PZC Packet 090710Staff Report — Special Review Use
September 7, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting AVON
Report date September 3, 2010
Project type Special Review Use
Legal description Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Zoning Industrial and Commercial (IC)
Address 77 Metcalf Road, Suite 102
Prepared By Jared Barnes, Planner I
Summary of Request
Martha Teien of the Mountain Montessori School (the Applicant), representing BBG Holding
Corporation (the Property Owner), has submitted a Special Review Use (SRU) application for the
existing Montessori Preschool located on Lot 22, Block 1 of the Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision, also described as 77 Metcalf Road (the Property). The request is to renew an expired
SRU approval for the preschool on the Property.
Staff is recommending approval of an SRU with the following conditions:
1. The use shall not be enlarged without prior review and approval from the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and
2. The use is approved in perpetuity, unless complaints against Mountain Montessori are
received by the Community Development Department at which time the Planning and
Zoning Commission will re -review the application.
Process
The SRU process is used to review uses in zone districts where the use could be compatible with
the allowed uses in the zone district under certain situations. The SRU process requires public
notification to all properties within three -hundred (300) feet of the subject property a minimum of
twelve (12) days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Staff has mailed a notice to all affected
property owners on August 12, 2010 to satisfy this requirement.
Property Description
The Property is 0.89 acres of land (38,768 square feet) and is located to the north of the
intersection of Metcalf Road and Nottingham Road. The Property is zoned Industrial and
Commercial (IC) and has been developed with a 13,882 square foot office building and associated
parking. The building is currently occupied by Evans Chaffee Construction Group on the second
floor, Mountain Montessori, Vail Home Rentals, and Spark Creative (a marketing firm) on the first
floor.
The uses on adjacent properties include: a carpet and flooring retail store to the south, self storage
to the west, and warehouse spaces to the east across Metcalf Road. A Vicinity Map (Attachment
A) is attached for reference of the property location. The Property is almost entirely covered with
building and asphalt parking areas including drive aisles. A triangle shaped strip of landscaping
approximately 47 feet at its widest point is located to the south of the building where the
playground for the preschool is located. This landscape area sits in between the subject Property
and the building to the south occupied by Ruggs Benedict.
The Property does have sufficient parking for the preschool, which requires 3 spaces. A drop-
off/turnaround area for parents is located to the west of the building.
Background
In September 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) approved Resolution 04-23,
granting Mountain Montessori an SRU to occupy the Property with three conditions:
1. A sign permit shall be required for any signage associated with this use;
2. This permit is valid and subject to a review by Staff and renewal exactly 5 years from the
date of issuance (September 21, 2009); and
3. 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.
The SRU expired on September 21, 2009, and therefore the Applicant was required to submit a
new application. Although the application is for a new SRU and the existing SRU has expired, the
use has continued in this location since its original approval in 2004.
Planning Analysis
A preschool use is not listed as an allowed or special review use within the IC zone district. At that
time, the Community Development Director made a zoning interpretation that, although not listed,
the preschool use was compatible with the other uses within the Property and with the surrounding
uses, and therefore determined this should be permitted as a special review use.
According to the Sec 17.48.040, AMC, the following criteria shall be used when reviewing a
Special Review Use permit application:
1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the Zoning
Code.
2. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan,
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, traffic, safety, etc
4. That the granting of the special review use request provides evidence of substantial compliance
with the public purpose provisions of the Zoning Code as specified in Section 17.28.085, as
follows:
a. The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements
cannot achieve.
b. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social
community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a
result of the changed zoning rights.
C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of
the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and
increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan
documents.
The use does comply with all other requirements of the Zoning Code, such as parking. The use
generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan by encouraging development of neighborhood and
community based day-care facilities. This location for the preschool use is convenient for the large
residential population of the Wildridge Subdivision and will not have a negative impact on the
surrounding uses.
The proposed use does offer a public purpose by providing an additional location within the Town for
educational facilities, whether they are schools, preschools, or daycares. The approval of this
application will continue to provide community benefits that the strict interpretation of the municipal code
could not provide.
Engineering Analysis
As this application is a SRU and does not propose any improvements to the property nor does it
impact the drainage easement there are no comments from the Engineering Department.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 10-04 due to the findings of compatibility with the review
criteria listed in the staff report.
