Loading...
PZC Minutes 080790RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AUGUST 7, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on August 7, 1990, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Frank Doll. Members Present: Frank Doll, John Perkins Sue Railton, Jack Hunn, Clayton McRory Staff Present: Jim Curnutte, Planner Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Chairman Doll stated that all members were present except Terri Jeppson and Buz Reynolds. Lot 46/47 Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver _Creek_. Phoenix Discovery Group Fractionalization of Development Rights Public Hearing Chairman Doll gave a brief history of this project, stating that this project was previously disapproved by the Planning Commission and on appeal approved by the Town Council for 10 units. The Group is now back requesting a smaller building. Jim Curnutte stated that this lot has four development rights. The applicant is now requesting a fractionalized project for eight units, very similar to the previous approval. A copy of the previously approved plan is also provided for comparison. The previous approval was for eight -one bedroom units, one-two bedroom unit, and one -three bedroom unit. The existing approval is due to expire in a couple weeks, and rather than ask for an extension of the existing project, the applicant has chosen to come in with a new project that down zones the project. The new proposal is for two -one bedroom units, four -two bedroom units, and two -three bedroom units. The building's architecture and mass has aiso changed. Building heights have been reduced. Two covered parking spaces have been reduced. This fractionalized project is being discussed in conjunction with the final design review. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 7, 1990 Page 2 of 14 ver _—Creek 1_Phoenix Deve_lopment Ri9htss_ Regarding Staff comments, Curnutte stated that the access appears to be adequate, as it was for the previously approved ten units. The driveway will be required to meet Town standards. The applicant is required to maintain an emergency fire lane through the property on the western side into the existing Chambertin property. That is shown on the plat. This area should actually serve the function of a fire lane and not be used for snow storage in the winter. It should be ciowed throughout the winter to provide access. Regarding transportation to serve the project, Curnutte stated that public transporation is certainly a goal for all areas of the Town, however, this project does not necessitate the need for it to happen. There does not appear to be any definable impact to public or private services that are a result of this project. Curnutte stated that the unit size and mix differs from Chambertin, but compared with other projects in the area this project seems to be compatible. The two and three bedroom units would serve to address some of the housing needs recently identified in the employee housing study that was done. Staff recommendation of this fractionalized project is for approval. The current project does present less of an impact on the site and the area in general. The i(_� is situated in a multi -family neighborhood and the unit mix is appropriate with the surrounding community. Mark Donaldson, representing Phoenix Discovery Group, stated that they had the same findings that the two and three bedroom units are an appropriate project at this time, the market being what it is. Chairman Doll opened the public hearing and asked if there had been any correspondence or calls regarding this application. The Secretary and Jim Curnutte stated that no comments had been received. With no comments from the public, Chairman Doli then closed the pubilc hearing. Jack Hunn inquired about on-site management and laundry. Donaldson stated tnat they have put the laundry facilities inside of the units and done away with the common laundry room. Much of the massing reduction is due to consolidating those types of spaces. As far as the management, the current PLANNING AND ZONING August 7, 1990 Page 3 of 14 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES program with the investor backing this project does not require on-site management. Clayton McRory moved to grant approval of fractionalization of development rights to Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with no conditions attached. Jack Hunn seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lo; 46/47._ Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver_ Greek. Phoenix Discovery Group, Final Desi n Review Jim Curnutte stated that this is a companion file with the above approved fractionalization. He stated that this portion of Lot 46/47 is 38,000 square feet, the building footprint is about 6,000 square feet, for a low building ratio compared to that allowed. The floor area is about 8,500 square feet gross, which is about a 22% ratio. The amount of open space provided on the site is well above the 25% required. Maximum building height is 33 feet trom finished grade to the highest point on the building. In this particular zone district 60' is allowed. Parking consists of eight surface parking spaces on the north side of the building and ten covered carports incorporated into the second level of the building. Landscaping materials information has been received and seems to be adequate. This is a two story with a partial underground basement, wood frame building with a flat roof, although. a recent change to the building shows a slight roof change. Exterior building materials are wood siding, stucco, and clad windows. Stucco and siding will be painted two different tones of grey. The color samples have been provided. There were 20 parking spaces with the previous approval, two of them have been eliminated. Curnutte stated that the proposal is in conformance with the Town zoning