TC Minutes 08-23-19880 •
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AVON TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING HELD AUGUST 23, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
The regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado,
was held in the Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado,
in the Council Chambers.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Allan Nottingham at 7:30 p.m.
A roll call was taken with Emilie Harrison, Steve Miller, Clint Watkins,
Gloria McRory, Al Connell and Jerry Davis present. Also present were
Town Attorney John Dunn, Town Manager Bill James, Engineer Norm Wood,
Director of Planning Lynn Fritzlen, Town Clerk Patricia J. Doyle,
as well as, members of :the press and public.
The Mayor called for Citizen Input.
Bob Krohn, Director of operations for the 1989 World Championships,
approached the Council.
Mr. Krohn updated the Council on the valley's dress-up for the 1989
World Championships. He stated that they were to install flags and
banners throughout the main bus route. The opening ceremonies would
take place a Golden Peak in Vail. He stated that they were to have
four levels of snow sculptures throughout the valley. The Alpine
Garden Club has initiated a miniture white light program where 3,000
strings of lights would be placed throughout the valley and on the main
bus route.
Mr. Krohn stated that they would spend $45,000 just on the flags and
banners. They were expecting between two hundred and three hundred
million viewers to view the event.
The Mayor thanked Mr. Krohn for his presentation.
There being no one else wishing to be heard, the Mayor closed the Citizen
Input discussion.
Resolution No. 88-16, Series of 1988, A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL
REVIEW USE TO ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR IN THE MOUNTAIN CENTER BUILDING
LOCATED ON LOT 26/27, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK.
Lynn Fritzlen stated that at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
of August 16, 1988, the commission recommended approval of the Special
Review Use for Jerry's Auto Repair with the following conditions:
1. Adequate parking being provided for the proposed use in conjunction
with Chapter 17.24 of the Avon Municipal Code;
2. The provision that the visible accumulation of personal property
on the site, including but not limited to, automobile parts, tires,
disabled vehicles, etc., be contained within the building or other
structure as may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission;
0 •
3. Commission review and approve of all modifications proposed
for the building exterior;
4. Commission.review and approval of plans for individual business
signage or a comprehensive sign program for :the entire project;
5. The provision that the Special Review Use shall expire with the
loss of any required parking;
6. Re-evaluation of this Special Review Use at the time Phase II
of the project is started or not later than June 1, 1989.
The Council was concerned of the parked vehicles that would be parked
for repair at the site. This was discussed.
After discussion, Councilman Watkins moved approval of Resolution No.
88-16, Series of 1988. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller
and was unanimously carried.
Resolution No. 88-17, Series of 1988, A RESOLUTION REVERSING THE PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY FINAL APPROVAL TO THE BEAVER
VIEW PROJECTS LOCATED ON LOTS 3 AND 6, BLOCK 5, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION
AND THEREFORE GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AS SUBMITTED
TO THE TOWN OF AVON JULY 12, 1988.
Lynn Fritzlen stated that Resolution No. 88-17 was prepared in regard
to the criteria. She stated that she conditioned the resolution,
and those conditions were as follows:
1. Inclusion of laundry rooms.
2. Consideration of useable open space.
3. Inclusion of a designated manager's space.
Councilman Miller moved approval of Resolution No. 88-17, Series of 1988.
The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Harrison.
The Mayor offered the hearing to public for comments, which were limited
to two minutes.
Jack Hunn, 2120 Longspur Road, Wildridge Subdivision, approached the Council.
Mr. Hunn again reviewed the concerns he had for approving this project.
He stated that he would like to hear the compelling reasons why the
Council overturned the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision.
He stated that the project did not comply with the Wildridge Covenants.
He stated that the proposed project was twice the size of that of the
Gosshawk project, and not one half the size as earlier stated.
He felt it was the wrong location for this type of project, and felt
it should be in the core area of Avon.
He suggested that Council take the following action:
1. Uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision, to deny the
project;
2. Abolish fractionalization in Wildridge, as any future fractionalization
projects would be contested by the neighbors of Wildridge;
3. Adopt the Design Guidelines for Wildridge so that the Planning and
Zoning Commission may enforce them in the course of reviewing other
projects in Wildridge.
-2-
0
The Mayor then opened the meeting for Council discussion.
Councilman Connell stated that after hearing the discussion of the
people in Wildridge, he was possibly thinking of changing his views
on denying the proposed project.
