Loading...
PZC Minutes 102092RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on October 20, 1992, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Rd., Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins. Members Present: John Perkins, Patti Dixon Sue Railton, Jack Hunn Rhoda Schneiderman, Henry Vest Buz Reynolds Staff Presenc: Rick Pylman, Director or Community Development, Charlette P3scuzzi, Recording Secretary Lot 4, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver_Creek_Subdlyislon,__.__Lube..anci Car Wash Shop Special Review Use, Public Hearin_9 Chairman Perkins stated that there has been a request to table this application. Henry Vest moved to table this application, Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Rick Pylman stated that this is an item that has been discussed several times and has been tabled a couple times. On August 18th the request was to take Lots 13 and 14 and rezone the two duplex lots into two single family lots that would flank a single duplex lot. The Staff and Commission had a problam with the development scenerio in calling the proposed development on the duplex lot a duplex, as it did not meet the definition of a duplex. It was suggested by the Commission that it might be better to fust vacate the property line and call it a multi -family unit and building four units as a way to get around this issue. There were also some concerns with the architecture and the siting of the units. At the September 15th meeting the request was to vacate the property line, which would be a zone change to multi -family keeping the ability to build four units. The Planning Commission had problems with the architecture and the siting of the PLANNING ANu ZC.IING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 2 of 14 Lots 13/14, Filing 1 Eaalebend Subdiv_ision__ _Uesignand Construction Services. PUD Amendment. PublicHearing�_tooh� buildings. The Planning Commission asked for new architecture. Pylman stated that the Staff recommendation from the beginning has been for denial and it is still the same. Staff feels this is not architecture, it is not design. He thinks that the changing of two duplex lots into multi-fe.mily is a mistake in this neighborhood. Staff would prefer it to stay two duplexes or if single family is the market, two single family residences. Tony Seibert compared this request with th- rezoning to single family homes of the Filing 2 property directly across the street. He sees no difference in this request and that change. He does not agree with Staff assumption that they are modifying the zoning. He then described the changes they have made to the architecture, i.e. the roof pitches. He described how they changed the setbacks as suggested by the Commission so tnat they could alter the configuration of the single families so that they would not be quite so lin.•ar. This also did not satisfy the Commission. He stated that rather than do a new drawing, he has brought paper cutouts to show the variations that could be created. He then addre3sed the concerns of the Commission about the linear look. Also of concern was the archetictural treatment. He stated that they could change one of the garages so that it doesn't face the street, and Lhen do a different treatment on the end of the gara3e. He stated that he feels like a ping-pong witi all this going back and forth. He stated chat he is the person risking the dollars. He stated that it is the easiest thing to do to just building one more duplex. He is trying to step forward and create a better neighborhood yet. He stated that the neighbor which is most impacted is in favor of this proposal. He stated that he has approximately 50 more feet in depth on these lots than on the previous lots he has built or. What he is trying to do is create a semi -circle, getting away from the standard 20 foot driveway. Chairman Perkins opened the public hearing and asked for public input. With none forthcoming, Chairman Perkins then closed the public hearing. Patti Dixon stated that she felt that the general concept is a good one, but felt that the three of the houses in the back. are too large for the lot. Rhoda Schneiderman still has problems with the linear siting of the units. Mr. Seibert stated that after all the comments from the Commission were received, he would like to use the cutoucs to determine the best sitings for the houses. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MiNUTES October 20, 1992 Page 3 of 14 Lots 13 14, Filing .1E aglebend Subdivision-,__ Design and Construction Services PUD Amendment, Public Hearing,___conte_ Chairman Perkins stated that he is not going to permit this board to play with cutouts on a site plan at this public meeting. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide a site plan. Rhoda Schneiderman also felt that the buildings, being basically rectangular, doesn't provide much opportunity to change much. The units are basically the same, no matter how they are changed around and she has a problem with this, even though she is in favor of the concept. Henry Vest stated that he agrees that the change from duplexes to single family homes could be Deneficial. He asked if the houses could be moved closer to the river. Mr. Seibert stated they could, but that would block everybody's view. Mr. Vest stated that he feels that there would be a kind of narrows for the people living in the houses. Sue Railton stated she feels that the concept is good and with a little bit of help she would like it. The space between the houses is what is important. She feels it is like an alleyway between the houses at this point. She felt that turning the garage would be beneficial. Jack Hunn stated th?t, this has to be looked at as two separate issues, first it is a land use decision and then it is a design review. He is uncomfortable with changing the rules in this neighborhood at this stage of development. He feels that if developed as proposed it would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. ye does not see the rational in trying to justify these larger h•Dmes based on the small homes that were approved for across the street. Everyone who has made an investment in this neighborhood anticipated duplexes. He thinks the impact of four sing e units on this land as compared to two duplexes, adversely effects the neighborhood. Buz Reynolds stated that he had suggested the vacation of the prcperty line so that the applicant could take tre footprint and torn 'It in any direction rather than keep the 7.3 foot setbacks. He stated that he lakes the concept of the four buildings, but feels that there is too much massing. John Parkins stated that he pretty much agrees with all the previous comments. He is disappointed that the applicant has brought back t:ie same thing that was looked at two weeks ago and he wDuld like to have the board act on the proposal as submitted. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 4 of 14 and Jack Hunn moved to deny the PUD Zone Change for Lots 13/14, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded, and the motion carried with Sue ^ailton and Buz Reynolds voting nay. Moun'.ain Star PUD Amendment Preliminary Plat. Public Hearing Chairman Perkins stated that since this is basically an introduction to this project and the Commission will be looking at this in more detail at future meetings, he would like to limit this discussion to about thirty minutes if possible. Rick Pylman stated that this is a PUD Amendment and a preliminary plat, which will be followed up by a final plat subdivision that will create the individual lots. The PUD Zone District does contain criteria for amendments and criteria for reviewai. Pylman stated that there is an approved existing PUD for this property. The Wilowood Plat was approved many years ago. The parcel is about 680 acres. The plat was approved for 936 dwelling units on 270 lots. The proposed development plan significantly alters that approved plan. There will be 88 lots of single family homes with caretaker units that cannot be subdivided or sold off. The local roads will be private. There will be a design review process. The Commission will not be going through design review on each Mountain Star home. As long as the Town receives a building permit application with a Mountain Star design review stamp the permits will be issued. Jen Wright, thanked Staff that has worked closely with them in the last six months. He then reviewed the members of the Corporation, including Fast West Partners (Harry Frampton and Mark Smith), himself of Wright & Company as development partners, National Fidelity Life Insurance Company is the financial partner. The development team is made up of Peter Jamar, head planner; land planner is Gage Davis and Associates, out of Boulder; engineerirg is being done by Kent Crane, Alpine Engineering; wildlife consultant is Rick Thompson, with Western Eco Systems; biologist is Dave Johnson with western Resources; and Gordon Pierce and other architects in the valley have given a great amount of input on architectural design. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 5 of 14 Mountain Star PUD Amendment, PreliminaCy Plat_ Public Hear_ing_, cont He stated that their goal is to build a first class residential community for the Town of Avon and the Vail Valley. He stated that they have spent a great amount or time on detail planning efforts for home sites, on architectural design standards for site by site, and also on the streetscape design. He then turned the meeting over to Peter Jamar. Mr. Jamar described the area of the project. He stated that the existing physical conditions vary from the lower portions to the upper sites. There is about 1000 feet difference. Access will be off of Wildwood Road and Buck Creek Road. They approached this project by letting the site dictate where the best building sites would be, basically to maximize privacy between building sites, and to minimize disturbance to the land. The lots vary from about 1.7 acres to about 11 acres. A site diagram for every one of the eighty eight parcels has been prepared showing the views, the suggested access, driveway location, etc. There has been some existing roads cut into the site and wherever possible, in order to minimize future disturbance to the vegetation, they have tried to use those road alignments. There is about 50 acres of open space in addition to the the open space on the previous Wildwood Plan. They have created corridors where there are not lots to give the animals the ability to move through the site during different times of the year. They have very favorable geological and soil conditions. For anyone who hasn't been up there or would like to go again, they would be happy to schedule another site tour. They have also designated an area as "Ranch Central" which would be an area where there would be a full time caretaker for the property. It would be basically a community center. Wildwood Road and Buck Creek Road would be a public road to the point where they intersect with the Morning Star property line. The private roads would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Regarding the amenities, the site itself is the amenity. Jamar described the trailhead that will be constructed. He also descrit,:zd the trail that leads to Red and White Mountain. They will prcoably include some sort of nature trail on the site also. Architecturally, they would like to come up with buildings that look like they belong in Colorado, i.e. natural materials, a lot of wood and stone, log homes, and earth tone tape colors. The guidelines have been included in the report provided. All PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 6 of 14 Mountain Star PUD Amendment. Pre 1i mi PiatPub Iic_ Hearing, cont utilities can be provided. Patti Dixon asked if there would be any architecture that would be silhoutted on the mountain. Mr. Jamar stated that he did not think that there would be anything with a skyline situation. Ms. Dixon asked if there would be a private gate from where the private and public road changes. Mr. Jamar pointed out where t.s gate is anticipated to be. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if public access to trailheads would be inside the private gate. Mr. Jamar stated that they would be outside the gate. Henry Vest and Susan Railton had no questions. Jack Hunn asked if there would be a different road design for public vs. private roads. Mr. Jamar stated that, starting with Buck Creek Road and Wildwood Road they anticipated going with a 28' pavement, including travel lanes and paved shoulder area. On Paint Brush, the main road, the road will be 24' of pavement, including travel lanes and shoulders, and then the local roads would be 21'. The Town has asked them to provide right-of-way widths that are wide enough for the Town if the Town has to maintain the roads. Buz Reynolds asked how they are planning to control the building requirements on each lot. Mr. Jamar stated that there will be protective covenants that will work in combination with the zoning from the Town, and the design review guidelir�s. John Perkins asked Mr. Jamar to briefly touch on the scheduling. Mr. Jamar stated that the plan is to move through the Planning Commission and Town Council review process between now and the middle part of January. They are planning to get going as socn as they can on the project this spring. They have discussed phasing and there is zt possibility that the project may be done in one phase or in two. They should have a better idea of this in two weeks. The Chairman thanked the applicants for their information and stated that the Commission wculd study the report and would lc,nk forward to their presentation i,i two weeks. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MF-ETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 7 of 14 Lot 67. Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. hoff Sin le Family. Residence Final Design Review, Rick Pylman stated that this application was tabled by the Commission at the last meeting, expressing some concerns. The applicant has decided not to try to get the project in the ground this fall and has requested tabling until the next meeting to allow him to take his time in responding to the concerns voiced by the Commission. Buz Reynolds moved to table this application until the November 3 1992 meeting. Henry vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. inal Rick Pylman stated th-t this application was tabled at the last meeting due to several concerns regarding the window sizing, garage roof pitches, garage door height, the drive width, the landscape plan and the use of hardboard siding. The garage roof pitch has been changed from a 3/12 pitch to a 4/12 pitch, horizontal mullions have been added to the large vertical windows on the south and west elevations, the garage doors have been drawn to reflect their true opening size of seven feet by sixteen feet, the driveway had a twelve foot paved surface, the paved surface has not been increased, but they have added a three foot gravel shoulder to either side so that there is a total driving width of 18 feet, the landscape plan has been reproduced at a larger scale and an irrigation system has been included. Hardboard siding is still being proposed as the building material. Steve Riden described the changes they made. He stated that the landscaping has not changed other than adding an irrigation system as requested. The colors are the same .,s presented previously. Buz Reynolds stated that he likes the building, but still h— concerns regarding the hardboard siding. Jack Hunn stated that he has some concern regarding the addition of gravel to each side of the driveway, which tends to make it look unfinished. He would prefer to see it paved at a reasonable width with landscape finish. Discussion followed on this matter. Hunn stated that he would rather see a solution that did not involve gravel. If something less than the minimum standard is appropriate, and the Staff agrees, he would rather see that than the gravel. He thinks the increase in the roof pitch helped. He asked if the meters could be painted the color of the stucco to nelp disguise them. Discussion followed on the window changes. Hann stated that he is uncomfortable with the use of masonite siding. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 8 of 14 Lot 33, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivis_ion,_,.sharpf Duplex, tinal Design Review, (cont) Sue Railton asked about the stucco with no trim around the window. She also asked about any landscaping at the entrance. Discussion follc.wed on this matter. Ms. Railton stated that she would like to see more landscaping than is shown. Henry Vest stated that he likes the design. He feels the flues should be painted to match the shingle color. He stated that he feels that the gravel is a form of landscaping and does not have a prcblem with it or with the hardboard siding. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she agrees that there should be more landscaping. Some of it should be concentrated on the long wall. Also, something needs to be done around the entry. Patti Dixon stated that she is not in favor of the hardboard siding, but she feels the overall design is an improvement. She feels that the lower windows need to be framed out to match up with the upper windows. Discussion followed on how the windows are recessed into the stucco to create a shadow box. Ms. Dixon stated that the landscaping in general needs to be improved, more trees and more shrubs. She also doesn't feel that the gravel is necessary. John Perkins also agreed that more landscaping was needed and that the gravel is not a valid solution. He would not recommend the hardboard siding, but would not not support this with it. He thinks the massing is improved just by the simple change on the garage roof. Buz Reynolds stated that the applicant has a substanti?1 amount of trees and he thinks that the addition of shrubbery would enhance the project more than more trees. Jack Hunn moved to grant final design approval for Lot 33, Block 3, Wildridge, with the following conditions: 1. Driveway be a minimum of 14' paved width with no gravel shoulders, unless otherwise approved by Staff at a narrower width. 