requirements. Staff feels that the type and quality of both building and landscaping materials proposed are consistent with Town standards. The siting and landscaping and the building does appear to be sympathetic to adjacent residential properties. The design of the building does not appear to have any adverse effect on the distribution of light and air. There is a provision for proper fire ac:,ess through the property. Regarding the compatibility with topography, it is hard to deny since the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 7, 1990 Page 4 of 14 ,__Phoen i x foundation is already in. The project would not inhibit any principal views or block solar exposure from adjacent properties. The building does appear to be consistent with the others in the area. The proposal is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Town of Avon. Curnutte stated that staff recommends approval with the following conditions: The approval of fractionalization, which has just been approved; prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant does need to show compliance with the Town standards with regard to the driveway connection onto Nottingham Rd. and drainage, etc.; project entrance signage, if desired, must be presented to the Commission. Mark Donaldson stated that the revised elevations in the reduced color drawing depicts the addition of the sloped roofs to break up the boxiness of the two end masses and to tie them together a bit. They are proposing the middle accent with the roofing. The wood siding will be Pratt and Lambert, the darker grey 2296, Zephyr hills; the stucco color is 2308, Mendocino. The roof is a royal blue. The blue accent will also be run through the stucco bands to break up that portion of the building and the window casings will match the same color. They have eliminated all eight fireplaces from the previous approval. They have added a couple balconies. The six larger units will have balconies. They have condensed a lot of the common area facilities. Chairman Doll reminded the applicant that the toxic material on the property needs to be removed. The applicant stated that they would take care of it. Chairman Doll asked what the applicant planned to do about the upper level of concrete. Donaldson stated that would get ^e -topped. Discussion followed on the condition of the slab. Clayton MCRory stated that the only real problem that he has with the design aspect is the metal roof on the project. He feels t ere is not a lot of roof on this project and shakes could to used. Metal is out of place in that area. He is concern,ad with the strong mirror image, even though it is not a duple, it has a great deal of mirror imaging. Donaldson stated that there are differences in the window sizes and placemen, -.s. He stated that they have a mirror image foundation. More landscaping in the front was suggested. 1 PLANNING AND ZONING August 7, 1990 Page 5 of 14 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Lot 46/47 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Phoenix Discovery Group. Design Review, (cont) Donaldson stated that they had to be very careful with the types of landscaping to bn used, since they cannot irrigate. Donaldson stated that the+ could, if they absolutely have to, back off the metal roof. They would like to keep the blue accents. Discussion followed on the use of metal roofs in the residential areas and the desire to keep them out of these areas. Jack Hunn inquired about the wing wall shown. He stated that he would like to find a way to break up the single plane look. The balconies help, but there is a large area of uninterrupted wall plane. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. Discussion followed on the roof detailing. It was suggested that the slope be expanded. The applicant agreed, with the use of the shakes instead of the metal roof. Further discussion followed on the landscaping. I't was suggested that some of the landscaping be re -distributed. It was suggested that some toulders etc. be used also. Sue Railton agreed with most of the comments previously made. She stated that she would like to see more landscaping in the center. John Perkins stated that he pretty much agreed with what has been said. He feels t•.hat the biggest problem is the mirror image. He suggested cantilevering a bedroom on one side or something to get a shadow pattern working. Donaldson stat.ea that what they would like to do is, in raising the roof acid expanding that shape and changing to the wood, what they will create is a stronger shadow pattern along the roof line. He, stated that based on the existing conditions they have to work with they can't go along with cantilevering the walls. He stated that they do not have extra square footage since this is a fractionalized project. It was suggested that to break up the massing, in the center of the building, the two lower units (1C & 1A): the bedrooms might benefit by a sliding glass door out to a patio at grade and between the two is the wing wall, to give them privacy. The applicant agreed to incorporate this suggestion in the plans in some way. Jack Hunn moved to grant final design approval to Lot 46/47, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, as presented with the following conditions: the applicant resubmit the plans indicating higher manser group forms with cedar shake finish; the redistribution of landscape materials be studied and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 7, 1990 Page 6 of 14 resubmitted to staff; the applicant study techniques to present a finished appearance at the entrance; the applicant study techniques to break up the mirror imaging as suggested by the Commission; prior to issuance of the building permit the applicant must show compliance with the Town standards regarding the entrance to the project, drainage, driveway width, etc.; The project entrance sign, if