Councilwoman McRory stated that there were four reasons why the project
was rejected:
1. Incompatibility with existing and proposed improvements;
2. Non-compliance with the Design Guidelines of 6.13, 6.14 and 6.15;
3. Visual appearance of any proposed improvements in view from adjacent
property owners.
Councilman Connell stated that there would probably be nothing built
that would be compatible with the proposed project.
Councilman Davis stated that the size of the units inside was not the
challenge, and could not justify making a decision against it, or for it.
He stated that the other issue was that the proposed project was
separate from the Wildridge area. He stated that the project was in an
area of all tri-plexes or greater, and in his opinion, the project was
more compatible with multi-family units there, then in Wildridge. He
stated that there was a physical separation. He stated that he would
like to discuss the consideration of open space, and that it needed to
be more detailed.
He was concerned about that condition and felt there should be some
kind of facility such as, a park next door, or a facility that had swings
or volleyball.
Councilman Watkins stated that the wording had to be more specific in
the resolution on the consideration of open space.
Councilman Davis stated that the other two concerns were fine(Laundry rooms
and managers unit).
Councilman Connell stated that he felt that it was more of a personality
conflict than anything. If the developer could buy into what he was
building, it would probably solve this problem without an Appeal.
Councilman Davis stated that it was up to the Council to either overturn
the Appeal or, make suggestions of how they could return to the Planning
and zoning Commission for further study.
He stated that he would like to see some kind of green area or park area
without building additional space. He suggested indoor facilities.
Mark Donaldson, architect for the project stated that :unfortunately,
the site was very, very tight. He stated that there had been some
discussion of taking one of the units, or two of the units, and doing
something inside the buildings. He stated that he did not feel comfortable
making that decision, but they could take that into consideration.
Councilwoman McRory stated that she would like to see something outside
as well as, inside.
-3-
0 0
Councilman Davis suggested that this matter be sent back to the Planning
and Zoning Commission to develop, understanding the limited space, an
outdoor deck and a grass area, even with the limited amount of open
space, and also some kind of additional indoor amenities, perhaps with
one unit with an exercise room and/or some other facility.
Councilman Miller suggested that whether it be indoor or outdoor, that
there be a minimum of 500 square feet.
At that point, Councilman Davis moved to amend the motion to include
that the inside amenities would be in the form of at least one unit
in each project hoping to tie that to an outside area for open space
for recreation in each building. The recreation being of some value.
The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Harrison.
The Town Attorney stated that if the Council were to vote in favor of
the resolution, it would be appropriate to move at that time, that the
matter be returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission for determination
for compliance with the conditions.
The Council voted on the amendment to the motion and carried unanimously.
The Mayor then entertained a vote on the main motion. The motion carried
with Councilmen Watkins and Connell opposing.
Councilwoman Harrison moved to recommend that this matter be referred
back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for compliance with conditions.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Davis and was unanimously carried.
The Town Attorney report was next presented to the Council. Mr. Dunn
requested that the discussion of "conflict of interest" be postponed
until the work session of the Planning and Zoning Commission, September
6, 1988.
The Council agreed.
Mr. Dunn reported on the Christie Lodge Litigation.
He stated that there had been some discussion of potential settlement,
but he felt that this would not likely occur.
The Council then recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
Next on the agenda was the Appeal request for Mountain Resort Properties,
part of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, a ten unit
complex.
Lynn Fritzlen stated that the above project was denied final design review
approval at the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission which was
held July 19, 1988.
-4-
•
i
The applicant had filed an Appeal in accordance with Section 10.00 of the
Design Procedures Rules and Regulations. The project was denied
primarily on its non-compatibility with existing neighborhood development
which was one of the approval criteria to be considered in the
Administrative Procedures for fractionalization projects.
Mark Donaldson, partner with the Phoenix Discovery Group, approached the
Council. He stated that he was before the Council to request that the
Council reverse the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission which
was denied final approval for the design review application. The
project was located on a portion of Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek, known at the Chambertin Foundation.
He stated that they had been before the Commission Board four different
times over the last fourteen months to present the project. He stated
that on July 5, 1988, the application was granted preliminary approval
to:
1. the site plan;
2. the exterior building design with the condition that compliance with
the fractionalization ordinance No. 88-11, Series of 1988 regarding the
maximum of ten units;
3. and that the Administrative Procedures of requirements of public
hearing be met.
