Loading...
PZC Minutes 070693oRk Ala RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6, 1993 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on July 6, 1993, at 7:35 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, Jack Hunn, Patti Dixon, Sue Railton, Henry Vest Buz Reynolds, Rhoda Schneiderman Staff Present: Rick Pylman, Consultant Norm Wood, Town Engineer Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Chairman Perkins stated all members were present except Jack Hunn. Mr. Hunn arrived at 7:35. Lot 14/15_ Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Height and Parking Variance Request Public Hearing Rick Pylman stated that Staff has packaged together two variances that the applicant is requesting., a height variance and a parking variance. The request relates to a proposed warehouse/mini storage facility which is 57,600 sq. ft. The building will be on Metcalf Road. It is a steep lot and is impacted by a 110 ft. wide Holy Cross electric line easement and very steep slopes to the rear of the property. The actual building site is relatively narrow. Staff feels that there is some hardship regarding the building height. The allowed building height in the Industrial/Commercial Zone District is 48 ft. This building at it's steepest portion on the two ends is at 52 feet, and it works back to 48 feet relatively quickly. There is relatively a small amount of variance involved here, maybe 20 to 25 linear feet of the 160 foot long building plate. Regarding the parking variance, looking at the warehouse parking requirement of one parking space per every 800 sq. ft., at 57,600 sq. ft. they would be required 72 spaces, they are providing 58 spaces, so they are 14 short. Half of the building square footage, about 28,000 sq. ft., is designed and will be mini storage. The Town has in the past granted variances to mini storage proposals, as they do not n 1 - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 2 Lot 14/15. block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Height and Parking_ Variance Request Public Hearing, (cont) create much of a parking demand. The Avon Mini Storage has only four parking spaces and there are a couple on Metcalf Road that have virtually no parking and none of them seem to be a problem. Staff feels that what the applicant is providing is reasonable and Staff recommendation for both variances is for approval. Chairman Perkins asked if the applicant wished to add to the presentation. Mr. Bell stated that he did not. Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing. Rick Pylman stated that a couple letters of support had been received, one from Paul McGowan, a prospective tenant and one from Thomas D'Agostino, Valley Wide Plumbing. These letters are included in the packet along with the staff report. With no further public input, Chairman Perkins closed the public hearing. After minimum discussion, Henry Vest moved to grant approval to the variance request for the required parking, citing the following findings: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; and iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Henry Vest moved to grant approval for the height variance request, citing the same above described findings. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried with John Perkins and Jack Hunn voting nay. 0*4 Al 1-% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 3 Lot 14/15, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Commercial/industrial Building Final Design Review Buz Reynolds stated that, regarding the parking variance, he wants to make sure that the mini storage will not change to some other type of business. Rick Pylman stated that this is a 57,600 square foot commercial/industrial building. Two floors of drive up warehouse, contractor yard type of facility and the top two floors are mini storage. Those are accessed via staircase or elevator. Pylman pointed out on the plans the accesses to the various parts of the building. It is a metal building with a stucco product being utilized on the lower level. The mansard roof will be a darker brown metal. Some of the Commission's previous concerns have been site planning, parking and loading. There are two loading bays now that will accommodate semi trucks that are off of Metcalf Road and will accommodate those movements without any obstruction to the road. There is a significant amount of retaining wall on the site and a question raised was what are the materials of those retaining walls. They range from fourteen feet in height down to curb height. Pylman stated that there is not much room for landscaping. There is quite a bit of parking circulation. Karl Bell stated that one of the Commission;s concerns was the windows at the end walls, which they are now planning to put in now. The Commission had suggested reducing the mansard roof be reduced about two to four feet. This was done and the Commission was not happy with the way it looked, so it has been done with what was proposed before. Regarding the circulation of trucks, this has been resolved; they have revised the grading and contours in the upper comer. Regarding the retaining walls, what they would like to do (it is difficult to transcribe because he is rattling plans on top of the microphone) is to use gabions at the back of the site, and Amastone on another portion which he pointed out on the plans and then concrete from four feet down to curb level. Patti Dixon asked what the height of the gabion wall was. h4r. Bell stated that he thinks 13 feet is the highest across the back (again he is rattling plans over the microphone). This will be terraced. Rick Pylman stated that there are a couple comments in the staff recommendation regarding grading plan and he has talked to the applicant and it is felt that they can take care of some of the grading and drainage concerns. The floor plans that you are looking at show a 125 foot building plate and the building was shortened at one point to 120, so a condition of approval was that the floor plan match the site plan. Grades at the ramps and in the parking lot should be addressed to the fire department satisfaction. Fire Department did give comments back saying that they won't try to get around to the building. the building, because of it's code classification, will be sprinklered and they stage from the 0% ^ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 4 Lot 14/15. Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Commercial/Industrial Building Final Design Review.. (cont) front of the building, so they weren't concerned about the ramp grades. Pylman stated he feels that they are a little steep and could use a bit of work. Pylman stated that the snow storage shown on the plan. is in part of the paved area and does take up some parking spaces. There is not adequate snow storage and this project would require removal of any accumulation of snow. Pylman stated that this building has come a long way since the Commission first looked at it. There is a proven need for it, but he still has a little bit of concern that they are packing a little bit too much on to the site. Sue Railton had no comments. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she agrees that they are packing way too much on the lot. She thinks that probably 80% of the landscaping will bite the dust the first year with plowing, since it is all in little thin strips that are surrounded by areas that have to be plowed. On the legend you show aspens at 6 feet. You need to have a 2 inch caliper not in feet, and you have 3 foot bristle cone pines, and 6 feet is the minimum. She stated that she can't see where people will park in the winter time. Henry Vest had no comments. Patti Dixon stated that she has a problem with so much on this lot and she thinks the grading problem would be rectified if there was not as much massing. She thinks that it is a nice idea to use three different types of retaining wall to break it up, since there is so much retaining wall. Jack Hunn asked what the finish on the lower concrete retaining wall would be. Mr. Bell stated that the applicant suggested that he might do some sort of stain finish. Hunn asked if they would consider substituting the Amastone system for the low concrete walls, rather than have three different types of retaining walls. Mr. Bell stated that he did not think it would work where you have just a 6 inch curb, but they might go down to a two or three foot. Jack Hunn stated that there are a pair of retaining walls that separate the two buildings on the street side and he asked what the materials would be on those, and what the height of those were. Mr. Bell stated that the bottom one of the two, which is the high one, would be the stone and it starts out at about two feet at the outside end and goes up to about six feet at the high end. The upper wall will just be concrete. This