Loading...
PZC Minutes 090793[• [w RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7, 1993 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on September 7, 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, Jack Hunn, Patti Dixon„ Henry Vest Rhoda Schneiderman Staff Present: Steve Amsbaugh, Director of Community Development Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary All members were present except Patti Dixon and Sue Railton. Ms. Dixon arrived at 7:35 PM. Lot 8. Block 4. Wildridge Su' ' m Simon Residence, Final Design Review Steve Amsbaugh stated that the Commission reviewed this at the August 3, 1993 meeting at the conceptual level. At that conceptual design meeting the Commission made several suggestions, which were: 1. The driveway grade needs to be reviewed, with attention to the grade as it meets the street. 2. The siding and stucco differentiation between those materials needs to be clearly indicated. 3. The street front elevation needs to be colored and submitted at final. 4. All of the retaining wall finishes need to be detailed and delineated clearly, what are the wall materials and how does the wall relate to the building. 5. Provide color and material samples at final. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 2 Lot 8, Block 4, wldridge Subdivision, Simon Residence, Final Design Review, (cont) 6. Provide more detail on the elevations and floor plans. Amsbaugh stated that the applicant has addressed these suggestions, and is now requesting final design approval. He stated that the property is a 1.39 acre site and slopes uphill from the street with an average grade of 33%. The property fronts on Wildridge Road and is generally covered with sage brush and native grasses. Lot coverage is proposed at 12.2% and adequate driveway and parking spaces have been provided and are proposed to be paved in asphalt. Snow storage areas have been shown at the end of the driveway to the west. Amsbaugh pointed out on the site plan where the driveway will access the property. The driveway is a 4% grade 20 feet from the paved surface of the street. The driveway grade is about 91/6 up to the parking pads and the garage entrances. Generally the site disturbance is confined to the front portion of the lot. There is a retaining wall along the front edge of the street side of the driveway. It starts at grade near the entrance of the driveway and gains elevation until is is about 10 to I I feet in height at the northwest corner of the driveway. This retaining wall and the retaining wall on the east side of the house are proposed to be poured concrete with a stone aggregate finish. A portion of the retaining wall on the northwest encroaches into the 7.5 foot easement set aside for utilities and drainage. the retaining walls at the rear of the house and adjacent to the garage are proposed to be poured concrete with a layer of I x 8 lap and gap rough sawn cedar finish applied to the concrete wall. The landscape plan shows a reasonable variety and adequate size of trees and shrubs. The disturbed areas are proposed to be reseeded in native grass and flower mix. Drip irrigation is proposed for the trees and plant beds. The building is approximately 3200 sq. ft. of living space. The maximum height is approximately 34 feet which meets the height code. The building utilizes a hip roof form with a 6/12 pitch. Roof material is proposed to be a 230# asphaltic dimensional in gray. The exterior of the building will be 1 x 8 lap and gap cedar rough sawn siding in brown, the exact color would be a Woodsman, Celery Seed, for the ground floor surfaces and a stucco finish in Navajo White on the second floor wall surfaces. Fascias will be 1 x 12 spruce in a Woodsman Rustic Brown and the soffits will be plywood in Rustic Brown. Window trim, door trim and deck rails will be Rustic Brown in color. Exterior deck posts will be wrapped in 1 x 8 cedar and stained to match siding. Amsbaugh stated that Staff would recommend approval of this final design review with the following conditions: 1. That the northwest retaining wall not extend into the 7.5 foot utility easement. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 3 Lot 8. Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision, Simon Residence, Final Design Review, (cont) 2. Any structural retaining wall must be engineered by applicant and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Final site drainage, driveway design and culverts must be approved by Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Steven Cole, representing Mr. Simon, provided a color board, showing the colors to be used. Buz Reynolds asked if the applicant would have a problem raising the asphalt roofing material to a 300# product that has some relief in it. The applicant stated there would be no problem. Patti Dixon asked about the height of the back retaining wall. The applicant responded it would be approximately 9 feet, continuous in a "U" shaped fashion. Cole stated that that was subject to further consideration in terms of design. They would like to, in the interest of performance, aesthetics and cost, they may come up with an ultimate solution that might break that height into two equal sections and perhaps do a little bit of a terrace in there. Dixon stated she thinks terracing would be more attractive. She asked about the material on that wall. The applicant stated that they would pour a concrete wall that would be reinforced and would have 1 x 4 sleepers in it and they would use those to attach siding. Dixon stated that she did not like those walls. Chairman Perkins stated that he is concerned that this is the first exposed concrete retaining wall on the front streetscape of any street in Wildridge. Steve Cole stated that they will try to get as natural a look as they can get to the retaining wall. Chairman Perkins stated that a I-1/2 to 2 inch caliper minimum is required for aspens, therefore the six foot aspens shown do not meet this criteria. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if they had thought about using a split face for the retaining wall in front, something that might give a little bit more texture, etc. Cole stated that, ultimately, that may be what they do. Schneiderman stated that she feels the wall is too formal for that area as presented. Perkins asked if the bay on the left was an open bay. Mr. Simon stated it is open and he plans to park his van there and possibly store his snowmobiles there at the back. Jack Hunn stated that the most predominant impression of the home will be the lowest retaining wall, particularly the southwest comer, as you drive up the road, that is nine or ten feet tall. The landscape solution stops at the corner and doesn't turn the comer, so that the end wall condition is very prominent. He felt that that retaining wall, where it gets above five or six feet, should be stepped and terraced. A system that might be considered is keystone, amastone, it is a unit block. There are a r, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 4 Lot 8, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision, Simon Residence, Final Design Review. (cont) number of products that might be less expensive than cast in place concrete. They would lend themselves to an undulating shape, rather than a very straight line shape. if you could launch a lower terrace that would have a little curvature to it, then from that finish the planting. That would help the corner immensely. Hunn asked what material would be used on the retaining wall that retains the guest parking area. The applicant stated that it will probably be the same thing that they put out at the street. Hunn suggested that systems could be switched on the retaining walls that are extensions of the home. Considerable discussion followed on the matter of the retaining walls. The applicant stated that there are many factors that they have not yet finalized. Hunn stated that he is comfortable with the architecture of the home, but he is uncomfortable sending it into construction without some of the retaining wall issues being resolved, and you have indicated that you are not sure how you are going to resolve them. Buz Reynolds also suggested stepping the retaining walls. Henry Vest asked about the entrance to the handicapped bedroom. The applicant pointed out where the ramp would be. It will probably be asphalt and there will be a rail on the downside. They are not sure what it will be yet as they have not designed the walkway yet. This will go in at a later date. Chairman Perkins stated that the applicant should bring this back to the board when they get ready to do this. Jack Hunn moved to grant final design approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That the northwest retaining wall not extend into the 7.5 foot utility easement. 2. Any structural retaining wall must be engineered by applicant and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Final site drainage, driveway design and culverts must be approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The asphalt roofing material be a minimum of 300#. 5. The final design and material selection of the retaining walls be brought back to the Commission for approval. 6. The meters be located on the house and screened from view. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. After further discussion Hunn amended his motion to add the following conditions: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 5 Lot 8. Block 4. Wildridee Subdivision, Simon Residence Final Design Review, cont 7. The location of the addn;ss be indicated when they bring back the retaining walls for approval. 8. The schedule of the landscape materials be revised as discussed. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded the amendment, and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 60, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision, Hale Duplex Final Design Review Steve Amsbaugh stated that the applicants are requesting final design approval for a duplex residential structure. Basically the site is approximately one acre in size and slopes uphill from the street at an average grade of approximately 20%. The property fronts on Longsun Lane and is generally covered with sage brush and native plant materials. The driveway and parking lots will be paved with asphalt and off-street parking is adequate on the site, and snow storage areas have been designated on the west and northwest of the driveway. A retaining wall is also proposed at the rear of the structure and will be constructed of native rock and will be approximately six feet in height. The landscape program shows a reasonable variety of adequately sized trees and shrubs. trees have been grouped for maximum effect. A lawn area is shown at both ends of the duplex, which will be sod. The landscape treatment below the decks will be paved concrete patios with crushed gravel under the drip line. All disturbed areas, other than the lawn and retaining walls will be reseeded with a native grass and flower mix. Drip irrigation is proposed for tree and plant beds and lawn areas will be irrigated. Each of the proposed duplex units will be approximately 2900 sq. $. in size and neither unit exceeds the maximum height of 35 feet. The roof material will be a Heritage II Fiberglass/Asphalt Shingle in Rustic Slate. The exterior of the building will consist of 8 x 12 Lodgepole Pine Logs finished in a natural spruce stain. A native river rock veneer is proposed for the lower level. Fascias will be a 1 x 8 cedar in a natural spruce stain and soffits will be 2 x 6 T&G white pine, also in a natural spruce stain. Chimneys will be surfaced in native river rock. The applicant, in order to avoid a mirror image effect, has attempted to step the northwest unit back from the southeast unit by two or three feet and has also elevated the same unit by two feet in order to reduce this mirror image possibility. If final design approval is granted, Staff recon,....nds the following conditions: M] PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 6 Lot 60 Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision Hale Duplex Final Design Review, (cont) 1. Any structural retaining wall must be engineered by applicant and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Final drainage, driveway design and culverts must be approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit 3. Meter locations should be on the house and screened from view. Brian Hale stated that these are full cut logs, that are Scandinavian Scribe in design. This is not a thinker type house. The logs are laid upon one another and hand scribed. They have tried to use materials that fit the area, and vegetation that will grow well in Wildridge. They have offset the units and used slightly different landscaping for each urft to deal with the mirror image situation. They have maintained colors that blend well with the area. Lot disturbance is very minimal. The maximum height on the retaining wall is approximately six feet at the center area between the duplexes and diminishes to each side to about 2-1/2 foot height. Discussion followed on the roofing material. Alsc discussed was the matter of the offsetting of the roof lines. Discussion followed on the location of the meters on the house. The applicant provided a sample of the roofing material and also a sample of the rock. Discussion followed on the locations of the front entries. Discussion followed on how the roof lines would meet and also on how many feet actually are a direct connection to each unit. The applicant stated that