He stated that, at the time of granting.preliminary approval, and spending
a great amount of money;
1. All the previous and current issues brought by the neighborhood
property owners had been clearly stated to the Planning and Zoning
Commission;
2. The staff had contributed numerous reports based on their review of
the application and comparison to the Avon Zoning Code and Design
Procedures Rules and Regulations;
3. The intent, the implications, and the detail of the fractionalization
ordinance had been throughly discussed;
4. The application had received a lengthy review of materials, design,
sign development, and potential impacts.
He stated that at the next meeting, all those conditions had been met.
However, the Commission denied the application as submitted, citing
the incompatibility of the number, and the size of the units of the
project with the other units of the neighborhood.
He stated that the RMD(Residential Medium Density)Zone District's average
allowed density was 7.5 per acre. Based upon the land area of .88
acres, this could have potentially yielded 6.6 units for the site.
He stated that the project has only 4.5 units per acre, which was over
30% less than what could have originally been assigned to the property
based upon the average density allowed.
Mr. Donaldson then reviewed the design of the building with the Council.
After some further discussion, the Mayor closed the public hearing and
opened the meeting for Council discussion.
Mr. Donaldson stated that the Phoenix Discovery Group had written to the
Chambertin neighbors on several occasions expressing their concern and the
concern of their insurance carrier,over the many areas of potential
liability which could arise from such an uncontrolled access. He stated
they they had never received any response pertaining to this issue, only
demands from them that, the Phoenix Discovery Group build four units
just like the existing buildings and give them free access across the
Phoenix Discovery Group's property.
-5-
• a
After some discussion, Councilman Miller moved to overturn the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The motion was seconded by
Councilwoman Harrison.
Councilman Davis stated that Mr. Lamont had submitted a project review,
which was dated June 30, 1988. He stated that using Mr. Lamont's review,
he felt very comfortable with the project and basically submit that
Council use Jim's review for Council to amend the motion to overturn the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Councilwoman McRory had a concern of the egress in and out of the
property for the trash trucks and the snow removal trucks.
Mr. Donaldson stated that it would be a separate contractor for trash
removal and snow removal, and that Chambertin would have to use a
different access. He stated that they see it as a value not having a
freeway through there, but at the same time, would like to be responsive
to the concerns.
As far as fire lane, it was suggested to have a Shear Pin placed in the
gate, which could be dropped for emergencies.
The drainage concerns of the property were discussed.
Councilman Watkins felt that the emergency access be a condition of the
approval of the project.
He stated that he had a real concern of the trash trucks backing out onto
Nottingham Road. He felt that the cut-off of access was a bad idea,
and felt it necessary to have access through there. He felt that the
proposed project was not compatible because of the size of the units.
Councilwoman Harrison stated that, to build units the same size that
exist now, would not be feasible, they would not sell.
She stated that she could not see where the applicant did not satisfy
the Rules and Regulations of the Town.
Councilman Davis amended the motion to include Section #6 - Design
Guidelines, and Section 10 through 17 - Design Review considerations,
and that those conditions have been met, and that the compliance with
the development goals, policies and programs of the Town of Avon in
Development District 3 have been complied with, which was the reason
for overturning the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision.
The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Harrison.
Councilman Davis requested that Jim Lamont's project review be
referenced, which was dated June 30, 1988.(See Attached to these minutes).
Councilman Watkins stated that there should be a requirement of emergency
access, and trash access, just as a safety feature, and should seek
some solution for such.
Councilman Davis felt it was a site problem, and not a problem for the
Council to resolve.
Councilman Connell felt it was the Council's responsibility to try to
minimize the danger areas of that property.
-6-
• 0
Councilman Watkins stated that the Council was hearing just one side of
the issue. He felt that the Planning and Zoning Commission members
should be present to explain what they based their decision on. Also,
he was concerned of the owners of Chambertin of not being notified of
of the Appeal.
Councilman Davis suggested that that process be revised.
Mr. Donaldson stated that their Group had worked out the problem of access
for the trash trucks. He stated that Chambertin could create the same access
At that point, the Mayor called for a vote on the amendment to the
original motion. The motion was carried unanimously.
Councilman Davis moved to amend the motion to include emergency access
that would be acceptable to the Department of Public Safety. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and was carried with Councilman
Connell opposing.
