Loading...
PZC Minutes 020696Record of Proceedings Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 6, 1996 Regular Meeting The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jack Hunn at 7:38 p.m., February 6, 1996, in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. All members were present except Sue Railton and Buz Reynolds. Members Present: Jack Hunn Rhoda Schneiderman Beth Stanley Henry Vest Staff Present: Karen Griffith, Town Planner Jacquie Halburnt, Recording Secretary George Harrison., Assistant Planner Steve Hodges, Community Services Officer Mike Matzko, Director of Community Development Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Staff requested to move Item C (Lot 36, Blk 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision) under Final Design Review to the Consent Agenda. Conflicts of Interest None Consent Agenda The following items were scheduled on the Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the January 16, 1996 Meeting Minutes B. Lot 71, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Street Address: 5380 Ferret Lane Project Type: Residential Duplex; Modification of Final Design Owner/Applicant: John Perkins Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 C. Lot 36, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Street Address: 120 Metcalf Road Project Type: Auto Body Shop; Retaining Wall and Landscape Design Owner/Applicant: Rich Cooper, Rich's Auto Body George Harrison summarized item B. He stated that the applicant received final design review approval for Lot 71, Block 4, Wildridge subdivision on August 1, 1995. He continued that the applicant was returning to modify the design by adding unfinished space above garage on the eastern side of the duplex, change the building's overall wall design, and change fenestration. Mr. Harrison stated the Staff recommended approval of the design modification. Chairperson Hunn asked what the use was of the additional room above the garage. Mr. Harrison stated the applicant was proposing an unfinished room. Commissioner Schneiderman asked if the room would have plumbing and the applicant stated that he was roughing in a bathroom. He also stated that the room would be part of his primary residence. Karen Griffith summarized item C as a modification for re. aining wall and landscape planter. She stated that they did some dirt work last summer and the slope needed to be retained. A 2:1 slope with a planter between the two walls was proposed. Ms. Griffith stated the Staff recommended approval with the addition of a 4th condition. She stated the conditions were: 1. the rear retaining wall be finished with stucco to match or be compatible with the existing structure, 2. five additional shrubs be added in the middle of the planter, 3. permission be obtained from the owner of Lot 37, Block 1 to apply stucco to the retaining wall since they own part of the wall, and 4. (new condition) that the timber retaining wall have a specified stain color. Commissioner Vest asked if the stain color would have to come back for Staff approval and Karen stated Staff would recommend yes. Finally, regarding item A, Chairperson Hunn pointed out that on page 9, what he thought he said was - he thought the PUD rezoning was a step in the right direction, not the list of items that he used to summarize the project. Also, the correct spellingT is be. m, not birm. George Harrison clarified a misunderstanding that the applicant for item C was not asking for a change in the retaining wall, it was the wall on the building. Motion Commissioner Schneiderman made a motion to approve the consent agenda with the following clarifications: Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 Regarding item C, the approval is not for a change in the retaining wall. That would have to be brought back to the Commission if such a change was requested. 2. Regarding item B, stain samples be brought to Staff for Staff approval. Regarding item A, change "birm" to "berm" and change Chairperson Hunn's statement on page 9 to say that the PUD rezoning (only) was a step in the right direction. Seconded by Commissioner Stanley and the motion carried unanimously. Final Design Review A. Lot 38, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Street Address: 220 West Beaver Creek Boulevard Project Type: Residential Duplex, new construction Owner/Applicant: Robert Borg George Harrison reviewed the project. He summarized the review considerations and Staff findings as stated in the Staff Memo. Mr. Harrison stated Staff s strongest recommendation was that they provided at least 24 feet of parking space in front of the garages. Mr. Harrison stated that Staff recommended denial because the project was not in general conformance with all adopted goals, policies, and programs of the Town of Avon. Mr. Robert Borg presented the project. Mr. Borg stated he received conceptual approval for his plans in July, 1995 and was now there to obtain final design approval. Mr. Borg stated he had prepared a written response to the Staff Memo, which he passed out to the Commission and Staff. Mr. Borg stated he did not know anything about the height discrepancy until he received a copy of the Staff Memo on Monday before the Tuesday meeting. Mr. Borg admitted that there was a 4" discrepancy between the proposed grade at the back end of the building and the existing grade and stated that he could reduce the ceiling height or r. -duce the overall height of the building to solve the problem. Mr. Borg stated he didn't think his parking spaces as presented were unreasonable. The spaces have a turning radius of 28 feet. He stated the maximum radius based on the largest model General Motors car is 23 feet. Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Schneiderman asked how anyone would get out of the eastern unit garage if someone was parked perpendicular to the side lot line to which Mr. Borg responded that is was a single house family and they could deal with the parked car. He stated they would have to back out of the driveway onto the road. Commissioner Schneiderman wondered if it might be more practical to park parallel to the edge of the pavement. Mr. Borg stated he would love to do just that, but the Staff would not let him (and only him) infringe upon the 10' setback. He stated he was the last unit to go into the subdivision and could show the Commission four guidelines that he had picked up over the last fourteen years, all of which are different (i.e., building height, parking situations, etc.). Mr. Borg passed out different parking options to the Commission. Mr. Borg stated he has a family of four and can not build smaller than 2600 sq. feet. Mr. Borg stated he was approached by a builder of an adjacent lot to build a spec. house on his lot. Mr. Borg stated that the builder stated the only way to make money on his lot was to build small and cheap, which he does not want to do. Commissioner Schneiderman asked how deep the stucco faced planter between the front of the two houses was and Mr. Borg stated six feet. She stated she was concerned with the visual appearance of the front of the house and the planter did not add anything to the landscaping. Commissioner Schneiderman referenced the side elevation doors and stated she found them most interesting, but, unfortunately, only the neighbors could see them. She further stated the front doors were very uninteresting. Commissioner Schneiderman stated she thought the planter should be eliminated and the landscaping should be started from the ground up. Mr. Borg stated he would be receptive to that. Commissioner Stanley stated it would soften all of the asphalt in front. Commissioner Vest stated he liked the roof line, the parking would be more favorable if the cars could come out forward, they could mitigate the pavement with some good landscaping. He stated his only concern was the T-111 that ran around the entire building. He stated they had never approved a building with T-111 in that fashion. Commissioner Stanley stated she thought some tall trees would help to take away from the big driveway and the cars definitely needed to be able to pull out forward. Chairperson Hunn stated he shared Commissioner Vest's concerns regarding the T-111. He stated the problem with it was the horizontal seams. Mr. Borg stated the only joint lines would be at the top of the door and the top of the window. Mr. Borg stated from a financial standpoint, the T-111 was just as expensive as red wood, and his decision was not for economy, but because it looked clean, unbuckled, and had an unwarped effect. Chairperson Hunn asked Mr. Borg if he would consider incorporating a piece of trim above the front door to hide the seam. Mr. Borg said it was valid suggestion, but that flashing strips were very discreet and would occupy a horizontal half inch band. Chairperson Hunn also asked if his snow storage area equaled twenty percent of the paved surface of the driveway. Mr. Borg stated he had not calculated it, but he stated he had just as much as everyone else, if not more. Chairperson Hunn asked if the stairway in the garage was a two directional stairway. Mr. Borg stated that he had a stairway going up so Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 5 one could access the entry hallway, which takes up the back 3 feet of the garage. He further stated the other stairway accessed storage space above the garage. Chairperson Hunn asked if they had a light fixture cut sheet. Mr. Borg stated they were aware of concerns like light trespass, but did not have a cut sheet yet. Mr. Borg presented his color samples. Chairperson Hunn asked about the blue color chosen for the upper portion of the home and stated it was unusual for that area. Mr. Borg stated it was the same color being used on a complex across the road. Chairperson Hunn asked Staff if they had received prior information regarding the 4" discrepancy. George Harrison stated no and that the letter Mr. Borg presented had not been viewed by Staff. Mr. Harrison stated that Staff still had some concern regarding where the true height of the building existed. Mr. Harrison stated that the building height could be resolved when the building permit was issued. Chairperson Hunn asked Staff if they would consider an application for a variance to bring the parking closer to the road to relieve some of the parking concerns. Mr. Harrison stated his initial impression was no; however, Staff, including Engineering and Public Works, would have to sit down and really discuss it. Commissioner Schneiderman stated that she was concerned with the landscaping plan because there was a lot of mature landscaping on the street and the site plan was proposing only 5 trees and 8 shrubs for a duplex. Commissioner Schneiderman read a lis: of her concerns and asked Staff if the list was too numerous or complicated to approve the project with conditions. Her list included: the landscape plan, alternative siding, detailed elevation of the front doors of the units, a cut sheet for doors, remove the planter, work with Staff on building height, alternative siding color, and the light fixtures must be brought back. She stated she did not have a big problem with the parking because even the most aggressive parking plan would not have enough spaces in a resort community. Chairperson Hunn stated there was a safety issue involved when people had to back out of the driveway. Chairperson Hunn stated with that many unresolved issues, if Rhoda would make a motion to approve, Mr. Borg would have to come back before the Commission with resolutions at some point. Chairperson Hunn suggested to table the project to