will be the side inside of the loading dock and with trucks hitting it, the concrete would work better. Hunn stated that the percent grade of some of the drives is not shown in all cases. It looks like the lower building truck loading access is about 8% up to the ramp and is the ramp then fairly level. Rick Pylman stated that it is actually down to the ramp. Mr. Bell stated that on the up side it is up to the ramp and on the down side it is down to the ramp. They have tried to maintain a maximum of 8%, some iaces it is less, but 8% should be the maximum, with the exception of the high top corner and the 8% is around the curb side and on the inside it is considerably more, probably around 12 or 13 %. their engineer is already aware of this and will work on it. Hunn asked if any of the pavement is ,• r;= PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 5 Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Commercial/Industrial Building, Final Design Review, (cont) heated. Mr. Bell stated that is one of the options that has been discussed. If they can't get the slope in sufficient of grade, then the possibility of putting in some heat in a few places would be their option. Hunn stated that he shares the concerns regarding the landscaping. He thinks that 36 trees for a project of this magnitude is pretty spartan. Mr. Bell stated that the problem is, in reading the soils report, they recommended not putting any landscaping against the building, because moisture in the building consolidates the ground and causes settlement, so what they are trying to do is to keep everything away from the building. Hunn asked if the landscaping would be irrigated. Mr. Bell stated that it could. Hunn asked with an automatic system. Hunn stated that those are his questions and his comments are that he has continued to think that this building was a little large for it's site. He understands that this is what they want to do economically, but it is still tight on the site. He thinks that they have done a good job of trying to address the Commission's concerns. They have adjusted it to the point where it technically works, but it is still a lot of building for this site. Buz Reynolds agrees, with all the constraints on this site, you are maxing this out. If any snow is pushed on this site, he can see all the landscaping being lost. In order to make this site work, snow would have to be removed every single time it snowed. He thinks that with only 58 parking spaces, since a variance has been granted, you would lose even more with just pushing the building on the site. He stated he likes the building, but he thinks that it is too much square footage. John Perkins stated that he concurs. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if there were any drawings showing the proposed windows on the sides of the building. The applicant stated that the only elevation he has is for the front. Schneiderman asked if there were color choices for the stone retaining walls. The applicant stated that they would be an earth tone color. T. J. Conners stated that the reason that the snow storage is the way it is was because of the request that they get the semi trailers off Metcalf Road. Perkins stated that in itself is a pretty good indication that there is too much on the site. Sue Railton moved to grant final design approval to Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with the condition that snow be removed from the site, rather than storing and taking up parking spaces. Jack seconded. The motion failed with a one vote for and six against. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 6 Lot 14/15, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Commercial/Industrial Building Final Design Review. (cont) Henry Vest moved to table Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Perkins stated that this is to give you a chance to look at the size of the project. Buz Reynolds seconded. Sue Railton stated that if you are going to table this, and say that you want them to reduce the building on the site, you have to give them some indication as to how you want it reduced. If it has the parking requirements, why do we turn it down? Perkins stated that he thinks the majority of the Board thinks the project is too large for the site and he feels that is all the indication they need. Rhoda Schneiderman stated inadequate landscaping and she would like to see full elevations. Hunn stated that the issue is really the project's size. Buz Reynolds stated that the issues were just stated there, one, two three, one was parking, size of building and landscaping. Those are the three issues that he is basing his second on. Rick Pylman stated that they should make sure that the applicant understands the motion and what his options are. Pylman stated to the applicant that it doesn't look like he is going to get approval, so he has a couple choices. He can go back and work on parking, size and landscaping, and come back and try for an approval or you could request that they vote on a motion for a denial and appeal to the Town Council as is. Mr. Conners response is not very clear, but he would rather not have to come back again and get shot down, if he gets a denial, so be it. Perkins stated that there is still a motion to table, so he called for a vote. The motion was defeated with a five to two vote. lack Hunn moved to deny final design review approval for Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. The motion carried with a four to three vote. Lot 4. block I. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Automotive Service Center, Final Design Review Rick Pylman stated that the Commission has seen this several times, therefore he would not spend a lot of time going through it, other than referring you to the packets. There is a letter from Michael Thompson. Pylman stated that he has gone through it with the minutes from the last meeting and he addresses every issue that was raised at the conceptual hearing, and the drawings that illustrate those responses are up on the wall. Pylman stated that he thinks he has met all of the Commission's concerns and has addressed the issue of landscaping along that back property line. He stated that unless the Commission's thoughts have changed from the conceptual hearing, an approval is in order. Mark Hughes, standing in for Mr. Thompson, provided samples. He stated that one of the things that he promised the interior person he would make a case for is the roof color. The Commission had an issue with the black. The owner, Mr. Bifani, has no problem with a second color. He did notice that there are two other buildings with black roofs. He described the samples of the block to be used. He PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 7 Lot 4, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision_ automotive Service Center Final Desiy t Review. (cont) provided a sample of the siding to be used and where it would be used on the buildings. Discussion followed on the roof colors. Buz. Reynolds asked if the roofing material would be textured. He stated that he did not want to see a three tab roof. Reynolds stated that what is being shown for siding is a batten board and the Commission was led to believe that a vertical siding would be used. It was a vertical tongue and groove siding, 1 x 6. Rick Pylman stated that the application shows a cedar channel lap. Reynolds stated that he would like to see the actual sample of the roof product also. Schneiderman asked if it was really ever spelled out originally what the vertical siding would be. Pyhnan stated that the only thing that the application says is a cedar board siding. Jack Hunn stated that he would agree regarding the heavy textures shingle and the wood siding. He asked what the soffitt material at the entry area would be. Mark Hughes stated that he believes it would be a 3/8 inch cedar soffit material. Discussion followed on the material to be used on the flat roof. Hunn asked if there would be any mechanical equipment on the roof. Mr. Hughes stated that to his knowledge there is not. Hunn asked what the finish of the overhead doors would be. Hughes stated that they would be a double steel skinned insulated door.. Discussion followed on the color of the doors. Discussion followed on the proposed lighting. Mr. Hughes stated that the parking fighting would be down lighting, there will be three per side and directed to the parking area only. Hunn asked if signage would be brought back at a later date. The applicant stated that it wouli. Hunn asked if the landscaping is irrigated with an automatic system. The applicant replied it is. Hunn stated that he thinks that the applicant has done a good job addressing the Commission's concerns as expressed in previous meetings, however, he still is concerned for the neighbors because of the change in the siting of the building. W. Hughes stated that he understands that several things have been addressed regarding those concerns, for example, the way the landscaping is constructed in such a fwhiort with all of the trees being clumped in between the doors are and where the condo is. They did a sound decibel study. The owner will keep the doors closed during the winter, but would like to keep them open during the summer, but has agreed if there are complaints, he will keep all the doors facing west closed during business hours, and there will be no work being conducted outside. Henry asked what the entry drive width was. The applicant stated that it would be 18'4" between the pasts. Vest asked if the meters will be on the building. Mr. Hughes stated he did not have a chance to fi nd out where those would be. He stated that it is a company policy to obscure them. Vest stated t iat he would rather see the vertical lap siding used. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she would rather see the garage doors painted the same color as the building. She feels the vertical siding should be a T&G cedar. She prefers the bluelgray tint for the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 8 Lot 4, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivisiom Automotive Service Center Final Design Review. (cont) roof and she would like to see the texture also. Meters have to be on the building and she want the ultra quiet doors used. The applicant stated that they have addressed that. Sue Railton stated that she likes the board and batten. She thinks it gives more shadows on the walls. She stated that she would like to see the garage doors painted the color of the block, rather than the really light color. She stated that she did not mind the black roof as long as it is a textured roof. Sue Railton asked about the roof over the trash enclosure. The applicant stated that there is no problem with that, although it is not included on the elevations. Patti Dixon moved to grant final design approval for Lot 4, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with the recommendation that the trash enclosure has a matching roof; approve the black roof; the overhead doors to blend with the cement block: the siding to be the board and batten, all vertical; the meters to be located at the rear of the building; the applicant return for approval of the roofing product and the signage. Sue Railton seconded. Hurn asked that a stipulation be added to the motion that Staff would review the level of lighting wattage. Patti Dixon amended her motion to add this stipulation. The motion failed with a four to three vote. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table Lot 4, Block 1, Golden Eagle Automotive Service Center with the recommendation that the applicant come back at such time to show the actual products to be used as well as her recommendation that vertical T&G be used and other than a black roof be used and it be textured and a revised fighting plan that does not use sodium lights. Jack Hunn stated that rather than table it and sae it again, those sound like conditions for a motion to approve it, and wouldn't that be more expedient? Reynolds stated that he could see those products being brought back. Perkins agreed. Rhoda Schneiderman revised her motion to approve with the same stipulation and products mentioned should be brought back. The stipulations were then reviewed as follows: roofing product be textured and other than black, with the recommendation of the blue/gray; T&G cedar ;siding be used and brought back for approval; revised elevation with a roof enclosure over the trash; cut sheet of lights and revised plan; and the sign program returned at a later date. Buz Reynolds seconded and the motion carried with a four to three vote. Chris Williams asked to address this issue. John Perkins apologized for not realizing that he was waiting to speak about this project. He stated he could speak now if he wished, even though the project has already been approved. Mr. Williams stated that he currently runs an automotive repair facility in the valley. He stated that his personal credentials are from working in the industry for many years, both as a manager and a technician, working in many cities throughout the country and has quite a bit experience, with PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 9 Lot 4, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Automotive Service Center, Final Desien Review, (cont) education. An operation this size to come into this valley is going to require quite a bit of money. They are looking at a very serious overhead, not to mention the cost of building, taxes, waste product removal , licenses, insurance, payroll and within the next two to five years the State of Colorado is upgrading their laws governing automotive repair to meet those of California which are very strict at the time. So purely at a financial angle, look at it in the future. Are these people going to be able to operate a shop of this volume in a valley that doesn't really call for it to provide what it is trying to do. You are going to end up with another Peregrine. They build this facility, not able to operate it, it will be empty. Also, if you look at it at the residence angle. All that area is all residential and they are building another residential area in there and the residents pay money to five up there and not be an industrial area. Also, think about the traffic problem there at that stop sign. Think of the increase of volume of traffic that is going to be in there. His point is to bring out to you is the long term effects of a project this size would have in that area. He stated that he fully agrees that it would be nice to have something here, it would be nice if the Town and Planning and Zoning Committee could possibly design an industrial area away from the residential area so problems like this wouldn't be dealt with. He stated that is all he has to say. Lot 1, Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Sunridge Phase IL Color Change Final Desien Review Bonnie Havlick, manager of Phase II, stated that they received approval for a color change about two weeks ago for a Cape Cod Gray with Forest Green trim. The Association would like to change the forest Green to an Arden Green. She proAded color samples. Patti Dixon moved to grant design approval for the color change. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 18, Block 1. A ddridge Subdivision. Fourplex, Final Design Review Rick Pylman stated that the Commission gave this a very favorable conceptual review. He stated that there is about a 10% slope across the lot. There is a 6% driveway grade, and a 16% lot coverage. Driveway is paved, parking is adequate, snow storage is adequate, grading plan is adequate, landscaping is good, plant sizes meet or exceed the criteria, meters are on the building and setback requirements are met. The roofing material is an asphalt, with color and weight to be presented. It is an eight inch lap siding with stucco. Fascia is a two by ten, soffits are plywood. Jack V.,nn asked how the planted areas in the driveway would be protected from snow removal. Mr. Preston was away from a microphone. therefore it is difficult to understand his reply, but it sounded like he stated that they would be raised. Hunn asked if the height problem has been corrected. Pylman stated that there was a setback problem as well and both have been corrected. PLANNING AND ZONINI- July 6,1993 Page 16 Lot 18, Block 1, Wildridge Sub. 'QSSION MEETING MINUTES ion, Fourplex. Final Design Review. (cont) The applicant provided samples of the colors. The windows are a sand color. The timberline shingles are blue, the fascia is a solid body heritage blue and a semi transparent smoke blue on the siding and a La Habra stucco #x24-200 on the stucco. Thz meters will be next the fireplace. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks the landscaping is inadequate for this size project. You have a lot of bushes, but not enough trees. Hunn asked if there is a dumpster planned. The applicant stated it would be interior areas in the garages. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant approval for final design review for Lot 18, Block 1, Wildridge, with the following conditions: The landscaping be amended to double the amount of aspens and they should all be two inch minimum caliper and six additior.al spruce or pines, minimum of 6'. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried with one nay vote. Lot 87, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, McNeil Residence, Final Desien Review Rick Pylman stated that this is a single family house on a duplex lot, and does comply with zoning. There is a 32% slope on the lot. The driveway has a 4% grade, and the lot coverage is only 9%. The driveway is paved, parking is adequate, snow storage is adequate, grading plan does appear to be adequate, landscape plan is good, plant sizes meet criteria, information on the meter locations is needed. It is about 2600 sq. ft., 27 feet tall. The roofing is an asphalt shingle in the Presidential series, in a slate gray. A I x 8 cedar board siding is used. in a stonehedge color. There is stucco, but no color has been provided. It is a double fascia, plywood soffits, and wood clad windows. Pylman stated that the only comments he has is the meter locations and the stucco color. Norm Wood had some concerns with some cuts and the retaining wall in the ten foot slope maintenance easement that runs immediately adjacent to the road. Steven Richards stated that the first time he brought this in he was trying to figure out what the best approach to that situation would be. It is a very steep lot that slopes downhill. He is trying to keep the driveway within a comfortable slope. Currently he was planning to put two stepped terraces with boulder retaining in that area. To address Norm's concerns, he would rather not push the house down the hill further "he can help it, because that just compound., the problem with the driveway. The meter locations will be over on the east corner of the garage and will be enclosed. Jack Hunn asked about the height problem. The applicant stated that they dropped the house basically 6 feet. He described how they stepped the t:ouse down. Huron stated that the site plan indicates that they are not proposing to disturb the site below the house and are not proposing any significant landscaping in that area, which is the tallest part of the house. The applicant stated that this is correct. Hunn stated that he feels some deciduous trees would help the look. Hunn had a concern on where the dirt would go. The applicant stated that it would be removed. Hunn asked if the applicant felt that there is adequate turning radius to maneuver a car from the garage to av-•:u backing into the road. He thinks it is a little tight. Hunn is concerned with snow buildup making that area smaller. The applicant A ^ ?40N, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 11 Lot 87, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision, McNeil Residence, Final Design Review. (cont) stated that it is tight, but it should be workable. The applicant stated that if the board would like, he could push it further down the hill. Rhoda Schneiderman was concerned about the landscaping. She felt that they needed to add some deciduous trees to the south side. Discussion followed on moving the house about 8 to 10 feet. Sue Railton moved to grant final design approval to Lot 87, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision with the condition that the building be moved approximately 10 feet south, thus enabling the retaining wall of .he street side to be tiered. The motion was amended to add four deciduous trees. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 69, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision, Breathauer Residence, Final Design Review Rick Pylman stated that this is a duplex lot, in Block 3. It is a very steep lot with an average slope of 35%. The driveway has been held at 5%, the lot coverage is only 3%. Driveway is paved, parking is adequate, snow storage is adequate, grading plan and landscaping are adequate. Some of the deciduous trees are shown too small, they should be 1-1/2" caliper. Meters have not been addressed. It does meet setback requirements. There is a retaining wall in the back that appears to reach to 15' Iii height and there is not a lot of detail shown. It is about 3500 square feet and does meet height requirements at only 29 ft. It has an asphalt roof, cedar and stucco are the wall materials. There is a double fascia and plywood soffits. Flues will be painted to match the roof. Pylman stated that at the conceptual review the Commission had four comments. They were: 1. Stain colors should be lightened. The applicant has addressed this issue. 2. Look at the roof relationship. No changes have been made. 3. Look at the entry form and drip line. This has not been addressed.. 4. The caliper of trees to he 2" minimum. The applicant has not addressed this comment. Pylman stated that the applicant needs to address those issues and address the retaining wall. Staff recommendation is to table unless the applicant at present time, can adequately address those issues. Steven Richards described on the plans what the original solution to the roof was and how the roof is proposed now. Also, he stated that they felt that they had enough cover over the entry roof. Aolk� r, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 12 Lot 69, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Brethauer Residei.ce, Final Design Review, (cont) Regarding the retaining wall, he stated that what is happened is that there is a lot of fill in that area. When they cut the road in a lot of fill was disbursed upon this side. That is really not buildable from the standpoint of foundations. What they are doing is to scoop into the lower level. What they are trying to do is create some boulder retaining walls that will look natural. They would like to kind of landscape that with some terracing with boulders and not really have a retaining wall. There will be some slope to it and possibly three tiers of terracing. Jack Hunn asked about an area on the grading plan. Richards stated that all of that area is kind of a natural ravine with all kinds of nice vegetation. Hunn asked if the site section shown on the south elevation accurate in terms of how the grade falls away from the house. Richards stated that it was. Hurn asked if the applicant had given any thought to stepping the floor plan rather than having everything on one level, which is not sympathetic to the site. Richards described how the house is designed. Hunn asked if there is any landscaping proposed on the west side of the home. Richards stated that there will be some shrubs, etc., but no trees. Hurn asked if the driveway is paved. The applicant replied that it was. Hunn asked if the landscaping would be irrigated. The applicant replied that he has not talked to the owners about that, but he is sure that it could be. Patti Dixon asked what the garage door color would be. The applicant replied that the garage door color would match the stucco. Considerable discussion followed on the colors, but there were several people talking at the same time and it is difficult to determine what the actual colors will be. The roof will be a weathered wood asphalt shingle, Presidential series. John Perkins stated that he shares Staffs concerns regarding the site plan and the retaining walls on the lower side of the building. It also looks like the grading doesn't sync with the flat elevation lines that you show. You have contours going into the south side of the building, yet on the south elevation you show a flat grade line up against the building. He feels that the hill is breaking away so steeply that he feels that the applicant is looking at a lot more retainage there than he thinks he is. Considerable discussion followed on the matter. Pylman stated that he would not mind seeing them come back with some sections through the grading plan and through the walls. Jack Hunn moved to grant final design approval for Lot 69, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with a condition that the site plan be brought back to the Commission, with site sections cut, with particular attention to the retaining wall. That the minimum size of the deciduous trees be 1-1/2" caliper. That the meters be located on the building and screened, and the landscaping be irrigated with an automatic system. Buz Reynolds seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 33, Block 1, Wildridee Subdivision. Klien/Sherwood Residence. Conceptual Design Review. Rick Pylman stated that this was actually brought in as a final design, but he cut it back to conceptual when he saw a couple issues. About a month ago the commission approved a house on Lot 34. Lot PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 13 Lot 33, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Klein/Sherwood Residence, Conceptual Design Review. cont 34 is a lot that is set back off this cul-de-sac with no real access, or no street frontage. There is a 30 foot access across this lot to Lot 34. Basically it will be a snared driveway situation. Lot 34 is now in the building permit process. The shared driveway situation needs to be addressed. Pylman stated that there is a possible setback question, since he is not sure what the roof overhangs are. There is a 20% slope across the lot, maximum slope of driveway is 10%, and this is an issue because that 10% grade is right off the road. From an engineering standpoint it is desirable to keep that area from the area of existing pavement