Councilman Davis moved that the action of the Planning and Zoning
Commission be disapproved for reasons stated in principally, Jim
Lamont's report, but that approval be conditioned upon compliance with
necessary emergency access requirements. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Miller. The motion carried with Councilmen Watkins and
Connell opposing.
Next on the agenda was the matter of the Charter review/revision.
Councilman Watkins stated that his primary concerns in the Charter
were in Sections 7.1-Initiative, and 7.2-Referendum, and the
limitations on what was allowed. He felt that Council should look at
those sections and consider amending the Charter to broaden the areas
that were covered by initiative and referendum.
He requested that staff look into other municipalities with charters,
to see if Avon was too restrictive.
The Town Manager suggested that Council set a work session on September
6th, 1988 over the noon hour to review this matter.
The Council agreed.
The next item on the agenda was the construction of the Softball Field
on Tract P.
Mr. James stated that the Town was able receive just one bid for the
construction of the softball field. He reviewed the status of the
Agreement with the Council which was between the Town of Avon and the
School District. He stated that there was just one small section of the
Agreement that was causing a concern, which was in regard to the use of
the facilities at certain times of the day. He stated that the Town
had requested access to the softball field and athletic field after
4:00 p.m. on school days and weekends. He stated that the school district
agreed, but if the school district was in need of those facilities, they
would send the Town a ten day notice indicating such.
-7-
0
Mr. James was not comfortable with that, in that, if the Town had an
event scheduled, it would be difficult to reschedule.
Also, the Town requested the use of the facilities during the period
that the school distrcit sessions were out during the summer months,
but the school district frowned on that, stating if the school district
were to go into year around sesssion, the facilities would not be
available.
Mr. James stated that until the school was built, he felt the Town had
full rights to go in, make the improvements, and utilize the field.
Mr. James stated that his main concern was that the Town could not use
the facilities if the school were to hold summer sessions.
Councilman Davis suggested that the Town go ahead based on the Town
Managers decsision.
The Council agreed.
Norm Wood then reviewed the contracts for the drainage and grading for
the proposed softball field.
He stated that for just the grading, drainage and sand soil infield mix,
the amount of the contract was $40,420 by Paul Long Construction.
Mr. Wood stated that after reviewing and discussing the bid with Mr. Long,
he reduced his bid to $25,253 through the deletion of the sand soil
infield mix, and with the Town providing water from its irrigation system.
Also this would increase the grading tolerance to 1/10 of a foot and
increase the control grit from 20 feet to 50 feet.
The work could begin by the end of the week.
He stated that the total cost for completion would be between $45,000 to
$50,000.
Councilman Watkins moved to proceed with the contract based on the
Town Manager being comfortable with the agreement with the school district.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and was unanimously carried.
The Special Events revisions and the TV Translators System were postponed
until the budget process.
Councilman Connell stated that in regard to the TV Translator System, he
would like to see an Agreement drafted, in which all entities could
agree upon, so that the issue could proceed.
Discussion followed.
Councilman Davis stated that if the Council wanted to start negotiating
with another entity to take over the ownership of the translator system,
he would like to know, so he would know where to put his time and effort.
He felt it was too premature to start talking about turning over
licenses, and felt this matter should be put to rest once and for all.
Discussion followed.
-8-
! 0
Councilman Watkins moved to pursue negotiating to see if a contract could
be drafted with Cal Thomas and Al Connell. The motion died due to a lack
of a second.
Councilwoman McRory requested that Councilman Davis come up with a report
by the next Council meeting.
The Council agreed.
The Mayor updated the Council on the upcoming World Championships.
The Financial Matters were next presented to the Council.
Councilman Miller moved approval of the General Fund of Accounts Payable
for August 23, 1988. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Harrison
and was unanimously carried.
Councilman Miller moved approval of the Reconciliation Sheet of Accounts
Payable for August 23, 1988. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman
Harrison and was unanimously carried.
Councilman Miller moved approval of the August 9, 1988 Council Meeting
Minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilman Watkins
and was unanimously carried.
Councilman Watkins informed the Council that there was a Northwest
Colorado Council of Governments meeting on Thursday, August 25, 1988.
The NWCCOG requested that the Town of Avon become more active.
