Loading...
PZC Packet 020591STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 1991 Lot 53, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Hans Oberlor Duplex Residence Design Revision On November 7, 1990, Hans Oberlohr received final design review approval for a duplex building on Lot 53, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. The original design of these units included a flue chase enclosure around both fireplace flues. At some point during the construction of these units, Mr. Oberlohr switched from woodburning fireplaces to gas burning appliances in both units and deleted the flue chase enclosures. Mr. Oberlohr is requesting a design revision to the previously approved plans to delete the flue enclosures from both buildings. The exposed fireplace (2) and boiler (2) flues will be painted to match the fascia of the building. Respect'ully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ,ACTION Approved as submitted (✓� Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( j Denied ( ) Withdrawn Date % 5 elk Secretary The Commission directed Mr. Oberlohr to paint the four metal flues to match the fascia colors and to stain any wood railing materials left exposed to match rim col STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 1991 Lot 2, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision David Marshall for the Claivin Six Unit Residential Complex Design Revisions On December 4, 1990, David Marshall received final design review approval for a six unit residential complex (The Claivin) on Lot 2, Block 1, Wildridge Sub- division. The final design approval was granted for the building designs and general site layout only and did not include proposed landscaping and project signage. As a result of refining the drawings from final design review to construction drawings, and in consideration of the desires of potential buyers (design and cost considerations), the applicant wishes to make certain design changes to the buildings. The proposed changes are as follows: BUILDING "A" - Change direction of siding from vertical to horizontal. - Change rear deck door from triple pane to double pane. - Upper level rear window horizontal instead of vertical and slightly smaller. - Combine two basement level windows on left elevation. - Small window on left elevation changed from trapezoid to octagon. BUILDINGS "B" & "C" - 24" x 30" louver added to south elevation. - Change rear deck door from triple pane to double pane. - Upper level rear window horizontal instead of vertical and slightly smaller. - Combine two basement level windows on left elevation. - Small window on right elevation changed from trapezoid to octagon. BUILDINGS "D" R "F" - Change roof forms from gable to hip. - Change rear deck door from double pane to triple pane and remove window. - Reduce size of two upper level windows on right elevation. - Remove window on left elevation. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 1991 Page 2 of 2 Lot 2, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision David Marshall for• the Claivin Six Unit Residential Compelx Design Revisions BUILDING "E" - Change roof forms from hip to gable. - Change direction of siding from vertical to horizontal. - Change rear deck door from double pane to triple pane and remove window. - Reduce Size of two upper level windows on right, elevation. - Remove window: on left elevation. Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ''r Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) � q Date %i ` Secretary The Commission granted approval to the revisions on Units A, B, C, D, E, and F, with no conditions. ;d�, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING ,AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Lot 5, Wildridge Acres Steve Riden for Bob Kedrowski Dubois Single Family Residence Design Revision INTRODUCTION On December 18, 1990, Bob Kedrowski received final design review approval for the Dubois single family residence on Lot 5, Wildridge Acres Subdivision. The Design Review Board granted the final approval with the condition that the caliper and height of the proposed landscaping be increasFd by one foot. Steve Riden, on behalf of Bob Kedrowski, wishes to make certain design changes to the building, more specifically quoted as follows: "Due to more accurate land form information the "stepping" of the main level below the entry is less severe, allowing the entry/garage form to be lower than the main form". Resp ectfully submitted, XC Jim Curnutte Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted (1/f Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Deni d ( ) W' dra n ( ) Date 2 — � — q i Clayton Mc Rory, Secretary �''"c The Commission granted approval to the revisions for Lot 5, Wildridge Acres with no conditions. e s; 401 �1 •1 ST, REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Fed ary 5, 1991 Lot 7, Wildridge Acres Steve Riden for Bob Kedrowski Pfneisl Single Family Residence Design Revisions INTRODUCTION On September 18, 1990, Bob Kedrowski re:.eived final design review approval for the Pfneisl single family residence on Lot 7, Wildridge Acres Subdivison. The Design Review Board granted the final approval with the fullowing conditions: 1. The applicant reconsider f.he palette of materials and colors and the design of the s%bsequent homes to provide a variety of architectural design within the context of these materials and colors. 2. The applicant reconsider the landscape plan and specifically consider the introduction of shrubs as well as additional plant materials between houses, and some technique to manage the drip line. 3. The applicant reconsider and add tenestration to the north elevation. 