Exhibits
A: Vicinity Map
B: Applicant's Response to Review Criteria
C: Photographs of the existing area
D: Approved Resolution 04-23
Resolution 10-04
Vicinity Map - Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beavei Exhibit
Exhibit B
Special Review Use Application for Mountain Montessori at 77 Metcalf Road
July 30, 2010
Review Criteria:
A. Does the Proposed use otherwise comply with all requirements imposed by the
Zoning Code? YES
B. Does the proposed use conform to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan? YES
C. Is the proposed land use compatible with adjacent uses? YES
Martha Teien
Mountain Montessori
PO Box 9298
Avon, CO 81620
970-390-3941
VL
j
iVA
0
u
0
1�
I
�j
a
r
I
Exhibit D
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
WHEREAS, Martha Peck, applicant, has applied for a Special Review Use
permit for the Montessori Preschool, as described in the application dated
September 9"', 2004, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of 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.
NOW, 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 9"', 2004, as
stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, based upon the
following findings:
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 D1); and (Policy A1.7 and Policy D1.6).
3. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses as planned and approved through
the design review process.
Subject to the following conditions:
1. A sign permit shall be required for any signage associated with this use.
2. This permit is valid and subject to review by Staff and renewal exactly 5 years from
the date of issuance (September 21, 2009).
3. 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 21" day of September, 2004
Signed:
Date:
Chris Evans, Chairman
Attest:
Date:
Terry Smith, Secretary
HPlanning & Zoning Commission\Resolutions\2004\Res 04-23 Lot 22, Block I, BMBC Montessori Preschool,doc
EXHIBIT E
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 10-04
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT
TO PERMIT MOUNTAIN MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL IN SUITE
102 ON LOT 22, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Martha Teien, Mountain Montessori, has applied for a Special Review Use
(SRU) permit to operate a Montessori preschool as described in the application dated July
30, 2010;
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon on September 7, 2010, 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 SRU application;
WHEREAS, at their public hearing held on September 7, 2010, the Planning & Zoning
Commission voted to approve Resolution No. 10-04 thereby approving the subject
Special Review Use permit with two conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon has considered
the following review considerations, as required by the Avon Municipal Code section
17.48.040:
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.
D. Whether the proposed use provides evidence of compliance with the Public
Purpose provisions outlined in the Avon Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission
of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a SRU permit for Mountain Montessori
Preschool, as described in the application dated July 30, 2010; and as stipulated in Title
17, Avon Municipal Code, located in suite 102 on Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The use shall not be enlarged without prior review and approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission; and
2. The use is approved in perpetuity, unless complaints against Mountain
Montessori are received by the Community Development Department at
which time the Planning and Zoning Commission will re -review the
application.
ADOPTED THIS 7"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
Signed:
Date:
Chair: W. Todd Goulding
Attest:
Date:
Secretary: Phil Struve
Staff Report — Master Sign Program Amendment AVON
September 7, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report Date September 1, 2010
Legal Description Lot 62/63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Zoning Town Center (TC)
Address 137 Benchmark Road
Prepared By Jared Barnes, Planner I
Summary of Request
Matt Trasen (the Applicant), representing the commercial interest of the Seasons at Avon
located at 137 Benchmark Road (the Property) has requested an amendment to the Master
Sign Program (MSP) for the Property. The proposed MSP, dated August 23, 2010 is attached
as Exhibit B.
Process
All new MSPs as well as amendments to existing MSPS require review and approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The original MSP was approved in 1994 and is all but
obsolete given the current tenant mix in the building. In 1994, Vail Associates was the primary
tenant in the building (occupying nearly half of the first floor tenant space). Vail Associates has
since left, and the building has been converted to allow for a greater number of first floor
tenants. The 1994 MSP (Exhibit C) sign program included building identification and directional
signage, as well as tenant signs for up to eight (8) first floor north facing tenants.
As a condition of the PZC's approval of the exterior remodel of the Property, the Applicant was
required to submit a MSP Amendment application for a new sign program. This application
satisfactorily addresses this condition.