Councilman Miller thanked Mr. Brooks and his crew, alsong with the
Chamber and staff for a good job done on the Balloons, Bluegrass Event.
Bill Fleisher, a property owner of the Chambertin units, and also a Real
Estate Broker, approached the Council.
He was concerned of the fact that no notices were sent to the property
owners of the Chambertin notifying them of this Appeal.
He stated that he would like to see some changes in this process.
He also was concerned of the access of the property.
He felt that Fractionalization would hurt the Town of Avon. He stated
that they way it was now set up, he would recommend to any buyers,
not to invest in the Town of Avon. He stated that fractionaliaation needed
to be controlled.
-9-
0 0
There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilman
Watkins moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller.
The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Nottingham at 10:47'p.m.
APPROVED:
-10-
•
To: Town of Avon
From: JF Lamont
RE:Project Review:
Phoenix Discovery Group
Condominium Residences
A part of Lot 46/47, Block 1 BMS
Date: June 30, 1988
E
The following Design Guidelines have been reviewed and
are offered for consideration by the reviewing authorities
and the applicant. The recommendations made in this report
are subject to change; upon the submission of additional
information, the content of the public hearings, and the
results of additional research.
Section
6.00 Design Guidelines:
6.10 Design Review Considerations:
The Commission shall consider the following items in
reviewing the design of a proposed project:
6.11 The conformance with the Zoning Code and other
applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
Comment: See Staff Report
6.12 The suitability of the improvement, including ty?)e and
quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the
site upon which it is to be located.
Comment: Provided that sufficient investigation has been
conducted of soils conditions the site is suitable for a wide
variety of residential structures. The type and quality of
materials of which the proposed structure is to be
constructed is consistent with standards for multi-unit
residential structures.
6.13 The compatibility of the design to minimize site
impacts to adjacent properties.
Comment: The-design does not appear to adversely effect
the distribution of light and air of adjacent properties.
The access of Fire Safety equipment to adjacent
properties may be adversely effected by the site design.
Site drainage and landscape plans are of insufficient
detail to determine there compatibility with existing or
proposed site plan of adjacent properties.
0
page two
•
6.14 The compatibility of proposed improvements with site
topography.
Comment: Insufficient information exists to determine
the impact upon soils movement and landscaping of retaining
wall on north side of exterior parking lot.
6.15 The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as
viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public
ways.
Comment: The visual appearance of the proposed
improvement does not inhibit principal views nor block the
solar exposure of adjacent and neighboring properties.
Insufficient information exists to determine if
landscaping will have an acceptable visual appearance from
the public ways.
Exterior and unenclosed parking areas are not located in
principal views from adjacent and neighboring properties and
public ways.
6.16 The objective that no iinprovement be so similar or
dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or
aesthetic will be impaired.
Comment: The apparent mass of the three story flat roof
structure is consistent with two and three story structures
on adjacent properties.
Building offsets on the south elevation are significant
enough to be similar in appearance of structure on adjacent
properties.
Exterior materials, architectural detailing and color
can be modified to emphasis wood siding which is the
prevalent siding material in the vicinity.
Provision should be made for adequate fire safety access
to adjacent properties.
Landscape improvements should be qualitatively and
quantitatively increased and maintained to the standards
consistent with existing improvements in the vicinity.
*Insufficient information is available to determine if
either the proposed use or the aesthetics of the improvement
are so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that
values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. The proposed
architectural style does not presently exist in the immediate
vicinity of the project.
•
page three
6.17 The general conformance of the proposed improvements
with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of
Avon.
Conunent: The proposed project should be review for
substantial compliance with the following specified
development goals, policies, and programs of the Town of
Avon.
Development District Three
District Three Boundaries: The area from the centerline
of Benchmark Road and Buck Creek greenbelt, to the western
boundary of the Benchmark Village Mobile Home Park, between
the centerline of the Interstate 70 right-of-way on the
North, and the centerline of the Denver Rio Grande and
Western right-of-way on the South. Further, the area West of
the centerline of Buck Creek Road and Buck Creek Greenbelt
to the western lot line of the Beacon Hill Townhouses and
from the existing northern town boundary to the centerline of
Interstate 70 on the South.
I. Economic Development:
A. Goals:
1. Encourage the inclusion of short and long term
residential uses on specific sites provided that improvements
are made in the pedestrian, vehicular, and mass transit
circulation systems.
