an aspen grove blocking my view. I am concerned that if the trees are all grouped together, they will be in the area in which my only view remains. I have lived in this home for 13+ years and have steadily watched the Saddleridge Loop property directly behind me deplete more and more of the main reason I bought this property - the views! 2) The new aspen trees were planted while neither the Yoder or Fontanese families were home nor did they discuss this idea or plan with either family prior to planting the trees. Under those circumstances, we were not given the opportunity to address our concerns prior to the trees being planted. 3) I feel this does decrease the potential resale value of my property. With no mountain view remaining, the huge picture windows I have all along the west side of my home now face their house and their trees. This definitely negatively impacts the appearance and the desirability of the location of my home. 4) Their views of our backyards are already blocked by the cottonwood trees planted alongside their home and along the newly built back deck which holds their hot tub (these trees will grow to be quite huge and I protested about them at the time to previous owners as I am very allergic to them). The additional aspen trees are not necessary to help with those aesthetics. Sep 17 04 01:4lp Metal Design Inc 970 479 0507 P.1 Town Of Avon Community Development Mr. Matt Pielsticker P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 SUBJECT: Lot 45, Block 1 - Landscaping modification Sent Via Fax Sept. 17,2004 Dear Matt: Thank you for sharing correspondence youhavereceived fromlot 2137. Thereisabig misconception relating to the aspen trees that were planted. We find it hard to believe that it took over a year for our neighbors to notice these threes and that they are all of a sudden a big issue. Both the Yoder' s and Ms. Fontanese seem to feel that we tried to be quote "sly" and plant them when the were not home. The fact is these trees were planted in the summer of 2003 not this recent spring 012004. It was never our intent to block anyone's view or contain our property. The idea came from the Yoder's adjoining neighbor who was intending to do the same. If we met to contain our property we would have planted them two feet apart to simulate some type of fence. They are 10 feet apart from each other. Wc have been lold by several of our neighbors that there was much conflict between lot 2137 and the people who built the home eight years ago with regard to views. We have lived in our house for over two years and are not sure when the cotton woods Ms. Fontanese is referring to were planted. All ofthe facts with regard to the Yoder's and Ms. Fontanese are incorrect. We feel and the majority of our neighborhood that they are simply trying to dig up old wounds. When we were first notified that one of our neighbors had approached the town we were told to work it out with our neighbors and that the town did not want to be involved. We discovered that it was the Yoder's and had a lengthily conversation with their realtor as their property is up for sale. One of his comments was "at least you were decent enough not to block their views when you built the house". Of course we were not the one's who built the house. We asked the realtor to have the Yoder's call us and discuss it in a neighborly way but received no call. With Mrs. Yoder being the former mayor we assumed it could be worked out between neighbors. There is no such thing within town limits that protects your views. No one owns the right to a view. This has been an ongoing sore between our property and lot 2137 since the house was built. '1'he Yoder's iii their letter refer to the "the spirit and intent of the fence". Lot 2137 was fortunate enough to be grandfathered in on the fence issue, We tried to put up a fence around our property but were shut down. Four of our five bordering neighbors have a fence and not one of them including lot 2,137 take care of them. They are old, falling apart and are an eye sore to us. We believe that if you are fortunate to have a fence take care of it. There is aprox. 