desired, be resubmitted for consideration by this Commission. Clayton McRory seconded. The motion carried, with John Perkins voting nay. Lot 4 Block 1 Wildridge. Subdivision,_.P_hoenix _Discovery Group Fractionalization of Dev3lopment Rights,_ Public Hearing Chairman Doll stated that this project has received final design approval previously, however, this application is for a smaller project. Jim Curnutte stated that previously 10 units had been approved. This lot has four development rights and the applicant is a:.king to fractionalize into eight units. This plan is very similar to t'ie previously approved plan. A copy of the approved plan is also provided for comparison. The applicant's request replaces the six unit building with a four unit building. Virtually the same location, a lesser amount of paved parking area, a lesser amount of building coverage, and a greater amount of open space. The project is identical to the previous approval with regard to architecture, etc. The previous approval has expired. Access does appear to be adequate to serve these eight units. The driveway will meet the Town requirements. This project will have no greater impact on the transportation situation. The surrounding area is a multi -family area in general. The two bedroom units correspond to the Housing Needs Assessment that was recently released. Staff recommendation of the fractionalized project is for approval. Mark Donaldson stated that other than the reduction of the size and units of the one building, the only other change would be the laundries being included in the units. Basically they just scaled the project down from the previously approved project. Chairman Doll opened the public hearing. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 7, 1990 Page 7 of 14 ion, Phoenix Discovery opment Ri_g_hts. _._Public He asked for any comments from the public. He asked if any written correspondence or calls had been received. "im Curnutte stated that none had been received. Chairman Doll then closed the public hearing. Jack Hunn described the parking as one covered parking space per dwelling unit and immediately outside the garage a second space and three additional. Donaldson stated that was correct. Discussion followed on the matter of the ability of the roadway corridor to carry additional traffic and if a study has been done. Clayton McRory moved to grant fractionalization of development rights for Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, with no conditions attached. Sue Railton seconded. The motion carried with John Perkins and Jack Hunn voting nay. Lot 4 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision__ Pho_enixD1_scov_ery Group Final Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that one covered parking space has been provided for each of the units and one space directly behind the garage door and three guest parking spaces have been provided. There is substantial grading being proposed. Staff would recommend that if this amount of grading is to be done, then some fencing and erosion control methods be utilized during the construction. The landscape plans should al.o include irrigation of that area. The building is a three story, wood and stucco design, which incorporates a wood shake roof. The color scheme will be presented. The proposal is in conformance with the design review criteria. It does meet the building height requirements. The project consists of two identical buildings of mirror image design. The design repetition is common to the area and common to most multi -family projects. Building materials are high quality redwood siding, stucco base. The dPaign will effect the views of adjacent property, but the massing of this proposal has been reduced as compared to the previous approval. The project is within all applicable zoni:ig requirements and regulations. The proposal does work reasonably well with site topography, with the exception of the extensive grading proposed. During construction some fencing of the property line will be necessary and the area should be irrigated. Staff recommendation is for approval PLANNING AND ZONING August 7, 1990 Page 8 of 14 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES with the following conditions: approval of the fractionalization which has been accomplished; fencing and erosion control and all disturbed areas should obtain adequate irrigation to ensure their survival. Mark Donaldson stated that the regrading is the most significant issue. In eliminating the units in the one building, they pushed the floor plan elevation down two and one half feet, and in doing that they created the need for regrading. What they would like to do is go back and raise the building a couple feet. Rather than create the sod area outside the east building, simply do away with it and keep that grade going continuious up to about the two-thirds height of the garage level, as the berming is now shown. This would keep the grade away from the property line or at least keep the grade more gentle there. The building colors are as previously approved, the redwood siding, the cream colored stucco and the muted green accent on the fascia board. Discussion followed on where the natural rim was located and where the grading would be. The grading boundary on the previous approval was restricted to contour 66. Jack Hunn asked that the shrub size be upgraded to five gallon rather than one gallon. Also, the decidous trees should be should be specified in caliper rather than height. He would like to see a more variety of sizes and have a broader range of sizes to get different heights. He stated that no landscaping was shown on the east site of the northern building. Tome landscaping needs to be done there. Hunn asked if this proposal provides an irrigatiig system. Donaldson stated for the planted area, not the natural vegetation. Discussion followed on the valley