Loading...
PZC Minutes 042093RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20, 1993 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on April 20, 1993, at 7:30 P.M.in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins. Members Present: John Perkins, Henry Vest, Sue Railton, Jack Hunn, Rhoda Schneiderman, Buz Reynolds, Patti Dixon Staff Present Rick Pylman. Director of Community Development, Tom Allender, Town Planner. Charlette Pascuzzi, Recarding Secretary Chairman Perkins stated all members were present except Henn Vest. Patti Divon and Jack Hunn Mr. Vest and Mr. Hunn arrived at 7 34 P M Ms Dixon arrived at 7 36 P \t Lot 4. Block 1. Ben hmgl at Beaver Creek Subdivisiea Auto Sen.icc Public Hearing Tom Allender stated that Ron Bifani is proposing to construct and operate a full wr%*M G006eu Automotive Service Censer and car cash on Lot 4. Block 1. Ben:hmok Subdrvwon The poo1w, as proposed, includes 8 interior automotive service ba%x. I autontatK Cir ..ash. 4 self smxe C& masks bays The structure would also havc an office and the upper (Irxxs wlr uld havt IWO a'%'rsssx) apartment for employees The business is most[% auto nVair. tyre sakes and car *Ash nr, 71m koi rs 10 acres and is zoned `cighborhood Corrtmetcul T1us is the same kat that the Cortusassrosr. W etesame ago, reviewed and approved a Special Rcvic—A I'se for • quack k Ac Their are Are kers s+oastaA Neighborhood Commercial along \omngharn Rased T1w Pwa Ma and ("�>assal haft vKoApy two of those lots Lot 4 is the %%cstern mast and rs the onr that bmi era Il Kk Crvvi flip rrEbmW Commercial lots were ongmally roned Rtssderuul Ito flenwi—. C;arrreranzsal 7isrt ass changed in a comprchenvrvc rcrorung to the tro" 4'q1 Prti<x to rkgt rsasxt+t� Hers s s.V�aA6 k el-. e 1 ?") PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 2 Lot 4, Block I. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Auto Service Center Special Review Use, Public Hearing. (cont) been a use by right. In the Neighborhood Commercial zone district the intention reads: "The Neighborhood Commercial zone district is intended to provide sites for the principal benefit of residents of the community and also to highway oriented convenience commercial needs. The uses by right are: Retail Stores, Professional Offices, Car Wash, Restaurants, Accessory Apartments. The Special Review Uses are: Automobile Service Station and Repair, Above Ground Public Utility Installations, Commercial Printing Facility. This proposal requires a Special Review Use hearing strictly for the automobile service part of the project. The car wash and the accessory apartments are uses by right. This Commission recently approved a Special Review Use for a quick lube/car wash. Were it not for the conditions placed on that approval, Staff would have considered this project as being allowed under that approval Allender reviewed the criteria to be considered, stating the proposed use appears to be in conformance with all the requirements imposed by the Avon Zoning Code. The proposed use appears to be in general conformance with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Regarding criteria "C", regarding compatibility with adjacent uses. Allender stated that the Commission needs to remember that they are reviewing the use itself and its associated impacts, not the specific designs of this proposal. Those issues will be covered during the design review process An auto service center is an automobile intensive use with all repair activity occurring within the facility Staff feels that the general location of this lot lends itself to that sort of use They have good access, doesn't take much site grading, easily accessible from the highway The general tone of this zone district has bss,+cally been set with the Coastal Mart down the street The real concern is the compatibility with the neighbors to the west, which is zoned residential While staff docs have concerns, they feel that then can be addressed through design The current application is proposing bermsng and some hear. landscaping on the western boundary They are restricting trash storage to the eastern side and the% have stated that they arc willing to limit the hours of the self service car wash, although that could cause an enforcement situation The existence of Buck Creek along the west property line do" raise some site specific environmental concerns relating to off site storm %ata rurwff and the poternral of contaminants reaching the dream The current application is propoung two catch hasras fix the treatment of any runoff Staff belies es that certain design and site conudmations can be addressed as SfwcW Res" use impacts and can be included as conditions to the approsals Lands.., .� 40%, arse six! 6-wruip would be appropriate issues to address thr(nsgh condimms Staff is recommending appros aJ with the following coridstions I The Planning and Zoning Comrtusucm shouW tit that Puleertwd ea snit rerpat.% to ft ri residential proper•,: to the •,Nisi sre addtcssad duruq the d+eup sc%ww porr4v%s Fsucaa+i sra" "N ,- , el' e--� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 3 Lot 4, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision_ Auto Service Center. Special Review Use Public Hearine. (cont) review include the lighting, building architecture, landscape buffers, trash storage, noise buffers, and general site planning. 2. The catch basin design must ensure that any site runoff is filtered and all oil, gasoline, soap. or suspended material be removed prior to discharge. 3. No underground storage tanks be allowed. 4. No auto repair or service will take place outside. There will be no storage of junk vehicles or miscellaneous parts outside. All trash receptacles and used tires waiting for proper disposal shall be stored in a well screened area. Allender stated that two letters have been received regarding this hearing The first one is from the River Rock Townhouse Association. They are concerned with the potential environmental effects on Buck Creek. They question the tire shop as an entrance to Wildridge and 'Mountain Star They are concerned about their property values. They do not like the look of the current neighborhood commercial zone district. Basically they stated that they represent the whole townhomes The second letter is from Judith Pozelmk, Lot 51, which is across the street, and she basicalh states that she doesn't think that the zoning should be changed, or allow commercial uses She apparently does not understand that the area is alreadv zoned commercial Ron Bifani stated that he would like to address the staff conditions He stated that all the factors addressed in item 1, such lighting, landscaping etc can be addressed with this Board Thev will he flexible about doing anything that needs to be done He stated that the difference with this plan and the previous plan is they have added a lot oi'trees and berms which will protclt the residences Tbes have requested 8 bays because they want to keep all the work inside A minimum arrxx.nt of short term vehicle storage will be outside Regarding Item 2. the catch basins. they arc proposing two catch basins Basically all the drainage will be directed inward to the parcel and downward to the bottom of the parcel There will be no oil or gasoline spilling into the river There will be no gaachne There will be no underground storage tanks Oils and :jaasmtsston fads are sitwed wstlnn the sh%V us above ground tanks Regarding Item 4, there will be no auto repair taking ptact maude Trash receptacles will be well screened Tire storage will be well *•creased alis and will be dssp<+sad u(ngttt away Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing, asking the puNu. wtshstitllt to speak to pkrse tt brief, as there is a long agenda to consider Mr Bill Nolan. representing the owners of the peopcit� &ready to the .soma o(thr psuVp%W uft stated that there seems to be a l;ttk prob4cm w.tb the rri pm* me rrc dod T1wq sere dr#s Oar. owners in that compkt and only one has tcccz%td a Wesco a(the niton" TW* 1114c4 Ssteta+*,, • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ME,41=S April 20,1993 Page 4 Lot 4, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Auto Service Center, Special