at least on to the property at a four percent grade, to provide that platform for a car to sit on. The site nian does not show the driveway paved. Parking is adequate, snow storage is adequate, landscape plan needs legend, but appears to be adequate. Meters are on the building and they are enclosed in a meter box. It is about 2000 square feet, 31 feet tall wit a gable roof form. Asphalt shingles, 8" redwood siding, and stucco are the wall materials. It is a double fascia, architecturally the house appears to be very nice. Pylman stated that the driveway constructi:m must be coordinated with that of Lot 34. He stated that from the plans it appears that there has not ween a lot of communication between the builder on Lot 34 and this lot. The driveways are shown in slightly different locations and the grading is substantially different. The roof overhang encroachment into the setback needs to be addressed. Also utility line connections should be shown on site plan, showing what kind of disturbance that would create. Scott Sherwood stated that, regarding the driveway, fortunately, Mr. Warnke is present tonight and he spoke with him briefly. He stated that he would have an engineered plan of his lot, so they can get together on the shared driveway. Regarding the overhang of the roof of the garage, he is looking at a 12" soffit in all areas. Instead of a legend on the site plan the plants have been labeled. A legend can be supplied. He stated that he can show the utility lines. Discussion followed on this matter, with the applicant pointing out where the locates are. The Commission felt that they needed to see the Lot 34 driveway incorporated on the drawings for Lot 33, so they are sure that it works. Jack Hunn asked if the applicant has considered the band that separates the siding as a horizontal element, increasing the amount of stucco over one elevation that is predominantly siding, rather than sloping it down like that. The applicant stated that he has considered that . The reason he did it this way was more for aesthetics in line with the roof line, not to create steps as he came down. He wants to try to minimize the amount of stucco and yet create a good product. Hunn stated that he draws a strong relationship between that band and the soil, not the roof, and those are not parallel. That is where he is uncomfortible. The lowest elevation would be enhanced by more stucco. Chairman Perkins reviewed the Commission comments as follows: The driveway issue, the band board issue, and the trenching of shallow services. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 14 Lot 43/44, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Beaver Creek West. Design Change, Final Design Review Rick Pylman stated that Phase I is the large U shaped building with the tennis courts and the courtyard. The association for Phase I would like to change out the existing solid wood balcony railings on the interior courtyard units. They, at this time, have a solid railing. What they would like to do is substitute a metal railing identical to the sample provided, painted in the black. The idea is to create a more transparent look. Eric Hill, representing Mike Bennett, stated that he believes that the Association's intent is to gradually replace all the railings with this type and actually repaint all of the buildings to match. Patti Dixon asked if Mr. Hill knew what the trim color or building color would be. Mr. Hill stated that he did not. Dixon feels the idea is good, but she does not agree with the timing. It doesn't fit with the rest of the building as it exists at this time. If it could be merged with the painting of the trim and doing some other work at the same time. It will look fragmented if it is done now. Sue Railton stated that she feels the same. The black will look odd right now. The Commission should really see a whole scheme of what the new paint job will be. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks that the color needs to be more neutral rather than standing out. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table this item to allow the applicant to return with an overall plan and color scheme which incorporates the railings and repainting of the trim. Patti Dixon seconded. Jack Hunn suggested that the applicant consider leaving the side of the balconies solid and only use this on the longer front. The me,ion carried with Henry Vest voting nay. Lot 7. Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Balas West, Design Change, Final Design Review Rick Pyhnan stated that the Balas West Association is proposing to amend the south elevation of the building. They have some existing decks which are recessed into the facade of the building. The proposal is to enclose those decks to enlarge the living space of those units, creating a flush facade across the back elevation of the building, and on the first floor adding a 12 foot redwood deck that will extend out from the building. On the second floor there will be a six foot deck. Pylman stated that he does not have a lot of detail. He did have a conversation with the applicant, and all construction will match existing materials and colors. he does not know if the second floor decks are cantilevered or if there is a post coming down, etc. There a is no proposed elevation provided. Assuming the details can be worked out, Staff recommendation is for approval. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 15 Lot 7, block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Balas West, Design Chanee Final Desien Review, (cont) Patrick Churchill, President of the Balas West Condo Association, stated that there would be posts, six feet out, to support the upper deck. They would be 6 x 6 or 8 x 8 posts. John Perkins stated that his concern is that it will make a very flat facade out of what is now a very interesting architecture. You will lose the shadow pattern you now have. Also, another concern is storage areas, since those decks are now being used for storage. Considerable discussion followed on how the decks would be constructed. Chairman Perk.as stated that the Commission would conceptually encourage the applicant to proceed, but please come back and provide more detailed information. Jack Hunn stated that he would encourage them to expand the deck, but he is concerned about the loss of those recesses and suggested the use of landscaping to make the decks more interesting. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 27/28, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Mountain Center Phase II Conceptual Design Review Rick Py1man stated that this had been submitted as a final design review but he has scheduled it as a conceptual review, for a couple of reasons. One, a couple of issues that have been identified and two, the lack of time and he apologize to Mr. Shapiro for the level of review he is getting. Pylman stated that Vail Building Arts Association is the owner and developer of the existing commercial building that is located on Lots 27/28, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. This was built as a phased project. The existing development represents Phase I. Phase II connects right onto the west elevation of Phase I. It is actually bigger than the existing building and continues to extend to the west. Pylman pointed out on the site plan the existing building and the proposed building. He stated that it goes all the way to the end of the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac does encroach into the property and effects the continuation of the double loaded parking lot. The building is an extension of the same architecture and colors. Pylman stated that the issues identified in going back and taking a look at the original approval and some of the approvals that have gone on in the building since then are: The original design of the building showed down in the basement level of the building a mini -storage facility that would be accessed by a ramp with a corridor down the middle and storage off either side. That later changed into Jerry's Automotive and a Special Use Permit was approved. A condition on the Special Use approval says that when the second phase of the building is brought in, the Special Use Permit needs to be reviewed. How this building addition is going to impact this operation needs to be determined. Pylman stated that he has the Building Official and the Fire Department checking some of the issues PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 16 Lot 27/28. block 1. Benchmark at beaver Creek Subdivision, Mountain Center, Phase II. Conceptual Design Review, (cont) now. The plan shows maintaining the ramp down there. Pylman described on the plans how access to Jerry's Automotive is now achieved. Also, parking is an issue. The other thing that was granted for this building shortly after its approval was sort of