Property Description
The Property is 3.25 acres with Benchmark Road frontage on the south and west sides of the
building, the future planned Main Street on the north side, and the pedestrian focused Lettuce
Shed Lane on the east side. The exterior `facelift' of the building is nearly complete, which
included an entire repaint, aesthetic treatments to the port-cochere, and other treatments
predominately on the south building elevation. The improvements range from new paint to new
materials, including the introduction of a stone base element. Landscaping alterations are also
underway, as is some of the final upper level painting.
There are a mix of uses currently in the building including general office uses, restaurants, a
preschool, and 104 dwelling units on the upper levels.
Policy Analysis
The Property is located within the West Town Center Investment Plan Area, which promotes
buildings that address and engage the future Main Street, which runs along the north side of the
Property. The Property includes a number of new ground level retail spaces with tenant signs
oriented to Main Street, which is consistent with this goal.
The West Town Center Plan also includes Design Guidelines that are intended to create a
pedestrian -oriented and community enhancing, visually cohesive and economical viable district.
The Design Guidelines include standards for private signs (E.10), which encourage creative
sign designs that enhance the building appearing and aide in way -finding. The proposed sign
materials, fabrication and colors are consistent with these Design Guidelines.
The Guidelines also require that all signs be externally illuminated with the lighting components
bearing a U.L. label. The MSP amendment proposes internally illuminated signage with the
exception of the tower identification signs (F1 and F2) and main entry identification sign (G1).
Planning Analysis
The proposed MSP includes mounted and site signage for the entire Property. A Sign
Placement Plan, which shows the locations of the building identification and ground -mounted
monument signs, is located on page 1 and a Sign Placement Plan for Tenant Signs is located
on page 2. of the MSP.
The Building Identification Signs and Tenant Signs will have reverse pan channel lettering with
internal LED illumination. Building service signs are not illuminated. All Building identification
letters are to be painted dark green and olive. All Building Service signs are painted semi -gloss
black. The color and design of Tenant Signs will be tenant preference.
The proposed location of the Building Identification Signs is consistent with what currently
exists, except for Building identification signs E1, E2, G1, and 11. The proposed quantity and
location of Tenant Signs has increase significantly from the existing sign plan due to the
conversion of the Vail Resorts office space into smaller office and retail spaces.
Two double -sided monument signs are proposed at each driveway entrance to the port-cochere
on Benchmark Road. The monument sign adjacent to the western most driveway is 6 ft high
and 3 ft wide, with a stone base (11). Push through back lit letters with up to 4 tenant panels is
proposed. The monument sign adjacent to the eastern most driveway is 5 ft high and 10 ft wide,
with a stone base (12). Push through back lit lettering with up to 4 tenant panels is proposed.
The site access off of Benchmark Road is one-way from the east to west.
The western monument sign is located at the exit ramp of the port cochere driveway and
therefore serves no direct purpose in assisting traffic into the building. The eastern monument
sign is located at the driveway entrance to the building and would therefore be better suited for
a monument sign. In addition, the Sign Code requires all signs to be a minimum of ten (10) feet
from all properties lines. The eastern monument sign is too large for the propose site and does
not appear to meet this setback requirement. Staff recommends that the Applicant remove the
western monument sign and modify the eastern monument sign to reduce the size. The
Applicant will also need to provide sufficient documentation to ensure that the sign is at a
minimum ten (10)feet from all properly lines.
According to the Town of Avon Sian Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall consider the following criteria in reviewing this design application:
1. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be
constructed and the site upon it is to be located.
Staff Response: The materials are of high quality and appropriate for the site and the
building.
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements.
Staff Response: There are several existing and planned public improvements in the vicinity
of the Property, as well as a number of locations where the proposed signs can be viewed.
The majority of the signs in the surrounding area are either internally lit box signs such as at
the Avon Center, or internally lit pan channel letter signs at Avon Town Square and the
Slifer, Smith, and Frampton building to the east. The proposed MSP is consistent with the
quality of the surrounding and planned improvements, but does not comply with the West
Town Center Investment Plan requirement that signs be externally lit.
3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement.
Staff Response: The materials to be utilized are of high quality and appropriate for their
application.
4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent or
neighboring property.