4. The applicant modify the window design on tP west elevation and provide an alternative design for thr. elevation. On November b, 1990, a building permit was issued for the Pfneisl residence. The approved building construction drawings reflected the changes suggested by the Design Review Board on September 18, 1990 (conditions 3 and 4). In mid-January, 1991, Mr. Kedrowski requested a final certificate of occupancy inspection for the building. During that inspection it was discovered that several field changes were made to the design of the building without Design Review Board re.,iew or approval. Steve Riden, on behalf of Bob Kedrowski. now wishes to have the Design Review Board review the aforementioned design changes, which are more specifically quoted as follows: 1. Due to inaccuracy of topographic survey, the original design for stepping the form down from the entry was deemed inappropriate. By altering the elevation of the main level spaces, it was possible to step the form from the largest mass towards the smallest ('chat being the garage) and maintain a level driveway from the street. STAFF REPORT February 5, Page 2 of 3 1'1 TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1991 Lot 7, Wildridge Acres Steve Riden for Bob Kedrowski Pfneisl Single Family Residence Design Revisions 2. Per the owners request, no door or window was placed in the garage. This should not be perceived in reality as a massive wall due to the proximity of the other houses and the installation of the meters. 3. Per the owners request, an egress window was addad to the lower level at the "south" elevation. 4. Per the owners request, as shown on the west elevation, a 5' x 5' window with a trap above was substituted with a 7' x 5' high unit with a trap above. This allowed more light and less obstruction of view within the living area. Likewise the trap was eliminated above the patio doors to further enhance the closure required within the dining area. 5. Due to minor plan alte!-tions within the bedrooms, windows on the east elevation north of the garage were shifted and balanced in the wall. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant. Presentation 3. Commission Revie% 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted Jim Curnutte Planner STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND CONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Page 3 of 3 Lot 7, Wiidridge Acres Steve Riden for Bob Kedrowski Pfneisl Single Family Residence Design Revisions PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( V) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( Date - Cj ( Cla-ton McRory, Secretary The Commission granted the c ldri with the following conditions: 1 The windows in the stucco walls receive the trim as originally proposed. 2. Trees should be added to the north elevation of the garage in lieu of the window, and the additional trees be submitted to Staff for approval. 3. The treated timber post in the vicinity of the entry be clad with some appropriate trim. 4 The applicant submit a revised grading solution for the west of this home to staff prior to implementin4 that grading plan. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Lot 8, Wildridge Acres Steve Riden for Bob Kedrowski Mutz Single Family Residence Design Revisions INTRODUCTION On September 18, 1990, Bob Kedrowski received final design review approval for the Mutz single family residence on Lot 8, Wildridge Acres Subdivison. The Design Review Board granted the final approval witn the following conditions: 1. The applicant reconsider the palette of materials and colors and the design of the subsequent homes to provide a variety of architectural design within the context of these materials and colors. 2. The applicant reconsider the landscape plan and specifically consider the introduction of shrubs as oell as additional plant materials between houses and some technique to manage the drip line. 3. No building permit will be issued until the Final Plat for Wildridge Acres Subdivision and the Subdivision Improvements Agreement have been signed. 4. More detailed information of the proposed driveway retaining wall should be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. Steve Riden. on behalf of Bob Kedrowski, now wishes to have the Desigi. Review Board review some design changes, which are more specifically quoted as follows: 1. The original design of stepping the main level below the entry was inappropriate with the introduction of more accurate land form information. This also allows the driveway to become less steep from the street 2. All stucco has been eliminated on this unit due to the requirement that the application be done to receive a temporary certificate of occupancy and since the cost of this application was prohibitive during the winter months. 3. The french balcony on the upper level was substituted for a conventional deck as the opportunity presented itself during construction. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Page 2 of 3 Lot 8, wildridge Acres Steve Riden for Bob Kedrowski Mutz Single Family Residence Design Revisions 4. Main level window and door alterations were done to correspond to availability of standard window and door products and egress requirements and also the need to define the spaces within the building as the owners needs were realized. This included shifting of windows and expanding the glazing in certain areas. 5. Lower level door done to fulfill the owners requirements. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner and window alterations were request and maintain egress STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Page 3 of 3 Lot 8, Wildridge Acres Steve Riden for Bob Kedrowski Mutz Single Family Residence Design Revisions PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted (V5 Approved with Recommended Conditions ( ) Approved with Modified Conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) DateZ �� �cl� Clayton McRory, Secretary_ a- Co aj,;sion grant,_�ilnou& fnr the -revisions on Lot 8,--.W-i_l.dridge—_-_ STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Lot 57, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Brent Alm for Jan Livergood Livergood Residence Final Design Review INTRODUCTION Brent Alm, on behalf of an Livergood, is proposing to construct a single famil. residence on Lot 57, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivison. Lo -u 57 is 0.43 of an acre (18,731 square feet) in size and the building coverage is approximately 1,670 square feet for a building ratio of 9%. The floor area of the building is approximately 2,500 square feet for a ratio of 13%. Nearly 20% of the lot area, or approximately 3,621 square feet is covered with impervious materials. The maximum buildinc„ height is 29 feet from finished grade to the highest ridgeline. A landscape plan indicating plant species and size has been provided. The irrigation system as indicated on the plans will include an in -ground drip watering system for all trees and shrubs. The