2. Meters be painted to match the stucco surface, and all exposed flues, vents and louvers will be painted. 3. That the applicant consider a recommend=tion to increase the quantity of landscape materials, particularly shrubbery. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 9 of 14 Lot 33 Block 3 Wildridge SubdivisionSharpf _Duplex, Final Design Review. (cont) 4. The siding be wood siding as opposed to masonite siding. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried with Henry Vest voting nay. e/Schneider Residence,. Rick Pylman stated that the lot is a little greater than a half of an acre. it slopes up sway from the rued at about a 20% grade. The proposal is for a single family home, two car garage. The building materials are stucco, with an asphalt shingle roof. It is a 10/12 gable roof. There is a 2 x 10 fascia and soffit and window trim that will be stained the same color. The colors are LaHabra Miami Peach and a natural cedar color stain for the woodwork. A landscape plan and a grading plan has been provided. The project is within all zoning standards. Sam Sterling, representing the Schneiders, stated that the primary design objectives are to take advantage of the sites main western ;iew corridor and also to design a home which followed the property's sloping terrain. Mr. Sterling pointed out, or the plans, how the building followed the slope. Discussion followed on the driveway grade, and the amount of regrading and the possibility of retaining walls instead, the revegetation of disturbed areas, the window trim and/or the lack of trim. It was suggested ,hat the applicant consider making the window treatment consistent. Also discussed was the wagonwheel windows and the trim on these windows. Chairman Perkins stated that as this was a conceptual review, no action would be taken. He reviewed the Commission's concerns as follows: Need number on color samples; sit(- grading, driveway grades look unrealistic; look at retaining walls vs. regrading for the site disturbance area; minimize disturbed areas; window trim consistency; wagonwheel entry light as wide as the sidelights; trimming of half circle windows; possibly larger windows. Lot 45, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Anointed Chairman Perkins stepped down as a voting member of the Commission due to a previous association with this project. r—. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Pagt 10 of 14 Rick Pylman stated that in May of this year the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Special Review Use for a church and a parsonage to be located on Lot 45, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. It is a Residential Low Density zoned lot and a church is allowed as a special review use. The Use was approved with two conditions: 1. is property be limited to uses typical ,ly associated with church a, ' M ties (weekend services, sudy school, weddings) and any expansion of use beyond that discussed (provision of community day care, rental of the hall to other organizations, etc.) must be brought back to the Commission for further review. 2. No external noise making devices will be allowed (bells, etc.) and internal noise volume should be kept to a level compatible with surrounding properties. The proposed development consists of approximately 5236 square feet of church, on two levels, and a 4600 square foot parsonage on three levels. The church's lower level has a fellowship hall, three class rooms an a kitchen. and upstairs is a 1500 sauare foot sanctuary, two counseling rooms, and the pastor's office. The parsonage is a three story five bedroom, three and one-half bath dwelling unit with an oversized two car garage. A landscape plan and a preliminary engineering and grading plan as well as the elevations and floor plan have been submitted. The site plan indicated about 41 parking spaces. The zoning code requires one parking space for every three seats in a church. The previously designated western access has been changed to an eastern access across the Town owned open space tract. The engineer has not looked at the final driveway plans at this time, since this is only a conceptual review. There is no seating plan at this time. The building materials for the church is a combination of stucco and stonework, wood shake roof is shown on the south elevation, but no mention on the material for the balance of the roof. The roof form is a non -centered gable form with a central dormer and small hip roofs over the stair towers. The parsonage building is all stucco, again with wood shake roof on the south elevation. The roof form is similar. Staff has identified some issues that should be addressed. 1. The grading plan indicates that there is about 10 feet of grade change from the front to the back of the buildings, however, the elevations do not show that. 2. The existing finish grade and the roof ridge elevations need to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 11 of 14 inted Chri be identified, so that it can be determined if the buildings mec,c the zoning cede for building height. By scaling it off, the parsonage seems to exceed the maximum 35' building height by several feet. 3. Retaining walls are shown have a note "to be designed by others". These need to be shown on the site plan and landscape plan and should indicate wall height. The parsonage plans indicate a wood stove and a fireplace and these must be either gas appliances or an EPA phase III certified stov:. The type of stone should be identified and a color palette should also be provided at final review. There is one area of the landscape plan that needs to be discussed and that is the area along the western property line. The agreement at Special Review Use was that over 40 trees would be included along this property line to screen the