Loading...
PZC Minutes 070197Record of Proceedings _Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 1, 1997 Regular Meeting The Regular Meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Andrew Karow at 5:33 p.m., July 1, 1997 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, CO 81620. Members Present Mike Dantas Chris Evans Anne Fehlner Andrew Karow Michael Schneider Beth Stanley Agenda Call to Order Roll Call Commissioner Railton was absent. Staff Present Linda Donnellon, Recording Secretary Karen Griffith, Town Planner George Harrison, Planner Steve Hodges, Community Service Officer Mike Matzko, Community Development Director Additions and Amendments to the Agenda George Harrison requested to add Lot 46, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision - The Schneider Group as a Concept Design Review following Final Design Review. Conflicts of Interest None Consent Agenda A. Approval of the June 17, 1997 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes \\sysop\server\p&z\minutes\1 997\070197.doc B. Lot 37-W, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision - Vickers Duplex Project Type: Deck Extension and Landscaping Property Owner/Applicant: Consultant: Scott Sonnes, Address: 2155 Longspur Motion Marjorie Vickers Landscape Architect, Inc. Commission Stanley moved to approve of the Consent Agenda with the following condition added to Item B: The storage area under the decks to be screened. Commissioner Fehlner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Final Design Review A. Lot 16, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision - Saddleridge Loop Townhomes Project Type: Materials Modification for Vinyl Siding and Trim Property Owner: Saddleridge Townhomes Homeowners Assoc. Applicant: James A Gannon Address: 2140 Saddleridge Loop George Harrison made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. The Commission approved the request for material modification for vinyl siding and trim last March. The applicant was now requesting to change Alco Lake Forest siding to Premier vinyl siding and to allow an extension in order for the Association to contact the owners and inform them of the new proposed product. James Gannon, Homeowner, explained the request for change and presented 2 (two) siding samples to the Commission. Commissioner Fehlner said she did not have a problem approving either the Alco Lake Forest or the Premier siding. Commissioner Evans said he approved of the higher quality product siding. Commissioner Stanley said she agreed with the warranty of the siding. Commissioner Schneider said he thought the product was fine and commended the applicant for appearing before the Commission for the siding change. Commissioner Dantas said he agreed with the request made for the siding. Chairperson Karow commended the applicant for appearing before the board for this application. 2 Motion Commissioner Evans moved approve the material modification for Lot 16, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision as depicted on the application and plan set dated June 24, 1997, with the following conditions: 1. All flues, flashing and galvanized metal will be painted to match surrounding materials. 2. Midfield seams be eliminated or disguised to the greatest extent possible. 3. Railing and garage doors to be repainted. 4. This approval is in addition to the previous material approval. Commissioner Schneider seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Building I, Lot 4, Nottingham Station Subdivision - Canyon Run Project Type: Multi Family Residential - 8 Units Property Owner: Canyon Run, LLC. Applicant: Shapiro Development Co. Address: Unassigned - Hurd Lane George Harrison made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. Final project for Canyon Run will be Building I. Ed Smith, Staff architect for Shapiro Development, discussed the following items: Site location, discussion with Gary Murrain, Building Official, regarding the existing grade, location and irrigation for the plants, materials, colors, steps accessing the fishing trail by Eagle River and the easement by Mauri Nottingham's property. Commissioner Fehlner said the project met the Design Review Criteria and asked the applicant if he was aware of staffs recommended conditions. Mr. Smith said "yes". Commissioner Evans asked if garages would be added to this new project. Mr. Smith "yes", that they would be detached garages. Commissioner Stanley asked about the building height. Mr. Smith said based upon the PUD; the building height would be 44.5 feet. She said the project met all the Design Review Guidelines. Commissioner Schneider asked about the grading. Mr. Harrison said staff would be working with the applicant regarding this. Commissioner Dantas said he did not have any comments at this time. Chairperson Karow said his comments were consistent with the recommended conditions. Mauri Nottingham, adjacent property owner, was concerned about the fishing path by his property. He asked that an access path be provided so that people could leave the area without trespassing on his property or that a fence be constructed indicating private property. Mr. Nottingham said he was willing to provide a 4 (four) foot easement for the path on the east side of Building I. Commissioner Stanley asked if there would be a relief of liability for Mr. Nottingham. Mr. Harrison said this would be handled through the easement dedication. Chairperson Karow commented on the construction and material of the path. Chairperson Karow said that this issue (the easement) was between the two neighbors, Canyon Run, LLC. and Mr. Nottingham. 