give Mr. Borg a chance to work with Staff and then come back to the Commission. Chairperson Hunn suggested working with Staff for an improved parking plan. Mr. Borg stated that without 2 road cuts or allowing him to infringe on the 10' setbacks, there were not too many more options on the parking. Motion Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Schneiderman made a motion to approve final design review for Lot 32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Light fixtures cut sheets be brought back to P&Z for approval 2. Landscape plan be brought back to P&Z for approval 3. Front planter be removed and landscaping from the ground up be installed instead 4. An alternative siding material be brought back 5. Alternative color samples for that siding be brought back 6. Lower the height of the building to meet the 35' requirement, which can be approved by Staff 7. Applicant and Staff explore alternative parking situations with possible variances 8. Front Door detail plan be brought back showing all the moldings and a cut sheet of the actual door 9. The plant list must reflect the acceptable standards of the Town, which would be deciduous trees, min. 6 foot height, and Aspen type tree, minimum of 2" caliper No one seconded the motion and the motion failed. Commissioner Vest made a motion to table Lot 32, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek subdivision. Commissioner Schneiderman seconded the motion. Further Discussion Chairperson Hunn stated that all of the same issues must be addressed before they come back. The motion carried unanimously. B. Lots 18-19, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Street Address: 241-281 Metcalf Road Project Type: Warehouse, Conditions of Final Design Approval Owner: Richard DeClark Applicant: Mark Donaldson Karen Griffith stated that on December 19, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted conditional approval of this application and they were returning to satisfy those conditions. Ms. Griffith stated they had pretty much satisfied the conditions of approval and Staff had some recommendations for items that needed attention that were outlined in the Staff memo. Ms. Griffith also stated the Staff recommended three more conditions: 1. the lighting plan be redrawn at the same scale as the site plan and all light patterns and Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 7 specifications be diagrammed on the plan sets, 2. Parking lot lighting be provided by the freestanding light standard with shielded downcast lights and the item A flood lights not be approved because of their potential to cause off-site glare and 3. The remaining Town Engineer's comments be satisfied either prior to or with the building application. Chairperson Hunn asked Staff if there were any thoughts about putting up a guard rail on the very high retaining walls behind the building to prevent animals or children from falling 28 feet to the parking lot. Mr. Mark Donaldson stated that they felt like it was uninhabitable area. He stated they checked the codes and it was not a requirement, but would be willing to look at it if Commission wanted them to. Commissioner Schneiderman stated she was very familiar with condominium decs and by- laws and one aspect of them was that there was always a provision in them that anything in them can be changed with a certain percentage of the vote of the association. She asked what provisions had been made in the decs and by-laws to prevent the items the Commission was concerned about from never being changed. Mr. Rick Rosen stated that under the Colorado ownership act they could not put anything in like that. Mr. Rosen stated that was why they suggested working with the Town Attorney and Town Council to create an ordinance that addressed the issue. Chairperson Hunn asked if the building identification sign was an illuminated sign and if so, what was the level of illumination. Mr. Larry Ast, HighTech signs, had left the meeting and the answer was not known. Mr. Steve Hodges stated the sign was a reverse pan channel which meant it was backward with the light shining onto the building instead of out and created a subtle effect. Ms. Griffith stated a condition regarding the heated driveway would be to better show it graphically on the site plan. Chairperson Hunn asked if the driveway was heated to the extent that moisture was evaporated or would they be creating runoff that could cause some icing down in the drainage system. Mr. Scott Farman, civil engineer for the project, stated they would catch runoff from the breezeway in french drains that would cross the drive and the only area that might be affected by runoff would be a curb area. The color samples were presented and Commissioner Vest questioned the white color. Commissioner Schneiderman stated that maybe every color should be 2 shades darker except for the gun metal color because the colors were shown against a green background, but in reality, it will be against dirt or white snow. Mr. Donaldson stated that at the last meeting they were asked to match the exact color from the rendering, which they did, and he wanted to avoid having another meeting. Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 8 Mr. Mohammad Bouabdesselam presented a revised lighting plan. Ms. Griffith stated that Staff would like an opportunity to review the plan. Commissioner Schneiderman asked why there was so much lighting. She referenced building B, 2&3, and asked wattage and type. Mr. Bouabdesselam stated the wattage was 100, they faced in toward the building and they were lighting the front of the building for a visual effect. Chairperson Hunn asked if it was reasonable to turn off most of the lights by eight o'clock. Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Richard DeClark stated yes. Mr. Donaldson asked about the process. He stated he did not understand why he turned in his application three weeks ago and did not hear from Staff until the Friday before the meeting at 5:00 p.m. He stated he worked over the weekend to address issues in the Staff Memo, and now Staff needed more time to review his lighting plan. Mr. Donaldson stated he felt it could be resolved that evening by saying that all lights would be off by 8:00 p.m. Mr. Mike Matzko stated that three weeks sounded like a lot of time, but the Staff had a lot to do and the time period was not due to a lack of effort. Commissioner Schneiderman asked Mr. Bouabdesselam to clarify which way the lights were tilted 11 degrees toward the building. Ms. Griffith stated the ordinance for the truck issue could be drafted when the condominium plat was presented to Council. Mr. Rick Rosen stated that he thought that the ordinance for the truck issue should be drafted now so when they got to the point to go forward, the ordinance would be written and done. Ms. Griffith reviewed the other conditions she wanted to add and they were: 1. if the drainage swale changes, they will bring it back, 2. Staff would like to review the revised lighting plan, which could go back to Commission on the consent agenda. Commissioner Schneiderman asked what the wattage was for the A fixture. Mr. Donaldson stated that according to the catalog they were 400 watts and Commissioner Schneiderman stated she would not go for that high of wattage. Ms. Griffith stated that she wanted to feel comfortable with the lighting plan whether it was turned off at 8 p.m., midnight, or not at all because they may or may not be turned off Motion Commissioner Schneiderman made a motion to give final approval for conditions for Lots 18/19, Block 1, Benchmark @ Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Staff recommendations Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 9 2. No high pressure sodium parking lot lights be any greater wattage than 200 watts. 3. A cut sheet of the planters which flank the columns be submitted for design approval on the consent agenda at any future meeting. 4. Immediately, the Town Attorney and Staff go into a session with N/Ir. Rick Rosen to draft an ordinance which will cement the truck length allowed on the property so it can not be changed in the condominium declarations. Further Discussion Karen Griffith stated that she was not sure if they could direct the Town Attorney to draft an ordinance without direction from Town Council. Mr. Matzko stated there were legal fees to consider as well. Commissioner Schneiderman stated that whatever process had to be taken was fine. Mr. Matzko stated that it was not appropriate to direct the Town Attorney to write an ordinance in the motion. Chairperson Hunn stated that maybe the point was that Commission should be making a recommendation because it was not their authority to direct the Town Attorney, but the recommendation was certainly appropriate. Mr. Rosen stated that he would take it upon himself to make an appointment with the Town Attorney on his time, not his client's, so the Town and his client would not have a legal fee problem. Commissioner Schneiderman stated that she was looking at the end result, not the method. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vest and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business George Harrison stated that Staff had included the latest version of the P&Z mission. statement in Commission's packets. He suggested they take the statement home, review it, and bring suggestions to the next meeting. Mr. Harrison also mentioned the possibility of having guest speakers make presentations to the Commission. He stated there was a list of possible topic ideas in Commission's packets and asked Commission to suggest people who might be informative speakers. He asked Commission to bring ideas to the next meeting. Mr. Harrison also stated that it had been mention that Commission and Council (if interested) could have joint presentations. Karen stated that Staff was working on issues brought up in the past by Commission, i.e., light trespass in Wildridge and the Church retaining wall. Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Schneiderman asked if anyone had noticed that T.J. Connors heated portion of the driveway had not been heated? Chairperson Hunn stated that his lightbulbs that were supposed to be 40 watt lightbulbs in the stairway were at least 100 watts. Karen Griffith asked the Commission what they thought about how Staff moved the podium to the side. Chairperson Hunn stated he thought the applicants felt the need to come to the Commission table more to make a point, left the microphone a lot, and could possibly be lengthening the meetings. Commissioner Schneiderman suggested placing an extension in the center of the Commission table like the Town of Vail does. Karen stated Staff would work on a different approach so the podium could be moved back to the center. Mike Matzko stated he would like to make it clear to applicants that if they were going to present something to Commission, Staff must see it first. He stated Staff was the last to view the models that are presented. Chairperson Hunn referenced Mark Donaldson's comment that they had work over the weekend to respond to Staffs memo and he suggested that Staff make it clear how the process works and the Commission should not consider items that Staff had not reviewed. Adjournment Commissioner Schneiderman made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Commissioner Vest and the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueline Halburnt Recording Secretary Commission Approval J. Hunn S. Railton A. Reynolds R. Schneiderman Date Meeting Minutes January 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 11 B. Stanley H. Vest