in the center portion and the drainage for it. Discussion followed on the floating chimney mass that terminates at the second floor line. Hurn suggested that the balcony be extended to terminate at the chimney. Hunn stated that the stucco columns that support the balconies appear to be heavy. Donaldson stated that the ones on the south, in the rear, they could go back to the post. Discussion followed on the lighting. Other than the lit entrance sign and lighting that is incorporated into the building '1 ''IN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 7, 1990 Page 9 of 14 Lot 4 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Phoenix Discovery Group, Final Design Review. (conte construction, there is no other site lighting. Discussion followed on the location of the trash dumpster. It was suggested that a cover be provided over the dumpster duf to the visibility. Sue Railton stated she would like to see the units more tucked into the ground level. She feels that the building is rather bland for the neighbors to view. Clayton McRory agreed with the wrapping of the balconies and the enclosing of the trash dumpster. John Perkins stated he has a problem -.:ith the mirror image. Further discussion followed on this matter. John Perkins moved to grant final design review approval to Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivison, with the conditions that the grading on the east side of the project be contained no lower than the existing contour 66, and if this requires raising the elevation of the north building, that would be acceptable; Change the shrubs from one gallon to five gallon, the cottonwoods a range of 1 to 3 inch calipers, provide irrigation for the landscaped areas, spruces should be mixed 50% - 6 to 8 feet in height, 50% - 8 to 10 feet in height, move some of the landscaping from the north end of the parking area around to the north side of the second building; Wrap the balconies around the fireplace; Change the stucco columns to 8 x 8's; Aid roof over the trash enclosure; The Staff verify that the landscaping plan is as discussed. Cla-ton McRory seconded. The motion carried with Sue Railton and Jack Hunn voting nay. Lot 99 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision, Sullivan Residence, Final Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that Lot 99 is less than a half an acre. The building coverage is about 2,000 square feet for a very low building area ratio. The floor area is about 2,800 square feet. Nearly a quarter of the lot z.rea is covered with impervious material. The maximum building height is 26' from finished grade to the highest point. A landscape plan is provided. The building is a two story wood frame structure with gable roof. Exterior materials are wood siding, stucco, cedar shake shingles. The hood siding used on the upper half of the building will be channel grove cedar, stained with an oil based grey tone stain. Decks and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 7, 1990 Page 10 of 14 i dentes stairways will be 2 x 6 redwood with 2 x 2 vertical pickets. The lower portion of the building will be finished with an off white colored stucco with a skip trowel finish. Colors are to be presented. The building colors are intended to match those of the Chalet at Beaver Creek. The proposal is in conformance with all zoning regulations. The type and quality of both building and landscaping are suitable with Town guidelines. The driveway grade as currently shown is about 11 - 13%. The house has been sited as far back on the lot as possible. All grading will be contained within the lot lines. The property slopes to the west at approximately 18%. The building is designed to fit the existing topography as much as possible. The current site plan shows that approximately 90% of the site will be graded. A berm has been provided in the front. A flat area has been provided to the north. The visual appearance is acceptable from adjacent properties and public ways. The house will sit about 16 feet above the existing road and will be partially obscured by the berm in the front. Adequate landscape clusters have been provided around the building. The proposal is in conformance with the Town's goals, policies and programs. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant should explore ways to reduce the amount of overlot grading; 2. Driveway grades should not exceed 10%. Steve Rider, representing Mr. Sullivan, presentod samples of the colors. They are using a moss rock on the chimney and a channel grove siding, mouse grey by Sherman Williams. The stucco will be 10522. The trim will be the same as the siding. We have also used windows of a very high contrast green color which goes well. He stated that they can reduce the driveway grade significantly by lowering the building in its present position 2 to 2 and one half feet. The main intent is to set a low profile on the slope and not have a high profile from the street. That is also the reason for a lot of the overlot grading, especially concerning the berm. The courtyard area is for a play area for the children. That will be a sodded, irrigated area. Jack Hunn stated that he sees a large unfinished basement with a separate entrance. He asked the applicant if the owner plans to have a second unit on the site in the future. Steve Riden stated that he did not think so. Hunn stated that his concern was that the parking seems to be inadequate PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 7, 1990 Page 11 of 14 Lot 99 Block 1, Wildrid_ge Subdivision,___Su livan Res_idence.. Final Design Review, (cont) for a second unit. Hunn stated that, regarding the entrance, it is a full flight of stairs from the garage to the kitchen and for any guests approaching the house, and it might feature the entrance a bit more and make it more convenient if it were pulled down to a mid-level. He stated it is