20' of lot 2137 fence on our property yet we as nice neighbors and have said nothing about having it removed. Sep 17 04 01:4lp Metal Design Inc 970 479 0507 P.2 Lot 45, Block 1 Page two We are aware that the trees are planted in the easement and that it is our responsibility to move any should it become necessary. Having done locates on the property several times and know that the trees currently do not j eopardize any utilities. The furthest northwest tree is close to (our) cable line. In the spring of 2004 while the property was located it was discovered the a beautiful 45' cotton wood had been planted directly of the gas line. We hand dug around and discovered this to be true. Though we were heart broken to kill a tree that beautiful we did so for the safety of us find our neighbors. We fully understand ihe protection of utilities. I don't think the owners of lot 2137 realize all that we have done for their safety and property values. When we first purchased the property we discussed the environmental health concerns with the health department. There were serious concerns with rodent and fieses infestation which could cause respiratory disease and the risk of possible huntavirus for us and our neighbors. We spent three months every day after work hand digging every sage brush out of the yard for everyone' s safety. They seem to have forgotten what the property looked like and I guess never thought about the health issues. We are asking the Commission to reconsider moving the trees. As noted above the trees have been planted for well over a year, are now established, irrigated and doing well. According to a landscaping contractor to move them now we would risk loosing them. We spent aprox $1,400.00 on those trees. We have now spent over $40,000.00 on the exterior of our property to improve it for us and our neighbors. Aside of lot 2137 everyone compliments us on what we have done for the neighborhood. I believe everyone is in favor of trees. Following this letter will be a petition fro m several of our neighbors to "save the trees". We thank the Commission for allowing us a chance to speak out on our behalf. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, 0104 /3-16&3 Eric & Vera Lot 45, Block 1 Sep 21 04 11:278 Metal Design Inc 970 479 0507 P-2 -P . -.Ar r 1 i Do y~u live in Wildridge? Have you seen the Aspen trees we planted last summer? Help Save Our Trees r ttiAL:LL ~4/'41 r 2 7 1 -66 0 E 0,1 na-â‚¬- De'Ala.eo~ 9Yq_ 9511 Aze,V\ L J=.a==4=x-- 949 12-7.r 2/ UlfOrdfllÂ¢72 ~ 94?Â·4(049 Â¢11<Aâ€žAg Ul,d /-- 9 4(1 + 474(00 1 Â· 16 62 04.AL&4 . 9 477 . C q 71 944- y,(3/3 844- 6730 11-39 11 Vlc CIudEYL- 999 134/ â€ž64..8.b--1,- /Vuu.Â£4 9491 5 4 1 Mu., A-1 k 1?i . 6 2.~6 1 /UNIA '! 149 0 7 K 4Â©ck: 909 114 -3599 M.U. 4% 4049 - 7 7-f-3/9/ 19 - 3/4\ 243 -714â‚¬ U mmill 11 I Imad:NI/ 9 7 9 -<,O L 615.------*- 4,Y'l - â‚¬9 0.2 Folo baÂ«,6.4- ~ P ..... Sep 21 04 11:27a Metal Design Inc 970 479 0507 p. 1Â· Metal Design, Inc. Date: 920(18 4 Fax Number of Pages Including Cover: A To: 7-1-h. 7}1<u bud 5204)-tj tr 0111 : 9-Fiab 470 (0 13 9Â· aq-0-7L i ('8 All'rl ZUkri~ d-*Â· >td d 8 (huct Metal D esign, Inc. P.O. Box 3906 Phone: fall, CO 81658 Fax: 9*f- 5?49 Tel/Fx 970 479-0507 Urgent: For your review: Reply ASAP: # Please comment: ~ 069- 4 + O.ff Â£2 6 0 Â«e E= (6 A 4 -tal-Â© 4 n ecytbnc ) C\\NOR-\~ ohnimO k,1 #Â¥l EGGLJ-)erligo; 1 (04* AE A-1 6) ba 21 . 01.4 -69Â£.~) i li kiba d~t. Ukj (1221 1109-,+Lo, -07Â£-,s, 1.4-1 nouj Fâ‚¬4626623 Gng fo T-noÂ» 16#1 (C) OkDO Qtch, locatz - I 4 45(AnlkÂ· L-<0(a-4 4+Hk Oar' 94 715\ Â£50419 d03, 0(dis . tro trin(643 Fit/l-tti~Â¢ . 6..0 6,rU-- betr~ G. 26-F~ 43 /4, ou- dia. 04(q k S 3'07 yÂ» U pi. FU To: AVON Planning and Zonning Board September 20,2004 From: Jerald Wuhrman Subject: Wuhrman Duplex Lot 70A re side yard variance I received a copy of the staff report on 9/17/04 regarding the subject matter and MUST comment to you as follows for clarification of some important considerations in view of their negative recommendation; 1) The staff subject report to you is WRONG in that we are NOT requesting ANY variance on the west side yard easement, nor for re-grading in the Avon owned 50 ft open space drainage easement on the east! ! 