3 This project was in conformance with the PUD and current Zoning with the added conditions. Commissioner Stanley discussed the easement and the fence requested by Mr. Nottingham. Mr. Smith said he did not have final approval regarding this issue. Mr. Nottingham asked that the applicant provide a fence to define the properties boundaries. Discussion followed regarding that a fence be added as a recommended condition to the motion. Commissioner Evans stated for the record, that based upon the discussion regarding the fence, he was reversing his position and said he agreed with the comments made by Chairperson Karow. He further said he did not mind a partial fence but did not agree with a 250 foot long fence along the entire property line. Chairperson Karow read from the code book "miscellaneous items - fences and signs". He said either the fence was part of the building design or the fence was a separate application. Mr. Harrison explained Mr. Nottingham's concerns regarding the path. Commissioner Fehlner said that item #4 of the recommended conditions covered Mr. Nottingham's concerns. Commissioner Stanley said that construction of a fence was not an unreasonable request. Commissioner Fehlner said that some type of signage could work in regards to directing people on the path. Motion Commissioner Stanley moved to approve Final Design plans for Building I, Lot 4, Nottingham Station, as depicted on plans dated received June 10, 1997 and June 27, 1997 with the following conditions: 1. Indicate landscaping to be installed with this building phase (including irrigation system). 2. Slopes be revised to conform to 2:1 maximum. Final grading to be approved by staff. 3. All bearings and distances be added to match the building envelope. 4. Fishing trail/soft path will be routed back up to Hurd Lane: final location and construction plans to be approved by staff. 5. If fishing trail/soft path is located off-site, an access easement shall be obtained from property owner. 6. Signage be provided identifying trail location and routing trail users away from private property. 7. Ridgeline building elevations be revised for consistent labeling between site plan sheet and building elevation sheets. Commissioner Evans seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision - Sunridge at Avon Phase I Project Type: Storage Shed Property Owner: Sunridge at Avon Association Applicant: Darrell Cooter, Manager Address: 0998 West Beaver Creek Blvd. 4 George Harrison made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. Karen Griffith presented photographs to the Commission. The Tuff Shed was installed prior to Planning and Zoning Commission approval and building permit. Commissioner Schneider asked what the recourse was for the shed. Mr. Harrison said that the application would have to be processed and the storage shed would have to be relocated from its current location. Karen Griffith said the Tuff Shed did not meet the Final Design Review Criteria. Commissioner Evans asked how many parking spaces were occupied from the Tuff Shed and if the parking requirements were met. Ms. Griffith said 2 (two) space were used and that the applicants verbally said the parking space requirements were not met even with the two spaces used up by the shed. Commissioner Stanley discussed the location of the Tuff Shed. Commissioner Evans clarified that it was not so much the location of the shed as much as it was the design, colors, trim style and compatibility with the existing buildings and other surrounding buildings. Ms. Griffith suggested that the shed be modified to match the existing buildings and that landscaping be added. Joe Hepler, Resident Manager for Sunridge Phase I, said the Tuff Shed was less than 144 square feet and was told that he did not need a building permit. He said his attorney informed him that a permit was not required for a structure less than 120 square feet as stated in the building codes. Mr. Hepler discussed the following issues: agreed that the Tuff Shed should match the existing buildings with the addition of landscaping, 348 parking spaces exist for Sunridge Phase 1, present location, materials, trim and color for the shed. Ms. Griffith responded to the building code issue. She said the building code had exceptions for small buildings that do not require a building permit, however, she said that this did not exempt the owner from the Design Review procedure. Darrell Cooter, Manager and Real Estate Broker said the current location for the shed was due to the availability of electricity, security, lighting and storage of maintenance equipment. He asked the Commission to approve the application and said that moving the shed to a different location would cost thousands of dollars. Commissioner Dantas said the color of the shed matched the existing building and that the shed was isolated from the road. He said he was "okay" with the shed. Commissioner Schneider asked staff about Design Review Criteria number 5. Ms. Griffith responded to the design, materials, color and landscaping of the shed. Commissioner Stanley said she was opposed to the Tuff Shed in Wildridge discussed from a previous meeting and was not opposed to this application, however, she suggested that landscaping be added around 3 (three) sides of the shed. Commissioner Evans discussed the practicality of the site and agreed with staff regarding the location of the shed. He also discussed the cost and impacts to the applicant regarding a different Wi location for the shed, suggested a screening wall between the dumpster and the shed and add landscaping around the shed. Commissioner Fehlner said the Tuff Shed was integrated and practical with the site. She said she was concerned about the integration aesthically. She asked the applicant if they agreed with the comments and suggestions made by the board regarding landscaping and integrating the shed with the dumpster. Mr. Hepler said "yes". Ms. Griffith said she was concerned about the shed located in the middle of the parking lot. She said the appearance of the shed was not a problem but the integration to the site was. Mr. Matzko asked the applicant if they received any information from the Town regarding the exception for the project (building permit and Design Review). Mr. Hepler said "no" . Mr. Matzko discussed landscaping in the middle of a parking lot and the issues that would need to be addressed to make