difficult to understand how the house sits in the site and how it addresses the site without a model. Discussion followed on this matter. Perkins stated that he finds the window fenestration a bit awkward. It doesn't have flow or rhythm to it. Discussion followed. Discussion followed on the driveway grade and how it can be handled. It was suggested that they keep the natural vegetation along the edges when regrading so that there is not a defined break in the natural and sodded areas. Riden stated that most of it will be revegetated in the natural vegetation. Discussion followed on the types of landscape ma-Lerials to be used. It was suggested that the landscaping be brought in closer to the building. Comments were made regarding the difficulty in getting cottonwood trees to grow in Wildridge. Discussion followed on the colors. Clayton McRory moved to grant final design approval to Lot 99, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, with the conditions that the applicant should explore ways to -educe the amount of overlot grading currently being propose'; that the driveway grade should net exceed 10%; See a revised landscape plan comeback with some of the suggested adjustments and realistic sizes proposed, before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Sue Railton seconded. The motion carried with John Perkins voting nay. Lot 52 Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Franklin Residence, Conceptual Design Review Sue Railton stated that she must stand down due to a conflict c,f interest. Jim Curnutte stated that this is a conceptual review, therefore, no formal action will be taken. The applicant will appreciate any comments the Commissi,,n has regarding this project. The applicant is requestinc, review of a PLANNING AND ZONING August 7, 1990 Page 12 of 14 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Lot 52 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision, Franklin_ Residence, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) single family residence. This is a duplex lot and is assigned 2 development rights, however, the applicant at this time is proposing a single family rasidence, leaving room on the lot for possibly a future dwelling to be constructed. At this time, as designed, the unit does appear to meet Town zoning cricearia. The house is well sited on the lot and meets setback requirements and works well with the grades. With regard to the future construction of the second unit, Staff would be more comfortable if the buildings were connected with a common party wall down the garage as opposed to the trellis system currently shown. John Railton, representing Mr. Franklin stated that they asked for the conceptual design review because of the idea of building one unit now and one later. He stated, regarding the party wall item, that he likes to create on sites the continual vista that you get through the site and if you take the buildings and separate them slightly, the space between the buildings become an important space. Perkins asked about the west elevation that has not been provided. Railton stated that would be provided or final design review. Discussion followed on the requirements for a duplex connection. Discussion followed on what has been done in the past by Mr. Railtor. Discussion followed on the proposed design. The Commission members agreed that this was a very des;rab'te project. Residence, - Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued until the October 10, 1990 meeting. John Perkins so moved, Sue Railton seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 24, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Special Review Use for Retail Sales in IC Zone District Public Hearing Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant wishes to table this item until the August 21, 1990 meeting. John Perkins so moved, Sue Railton seconded, and the motion carried unanimous!;• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 7, 1990 Page 13 of 14 Lot 23 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek�__Col_umbi.ne Moyi_n�C and Storage Sian Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that this application is a very simple one. It is for replacement of sign faces. It is difficult for the applicant to get here, therefore, Staff would recommend approval, with the condition that the C mmission review the colors. The Commission discussed the signs that are already installed. The Commission members were concerned with the look of the signs at night. The sign cannot be read at night. John Perkins moved to approve the sign design with the condition that the lighting source be removed. ,ack Hunn seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Reading and Approval of Planr.in and Zoning_Commission Minutes for July 5 1990 and July 17, 1990 Jack Hunn moved to approve the minutes for the July 5, and July 17, 1990 meetings, as submitted. John Perkins seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Further discussion followed on zoning requirements and definitions regarding duplexes, etc. Discussion followed on the effect the gas district has had on the interest in lots in Wildridge. Discussion followed on the matter of having the site visits earlier, i.e. 4 PM. The Commission asked that they be scheduled earlier. Also discussed was the matter of which projects should be considered for site visits. It was th= general consensus that onl the potential problems shou' considered. It was suggF,3ted that they be done at the time each meeting, not varied times. Discussion followed on requiring applicants to provide models, and also requiring two meetings minimum for each project. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 7, 1990 Page 14 of 14 John Perkins moved to adjourn. Jack Hunn seconded The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Commission a F. Doll i T. Jeppson J Perkins A. Reynolds