Review use, Public Hearing, (cont) stated that Ida Clements, of Balas Townhomes was notified, and this notification information was ` received from the County. Mr. Nolan echoed the environmental concerns stated in the letter from the River Rock Townhomes. He feels the commercial area offends the people that come to this town. He does not feel that this project would be to the principal benefit of the residents. Mr. Nolan went on to discuss the philosophy of zoning. Chairman Perkins asked Mr. Nolan to please conclude his commentary, as he has already spoken for fifteen minutes and there are many more items to be discussed. Mrs. Nolan also spoke, stated that this is no longer a beautiful area. She was complaining about the semi trucks that park on the on ramp and leave their trucks idling while they go into C -Mart, etc. She feel all this will bring the property down, and a tire shop with 8 bays and a 24 hour car wash is not going to improve any of this. She does not feel that the car wash will be safe. It will cause more traffic. With no further public input, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Patti Dixon asked the applicant if there were going to be tow trucks and if so, where would it be kept. The applicant stated that there would be one and that most of the time it would be kept inside. There will be times that it will be on the outside. Dixon stated that she sympathizes with the owners, but this was originally zoned for these uses. She feels that the applicant should, however, be sensitive to the residential area by limiting the hours, etc. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that probably the only way the residents will be happy is if the Town buys this lot as a buffer zone. She stated that she thinks that 8 bays are too much. She stated that she could not approve the auto service situation. Henry Vest stated that he disagrees with the problems of the runoff He has no problem with this special review use. Sue Railton stated that she did not have a problem either She thinks the whole thing hinges around having it well designed and have residential touches to it and having very good landscaping. If there are going to be vehicles that have to be kept overnight, the applicant will have to be prepared to keep them on the east side of the property PLANNING AND ZONING C April 20,1993 Page 5 ION MEETING MINUTES Lot 4. Block 1. Benchmark at Beavt reek Subdivision, Auto Service Center, Special Review Use, Public Hearing, (cont) Jack Hunn stated that the land has been zoned commercial since the beginning. The zoning does permit a car wash, so the Commission needs to talk about the automotive repair use. It has to meet all three of the criteria. Criteria "C" is a judgement call. He is not convinced it is currently compatible. He is not convinced that it can't be made to be compatible. Architecturally, this one is more sensitive to the neighborhood scale than the previous approved project. It is oriented better to the adjacent properties. He is concerned with the possible overnight parking, the tow truck, and some of the other matters. He feels that they can be worked out, but at the same time he wants to be sensitive to the neighbors. Luz Reynolds stated that at the time of the Comprehensive Plan, every lot in the town was studies. Everyone in town was invited to come in and give their input. There is always concerns when you have a commercial lot next to residential. He stated that he would rather see a use that is going 6 ^m 8:30 to 5 PM than have a restaurant open to 2 AM. He feels this use is needed in the town. He stated that he will scrutinize this project to make sure that it is compatible with the residential neighborhood. John Perkins stated that even if the Special Review Use is granted, it in no way grants a total of 8 bays as a final approval. Tom Allender stated that the Commission would be granting approval on the use. What the final product is the result of the final design process. Ron Bifani stated that he would like to address the hours of operation. The hours of operation would be 7:30 to 6:30 for the automotive center, and for the car wash, in the winter time, it would only be daylight hours and it would be closed by 8 PM. The whole purpose of the 8 bays is so that they can keep all the work inside. They want to be able to keep the cars inside. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the applicant would have a problem with the hours just stated being a condition of approval for the special review use. The applicant stated he had no problem with that. Henry Vest moved to grant approval of the Special Review Use for Lot 4, Block I, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with the following conditions 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission should ensure that potential negative impacts to the residential property to the west are addressed during the design ttwiew process Factors critical to review include the lighting plan, building architreture, landscape buffers, trash storage, noise buffers, and general site planning. 2. The catch basin design must ensure that any site runoff is filtered and all oil, gasoline, soap or suspended material be removed prior to discharge 3. No underground storage tanks be allowed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 6 Lot 4. Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Auto Service Center, Special Review Use, Public Hearing, (cont) 4. No auto repair or service will take place outside. There will be no storage of junk vehicles or miscellaneous parts outside. All trash receptacles and used tires waiting for proper disposal shall be stored in a well screened area. Sue Railton seconded. Rhoda Schneiderman suggested amending the motion to include another condition stating the hours indicated by the applicant of 7:30 AM to 6:30 PM for the tire repair service and 7:30 AM to 8 PM for the car wash. Henry Vest so amended his motion and Sue Railton seconded the amendment. The motion carried with Jack Hunn voting nay. Lot 102, Block 1, WildridQe Subdivision. Fourplex. Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that this applicant received conceptual design review at the April 6th meeting. The proposed fourplex does utilize a repetitive facade which is given variety with the varied roof form. The structure is three stories, with garage on the lower floor. Each unit has approximately 2,000 square feet. The exterior is predominantly finished in the Cape Cod Gray channel lap siding. The garage levels on the front are stucco. A Timberline Ultra asphalt shingle in a weathered wood blend will be the roofing material. The landscape plan conforms with the approved guidelines. a drip irrigation system is proposed. The project sign is appropriate for the area. Site lighting has not been discussed. The Commission was pleased with this when it came in for conceptual. Staff does not have any comments other than it does meet all the criteria. Staff recommendation is for approval. Discussion followed on the asphalt going right up to the building. Jack Hunn stated that there are twelve trees and a number of shrubs proposed as landscaping. He stated that for a building of that magnitude, more trees might be appropriate. Hunn asked how they propose to protect the islands of landscaping from the snowplow. The applicant stated that there would be some cribbing around them. Hunn asked about the project sign and if it would be illuminated. The applicant described where the illumination would be. Discussion followed on the site lighting. Buz Reynolds made a suggestion on how to break up the mirror image by adding an island in the middle. The applicant replied that the mirror image i3 broken up by the wall that is there Reynolds echoed the matter of a few more trees. The applicant stated that if they need to beef up the landscaping then they will have to cut somewhere else Sue Railton also felt that a few more trees were needed, but that it is a good project Henry Vest stated he didn't care about a few more trees Ile thinks t4c building looks good He asked to see the color samples, which the applicant provided Vest suggested that the applicant consider the -�N ,y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 7 Lot 102 Block 1 Wildridee Subdivision Fourplex Final Design Review, (cont) matter of the lighting and if those lights are on all the time,they will be shinging on the victorian homes just down the road Patti Dixon moved to approve final design review for Lot 102, Block 1, Wildridge, with the condition of adding half a dozen trees of 1-1/2 to 2 inch caliper, with Staff approval. Jack Hunn seconded. The motion carried with Henry Vest voting nay. Lot 37. Block 3. Wildridae Subdivision Weiland Single Family Residence Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that Mark Donaldson is representing the Weilands. Lot 37 is a flagpole lot located near the end of Flat Point Road, on the south side of the street. It is 1.13 acres in size and slopes to the south at approximately 38%. Zoning is PUD with a duplex designation. This project received very positive comments at conceptual design review. However, the owner of the adjacent lot G. M. Hollingsworth, in a letter, expressed concerns over the building height and its effect on his view. The proposed residence is approximately 3500 square feet in size and includes two attached garages Exterior finish is wood siding with a clear finish. Cream colored stucco is used for accent and as the finish material on the basement level. Stone work is also utilized. Cream colored clad windows will be used. Fascia will be built up from 2 x 6 and 2 x 12 cedar with a clear finish Plywood soffits will be painted to match the stucco. The roof form is gabled with dormers A 3519 asphalt composition will be used. The proposed co'or is Heather Blend Staff feels that the proposed landscape plan is adequate. Irrigation anc: sit, lighting has not been discussed The proposal does meet all setback. height and lot coverage requirements Allender stated that there is not a dominate design theme in Wildridge. This residence should be visually compatible with the neighborhood qtr Hollingsworth is concerned with the effect the structure would have on his views The adjacent property owner hired a local architectural firm to do a brief study Staff believes the result was that the new structure would have a very minor effect on the views from the existing structure Mr Hollingsworth is requesting that the Weilands reduce the height by.15 feet Staff feels that this is an unreasonable request because: I. Both the lots existed when Mr Hollingsworth purchased and built his house He was aware that the adjacent lot existed and would ultimately have a structure on it. and 2 Zoning allows the Weilands a maximum height of 35', as proposed the structure is only 22' tall on the s•de that faces the Hollingsworth residence, with a maximum height of 32 feet on the opposite elevation, and l The proposed structure will be visible from the Hollingsworth residence and will encroach into their current view corridor, however, it will not totally block their vre..s The Wetlands could be requesting approval on a structure 13' taller that would totally block the \iCws of the adjacent property Stall feels that this is a pretty good design solution, considering the shape of the lots The onh coticein that Staff has identified since the staff report was written is that the retaimng wall betwom the Weiland's house and Mt Hollingsworth is piobabh too close to the ptopem line to build without encroaching in the dirt work, etc into the neighbcxing propmy It could be ttsusrd ckvw to the Weiland's house and still work fine StatTrecamnncniWion is tot appto%al with the tmommendati<m that an automatic irrigation systern be installed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 8 Lot 37 Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Weiland Single Family Residence. Final Design Review_ cont Mark Donaldson stated, in response to the comments made at conceptual, they have added some landscaping to the west side in front of the garage, and the braces that support the projected breakfast nook have been beefed up substantially. They are proposing the clear stained wood siding. He provided color samples for all colors to be used. Donaldson stated that they agree that automatic irrigation would be provided, probably a drip system. Donaldson stated that, as far as the retaining wall, they do expect some temporary shoring. He stated that there is one issue that really is a private matter, but, for the duration of the project that Mr. Hollingsworth has built, he has taken off his roof drainage through the storm gutters and have the roof drain that extends on to our property. They are going to get him to reroute his drainage to meet State law requirements of off-site drainage, so they do not expect to have any off-site water shed on our property to disturb our retaining walls Buz Reynolds asked about the color of the cultured stone. The applicant stated that it would be a gray blend. Reynolds asked if it would travel right around the side of the building Donaldson stated that it would fade out in patterns that step down the hill. It is being used mainly as a predominant entry feature and letting it die out as they go around the corners. Jack Hunn asked, for a house of this quality, why they would promote the imitation stone, rather than real stone. Donaldson stated that this is what the owner has picked out lie stated that he has seen some really nice installations of that product. Hunn asked how they deal with the corners Donaldson stated they grout it in and cut the stone to turn the corner like that so you don't have the exposed ends Rhoda Schneiderman stated that they could also use corner pieces Do..aldson stated that maybe they should propose that the comer pieces be used Hunn asked if this product is permitted in the Town regulations, this synthetic stuff? Tom Allender replied, as far as he knows lie stated that he has seen this product used on a project over in EI Jebel, and the only way that he knew it was synthetic was that one had fallen off Donaldson stated that it has been used on Falcon Point and two or three projects in town. Donaldson stated that it is really not synthetic, it is the same organic material, kind of like particle board. It is a stone product Hunn asked if the quarter circles at the garage door corners is different from the last plans that the Commission saw Donaldson stated that this is the same Hunn stated that the shallow arch at the entry is a very nice feature and if that were considered for the garage door elements the three of them together might tic pretty nicely Donaldson stated that tht tried that and the arch became too high and it began to disrupt the use of matenals these, because the doors are so wide They can't even do it on the single garage since that is the R%' garage Hunn asked if the applicant felt that there is enough asphalt area to mancuser the %chicles in and out, e+en with snow storage. The applicant replied yes Hunn stated he thinks it is a 6 en attractry c house One usury he would like to discuss briefly is the concerns of the neighbor At the site srsa they stand on his property and tried to imagine what his views would be like when this biuldusb was bwh Tho k*�Lrj at the proposal to see if it was reasonabh sensitive to his concerns The &cup roti»,matrons that 1p%" PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 9 Lot 37 Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision, Weiland Single Family Residence. Final Dc siy Kc. cont us a little bit to go by, indicates that in general, building design should not obstruct solar :arid N icw corridors of adjacent properties. It's not saying totally obstruct or partially obstruct, it is hind of a judgment call. He stated that he finds that this house could be larger, could be taller, it Could list have a flatter roof and slide further down the hill, but the owner of this property has certain rights with regard to the development of this property. Those rights could have been predicted, to some degree, so he is fairly comfortable that this proposal is sensitive to that. The other is compatibility of deign to minimize site impact to adjacent properties and he does not see any concerns there. lie thinks that the applicant is doing this in such away as to disturb a minimum of your site. In