Staff Response: When the Main Street improvements are constructed the entire north side
of the building will be highly visible from the pedestrian mall and adjacent buildings. The
Tenant Signs are proposed to be internally lit, and the Applicant is also requesting a non -lit
option. The West Town Center Plan, General Sign Requirements (E.10), requires all
building signs in the District to be externally illuminated, and that signs remain illuminated
during shopping/business hours.
In addition, the large Building Identification signage on upper portion of the east elevation
(E2) could have a negative impact on a future building on Lot 61 (located directly to the east
of the Property). Staff recommends that this sign be removed or lowered.
5. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the
vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired.
Staff Response: Monetary and aesthetic values of other signs in the vicinity will not be
impaired by the proposed MSP.
6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with the
Sign Code, and are appropriate for the project.
Staff Response: The type, height, size, and quality of signs are generally in compliance with
the Sign Code; however, some discrepancies do exist. The addition of tenant signage on
the two monument signs is redundant with the proposed tenant signage (C1 -C32), which is
highly visible and does not necessitate additional signage at the vehicular entrance and
exits of the building. The purpose of a building identification sign is to introduce the building
and not individual building tenants. Furthermore, staff is concerned with the location of the
monument signs, which need to be at least ten feet from the property line.
As stated above the location, type and size of the Building Identification signs located on the
east elevation could have a negative impact on future buildings. In addition this sign and the
west elevation sign do not promote the pedestrian nature of the West Town Center District.
Specifically the east elevation signage should be designed for pedestrian travel along
Lettuce Shed Lane. Staff recommends that these signs be both reduced in height on the
building and overall size of the sign area and individual letters. In addition, the applicant
should consider treating the blank walls on these elevations with murals, color, or some
other treatment to add visual interest to the adjacent common spaces.
Although the Design Guidelines require externally lighting on signs, staff believes that the
requirement was intended for retail and commercial signs visible from the public right-of-way
and common areas. The Building Identification signs located on the port-cochere (Al and
A2) as well as the ones located on the east and west elevations (E1 and E2) could be
permitted to have internal illumination, because they are not visible and are not intended to
address the retail element or pedestrian nature of Main Street.
The signage for the three second -level tenant spaces is unsuitable for this application.
Given the significant increase in the number of tenant signs requested and the additional
building identification signs, the second story signs will add clutter to the building fagade and
distract from the streetscape. Staff therefore recommends that the second story signs not
be permitted.
Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether
the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation.
Staff Response: The monument signs and a majority of the building identification signs are
oriented to vehicular traffic, while the tenant signs are orientated to both pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
Recommendation
Staff recommends CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the Master Sign Program Amendment
application for Lot 62/63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, subject to the
criteria and corresponding findings listed in this report, and with the conditions included in the
recommended motion below.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve this Master Sign Program Amendment application Lot 62/63, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with the following conditions:
1. The western monument sign (I1) be removed from the MSP;
2. No individual tenant signage is permitted on the eastern monument sign (12). It must be
demonstrated that this sign is setback at least ten (10) feet from the all property lines
prior to permit. Correspondingly, the size of these signs shall be reduced to one that is
no larger than the proposed western monument sign (11);
3. All first floor tenant signs be modified to remove the non -lit option as well as modify the
signage specifications to require external illumination;
4. The second level tenant signs (C13, C30, and C32) must be removed as options; and
5. Reduce the size of the building identification signs on the east and west elevations and
lower the height to better address the pedestrian nature of these areas.
and subject to the FINDING that the MSP is in conformance with the Sign Code (Chapter 15.28
of the AMC), if the listed conditions are met."
Exhibits
A: Vicinity Map
B: Photographs of the Property (specifically the monument sign location)
C: Proposed MSP, dated August 23, 2010
D: Existing MSP, dated August, 1994
Vicinity Map - Lot 62/63, Block 2, Benchmark at Bea, Exhibit
r` P
Nk
ZZ It
O
� - r
Kl. '
�,,i.'�,"a Ciy'y�A ��� • � ,°fix a:;'_'.,y ,�`' f.
l5 r�
FA
Y
•^J.`4 '' r� iSlfa�'�,ct;; w t s��" - `xt . � ♦ i
_ l+
e— Residential Streets N
Property Boundaries Nx eF ;I °'""""I„ce,<worp,oewama kxrr
utl�br Neae only ondw I.yrrai�l rn¢
e imry el Ilea la unwioxJre .n
0 65 90
CrraYa by CammunAy Oee¢roperem OxWrlimnr
i
1`l 'M
/
i
��
tl
�-
�j
a
1
4.