a blanket special use permit to allow personal service businesses and more retail, office oriented businesses. This is a Commercial,�Industrial Zone District, and office uses, personal services and retail is a special review use and instead of going through individually each tir ie a tenant changed, the building was given a blanket special use permit with the direction that the staff could keep track of parking requirements and cut off allowing those tenant changes when the parking was maxed out. That has never happened, the Staff has never been on top of that. Foods of Vail is selling sandwiches out of there which is an illegal use that has been let go over the years. It started out as a catering business which is allowed, but a restaurant needs a special review use. There are some use issues that need to be dealt with. The parking situation at the building is horrible. Moving Valley Wide Plumbing out of there will help a lot. The automotive shop is part, of the problem and all the retail, personal services are part of the problem. What is needed is to sit down and figure out the parking and site plan issues. There are not a lot of issues with the building itself. Les Shapiro stated that he thinks his biggest concern is for it to be functional. He only has one problem and that has been Valley Wide Plumbing. This will be corrected as soon as he moves into his own building. He stated that, as far as Jerry's garage goes, that is a different story altogether. He stated that Jerry doesn't take up any of the allotted parking spots. He had a temporary facility on the west end on the Phase II ground and he always knew it was temporary. He is quite willing to change the complexion of his business to a more of an appointment basis, rather than accumulating all those cars. He is entitled to approximately 10 spots, so when we build the new building he will be allowed no more than 8 to ten spots. This seems to be OK with Jerry. Discussion followed on the site plans provided and which was Phase I and which was Phase II. Discussion followed on the mater of the parking for the mini -storage being abated. Most of the discussion is not clear due to the rattling of the plans over the r,:crophones. Chairman Perkins asked if Mr. Shapiro was aware that the special review use needed to be reviewed. Mr. Shapiro stated that it had slipped his mind. Discussion followed on any possible code violations with Jerry's Automotive. Mr. Shapiro stated that all ventilation problems have been corrected. Discussion followed on how construction around Jerry's Automotive would be handled. Chairman Perkins stated that it is pretty clear that Jerry needs to come in with Mr. Shapiro when he comes in for the final review. s►+ s1 • ,- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 17 Lot 27/28_ Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Mountain Center. Phase II Conceptual Design Review, (cont) Mr. Shapiro stated he does not want to make an issue out of this, but he is forced to. He stated that this project was approved several years ago. Due to financing situation he has not been able to build sooner, thus he had to reapply for design review. He applied for a final approval and would like to receive approval at this time. Chairman Perkins stated that they must review the Special Review Use prior to approval and he feels it is incumbent on the applicant to go through the building with each one of the tenants and take the Town's parking requirements and evaluate that and present in writing where the applicant feels he is currently on the parking and what you feel the parking requirements will be for the second phase. Shapiro replied that they think basically it is still the industrial/commercial with the 1/800 and that is what they have complied with, and they think that the problem that they have suffered through with Valley Wide is going to correct that . Perkins stated that the applicant needs to evaluate his own parking and present it to Norm or Rick where you feel like you are on your parking right now and what your parking requirements are going to be for the second phase. He stated that he does not feel that the Commission has enough information on the current parking or the proposed parking. Mr. Shapiro stated that he feels he has complied with all the parking requirements. He stated that he is not here to have the first phase reviewed. He is here to build the second phase. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that Jerry's Special Review Use contains a condition of reevaluation. Now the Special Review Use for the building is not an issue? Pylman stated that the blanket special review use said that Staff could approve those uses moving into the building as long as they did not exceed the parking requirements, and he stated that he had no idea where that stands. Originally, that part of the building was given a variance for parking, and now you have got a automotive operation in there. Pylman stated that he went over there this afternoon and there were fourteen cars out in front of the garage. Patti Dixon stated that another issue is the landscaping. Mr. Shapiro then went through a review of his struggles to get financing. He is now afraid of losing the financing if he doesn't get approval at this meeting. The Commission instructed the applicant to come back in two weeks with the existing uses and their parking demands and review the special review use permit for Jerry's Automotive. Hunn stated he is concerned about the ramp that is proposed to access the lower level because it dissects the parking lot and prevents people from using both access points. With more rattling of plans, Mr. Shapiro showed how the ramp would work. Hunn stated that the otbs. concern he has is that phase one has more parking per square foot than phase two because of the encroachment of the cul-de-sac. As a conceptual review, no action was taken at this time. A% 00% r - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 18 Lot 84, Block 4. Wildridge. Duplex, Conceptual De sign Review Rick Pylman stated that the lot has a 35% grade, lot coverage is less than 10%, driveway is virtually flat. The driveway paving was not listed, but he assumes it is asphalt. Parking provided is not adequate. There is a setback issue with the parking. There is a 25 foot setback and parking is not allowed within the first 10 feet of that 25 ft setback. There is some parking shown there. Snow storage is adequate, grading is adequate, Landscape plan is good, but one comment is that they may need some vertical landscape materials at the back of the house. Plant sizes do meet the criteria, meters are on the building. Another comment is that the sewer, electric and telephone go to the rear lot line and shown they run right down the middle of the lot. There may be some benefit to taking those sideways, running them down a utility and drainage easement to minimize hillside scarring. It is about 2600 sq. ft., 30 ft high, and there is a gable and hip roof form. Asphalt shingles, hardboard siding and stucco as an accent element are the materials to be used. Under Staff comments the rear elevation on the garage wall and the exterior parking in the setback are concerns. There is no staff recommendation. Mark Donaldson, representing Mike Beltracchi, stated that the critical issue they are faced with is the front yard setback. They did attempt a variety of site development solutions before they arrived with this one. They will be faced with about 350 feet of retaining wall to get a driveway down to get the building down to the building pad that appears to be fairly natural. What they have come back to is pulling the building back and hugging the hillside and loading the cars, etc. directly from the street. they feel that it is the best site solution in terms of overall scarring. He would like some direction regarding the front yard setback variance, including the use of parking in that area. They feel that their request is reasonable and based on the input tonight they will submit a variance application. They also feel that they have some more work to do on the exterior design. This is a duplex residence, although it is not designed in the typical fashion. It is more like a caretaker unit. It has a separate entry, it has its own kitchen, etc., but it is a very modest size secondary unit. Perkins stated that the Commission has granted variances to development scenarios where they are working with a steep lot. He stated that he does not have a problem with the front setback variance, and he thinks the design is commendable and would encourage the applicant to continue. Sue Railton stated that great big wall under the garage is something that needs to be looked at. Mark Donaldson stated that one of the things they are looking at is cutting out some of that and create a half covered and half open balcony off there. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she had no problem with the variance either. The only thing that she finds a little heavy is the roof line from south to north, it is all on one plane. Perkins r,as concerned about the two doors side by side. Others on the Commission liked them. Hunn made a suggestion about the stucco used on the back of the home and integrating the balcony, but with others talking at the same time, his suggestion is not clear. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 19 Lot 84, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Conceptual Design Review, (cont) Jack Hunn also stated that he is concerned with the parking. He asked if it would be a rental apartment. Donaldson stated that it is. What they are trying to achieve is a total of six spaces, code requirement is five. Further discussion followed on the matter of the parking spaces. Also, discussed was the elevations. Further discussion followed on the rear elevation. Chairman stated that those were the comments for the applicant to consider, and as a conceptual review, no action would be taken. Lot 35, Block 1. Wildridee Subdivision Color Change Request Final Design Review. Rick Pylman stated that this is an existing duplex. Pylman stated that the house has actually been painted. The house was a natural siding color. The new color scheme is gray and green. Pictures were provided. Pylman stated that the applicant was here, but had to leave about an hour ago. If you have any questions, you may need to table it, but if you think it looks fine, you can act on it. S.: Railton moved to approve the color change as requested. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 1. Block 1. Lodge at Avon Subdivision Retail/Office Building Conceptual Design Review Rick Pylman stated that he thinks the commission is pretty familiar with this site. Approval was previously granted for a building that is not going to happen. There has been a subdivision of the property. A 30,000 square foot lot has been created on the lot where the restaurant pad was indicated on the previous site plan. The applicant is now proposing a mixed use commercial building. Pylman then turned the meeting over to Mark Donaldson, stating that this is a very conceptual review, stating that the new Urban Design Guidelines for the commercial core will have to be consulted fcr this project. Issues that need to be looked at are access, parking, setbacks, landscaping, and again the architecture. The restaurant pad was issued a setback variance. Setback variances do expire if they are not acted upon within a year, so setbacks will need to be reviewed in conjunction with this proposal. Mark Donaldson, representing Avon Town Square Associates, stated that they are proposing basically a two level structure above grade with one level of basement storage below grade. The net feasible retail area is 7554 square feet and the net feasible of office on the second floor is 6430 square feet. There is about 6300 square feet of storage space in the basement. They have selected an architectural style and pallet of meterials which they feel is compatible, yet more upscale than some of the things that have already been constructed in Avon. They are borrowing from some of the blue metal roofs around, the integration of multiple colors of stucco, etc. The most important feature about the proposal is that they have the first level retail very divisible and very flexible from front to rear. They are anticipating a lot of smaller tenants in a location like this. In the center of the building there is an PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 20 Lot 1. Block 1. Lodge at Avon Subdivision_ Retail/Office Building. Conceptual Design Review, (cont) enclosed breezeway walkthru. This is so the pedestrians can experience the shops with out being left out on the city sidewalks. The balance of the development of this site has been worked on also. What they have done is intentionally aligned the center of their building with what will be approximately the center of the future development on Lot 2, creating some pedestrian lanes there. The office space on the second level will be partially leased on a long term basis and partially operated a management concept that Mr. A] Williams will operate. The retail will be condominium retail. They will be asking for a front vard setback on the north side. Donaldson stated they need to discuss now the Commission might want to apply the parking standards for storage space. The North Court project has loft stora-e space and had no parking counts assigned to it. Another project done the same is the Annex. The proposed storage is for tenants only and they are requesting the same consideration. Jack Hunn asked if the previous approvals were in effect. Pylman stated that the setback variance has lapsed and there was never design approval on the pad site. Hunn asked if this parcel does not encroach into the originally approved parking. Donaldson stated that it is very close. Mr. Williams responded, however, he was not at a microphone and his response is not clear. He was describing the phasing of this project. He stated that this site stands on its own. Donaldson stated that the only portion of the proposed development that is shared is the access itself. The entrance will be split right on the resubdivision line. Hunn asked if the other building will be architecturally redesigned and resubmitted. Donaldson stated that there is not a developer on the scene at this point. Hunn asked about snow shedding. Donaldson stated that all the walks are protected by the roofs. All the snow ultimately ends up in the landscape areas of the building. Hunn asked how deliveries and trash removal will be handled. Donaldson stated that the trash removal is on the far west end of the building at the loading dock. He stated that the idea for deliveries will be made along the front walk on the south side and enter into the center and the elevator goes to all three floors. They intentionally kept the loading to the closest end of the site entrance so the maneuvering is the best. Patti Dixon asked if there is a chance for a restaurant and Donaldson stated no. There may be a small coffee shop etc., but not a restaurant. Hunn asked if that was a clock tower element on the east end. Donaldson stated that the east end is their best opportunity to present themselves to Avon Road. They will be looking to allocate a good portion of their sign area to that tower, but they felt it would be a good way to call attention to it. Hunn stated that he would like to see a rendering of that end of the building. Hunn asked if they had given any consideration to underground parking. Donaldson stated that they had and to his surprise the real estate brokers tell them that on the entire balance of things for this project that is a bad idea. He described the reasons why it would not be a good idea as cost of maintenance, heating etc. Donaldson stated that, regarding the office suites, which would be about two thirds of the second floor, would more than likely be part-time people, salesmen on the road, etc. according to the studies they have made. Rhoda Schneiderman suggested that they not bring a generic sign program. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 21 Lot 1. Block 1. Lodge at Avon Subdivision, Retail/Office Building, Conceptual Design Review (cont) Buz Reynolds asked if the snow would be hauled off. Donaldson stated that they would. Henry Vest asked how many spaces would be on the first floor. Donaldson stated there is 7500 square feet, so maximum would be ten to twelve. Donaldson described possible spaces, but he was not at a microphone, therefore his explanations are muffled. Chairman Perkins stated that he feels like it is a very pleasant addition and would encourage the applicant to proceed. This was the general consensus of the Commission. As a conceptual review, no action was taken. Donaldson asked if the Commission was amenable to the setback variance and the matter of the parking requirements for the storage. The Commission was agreeable to the matter of the parking for the storage since they have granted similar abatements for the Annex. Lot 4. Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Triplex, Conceptual Design Review Rick Pylman stated that the applicant came in for a conceptual design review, but once he looked at the application he encouraged the applicant to try for final design review and he encourages the Commission to regard this as a final design review. He stated that it is a triplex. This is the adjacent lot next to the fiveplex the Town built, the Wildwood Townhomes. Plyman stated that there is a nice aspen forest on the lot and the applicant has done a good job of setting the three units right up against the aspen forest, yet not disturbing it. Parking is good, landscaping is good, the species are bigger than the minimum requirements, there seems to be plenty of it. It does comply with zoning in all aspects. It is a relatively flat site, 10 to 16% slope. The driveway is at a 4% grade. Lot coverage is about 20%. The driveway is paved, parking is adequate, snow storage and grading plans are good, the meters are on the building. The units are just a little over 1400 sq. ft. each, it is about 30 feet in height with a gable roof form. Asphalt shingles in the Presidential weathered wood color. the walls siding is a 1 x 8 channel rustic cedar, double fascia 1 x 4 and a l x 6, 1 x 4 soffits, and aluminum windows with trim. Jerry Merimonti, representing Skip Organ of Organ Builders, stated that the basic premise was to come up with a scheme that met the low cost, affordable housing market. They are basically 3 bedroom units. The stepped the units back to protect the aspen forest and also to provide privacy and views to each unit. Their goal is to replant as many of the aspen trees as possible that they might disturb on the back side of the three units. He then provided sample: of the colors to be used. Chairman Perkins asked if there would be an irrigation system for the new landscaping. The applicant stated that they would have a drip system for the trees and the ground covers, sod will be sprinklered. Trash will be handled by the individual owners. The gas meter is located in the shrubbery at the entry way. The electric meter is also located in the inside comer of the entry way of the home. W PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 22 Lot 4. Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision Triplex, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) Perkins asked about exterior lighting. The applicant stated the only lighting would be the lighting for the decks and the balconies above and would be on the building itself. Skip Organ stated that each Mob unit will have fixed lights on it. They will come on at dusk and be on all night. Discussion followed on the protection for the landscaping between the garage doors. There will be gas fireplaces with a side venting onto the decks. Jack Hunn stated that the landscape plan looks a little sparse. He suggested that at the entrance some additional shrubbery be added for some detail below the sign. Buz Reynolds moved to grant final design approval for Lot 4, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, The Aspens, as submitted. Henry Vest seconded. Buz Reynolds stated lie wanted to make sure that the roofing material would be at least 300 lbs. The motion carried unanimously. Amendment to Planning and Zoning Commission Design Procedures. Rules and Regulations Chairman Perkins stated that this amendment would add the following to the design rules and regulations: Section 6.24 E. Utility Meters and Above Ground Facilities 1. Utility meters and/or remote readouts shall be installed on the primary structure in an accessible location that is screened from public view. 2. Above ground incidental utility facilities such as transformers, pedestals, etc. shall be incorporated into landscape plan to minimize visual impacts. Jack Hunn moved to recommend to the Town Council the adoption of the amendment to Section 6.24 of the Planning and Zoning Commission Design Procedures, Rules and Regulations, regarding Utility Meters and Above Ground Facilities. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. PA 00N� .� PLANNING AND ZONING CONMSSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 23 Other Business Norm Wood stated that they have received a revised !andscape plan for Lot 5, Eaglebend Subdivision, Filing Number 2. There is a meter stack there that has a panel that has four meters on it. The meters are all facing the road. A revised landscape plan, showing how the applicant will address this situation has been submitted. Jeff Spanel stated that they have two locations where this has been installed and they have agreed that they will not do any more this way. The rest will be installed on the houses. At this point they have T.C.O.'s and people living in the houses that this is effected by and what they would like to do is mitigate the first ones with some landscape screening and that is what they are here to ask for. Rhoda Schneiderman asked about the second one. Spanel stated that the second one they will split in half. Two of the houses have already been T.C.O.'d, the other two have not had meters set in them yet. They will do something similar at the other location to screen it, but the two houses that haven't been metered yet they will put the meters on the sides of the houses. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that from what she sees they are not proposing anything to the rear of the meters. Spanel stated that he has met with the buyer and they have had a lot of discussions about this. He stated that would probably propose to put five more shrubs back here (he pointed out on the plan) and probably substitute another spruce tree here instead of the shrub (again on the plan). Schneiderman stated that if you put anything tall in front of these the utility companies will not have easy access to them. Chairman Perkins asked what was involved in relocating them. Spanel stated that the electrician stated that the problem is that the power is brought across the street with one cable and comes up into the box and splits. In order to relocate he would have to put the houses out of power for at least two days, because he has to dig them all out and he can't ` at the first one back on till they are all hooked up. It would be a big inconvenience to the homeowners and also a big expense. His problem is that his builder did what he should do as that �s what has been going on across the street. Considerable discussion followed on all aspects of this problem. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she did not see how they could effectively screen the panel and have access for the companies and provide any kind of visual relief without doing something elaborate and building a structure around these meters that will be architecturally complimentary to the buildings as well as putting landscaping around it. Spanel stated that he did not think that was allowed. Pat Gjertson, owner of Lot 5, stated that the matter that it is difficult and expensive to correct, but it doesn't necessarily make it right. She stated that she did not want this huge box in her front yard. Discussion followed on the types of meters installed. w s • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 6,1993 Page 24 Other Business - Eaglebend Meters. (cont) at Another owner, whose was not nemed, also complained about the panels. She asked why should they be penalized with the panels when the rest of the others will get to have the meters on the house.. She stated that they had not been consulted on where the meters would be. Considerable discussion followed on the legal locations for meters. Buz Reynolds stater that either way is legal. He stated that he could see both sides and Jeff is caught in between because he has already done this and been inspected and approved. John Perkins stated that he feels the developer took a short cut and sold it to the buyers in faith, they are unhappy and he believes the right thing to do is to come in and make it right to the buyers. Spanel stated that in his opinion he is making it right by providing additional landscaping. Perkins stated that he doesn't think that satisfies what they thought they are buying. Considerable discussion followed between the Commission, Jeff Spanel sed the homeowners, however an amenable solution was not reached at this time. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table this for two weeks to allow Mr. Spanel to come back with a professionally designed plan to minimize these meters and make them disappear. Patti Dixon seconded. The motion failed with a three to three vote and one abstention. Perkins stated that this was a motion that is clearly unacceptable to the homeowners and the only reason we are discussing this is that the homeowners are unhappy with the situation. Buz Reynolds moved to table this to the next meeting to give Mr. Spanel time to get with the homeowners and see what he can come up with. Jack Hunn seconded. The motion carried with a six to one vote. Jack Hunn moved to approve the minutes of the July 6, 1993 meeting. Buz Reynolds seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Rick Pyhnan stated that in the back of the packets there is an agenda for some land use planning workshops. One of them will be in Frisco on Friday July 30th. The morning session would be beneficial to you all. It costs $15.00 and the Town would be happy to pay. The meeting was adjourned at 12.30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pas�cuzzr Recording Secretary