2. Establish residential and lodging uses on
appropriate sites that provide for the inclusion of
recreational, cultural, and educational facilities.
B. Policies:
2. Encourage the provision of recreational,
cultural, and educational facilities in development projects.
II. Housing Development:
A. Goals:
1. Encourage the physical separation of low-
density residential development from higher density
residential areas.
O •
2. Encourage the development of a wide variety of
residential housing types, particularly affordable dwelling
units, either by sale or rental, to persons of all income
levels, visitor and resident alike.
B. Policies:
1. Promote tourist lodging.
3. Promote the incorporation of economically
diverse housing for all income levels of permanent residents
on appropriate sites.
C. Strategies:
III. Transportation and Circulation:
A. Goals:
1. Provide for both public and private mass
transportation service and mass transit facilities that will
reduce vehicular traffic and promote covenient access to the
area.
2. Promote the safe separation of pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicular traffic.
3. Improve the vehicular circulation system,
particularly for service, delivery, emergency, and mass
transit vehicles.
4. Encourage centralized public/private parking
facilities in areas where the shared use and access between
such parking facilities will improve pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
B. Policies:
1. Encourage the provision of pedestrian, bicycle,
and vehicular ways on both developed and undeveloped sites.
2. Provide a vehicular access control plan that
will protect the safety of the streets and allow good access
to private property.
4. Encourage the acquisition of right-of-ways for
the improved circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic
by means of easements and other appropriate agreements with
property owners.
7. Provide for the extension of greenbelt,
pedestrian, bicycle, and street right-of-ways onto lands
adjacent to the town boundaries.
3. Encourage the acquisition of right-of-ways for
the improved circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic
by means of easements and other appropriate agreements with
property owners.
IV. Community Facilities:
A. Goals:
1. Encourage the development and use of public and
private facilities that provide for the educational,
religious, recreational, cultural, service, and ritual needs
of the community.
2. Promote natural and landscaped open space,
parks, playgrounds, ball fields and pedestrian malls.
3. Encourage and provide for contiguous parking
facilities between adjacent sites that are available for use
by the general public.
B. Policies:
V. Community Design:
A. Goals:
1. Protect the efficiency and safety of the area
by encouraging compatible uses to develop within and around
its perimeter.
2. Function as an auto accessible area.
3. Encourage proper site planning that orients
structures to optimum passive solar exposure and view
orientation, while providing view corridors for
commercial/residential buildings on adjacent sites.
4. Encourage a minimum/maximum building size and
mass by providing design guidelines which reinforce the
emergence of a cohesive townscape.
5. Promote an urban townscape that provides for
structures, on the same or adjacent sites, of varying heights
from low to high profile, that incorporate and establish a
pedestrian scale; significant landscaping; continuous
interior and exterior public malls; interconnected, covered,
centralized parking, enclosed atriums, and interior open
space; community recreational, educational, and cultural
facilities.
6. Reduce the negative influences of noise from
I I q
d
_ t
Interstate 70 and the Denver Rio Grande and Western Railroad.
B. Policies:
1. Improve the landscaping and visual screening of
surface parking lots, as viewed from Interstate 70 and
surrounding residential projects and vehicular thoroughfare.
2. Provide for the location or relocation of
existing utility easements, lines and facilities so that
future construction minimizes the need to damage native
vegetation, steep hillsides, streets, walkways, principal
view corridors, or renders platted property unbuildable.
3. Discourage the construction upon, or removal
of, native vegetation from steep hillsides in order to
prevent erosion, landslides, rockfalls and unsightly
scarring.
4. Provide protection for pedestrians and outdoor
recreational amenities against prevailing winter winds
through the use of appropriate landscaping and architectural
features.
5. Provide for adequate snow removal and storage
facilities, as well as the retention and removal of
pollutants from surface runoff.
6. Provide requirements and standards for the
design and construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk on all
development projects.
7. Encourage development projects that have
distinctive architectural character, ease of accessibility,
provide pedestrian malls and plazas contiguous with adjacent
sites, and have a cohesive architectural relationship :-jith
building on surrounding or adjacent sites.
8. Establish a pedestrian scale that considers the
height of surrounding buildings, solar exposure, the width of
streets, pedestrian ways, and the sense of enclosure.
12. Encourage requirements and standards for the
design and construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalks on
appropriate development projects.
TA063088