SY
C11 I
s7.
�t'�•� �Y.1
h
1
9
V
4.
C11 I
s7.
�t'�•� �Y.1
4.
Memorandum
E f} L O R A D 0
TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Matt Gennett, AICP, Planning Manager
DATE: September 7, 2010
RE: Duplex -Split Criteria
Summary
During their review of the proposed Avon Development Code, the Council directed staff
to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to establish a better process for
reviewing requests to build two single-family homes on lots zoned for Duplex uses,
particularly in the Wildridge Subdivision. Part of the current problem in Wildridge
appears to be PUD amendment process, which is required to change the lot designation
from Duplex to Single Family. In addition, the lack of criteria specific for this type of
PUD/Subdivision amendment request has been problematic as well.
The proposed changes to the PUD Amendment
concerns with this process especially the public
recommends establishing a set of "Duplex -Split"
and impacts of this type of proposal.
Background
process should address the previous
benefit requirement. In addition, staff
criteria by which to evaluate the issues
The current PUD amendment process requires applications to demonstrate adherence
to the public benefit criteria (Sec 17.28.085, AMC), which in the case of proposed PUD
amendments accompanied by subdivisions, has historically been accomplished by
offering to give up some of the density rights in exchange for the zone change; and/or to
deed -restrict a unit to keep it affordable. There are also examples in Wildridge where
this has not been required. The proposed PUD Amendment process described in Title 7
Avon Development Code does not include the public benefit requirement and can be
approved administratively. The new code also contains provisions for an administrative
process for Minor Subdivisions which would apply to a Duplex -Split application since
these will involve less than four lots. With the incorporation of appropriate criteria the
new development code provides a more streamlined review process for this type of
application.
Duplex Definition
Section 1.5 of The Third Amended Covenants (1982) for Wildridge contains the following
definition of lots zoned "Duplex" in Wildridge:
Duplex Residential Lot — A lot which can be used solely for residential purposes
and upon which not more than one building, containing no more than two
dwelling units attached by at least one common wall or floor, together with not
more than one garage outbuilding, may be constructed.
Title 17 contains the following definition (17.28.040 AMC):
Duplex dwelling means a detached building containing two (2) dwelling units,
designed for or used as a dwelling exclusively by two (2) families, each living as
an independent housekeeping unit.
And the definition of duplex contained in section in the new Title 7 reads as follows:
Dwelling, Duplex means a building occupied by two (2) families living
independently of one another.
Proposed Criteria
Staff has drafted the following list of criteria to be considered when reviewing a PUD
Amendment and Minor Subdivision request for Duplex Lots proposed to be subdivided
into two single family Lots. .
Proposed Criteria for Duplex Lot Subdivisions:
1. Minimum Lot Size: An existing duplex lot must comprise a gross area of at least
one (1) acre. The newly proposed single family lots must be of approximately
equal size with correspondingly sized building envelopes. For lots between
30,000 sq ft and 1 acre in gross area, a primary/secondary arrangement may be
considered in which the secondary unit is at least twenty -percent (20%) smaller
than the primary.
2. Building Envelopes: All new Lots must include platted building envelopes.
The Preliminary Plan for Subdivision must include building envelopes, for each
home, that conform to existing building setbacks and are sized, configured, and
located in a manner consistent with surrounding development and responsive to
natural contours.
3. Building Separation. There must be at least twenty -feet (20') of separation
between the two proposed single family homes.
4. Compatibility: The newly proposed single-family lots must be compatible with
1) the average size of the ten (10) closest lots to the subject property; 2) the
architectural character of surrounding development within this same proximity;
and, 3) designed to respond to the natural topography without causing excessive
grading and site disturbance.
5. Access & Easements: New Lots must include platted driveway access
easements that are configured based on an engineered design for a driveway.
6. Steep Slopes: On Duplex lots containing areas with average grades in excess
of thirty -percent (30%), building envelopes shall be sited to avoid such areas to
the maximum extent feasible; and certain lots containing significant areas with
grades exceeding 40% may be limited to one structure at the discretion of the
Director..