2) We are ONLY requesting relief from the east side yard set back from 7 M feet to be 2 feet. (i.e. only a 5 1/2 foot variance) by reaffirmation of the PRIOR granted variance in 1984 for the same reasons considered at that time including hardship. This would be PLUS the present considerations of : A. The adjacent lot owners both to the east and west have provided you written confirmation that they have no objection to the requested variance. B. We have agreed with the condominium associations to the west of our lot for relocating the original platted access easement for entry to our property which had been platted when the lot was divided and ended up being within one foot of the front of the existing easterly building and garage at Bristol Pines. As confirmed in the staff report, the criteria for variances then and NOW are the same and it is evident NOW that the requested variance will NOT have any effect on public facilities or utilities or cause problems of any type to the neighborhood now that surrounding development is complete. 3) As to possible alternative designs for units on the site, it must be recognized: A. the net building envelope of the 60 foot wide lot with 15 feet of side yard set back is only 45 feet total. B. Incorporating side by side townhouse units and allowing 4 feet for exterior and interior demising walls leaves only approximately 40 feet (ie 20 feet each unit) of width for living space. Our feeling is this is to narrow to be practical with the 35 foot height limitation and the fact there is NO view to the north. C. The only other alternative would be over/under condo flats with the garage for parking on the ground level requiring two flights of stairway access and we do not feel this is desireable. The quality of the units planned cannot justify incorporating an elevator for service. We trust the Board will be objective and reasonable in acting on our request. 10-20-2004 17:19 SENIOR FITNESS PAGE1 -12:- ..r . 1 5 . I. %- . 12 Ii, 4.. /*34*vâ€¢ r ~t 9 D /. t 11 -. /3 41/#-0 ,Z ~ . 2#(1 1: & - I. i-K 41 123 $ 1,il -' % a 1 Iff-FÂ·+ 1 1- Â· -1 - /+U ., U. 4 4 Ant* i y i -,9 +4+A q ~ a b f mt L_k 1 1 4 1 +JU f-Â¥-L- - ...Â¥ tf-L==u- 1 J. 19(fl , lt*fi-'1\ 414 - it 3- --7 11 Val f"~13 W V 4- tÂ· r.- / 4Â·- 1 - ... i.1 - - L!/ Â»1 /1-4 J 1 Â· '- 7/ \ V 1J - , 1 ~ ./~ ~ trill l & 1-111 1 .-7/-- . 0 - 'fY: 11 -- 1 1 E , R 1 W â‚¬=a .. 4 - 11-- â‚¬2 -N E===1 1 . *=ill/E 1 .Â·. .... cr===1)Â· i : -K 4 ---. '-'Â¥--. J. ' 9~- 1. 1.W// -â‚¬.A A Ah.2.7. - 4'r -4.2.i 1' 4 t. LJOAOAal3 (*UO Ja) Ull_nos Staff Report SPECIAL REVIEW USE AVON COLORADO September 21, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date September 13,2004 Project type Montessori Preschool Legal description Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Zoning IC (Industrial/Commercial) Address 77 Metcalf Road, Suite 102 Introduction Mountain Montessori is a preschool that will consist of approximately 20 students. The school will operate Monday - Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm. There will be a fenced playground area outside the building for the preschool students. Previous Special Review Use permits have been granted to occupants of units in the Intermountain Building. A Special Review Use permit was granted for the Calvary Chapel Office in August of 2003 and to Franzen Construction in January of 1983 for outside storage and installation of a fence. Evans Chaffee Construction Group will occupy the entire second level of the building. The two units on the lower level will be occupied by the Montessori School and Channel 5 Television, whose lease will expire in June of 2005. Criteria for Review According to section 17.48.040 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall consider the following criteria when evaluating an application for a Special Review Use permit: 1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with at! requirements imposed by the zoning code. The proposed use is not a use by right and is not a special review use as listed in the Industrial/Commercial zoning district. Staff would consider the use of this space for a preschool for a period of one year, at which time the special use permit will need to be reviewed again by the Town. The parking requirements for the preschool is 2/1,000 sq. ft. of GFA and 3/1,000 sq. ft. ofoffice space. Suite 102 is approximately 1, 667 sq. ft., of which approximately 150 sq. ft. will be used for office space. There are 33 parking spaces available for the building on this lot. 1. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 HilkTam~VUl~ll Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Special Review Use Montessori Preschool September 21,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 2 Tho following goals/policies appear to apply to this application: Goal Al - Ensure a balanced system of land uses that niaintains and enhances Avon's identity as a residential community, and as a regional commercial, tourism and entertainment center. Policy Al.7 - The community should include sufficient land for public uses such as schools, community facilities, and government services. Goal Dl - Ensure cost effective development of public facilities and services such as parks, community centers, youth activities, a community college campus, and public safety services such as police, fire and emergency medical that support the health, safety and welfare of existing neighborhoods and new development. Policy Dl.6 - Encourage development of neighborhood and community based day carefacilities. 3. 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, tra#ic, safety, etc. Although preschool/daycare facilities are not indicated as a special use in the Industrial/Commercial zone district Staff would consider a special use permit for a period of one year. The location of the proposed preschool would be very convenient to the large numbers of Avon residents that live in the Wildridge Subdivision. The preschool would be located in an area where students could be dropped off when residents of Wildridge leave for work in the morning and then picked up on the way back home in the afternoon. This facility would serve as a neighborhood daycare to Wildridge, as encouraged in Policy D1.6 of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommended Motion Staff recommends approval o f the Special Use Permit as set forth in Resolution 04-23 for Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision to allow for the use o f a preschool as described in the application dated September 9,2004 with the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00am to 4:30 pm Monday - Friday. 2. A sign permit shall be required for any signage associated with this use. 3. This permit is valid and subject to review by Staff and renewal exactly 1 year from the date of issuance (September 21, 2005). 4. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. If you have any questions regarding this or any other project or community development issue, please call me at 748-4017, or stop by the Community Development Department. Resnectfully submitted, 44 4-64 44 i C Kenneth Kovalchik Planner I Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-23 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF THE MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL ON LOT 22, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO T I THEREAS, Martha Peck, applicant, has applied for a Special Review Use permit for ~ the Montessori Preschool, as described in the application dated September 91 2004, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and I I THEREAS. a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of ~~ the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use permit application; and I I THEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission o f the Town of Avon has considered the following: A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code; and B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan; and C. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. 7 TOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of -'|-~ the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a Special Review Use permit for a the Montessori Preschool, as described in the application dated September 98,2004, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town o f Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, based upon the following findings: 1 1. That the proposed use conforms to the requirements as imposed by the Town Zoning Code. 2. That the proposed use conforms to the Town Comprehensive Plan, particularly with respect to (Goal Al and Goal Dl); and (Policy Al.7 and Policy Dl.6). 3. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses as planned and approved through the design review process. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00am to 4:30 pm Monday - Friday. 2. A sign permit shall be required for any signage associated with this use. 3. This permit is valid and subject to review by Staff and renewal exactly 1 year from the date of issuance (September 21, 2005). 4. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. Adopted this 21St day of September, 2004 Signed: Date: Chris Evans, Chairman Attest: Date: Terry Smith, Secretary F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Resolutions\2004\Res 04-23 Lot 22, Block 1, BMBC Montessori Preschool.doc 2