parsonage from the A -Y Townhomes, and that is not indicated on this current landscaping plan. Tim Kehoe asked if the proposed access would be acceptable. Rick Pylman stated that once the Town Engineer has reviewed the plan, the Staff would get back to them on that aspect. Mr. Kehoe stated that the roof shape is to allow as much snow shedding to the north as possible, and with the anticipation of using a metal roof on the north elevation. The matter of the partial offset of the roof was discussed. Mr. Kehoe stated that they would like to increase the seating to 120 people over the 90 projected at Special Review Use, anticipating that the 41 parking spaces would allow that. He stated that the parsonage would have some stonework on it. The landscape plan shows a courtyard between the church and the parsonage that is not reflected on the grading plan. They will provide Staff with the information on the retaining walls. The seating plan will be provided. They will provide additional trees along the western property line. Mr. Kehoe asked if they could plant trees in the drainage easemant. Rick Plymin stated that if a landscape plan was provided, he would take it to the Engineer, but as long as the drainage easement functions as it needs to, there should be no problem. Discu:=i-:, followed on the front retaining wall and the material PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 12 of 14 Lot 45 Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivisions Anointed Christian Fellowship Church, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) to be used and the height; the matter of the eastern access vs. the western access; lack of class in the design; the matter of the request for a difference in roofing materials; the matter of snow shed at the front entry ; the windows that look awkward; the need for wider fascia; the filtered drain on the western side; the outside stairwells; the inset stone panels; The need for adequate landscaping; and the huge glass mase on top of the entrance door. Also discussed was one of the matters discussed at the time of the Special Review Use was that the buildings retain a residential type of look, which this proposed project does not follow. There are too many banks of square windows and areas of glass. The need for a massing model w.s discussed. Vice Chairman Hunn stated that it seemed the general consensus of the Commission was that the applicant needs to return to the drawing board and address the concerns voiced and consider the commitments made at the time of the Special Review Use. Lot 47, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision, Koehn Revised Landscape P 1 E,n Rick Pylman stated that the Koehn final design approval was received in July of 1991. The residence is built and final grading is complete and some landscaping has been installed. The applicant would like to revise the landscape plan, now that final grade is complete and they understand how steep portions of the lot are. Considerable discussion followed on what could be done it some of the steep areas, however the discussion was done away from the microphones and it is difficult to transcribe. It was suggested that the applicant use a combination of rocks and trees in a terraced, retained area. Patti Dixon moved to table this item until the November 3, 1992 meeting to allow the applicant to consider the suggestions made by the Commission. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 25, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Christie Lodge, Commercial Roof Color and Porte Cochere.___Final__ Design Review Once again, Chairman Perkins stepped down due to a conflict of interest. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 13 of 14 Rick Pylman stated that this is a portion of the ongoing building improvement program for the Christie Lodge. The sample is for the roof areas over the commercial portion of the building. The proposed roof is a standing seam metal roof with the seams a 9-1/4" spacing between the seams. The color is a Royal Lock Red #3. The second portion of this request is a proposal to square off the triangular structure and add a stone base and column for support. Phyllis Lilischkies, operations manager, stated that basically, all they are asking for is the approval of the color of the roofing material and the design in the porte cochere. There are three types of stone being considered: Colorado Moss, Wyoming Moss, which is a little lighter grey, and the other is Magna. She stated that if for any reason the quote on this use of rock is beyond their expectations, then they may have to come back with another solution. After discussion on the width and length and angles of the stone base, and how the down spouts would be handled, the Commission was in general consensus that the request for the change in the porte cochere and the color of the roof would be appropriate. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the roof color and the porte cochere changes, with a recommendation that the front entrance in some way reflect the battered profile of the two ends. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 16, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Special Review _Use _-For Home Occupation, Resolution No. 92-15. Henry Vest moved to approve Resolution 92-15 as submitted. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried uannimously. Reading and Approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 6, 1992 Patti Dixon moved to approve the minutes of the October 6, 1992 meeting as submitted. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The Commission was reminded of the Joint Planning Commission/Town Council meeting on October 27, 1992, at 3:00 PM. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 20, 1992 Page 14 of 14 The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 PM. Respectfully submitted. Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Commission App J. Perkins S. Railton R. Schneide A. Reynolds P. Dixon 1 H. Vest Hunn te_��