building is a two story wood frame building with gable roofs. Exterior building materials include 1" x 8" rough sawn cedar siding, wood and metal deck railing and masonite shingles. Any exposed foundation walls will be covered with stucco. The vinyl clad wood windows are proposed to he white. the siding will be stained with a sandlewood color opaque stain. The 1" x 6" vertical trim pieces will be stained forest green. Color and material samples have been submitted and will be presented at the meeting. At the Design Review Board meeting of January 15, 1991, this application was given corceptual design review. The following items were discussed. - Consider the addition of trim around garas,e door. - Consider adding enough room to the area behind the garage doors to tack and turr cars arouna. - Landscape plan snould include an automatic irrigation system to any sod areas -including a drip watering system to ail tees and shrubs. A zone of "no disturbance" should oe shown on the site plan. Additional landscape materials should be added to all sides of the building. It appears that the applicant has adequately addressed the above listed Design Review Board comments with the exception STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Page 2 of 4 Lot 57, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision 3re.nt Alm for Jan Livergood Livergood Residence Final Design Review that no landscaping has been added to the west side of the building. STAFF COMMENTS The Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of a proposed project: 6.11 - The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposal is in conformance with the Avon Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations of Town. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on a duplex lot. 6.12 - The suitability of the improvement, including type and quality of materials of which it is to be constructed and the site upor: which it is to be located. COM'1ENT: Rough sawn cedar siding and masonite shingles have been considered acceptable building materials in the Wildridge Subdivision. The driveway and exterior parking areas are proposed to be concrete. 6.13 - The compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. COMMENT: The siting and landscaping of the building is sympathetic to the adjacent residential property. All grading will be contained within a limited area of disturbance. Additional plant materials along the west side of the building would add some visual diversity to the building as viewed from Wildridge Road w.t3t. 6.14 - The compatibility of proposed improvement with site topography. COMMENT: The property slopes toward the west at approximately 13%. The house appears to work very well with existing grades. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Page 3 cf 4 Lot 57, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Brent Alm for Jan Livergood Livergood Residence Final Design Review 6.15 - The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. COMMENT: The appearance of this residence from neighboring properties and public ways seems acceptable. 6.16 - The objective that no improvenent be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. COMMENT: Staff sees no conflict with this criteria. 6.17 - The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon. COMMENT: The proposal is in general conformance with adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the Town of Avon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this design review application with the following conditions: 1. Final staff review and approval of driveway/North Point Road intersection plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. No concrete in Town right-of-way. Driveway grade must not exceed 4% in right-of-way. 2. The addition of landscaping on the west side of the building should be considered. -N /00) r-� STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Page 4 of 4 Lot 57, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Brent Alm for Jan Livergood Livergood Residence Final Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, )"�� C4,v� Jim Curnut*e Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with Recommended Conditions ( V) Approved with Modified Conditions ( Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( i Date2 5 - J� Clayton McRory, Secretary conditions: 1. Woodruff roof be used; 2. Additional land,&Apina be considered on the west side of the house and the revised landscape plan -- be submitted to Staff; 3. The driveway be installed with a minimum - 14 --- foot width. 10 - STAFF STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark At Beaver Creek Arthur Cole for Domino's Pizza Sign Variance and Design Review INTRODUCTION Arthur Cole, representing Domino's Pizza, is requesting a Sign variance and Design Review approval to allow for the placement of two signs which are not in conformance with the approved sign program on lot 69, block 2, Bencimark Subdivision. The approved sign program for the building limits the tenant identification signs to 20 square feet. Individual letters (6" to 18" high) are to be mounted on a painted (white) steel mesh backing. The letters must be the same color as the corresponding tower color (blue or groen). The painted steel mesh backing is to be located in the building tower openings. Store #5 (Domino's space) may split their 20 square feet of sign allowance between the two available frontages (north and east). All signs are to be indirectly illuminated by the exis-:ing suspended spot lights. On December 18, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and denied Domino's Pizza original sign variance request. The original variance application was for an internally lit metal box sign with a plexiglass face. The proposed sign differed from the approved sign program for the building in type, size, style, materials and color. On January 22, 1991, Domino's Pizza appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission decision to the Avon Town Council. The Council voted 6-0 to uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission decision, but directed the applicant to reapply for a variance based on discussions at the meeting. The Cc,_ncil felt that a reasonable solution to the signing issue was as fol'as!