L3 NTST PUD AmendmentPLANNING AND BONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
February 21, 1995
Lot 3 Nottingham Station Subdivision
Nottingham Station P.U.D. Amendment
PROJECT TYPE: Nottingham Station P.U.D.
ZONING: PUD COMPLIES WITH ZONING?
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution 95-5, which approves the Amended PUD Development Plan for
Lot 3, Nottingham Station.
HISTORY
At the January 17, and February 7, 1995 Commission meeting, action was tabled pending
further information for review. Commission comments were related to massing, height,
site lay out, path location, and density.
Refer to the Staff Reports dated January 17, and February 7, 1995, for the description of
the project and staff analysis from the previous submittals. Some concerns and comments
remain the same.
PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT ELEMENTS
REVISED FROM THE JANUARY 17, AND FEBRUARY 7, 1995 SUBMITTAL
The following are revisions to the proposed Development Standards for the
amended PUD:
C. Setbacks:
Setbacks have been clearly defined on the Development Plan dated February 13, 1995.
Lot 3 has standard setback lines, while Lot 4 has building envelopes that are tied down to
the property lines.
D. Height:
Lot 3:
A maximum building height of 48.00' as defined in Section 17.50.030 of Title 17 Zoning.
(Was 45')
Lot 4:
Lot 4 has called out individual building heights for every building. The height is calculated
using the steep slope measurement as a guide, which is measuring only the side elevations.
This has resulted in the maximum building height being reduced from 60' to 50'.
PLANNING AND —JNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
February 21, 1995
Lot 3 Nottingham Station Subdivision
Nottingham Station P.U.D. Amendment
E. Density .
Density remains the same with Lot 3 having 69 residential units, not to exceed a total of
70,200 square feet and Lot 4 having 70 units not to exceed a total of 135,800 square feet.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Overall, the proposed changes to the original amendment application have enhanced the
project and the river corridor. Three buildings have been reduced in length, larger
openings between buildings on the river side are proposed, building A has been moved a
bit farther away from the wetlands, and site disturbance has been identified and contained.
Proposed Regulations
Building Height for Lot 4:
The height calculations for proposed Lot 4 is based on the steep slope calculations where
only the side elevations are measured. Therefore, the massing and height of the buildings
have not changed only the calculations.
Buildings A, E, and G have been reduced in overall length and some of the buildings have
been shifted to produce larger openings between buildings on the river side. This will help
reduce some of the perceived massing along the river corridor. However, the proposed
building heights combined with the proposed architectural style still has the potential to
create overwhelming massing for the river corridor. If the massing of the buildings were
stepping away from the river, the height would not be as objectionable.
The Comprehensive Plan, Subarea 10, Riverfront District states:
"Limit building heights to three to four stories. The intent is to establish a scale of
development that is subordinate to the Town Center and compatible with the
river environment."
• "Buildings should be designed to step down in height as they near the river and in
response to the natural topography."
Even though the proposed buildings will have no more than four stories, they will have a
vertical face along the river corridor. Nine of these buildings together will create a canyon
effect. This is not following a section of the Subarea 10 guidelines concerning stepping
down the height of the buildings as they near the river or being compatible with the river
environment.
Density
The applicants are proposing 139 residential units containing approximately 200,000
square feet. However, they are requesting approval of 206,000 square feet of residential
floor area.
PLANNING AND JNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
February 21, 1995
Lot 3 Nottingham Station Subdivision
Nottingham Station P.U.D. Amendment
Site Development Plan:
Lot 4 Building Locations.
Buildings A, E, and G have been reduced in overall length. Further, the openings between
the buildings on the river side have been increased. The proposed changes have helped to
enhance the project and the river corridor since the original proposal. However, 70 units
are still proposed along the river corridor creating a long row of buildings along the river.
If a building were eliminated and the other buildings slightly shifted, the canyon effect
would be somewhat reduced. Staff would like the Commission to consider whether the
proposed site lay out meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as it addresses the Eagle
River and whether or not the elimination of a building would better comply with the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan.
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF PUD
1. Conformity with the Avon comprehensive plans, goals and objectives;
Comment: Staff offers the following sections from the Comprehensive Plan the
Commission should consider and answer whether or not the project meets the intent:
Goal A4. Capitalize on the Eagle River as a focal point for future development.
Emphasize the river corridor as a site for the development of recreational amenities
and linkages.
Promote the orientation of future development along the river corridor to the river as
an asset and amenity.
Goal B2. Enhance the Town's role as a principal, year-round residential and commercial
center in the Vail Valley.
Promote opportunities for the development of housing which is affordable to existing
and new Town residents.