this work. Chairperson Karow discussed the Design Review procedure for an application presented to the Commission. He said the cost to the owners for demolishing, removing or selling the shed was not a consideration for the Design Review. Chairperson Karow discussed the Design Review Considerations 1-7 as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Dantas asked where the proposed site would be for the shed, should it be moved. Ms. Griffith said staff reviewed possible site locations for the shed with the applicant. An 11 x 17 site plan was used to describe alternative locations for the shed. Further discussion followed regarding the landscaping, site location, dumpster and shed enclosures. Rob Spurberg, Attorney, commented on the "importance" and the "need" of a shed for the Association. He said the ownership for the property was a Corporation which falls under the Federal Law guidelines regarding the use and needs of the shed. He discussed OSHA regulations regarding the accessibility to the shed (driveways, sidewalks, etc.). He also discussed the ADA regulations regarding accessibility by a wheelchair (disabled employees). Mr. Spurberg suggested that the shed be kept in its present location and asked that the Commission approve this application. Commissioner Fehlner responded to the comments made regarding the ADA and OSHA regulations. She said the Tuff Shed was not in compliance with ADA and OSHA regulations and further stated that the shed did not met the Federal Law acts regarding the disabled. Commissioner Evans discussed the ADA issues and the design impact to the shed to meet these requirements for the disabled. Chairperson Karow said in order for the shed to met the ADA requirements, improvements to the shed would need to be completed before Commission review. Motion Commissioner Stanley moved to table the proposed storage shed for Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek - Sunridge at Avon Phase I to give the applicant time to review different locations and scenarios. Commissioner Schneider seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6 D. Lot 1, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision - Beaver View 4 Plex Project Type: Multi- Family Condominium Complex and Property Identification Sign Property Owner: Bob Borchardt Applicant: Eric Johnson, Architect Address: 1014 W. Wildwood Road Karen Griffith made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. The project met the Design Review Criteria and was at the 35 foot building height limit. A color rendering board and material sample board was presented to the Commission. Eric Johnson, Architect, described the project and discussed the following issues: condition number 4, exterior colors, site impacts, minimum grading, exit and egress and off site glare. He said all the conditions have been satisfied. Commissioner Fehlner said the project met the Design Review Criteria. She said she agreed with the staff's comments. Commissioner Evans said the landscaping would not cause a visual impact or safety issues regarding access to the road. He said he was concerned about the floodlights used to illuminate the sign and was not in favor of the 100 watt lights. Commissioner Stanley said she agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Evans regarding the lighting and asked staff about the reduction in wattage to reduce off site glare. Ms. Griffith responded that the wattage was reduced from 150 watts down to 100 watts. Commissioner Stanley said she agreed with the reduction. She said the project met the Design Review Criteria. Commissioner Schneider said he agreed with the comments made by the Commissioner members and asked about the garage door materials. Mr. Johnson said the material for the garage would be stained siding, a rough masonite. Commissioner Schneider asked about an automatic sprinkler system. Mr. Johnson that the majority of the landscaping (trees and bushes) would be on a drip system and that the play area would have a surface sprinkling system. Commissioner Dantas said he was concerned that the project was at its maximum 35 foot building height, which left no room for error during construction. Mr. Johnson said he was aware of the ILC (Improvement Location Certificate) during the foundation period and the second ILC during framing. Chairperson Karow said he agreed with Commissioner Dantas concerns regarding the building height and suggested changing the 100 watt flood light to a 100 watt canister spot light. Commissioner Evans discussed the wattage for the lights and suggested making a recommendation to consider a lower wattage for the sign. He encouraged the applicant to talk to Carol Gil-Mulson, Fire Marshall, directly regarding illumination for residential signs. Mr. Johnson said this was desirable. Commissioner Stanley discussed the name of the project "Beaver View". She said she would not be opposed to a different name for the project. 7 Chairperson Karow suggested that the project name be changed to "Beaver Creek View" instead of the proposed "Beaver View". He asked the applicant if he was comfortable with the name change being added as a condition. Mr. Johnson said "yes." Motion Commissioner Stanley moved to approve four plex unit and complex identification sign on Lot 1, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision as depicted on plan sets dated received June 19, 1997 with the following conditions: 1. Sign to be moved outside of 10 foot setback. 2. Sign lighting be adjusted so that it does not cause off site glare. 3. Flood lights to be changed to canister lights and not to exceed 60 watts. 4. Plant locations be adjusted as necessary to provide sight distance. 