Loading...
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