Goal C1. Provide for an appropriate mix of residential dwelling unit types for both
permanent residents and tourists.
Goal C2. Affordable housing, both rental and owner occupied, should be made available
through a combination of private and public efforts.
Goal E1. Provide an improved vehicular circulation system throughout the Town..
Evaluate the existing circulation system, and develop a plan for improvements for
access to individual development sites.
Goal E3. Develop opportunities for mass transportation.
Provide safe and efficient bus stops.
Goal G1. Ensure that the high quality, natural environment is preserved and integrated
into the developed areas of Town.
Ensure that future development will minimize degradation of the environment,
particularly in sensitive natural areas.
Protect and enhance the water quality of the Eagle River and Nottingham Lake.
PLANNING AND BONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
February 21, 1995
Lot 3 Nottingham Station Subdivision
Nottingham Station P.U.D. Amendment
Provide special controls for development in hillside areas to minimize environmental
degradation and to preserve the visual character of these unique areas.
Work with the Division of Wildlife to minimize impacts on critical wildlife habitat,
nesting and breeding areas, and migration routes.
Goal 111. Provide a balanced system of recreation, parks, and open space to meet the
needs of residents of the Town.
Make provisions for land dedications for open space and recreation purposes in
association with new annexations and development.
Goal H2. Establish the Eagle River as a greenbelt corridor through the Town.
Provide access and recreation opportunities to the river.
Develop a pedestrian/bike path system along the river.
Goal I1. Ensure that a high quality visual image of the Town is established through both
public and private sector activities.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub-
area design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the town;
Comment: Following are sections from the Comprehensive Plan that are applicable:
Land Use Plan, pg. 4.7 ". . . These lands have the potential to be developed for a
combination of land uses, as long as the uses and physical design of the site are sensitive to
the natural riparian environment."
Urban Design Plan, Subarea 10, Riverfront District, pg. 5.21, Please refer to
Attachment C for the urban design guidelines for this area.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, character, and orientation;
Comment: Does the Commission feel the proposed building height, scale, bulk and
character for Lot 4 (along the Eagle River) is compatible being directly adjacent to the
river? Is proposed Lot 3 compatible?
4. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity;
Comment: Surrounding uses and activity dictate the level of density and use being
proposed for this property. However, the allocation and location of the density on Lot
4 may not be appropriate. Does the Commission feel the proposed site design
provides a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and
activity, which is chiefly the Eagle River?
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed;
PLANNING AND BONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
February 21, 1995
Lot 3 Nottingham Station Subdivision
Nottingham Station P.U.D. Amendment
Comment: The Developers have submitted a wetlands delineation map to the Army Corps
of Engineers, however, verification may not take place until the spring. A
determination will be made at that time concerning the avoidance of natural and/or
geologic hazards
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community;
Comment: Does the Commission feel the site plan, building placement, and building
design is responsive and sensitive to the natural features and vegetation of the Eagle
River? Is the proposed project adding to the aesthetic quality of the community? The
Developers are proposing to dedicate approximately 3.338 acres of open space.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on
and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the town transportation
plan;
Comment: Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation for the project is functional. A
soft surface river corridor pedestrian pathway is proposed and a multi -use path is
proposed along Hurd Lane.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function;
Comment: The dedication of the open space along the river corridor preserve certain
areas of the Eagle River. The two proposed paths leading down to the river will
provide public access to the river.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan
shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and
efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases;
Comment: The proposed phasing needs to be clarified, indicating exact improvements to
be constructed with each phase.
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation
systems, roads, parks and police and fire protection; and
Comment: There are no utilities on this site. However, the utility companies have
indicated there are adequate utilities to services the site.
PLANNING AND _.ONING COMMISSION STAFF REt ORT
February 21, 1995
Lot 3 Nottingham Station Subdivision
Nottingham Station P.U.D. Amendment
11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry
anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed
PUD.
Comment: The only existing street is a Hurd Lane extension to the property line at the
intersection of Avon Road. Hurd Lane is constructed to adequately handle the
projected traffic, with a left hand turn lane onto Avon Road The proposed Hurd Lane
will be built to carry the anticipated traffic within the development. The proposed
connection to Eaglebend Drive is extremely important to implementing the
Traffic/Transportation Plan.
RECOMMENDED PROCEEDINGS
1. Introduce Application
2. Applicant Presentation
3. Open Public Hearing
4. Continue Public Hearing
5. Commission Review
6. Commission Action
Respectfully Submitted
-'1Mtt)-Vr—
Mary Holden
Town Planner