5. A recommendation that the project name be changed. Commissioner Schneider seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. E. Lot 18, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision - Hiland Townhomes Project Type: Multi -family Townhomes Property Owner/Applicant: Mike Hiland Consultant: Ned Barnes Address: 2929 June Creek Trail Karen Griffith made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. She discussed the driveway grades, 35 foot building height for the second unit, landscaping, and the retaining wall located in the utility easement. Commissioner Dantas asked about the driveway shifting to the south to accommodate the grading on site. Commissioner Evans asked about the deck encroachment discussed during the Concept Design Review. Ned Barnes, Architect, discussed the following issues: driveway grades, discussion with the Fire Department, the retaining wall exceeding the four feet, deciduous trees and landscaping. Commissioner Dantas said he agreed with the driveway location and access and was concerned about the building located on the setbacks. He said agreed with the applicant comments regarding the trees and site location. He said the project met the Design Review Criteria. Commissioner Schneider said he liked the design and location of the project and suggested that additional landscaping be added. Commissioner Stanley said the project met the Design Review Criteria. She commented on staffs recommendation regarding 4 (four) Aspen trees and asked the applicant if he would consider changing this to clumps of Aspen trees. Commissioner Evans said he liked the project and requested that some type protection/limitation line be established for the existing landscaping between the driveway and Lot 19. He asked the applicant if he was comfortable should this be made as part of the motion. Mr. Barnes said "yes" . Mike Hiland, Owner and Contractor said he would make sure that this issue was enforced and said he agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Evans. 8 Commissioner Evans said the project met the Design Review Guidelines. Commissioner Fehlner asked about the colors of the project and said the project met the Design Review Guidelines. Ms. Griffith presented a color sample board to the Commission. Chairperson Karow commented of the following issues: spot light for the project identification sign, driveway grades, width of the driveway and the retaining wall. Chairperson Karow asked staff to review the width of the driveway to make sure it conformed to the Town's regulations. He said the project met the Design Review Criteria. Commissioner Schneider asked staff if they had a light cut sheet. Mr. Griffith said "yes". Commissioner Stanley commented on the outside light fixture and light illumination from the structure. She asked the applicant what type of light fixture would be used. Discussion followed at the bench regarding the type of light fixtures to be used. Motion Commission Dantas moved to approve plans for Hiland 4 Unit Townhomes, Lot 18, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision as depicted on plans dated received June 16, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. The plans be revised to conform with the 35 foot maximum building height. 2. A second improvement location certificate be provided at time of framing to document building height does not exceed 35 feet. 3. The driveway be shifted to the south to accommodate grading on site. 4. No retaining wall shall exceed four feet in height. 5. A minimum of 6 deciduous trees be added to the plantings. 6. Applicant provide documentation that driveway turning radius can accommodate vehicles, including emergency vehicles. 7. Address sign be moved outside of Town right-of-way and meet the 10 foot setback. 8. Section of the walls be provided to document no disturbance of adjacent property will occur. 9. Revise diameter of Aspen tree from 2 feet to 2 inches. 10. During construction, a 2 inch deep gravel base of 3/4 inch aggregate shall be applied to the first 20 feet of the driveway, and shall remain until the driveway is paved. 11. Automatic irrigation system be installed. 12. A limit of disturbance line be established to protect any native landscaping in the area surrounding the area of the driveway in the field. 13. No lighting for exterior project sign. Commissioner Evans seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9 Public Hearing A. None Scheduled Other Business / Concept Review A. Lot 46, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision - The Schneider Group Project Type: Rock wall addition Property Owner/Applicant: Michael Schneider Address: Wildridge Road East George Harrison made a brief presentation and presented an 11 x 17 to the Commission. Discussion was as followed: foundation, site issues, colors (not presented) fixtures, materials, stone work in the rear elevation, visual appearance of the retaining wall and foundation walls. Comments followed: east elevation was mislabeled and hard to read on the plans, windows were not consistent, suggested stone on one side of the building, additional Aspen trees added to the south side of building, fire place outlets on the west side elevation, visual appearance of the retaining wall and an ILC for the buildings ridge line. No formal action was taken. B. Planning and Zoning Commission Procedures, Rules and Regulations Mike Matzko presented a draft copy, of Phase I, revised July 11, 1997. A brief discussion and update followed regarding the changes made from previous meetings with staff and Commission. C. Continuation of Other Business 1. Discussion of Tuff Sheds. 2. Discussion and clarification regarding lighting issues for project signs. 3. Wildcat Ridge 4 plex - Variance for the retaining wall located in the set back. 4. Cuny's project does not have erosion control fence. 5. Review new construction projects for gravel in the first 20 feet of the driveway. 6. Irrigation on the berm located by the TCI building. 7. Review the TCI window signage. 10 Adjourn Commissioner Stanley made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Fehlner seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Donnellon Recording Secretary 11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes signature page. Mike Dantas Chris Anne Andrev Sue Railton Michael Schneider G Beth Stanley L2�A) 12