looking m t hr criteria that the Commission is charged with, as a tool to work with, he does not see really any opportunity to deny this project based on the neighbor's concerns. He would, however, recommend that r dui than to continue to go to war, try to work together to mitigate his cancerns as best as you can Dowildson stated that he appreciates that and they have really done that since the beginning of our design process One of the things that his client reminded him of very severely after the last meeting and after a call to the lawyers, they had very carefully, strategically oriented, as well as placed the elevation of the building so that they could capture views out west that are available to us and always be open ! eyond certain built structures and there are very specific views and Heinz and Maria are ven adani ,mt about how they live, what their lifestyle is about, how man. hours they spend in the breakfast noo! :n the early morning and late evening, etc., enjoying the sunset and views There is also views back to the east. In the past they got into a dialogue with the legal counsel from Denver, regarditiv he ost impact of lowering the building and in addition to the outrageous architectural fees thv1 uld be foundation and excavation costs that would probablt total around 30 to 35 thousand dS :., push this building down four feet There was a not a price available to the Wcilands to low rrr,u ,.,Lw They paid a premium for this property, it has been on the market for a number of year: ,n;! � ssenuall%, as the Staffh is very clearly pointed out, we are proposing a one story building on the neighbor's side and he doesn't know what else to do besides break all the rules and m• to design a flat, ,,f Ile stated that he appreciated the comments from Jack They have really tried to work with them at far as responding to questions that we have a task at hand and he thinks that there are a rcau-,able amount of views and solar gains remaining for the owners and it really is unfortunate tMt deur hefund us was done in the manner it was done, because we all know that we could easily anttapated thr rsre of a structure if not a lot more They have taken the third floor off in the conceptual dcultt+ ri-iw They lowered the building some three or four feet from where the% started tut The% had a m.,r i;vmkc driveway, 3 and q percent slope all way around The% have pushed therrtsel%es down led caused a little cost He stated that then feel that the% hat c done !herr pail Patti Dixon stated that she likes the whole Iook She stated !hat the garage dam d%ui 4;OUW use another solution It should either be square or folly%% the tine of the arch 4!hr C -V% . at Bob Walsh, representing Dr Hollrnbsworth, asked to ata okkh 9%C ..R.&Mcv it, pans .-.a a memorandum lie stated that %it If, illing%%*Dnh has arled tlstrt to cijlvw to" Pam 9�1 t%r rw+.+ dd your regulations to the design criteria provsdc than vac Iayau: and ptopt'wO +rstp+n+vwww10 nrtme i," PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MIl'4=S April 20,1993 Page 10 Lot 37, Block 1, Wildridee Subdivision, Weiland Single Family Residence, Final Design Review, cont corridors of neighboring properties. The second one provides that the building desilm and location does not obstruct view corridors of neighboring properties. Mr.Walsh stated that it was his understanding that the roof of the proposed improvement is approximately five feet higher than the floor level of Dr. Hollingsworth's improvement. He pointed out the architect's opinion provided with the memorandum. He stated that they have also provided a sketch that shows that the ridge elevation is about four and one half to five feet higher than his floor. The last drawing is a depiction of the location of the improvement, which appears to be located substantially north on the property. He stated that it is their opinion and the,. view that the improvement does indeed obstruct the view corridor of Mr. Hollingsworth. They would ask that the Commission grant approval on this on the condition that the roof be lowered four feet. That is all they are asking. It is no big deal. As far as the extra cost is involved, he is sympathetic with that, but he does not see anything within the regulations that tells him that cost is a factor. The law must be complied with. If it cuts a million dollars to comply with the law then that is what it ought to be. Insofar as talking and visiting with the owners of the property, it is his understanding that Mr. Hollingsworth has not had the opportunity to do that. He has called them on several occasions. They would like to work this out between the two of them. In his view further confrontation is not a good thing. They would like to get together and work it out. Buz Reynolds asked Mr. Walsh about the distance they have - 45 1/2 feet and an elevation difference of 4-1/2 to five feet of what is shown in the drawings and your telling me that is going to effect the view corridor of mountains that are 45 miles away. Mr. Walsh replied "yes sir, because of the elevation, the angle. It doesn't take much of an angle to mask a lot of distance." Reynolds stated that he actually went down and walked this property today. He stated that he kind of knows the area pretty well and he was trying to get elevation difference just by eyeballing. He was thinking of the building being up about 6 feet and he was still seeing a major part of Beaver Creek, which he thinks that view corridor is still saved by this structure as proposed. Mr. Walsh stated that he didn't think Beaver Creek is effected, he thinks it is the mountains to the west. Reynolds stated that the mountains are a substantial distance away and he thought the view corridor here was protected He actually felt that way when he was looking at it. If he were standing as a six foot person, then he would be seeing all of it. Mr. Walsh stated that he is relying a lot on the architect's letter that he has provided Reynolds stated that he is was doing rough calculations, which is hard to do without seeing it staked out, but he thinks the architect has actually really tried to work with the understanding of protecting as best as he could and still give his client the best product He understands Mr Hollingsworth's view. but at the same time he looked at buying Mr Hollingsworth's lot and he understood when he looked that lot that there was a flag lot right behind it and that is why he had concerns about buying it %it Walsh stated that he had no argument with that other than the fact that the owner of that lot has a right to rely on your regulations and not to let his view be obstructed Reynolds stated that the Commission is kind of caught between what this lot owner has a right fat and what your property owner has for a view corridor. He stated that he thinks he is really working to try to protect that Again this is the best we can do without having a structure there We could ask for a nwaung mode(, but that would cost everybody a lot more money 14� e*) PLANNING AND ZONINC COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 11 Lot 37, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Weiland Single Family Residence Final Design Review, cont Jack Hunn asked what percent grade the driveway is as proposed. Mark Donaldson replied around five percent. What they were constricted by is if you push the driveway down they began to bury themselves. He described the driveway grade, however he was away from the podium and turned toward the wall, therefore comments are not clear. He stated that the more important thing is the height of the retaining wall. If we pub the building down 6 inches that retaining wall gets 6 inches taller and he feels that they are already at a height that they feel is staggering. It ranges between 6 to 8 feet. They did not start out to do that. They thought they would be able to lay something back and step it into there, but then they began to realize what it took to catch up with grade with the footings even with the basement underneath, it was a futile effort. Hunn asked what the finish was on the retaining wall. Donaldson stated that it was stone. Hunn asked if this house is within height regulation. Allender replied it is 22 ft on one elevation and 32 feet on another. Hunn asked if it is reasonable to assume that the retaining wall will be approved within the easement. Donaldson stated that they will be getting letters from the utility companies to allow that. Mark Donaldson stated that they do understand Mr. Hollingsworth's concerns and they feel that they have worked very diligently toward his concerns as well as theirs. They would, however, like to point out that in order to have equity in the interpretation of the design regulations, he believes that there are no special considerations for the person who built the first vs. the person who is here to build last. They would appreciate approval of this application as submitted. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design review approval for Lot 37, Block 3, Wildridge, Weiland residence as submitted. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 58, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Sindlinger Single Family Residence Final Desitzn Review Tom Allender stated that Michael Baker is representing the Sindlingers. He stated that since the Commission has heard this staff report before he would just turn it over to the applicant at this time Michael Baker stated that at the last meeting there were some concerns about the roof cricket and some material designs and the landscape plan They have since redrawn the roof, to conform with some ideas and have eliminated the cricket altogether and they have added the requested landscape plan and brought in some material forms. Jack Hunn asked about the comments from the last report Allender reviewed them He stated that the grades from the front door are just marginally over or under'_ to 1, however you want to put that There is plenty of room that this can be corrected Flunn stated he is having some trouble understanding the element that is over the right garage door It appears to be a cantilever projection with forty five degree angle sides and then how is it that the fascia and roof form Baker replied it is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 12 Lot 58, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Sindlinaer Single Family Residence. Final Design Review, cont kind of a recess. Discussion followed. Baker provided samples of the colors. Discussion followed on the landscaping. Reynolds, Shneiderman, and Railton felt that this was a better plan. Jack Hunn stated that in looking at the landscape plan he sees several shrubs immediately adjacent to the driveway and house and some revegetated turf area where there is a significant amount of regrading to put this house into the site and all the area will be disturbed and as he reads the landscape plan there really is no landscape material proposed other than a revegetation. Baker stated that they want to get the house in place and see what happens on the one particular side before doing anything there. Hunn stated that the applicant is not really working with the topography. They are manipulating it to a large degree to get the driveway to work and to get the entry to work as proposed. It seems forced into the site. He stated that he is still concerned with the roof, but he is also of the mind that it is not his roof. If it was his house he would never consider a roof like this in a snow situation. Buz Reynolds moved to approve final design for Lot 58, Block 1, with the condition that the applicant bring back the landscape for another review. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. The motion carried with a five to two vote. Jack Hunn and John Perkins voting nay. Lot 4, Block 3. Wildridste Subdivision. Farr Single Family Residence_ Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that Art Farr is proposing a single family home on Lot 4, Block 3, Wildridge. Lot 4 is located on the north side of Wildridge Road East, just east of Beartrap Road. It slopes to the south at approximately 20%. It does have a duplex designation. At an earlier review the Planning Commission recommended that the applicant add dormers to the front of the building and clarify the placement of the exterior material. The applicant has done this and added plant materials per Staffs recommendation. The proposed residence is approximately 3300 square feet and includes an attached one car garage. The structure is a single story with a walk out basement and loft. The exterior is constructed of 8 inch logs, with off white stucco used as a finish material on the basement level. River rock is used on the chimney, windows would be aluminum clad, doors a metal wrap, both in an adobe brown. The fascia would also be brown, soffits will be tongue and groove and left natural. The roof form is gabled. The proposed roof material is a 40 year asphalt shingle in cocoa brown. The proposed landscape plan is adequate and a drip irrigation system will be utilized. No sod is planned. All disturbed areas will be revegetated with a dryland grass mix. Exterior lights are planned at the exit doors and at the garage doors. Allender stated that this application does meet all the criteria. The applicant has responded to all recommendations of the Commission and Staff would recommend approval. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 13 Lot 4, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivisioon Farr Single Family Residence Final Design Review, ,(cont) Art Farr stated that he had added two dormers to the front of the house. The roof overhangs were extended. Two triangular windows were deleted from the east elevation. Regarding the comment about more and larger windows, six windows were enlarged and four new windows were added. Henry Vest stated that he appreciated the applicant doing the things to change it. Regarding the dormers, the one dormer, it seems like it does not fit with the front entry. Maybe that dormer could be one big dormer that would encompass the door so that you would not have runoff coming right out there onto the front entry way. Vest stated that the other thing he can sort of see is that the windows of the lower level just don't correspond with the upper level at all. Vest asked, as far as the soffits being left natural, would you be putting a coat of something on there. The applicant replied that there would be a clear coating that is also used on the logs. Discussion followed on how the logs would be installed. Vest stated that there seems to be a discrepancy between the front entry walk, the steps that come up. Is there a landing at any point during the steps or is it one long stringer. The applicant stated it is one stairway. Patti Dixon stated that the dormers need to be larger. She asked what the color of the stucco would be. The applicant stated that it would be off white. Dixon stated that she thinks the color of the stucco might be too white in comparison to the logs. It will appear top heavy with the darker roof. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the applicant had considered putting some sort of gable entry so that you don't get any ice buildup right in the front door. The applicant stated that he had not. Schneiderman stated that it might also add some interest along with being practical. The applicant stated that this not necessarily the primary entrance to the house. Schneiderman asked what the primary entrance would be. The applicant stated that on the east elevation, at the end of the drivewav at the lower level. Schneiderman stated that she thinks the dormers are an improvement, but the could be a little bit bigger to provide the right scale. Sue Railton stated that she thinks the dormers are a little bit too tiny. She thinks that if that is the main entrance down there it needs something to let someone know that it is the main entrance. Whether it is the way it is landscaped up to it or something. Jack I Lunn complimented the applicant on responding to the Commission comments. He thinks that the house has been improved. He would echo the comments about the dormers. He suggested that the applicant study a dormer that becomes larger and moves into the plane of the wall below and actually penetrates the roof, so that there is no roof below it and it is an expression of the main level wall up into the dormer. Hunn stated that with that element made that much larger the other one could maybe stay the same size. The applicant stated that the first time it was drawn, it was drawn with the dormer following that log wall, straight out on the side elevation, so the cornu of the home continued right up into that dormer, and it really looked odd. Hunn stated he agreed that if it was forced over to the corner it would look odd, but if it were moved closer to a center point over the entry door , or a corrhinwSon of the entry door and a window, it might proportionally look better. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 14 Lot 4, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision Farr Single Family Residence Final Design Review, (cont) Hunn commented on the windows that are similar in size, the two on the right are within a half a foot of stacking with each other and it would be better if they could stack. The others are a foot and a half or two feet off It looks like no real thought given to how those windows are related from floor to floor. The applicant stated that it has to do with the interior tnd how the rooms work inside. Hunn asked if the driveway would be paved. The applicant stated that it would be concrete. Hunn asked about the irrigation system. The applicant stated it would be a drip irrigation system. Hunn stated that he sees this as a simple straight forward house on a very nice lot and he thinks it could really be made a lot more interesting and functional with the application of the one dormer. Buz Reynolds agreed with Hunn that breaking up the dormer details also breaks up that one elevation and give it less of a plain one dimensional feel to it. He stated that he likes the idea of putting a larger dormer on above the door. Patti Dixon moved to approve final design review, with the following conditions: Th,. window fenestrations line up on the west elevation. The dormers size and placement be rc-evaluated and Staff could grant app; oval for that. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. Under further discussion of the motion, Hunn stated that he would be more comfortable if the Commission asked the applicant to re -study what he has heard tonight and bring it back to the Commission, rather than allow Staff to deal with that issue. Reynolds asked if the applicant could get a building permit with the condition of the roof being brought back. Allender stated that the roof isn't structural, so there is no reason why they can't change that. Perkins asked if Staff would be comfortable with approving it. Allender stated it could be done either way. Considerable discussion followed on this matter Chairman Perkins called for a vote on the motion. The motion to approve failed with a five to two vote. Dixon and Schneiderman voting for and the rest of the Commission voting nay. Sue Railton moved to table this application. Jack Hunn seconded. The motion carried with Patti Dixon and Rhoda Schneiderman voting nay. Lot 28, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision. Orcutt Duplex. Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that the applicant has withdrawn this item at this time Lot 53, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision. Pardee Single Family Residence Final Design Review Tom :Mlender stated that the applicants are proposing a single family home on Lot 53, Black 2. The lot is located on Beartrap Road It slopes down to the south at approximately 20%. The project went through conceptual design review on June 16, 1992, and received comments which indicated that with some added interest on the street side, the project would be appropriate. The proposed building is • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 � Page 15 Lot 53, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision, Pardee Sinele Family Residence, Final Design Review. (cont) s two stories high, however a substantial portion of the lower level is below grade. The maximum building height above finished grade is 29 feet. The two car garage is located on the lower level of the house and is incorporated into the building's overall design. It has approximately 3000 square feet of habitable space and there is a large deck incorporated along the rear of the structure. The exterior building materials includes logs and stucco. Cedar siding is utilized on the gable ends. The fascia, soffits and trim will all be cedar and the windows will be wood clad. The applicant will present finished colors at this meeting. The roof form is gabled with dormers. The proposed roofing material is a three tab asphalt shingle. Staff has informed the applicant that a minimum 300 !b material is required. The landscape plan is adequate and meets the approved design guidelines. A split rail fence is also included in the plan and that would go all the way around the lot. Irrigation and site lighting have not been addressed. Larry Pardee provided color samples. There will be a clear stain on the logs and an off white on the stucco and the trim color will be a green. Buz Reynolds stated that he thinks this is a very nice home. Jack Hunn stated that he also likes the home. He stated that the logs that are cut in an inverted "C" see to be exaggerated from what he has seen on other homes. The applicant stated that he kind of likes the arch. Hunn suggested that it be done in a more subtle fashion. Hunn stated he like the truss element in the dormer on the rear elevation and he suggested that the same element be used at the entry dormer. Hunn stated that a concern that he has is that to enter the home from the driveway level someone is going to walk up the path and essentially up one story, and the path is under a drip line to get into the entry porch. Will that be managed with a gutter? Discussion followed on this matter. Hunn asked what the thinking of the fence was. He stated that the Commission doesn't usually see a proposal where the entire site is fenced. The applicant stated that it is something that he is planning to do this the future as kind of a log home ranch feeling. Sue Railton also liked the house and agrees that repeating the truss on the entrance dormer is a good idea. Also, the curve needs to be modified. Discussion followed on the posts for the deck. The applicant stated that the plans call for 6 x 6, but he hopes to actually use logs. The Commission agreed it would !ook better. Sue Railton moved to grant final design review approval to Lot 53, Block 2, Wildridge, with the conditions that the truss be added to the entrance dormer, and that the posts supporting the deck be 8 inch logs, and the roofing material be at least 300€! . Rhoda Schneiderman seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. [• AW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 16 Lots 14115, Block I. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Commercial/Industrial Buildine. Conceptual Design Revie%+. ® Tom Allender stated that T. J. Conners and Karl Bell , who is the architect, is requesting a conceptual design review for a proposed 60,090 square foot commercial/industrial building on Lots 14/15, Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek. The zoning on these lots is industrial/commercial. The combined size of the two lots is 2.79 acres. The proposed buildings are four stories high. The exterior finish is metal in a gold color. The buildings utilize a metal mansard roof form finished in brown. The top two floors of each building would contain self storage mini -warehouse spaces. The bottom two levels would conttun spaces for service commercial offices/warehouses. As proposed the southern ends of the two buildings exceeds the maximum allowed height over existing grade by a few feet. Ten feet in from the ends they do conform to the height limits. A variance would be required. Staff does not see a major problem. The applicants would also be seeking a variance from the required parking for the self storage units. This Commission has granted a similar variance in the area in the past and staff has had no problems with that parking. Other than the height slightly exceeding the maximum and the required parking variance, the project appears to meet Town requirements. As this is a conceptual design review, no formal recommendations will be made at this time. Karl Bell discussed the colors to be used and provided a color i endering. "rhe building will be a metal building There will be a balcony across at the second level, which they would use some kind of a colored material, either stucco, brick or panels, or something to provide a color band across there. the lettering would be surface mounted. Discussion followed on the parking in the back and the second level will be at ground level in the back. Bell stated that the maximum height of the retaining wall will be probably around twelve feet for a very short distance. There will be some retainage around the building on all four sides. There is access into loading docks for two large semi -trucks 55 ft in length. He described how the parking was figured. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she would like to see the applicant do a lot to this building. She stated that the Commission is holding buildings on Metcalf Road up to a higher standard, than they used to She stated that this building looks like an army barracks on two levels. She does not see any architecture to the building She could not approve anything close to what is proposed. She stated that it is not the metal, it is the architecture. There is no interest to tris building whatsoever and on top of it the colors are kind of boring Dixon echoed the same thoughts Fest stated that he likes the use of metal siding fie thinks that doing some jogs in the buildings would maybe add interest Discussion followed on the colors W M PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 17 Lots 14/15, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Commercial/Insudtrial Buildin_e Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Sue Railton stated that she did not like the building either. The Commission is trying to improve the look of that area. She feels that they can do something to add some relief to it. Jack Hunn stated that he is concerned with the bulk and size of this thing for the site. The building is 250 feet long, 52 feet high, it is huge. It is forced on the site with two levels. There is an extremely steep regrading proposal between the two levels on the street side and relatively high retaining walls on the back side to force it into the site. He thinks it is too much for the site. He asked what the height allowance was. Tom Allender replied 48 feet. Hunn stated to further to make the point that it is too much for the site, it requires a height variance and a parking variance to gain approval for this project as proposed. One wall plane of 250 feet with no interruptions, or deviations is pretty boring. Hunn compared this building with the required criteria and stated that he would have great difficulty supporting this building as proposed. Buz Reynolds stated that he agrees with some of the things that Jack said. He asked how many parking spaces are needed for 60,000 square feet. Allender stated it would depend on how it is calculated. If it is .warehouse it is like 1 for 800 square feet. If it is commercial it is 3 or 4 per 1000, it' it is office it is something else. It depends on the tenants. Reynolds stated that he likes the concept of what they are trying to do and he likes the way that they are trying to mass the project on there, but he does think that they are forcing the site. This is a massive structure and will have to have more character. He stated that he could not support it thy; wa\ it is now Chairman Perkins stated that his comments would be the same as most of the people. He thinks they need to re-Lvaluate the size of the project and it's siting and it's massing. This seems to be over development of the site Chairman Perkins stated that as this is conceptual review, no formal action would be taken at this time, but those would be the Commission comments. Lot 98. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Sterling Duplex, Conceptual Design Review Tom Allender stated that the Sterlings are requesting a conceptual design review for a duplex. The Ict is located on the north side of Old Trail Road. It is about 0 43 acres in size and slopes down to the south at approximately 22"/a Both units share the same floor plan, but by turning the structure 90 degrees at the party will and varying the roof line the true mirror image is avoided. The structure is two stories hi;;h with a walkout basement. There is approximately 1850 square feet --f habitable space per side, not including the garage As designed it appears to meet all the Town restrictions. The exterior is predominantly finished in and Omega Chenille stucco. Window n,m will be 2 x 10 and ^_ x 6 rough sawn cedar, door trim will be 2 x 6 rough sawn cedar, the fascia wi'i be 2 x 10 cedar, all with a cedar tone stain, soffits will be natural 3/8 fir. The roof form is a gable v some dormers utilized, A•a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 18 Lot 98 Block 1 Wildridee Subdivision Sterling Duplex Conceptual Design Review, (cont) it will be finished with Heritage II asphalt composition shingle in a rustic redwood. The landscape plan appears adequate, however the grades on the driveway seem to exceed 10%. Sam Sterling stated that this a redesign of a duplex that he submitted previously. The previous one was for about 2400 sq. fl. per unit. He stated that he designed it with the idea of creating equally appealing units without appearing to be identical. Some of the design highlights are deeper than average gabled roofs. They are a 8/12 pitch, all stucco construction, with heavy cedar trims around the windows and doors. Each main living area is situated to where each unit will have privacy from one another. Henry Vest asked about the front entry way to the east. Do you go underneath the deck to get to the east hair Sterling replied that yes you do. Discussion followed on this matter. Vest asked about the wood trim around the windows. Patti Dixon stated that the fop parts of the little windows seem top heave. Schneiderman stated that she kind of likes the way it jogs so that it is not a mirror image. The thing she finds a bit awkward is the front entrance and the shed roof coming down. Maybe some sort of gable would sort of tie it in together. Discussion followed on this matter and the depth of each entrance Schneiderman suggested maybe incorporating the arch in the entry ways. Jack Bunn asked about the dimensions of the decks. Ile felt that the decks were kind of awkward hanging off the way they do. The columns on the ends need to be studied. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. The one area under the deck is a parking spot. Discussion followed o„ the parking Discussion followed on the site disturbance. As a conceptual review, no formal action was taken. Lot 45Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver C•eek Subdivision, Anointed Christian Fellowship Church. Conceptual Desian Review John Perkins stepped down as a voting member of the Commission due to a conflict of interest Tom Allender stated that the Anointed Christian Fellowship Church is requesting a second conceptual design review for the proposed church and parsonage on lot 45 In May of 1992 the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Special review Use for a church and parsonage. The conditions of that approval were as follows 1. The property be limited with uses typically associated with church activities, i e weekend services, Sunday school, weddings. Any expansion of use beyond that discussed at the meeting, i.e day care,rental of fellowship hall to other groups and other organizations, must be brought back to the Commission for further review 2 No external noise making devices will PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 19 Lot 45, Block 1. Benchmark at BeaverCreek Subdivision. Anointed Christian Fellowship Church Conc:ptual Design Review. (cont) be allowed, bells speakers etc., and internal noise volume should be kept to a level compatible with surrounding properties. The proposed development consists of an approximate 5235 square foot church and a 4600 square foot parsonage. The church is a two level structure with a fellowship hall, three classrooms, and