-e: - Steel mesh backing, painred white and located in the east and/or nortn tower openings. - Blue individual letters i6" - 18") as shown in Domino's sign brochure. - A Domino's Pizza logo of a size compatible with the individual letters. - A total sign area of 20 sc,uare feet to be split between the two tower openings if desired by the applicant. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5,1991 Page 2 of 4 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Arthur Cole for Domino's Pizza Sign Variance and Design Review - Indirect illumination of all portions of the sign(s). Domino's new sign variance request is essentially as listed above. The necessity for a variance lies in the to -t that one of the colors contained in the logo (red) do -=_s not conform with the sign program for the building. The individual letters will be 15" in height. The following variance procedure must be followed for reviewing a variance request as per Section 15.28.090. 2. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Before acting on a variance request, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors: A. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. COMMENT: The relationship of the proposed signs to the existiriy and potential signs on the building seem acceptable. The amount of red used in the logo is fairly insignificant when considering the area of the signs as a whole and would not appear to significantly detract from the intent of the sign program. B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. COMMENT: The degree to which the applicant has requested relief from the strict provisions of the sign program appears to be the minimum necessary in order to relieve their perceived hardship. C. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. COMMENT: Staff has no further comment. STAFF REPORT February 5, Page 3 of 4 TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1991 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Arthur Cole for Domino's Pizza Sign Variance and Design Review 3. FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before grantino a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. The strict or literai interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; ii, There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vir.inity. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS & FINDINGS Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as submitted. The degree to which this proposal differs from the sign program for the building is so slight that it would not appear that approving the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. In addition, the variance seems warranted because the strict or literal i-terpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Avon Sign Code. Staff further recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission allow Domino's to keep their temporary sign on the building until the permanent sign(s) are installed, or March 1, 1991, whichever occurs first. _, Aws STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Page 4 of 4 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Arthur Cole for Domino's Pizza Sign Variance and Design Review RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Jim Curnutte Planner PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION Approved as submitted ( v ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions k ) Continued ( ) Denieo ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Date 2 5� — �� Clayton McRory, Secretary SEE ATTACHED 40 11 ob C7 Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Domino's Pizza Sign variance and Design Review Page 5 The Commission granted the variance, citing the findings that approving the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary -physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Avon Sign Code. The Comm ssion granted approval to allow Domino's Pizza to continue to use the the banner until March 1st. or until his permanent sign is installed with the _ condition that he immediately unplug and remove the neo;. sign and if he wants to apply for that let him bring it in for approval. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1991 Lot 43, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Mark Harrison, 4 Unit Complex Conceptual Design Review Mr. Mark Harrison is proposing to develop four single family homes on Lot 43, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision. Lot 43 is located on Old Trail Road and is currently zoned for four-plex development. The average lot slope is approxi- mately 10% and the lot is .70 acre in size. The units will each be approximately 1500 square feet in size in three different floor plans. One unit will be repeated on the site. Three of the buildings are two story structures. The fourth is a two story with loft. Building materials, at this point in the design process, consist of wood siding and shake shingle roof. The four houses are not clustered tightly on the lot, instead they are spread apart and tucked into the property ^orners. Units 1 and 2 have potential setback concerns at this level of detail. The layout of the units will require extensive overlot grading with substantial benching required for each unit. The access road as shown has a grade in excess of 11% and one of the fill slopes exceeds 36% grade. The grading plan does not indicate any retaining walls or drainage information. The design of the access road does appear to require some retention to meet these grades. The preliminary grading plan does indicate existing and revised contours at the unit locations, but seems to disregard the access road completely. A final grading plan that indicates revised contours for both unit locations and access road must be submitted prior to any final review. The location of the units should be studied and a tighter cluster concept should be discussed. Although this lot is designated as a four-plex lot, it may not be physically capable of accomodating 4 single family units. The applicant may wish to consider reducing the density or combining units into multi -family structures. Prior to a final review, the applicant should also submit final building materials, a color scheme, detailed elevations of all units and a formal landscape plan. As this is a conceptual review, no formai action is required at this time. Respectfully submitted, Vic(I ILVV41 Rick Pylman Director bf Community Development