a kitchen on the lower level and a 1450 foot square sanctuary, two counseling rooms, nursery, and a pastor's office on the upper level. The parsonage consists of a three story, five bedroom, three and one-half bath dwelling unit with an oversized two car garage. A landscape plan was not included in this submittal, however the applicant just provided one. The preliminary grading plan indicated 44 parking spaces, including 2 in the parsonage garage. The seating in the sanctuary requires 42 spaces, the dwelling requires 3 and the remaining uses on the lower level could require an additional 8 spaces. Staff feels that the specific parking requirements of this project needs further explanation. Staff needs an explanation on how this building works, do they have church services and is the fellowship hall used at the same time. Is the nursery and the class rooms used while church is in session. Is the building all used at once or parts of it used at a time. The way it is designed the parking is maximized. They do not have any place to add parking. Staff feels that they do have adequate parking unless they use the whole building at once. The church building utilizes a combination of gray stucco and vertical tongue and groove cedar siding, also in gray. Fascia will be a 2 x 12 cedar, soffits will be a wafer board, both in a blue gray finish. The roof form is an offset gable with a central dormer. The proposed roof material is a light blue metal. The parsonage uses the same exterior finishes as the church. It also has a gabled roof form and has two dormers on the street elevation. The buildings appear to be within all Town setback, height, and lot coverage restrictions, a question does remain concerning parking. The Special Review Use was approved in part because of a dense landscape treatment buffering the parsonage and church from the adjacent townhouse project. At final design review Staff expects to see such a treatment. Allender stated that as this is a conceptual review there is no formal recommendation at this time Erwin Bachrach, representing the Church, provided a color rendering of the proposed project. Rhoda Schneiderman commended Mr. Bachrach on the design. She stated she had a question about the parsonage and that was if it is stucco around the second dormer. Mr. Bachrach stated that it was. Discussion followed on this matter Henry Vest asked if that was a large retaining wall on the east side of the church. The applicant stated that it was He stated that it diminishes as it goes down the hill. Vest also asked if the applicant considered cedar shakes for the roofing material or some other material other than metal. The a W PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 20 Lot 45, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. anointed Christian Fellowship Church Conceptual Design Review. (cont) applicant stated that they had considered asphalt shingles. The applicant provided color samples. Vest also had concerns with the stucco dormer. Buz Reynolds objected to the light blue color of the metal roof. Schneiderman agreed. It was suggested that the applicant go 'wr something that will blend in better with the area. Reynolds also questioned the parking matter. Discussion followed on the various uses at the church. Acting Chairman Hunn reviewed the Commission comments that the applicant should consider at final design review as follows: 1 The pop out dormer. 2 The metal roof color. John Perkins returned as a voting member of the Commission. amain Star Limited Liability_, ompany. Swift Gulch Borrow Site, Final Design Review Rick Pylman stated that Mountain Star Limited Liability Company, the developers of Mountain Star Subdivision would like to utilize fill from Swift Gulch in the construction of Buck Creek Road. Buck Road will require quite a bit of fill in its construction. Swift Gulch is close and the fill will work for the purposes needed for the construction of Buck Creek Road. Actually it has been used before on the portion of Buck Creek Road that is already built. Pylman stated that as a grading and excavation project, this falls within the purview of the design review process the proposed operation would remove approximately 90,000 cubic yards of material. All top soil would be stockpiled and upon completion of the borrow, would be placed and shaped and reseeded with a Rocky Mountain Biosol mix. The applicant has committed to watering and pest control as necessary Pylman described on the grading plan what would be done. Pyiman stated that Staff recommendation is for approval. Sue Railton moved to grant final design review approval to the Mountain Star Limited Liability Company for the Swift Gulch borrow Jack I luno seconded and the motion carried unanimously. • •�1 Y h• 1 � 1 Y 11 t+ 11 � • 1 t • � 1 � e r � • Rick FyIman stated that Avon Metro District is undertaking a relatively major improvement project for Wildridde water distribution system. Right now, the way it was designed, it is short on storage tanks and pump stations Current system has many maintenance problems. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 21 • Avon Metropolitan District Water System Pump Stations, Tract C. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Lot 1. Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Review (cont) • Pylman stated that there are two new tanks and pump stations going in. One on the same lot as the existing fire station in Wildridge and one in Block 5 on Lot 1, which is just above where Gosshawk Townhomes are. The tanks and pump stations will be underground. All that will be seen is the concrete lace of the building. Pylman described the location of the station at the fire station site.. He stated the concrete will be sandblasted and a penetrating stain will be applied. A landscape plan has been included with the site. Pylman described the landscaping to be used. Pylmn then described where the station would be located on Lot 1, Block 5, Wildridge. Considerable discussion followed on the locations, designs, the sizes of the tanks and the amount o: asphalt for the parking on the sites and the chain link fence to be used. Jack Hunn had many concerns regarding all of these matters. Jack Munn moved to approve this application with the following conditions 1 The color for both be the salmon, in the aquastain. The chain link fence be deleted, and the split rail wood fence of the park be integrated into the plan 3 The northern most wing w,,Il be redesigned to become an entry statement for the Wildridge Subdivision and signage b. included on the wall. 4 That the lighting for the pump station on Tract C, Block 1 be minimized and directed down 5 The sign be lit at night Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimoush Rhoda Schneiderman complained about the quality of the packets being received She stated that some of the landscaping plans do not have legends and sonic of the drawings don't look like they have been professionally done Tom Allender stated that some of them are not professionally done. He asked if she was saying that to build a house in Avon, you have to have professionally drawn plans She said no, but if you can't get a real feeling for the house design, because the drawings are not professionally done, then they need to get a better amateur or a professional. Sbe stated that she wants to see material and color samples a• M • M qb PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 20,1993 Page 22 Other Business.. c n Bur. Reynolds stated that he has had several calls from people at Beacon Bill regarding the colors used on Bristol Pines Sue Railton stated that, regarding Jeff Spanel's project in filing 2 of Faglcbend, she does not remember approving that they could have a pedestal in the front yard with all the electric meters on it Thcy have four riveters on one pedestal Staff staled that they would look into this matter Rcad;r4 AW.AMgXW_QLT C Aprd 6. 1993. &pAIri ,�7 ni ce Cummt tp � ins Minutes [fru R iv4dti mavtd to &Mv%v the Apnl 6. 1QQI minutes, Rhoda S:hntndcrrnan seconded and the Motion tamed una WMvJft,i TI'•c e*+reaupp Nand nad at Z 1 00 P%f Rrt�-.n:s�. wl�meoed C %W%PU lramutr• IL#%xr,watrvtvY :ricin+a•wq.-,+ !�f{9>.., K S e ! '4 P 5