there is approximately a ten foot connection. Henry Vest suggested terracing ehe retaining wall. Patti Dixon had a problem with the mirror image. She does not think that just offsetting it and changing landscaping is sufficient to do away with the mirror image. She thinks the terracing of the retaining wall would work better. The applicant stated that the. changing of window treatments would be a very viable option that might help with the mirror image. Jack Hunn stated that the first question he has to ,.onsider is: is this a detached duplex oris it a duplex that meets our definition. He stated that idthough there is a very weak attachment by some storage elements, and a roof mass that almost touches and a lower roof mass that will touch for a small portion, but there is an intent to separate these and make them as close to a single family house as can be accomplished. Mr. Hale stated that there is another project that is currently being constructed in Wildridge of which the two urrits touch for approximately 12 inches. He did not know the exact street or lot number. The Commission seemed to think that it might be the Scharph duplex he is talking about. Hunn asked about the definition of a duplex subdivision. Steve Amsbaugh read the definition as follows: "A duplex subdivision means a proposed subdivision of a two unit building built upon one lot zoned as a duplex lot, creating two lots. " It does not define the amount of common PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 7 Lot 60, block 4. Wildridpe Subdivision, Hale Duplex final Design Review. (cont) wall necessary to qualify as a duplex. Hunn stated that definition would apply to splitting the land in half. Hunn stated that he would ask the other Commission members to think about whether this meets their personal definition of a duplex. Hurn stated that this is a mirror image and shifting it horizontally, vertically, and changing windows, doesn't change the fact that the mass of the two units will be perceived from any distance as a repeat. He feels it really comes down to the massing and not really the details that differentiate a mirror image from a non -mirror image type of design. Hunn also suggested that the routing of the utilities be changed. He suggested ganging them together up to a point and then split them, rather than two separate cuts. He also thought that the entries, being on the ends, would be hard for guests to find. Discussion followed on this matter. Mrs. Hale asked if there was a code that stated that mirror images are not allowed. Chairman Perkins stated that he believes the word used is "discouraged". Mr. Hale stated that he knows of countless mirror images in Wildridge. He stated that when building with logs you do not have the ability to change things easily as you do with a standard stick frame. With logs, walls have to be an even number of walls, etc. He stated that this is a nice view lot and they want the living areas facing out on to the view, which almost facilitates having this type of effect across the front of the property to maintain that view. Buz Reynolds asked about the construction of the home. Discussion followed on how the logs were put together. Reynolds stated that he likes the look of the log home, especially with the river rock. He stated that he does have to agree that this building looks mirror image. He stated that he thinks Jack Hunn's idea of working with the garage detail is a great idea. Further discussion followed on this matter. Mrs. Hale still challenged the board about the matter of a mirror image being forbidden or just discouraged. Chairman Perkins stated that he agreed with Jack Hunn's comments that the massings are mirror image and the Town's Guidelines discourage mirror images and each one of the Commissioners makes their comments on what is presented. There is a conceptual phase that people are encouraged to come to before going for final approval. He stated that he hears a consensus that the mirror image is not acceptable. Chairman Perkins asked the Recording Secretary if the Commission has to take a vote as a final approval or can it be treated as a conceptual design review and let them go away with the Commission's comments. The Recording Secretary stated that the Commission either had to vote either yes or no, or table it. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 8 Lot 60, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Hale Duplex. Final Design Review. (cont) Mr. Hale stated that he is willing to work with the Commission on the mirror image, however, he would like for the board to consider that he is trying to get at least half of this project in the ground this year. If he does not get final approval on at least half of the project, he will not be able to build it this year. Chairman Perkins stated that they do not approve projects in halves. The applicant will have to come back in two weeks and address the comments that the Board has made. Mr. Hale asked if there were any other issues that need to be addressed. Chairman Perkins stated that the primary focus needs to be on redesigning one of those units in such a way that it is not the exact plan. Mr. Hale asked how it is that one project will be approved as an exact mirror image and another project will not be approved. He does not see a fairness from the Board related to this. Henry Vest stated that he knows that he has seen the Scharph project and he sees that they have built half of his duplex. Vest stated that he kind of tiptoed through that little loophole. That was something that happened not to the knowledge of this Board. they were under the impression that he was going to build both units. He did get both sides approved at the same time. Also, about Klein's duplex, when he came in at conceptual review it was a total mirror image. The Commission requested that the applicant change the mirror image, which he did. Once again, Mr. Hale stated that there is not anything written that states mirror images will not be allowed, and basically the Board is telling him that mirror images are not allowed. He stated that he came in with what he thought was a very nicely planned project. Much nicer that a lot of the things that are in Wildridge. Jack Hunn stated that in life in general we try to learn from our mistakes, and they do the same thing as a Commission. Klein's duplex got changed from the street side, but they did not look at the back and the back is a mirror image. The Board screwed up, but that doesn't mean that they will screw up again. the Board tries to learn from their mistakes and go forward and make the process better. The Guidelines reads "discouraged" and the Commission is charged with enforcing those rules. It is that simple. Mrs. Hale asked if the Commission could not accept their project if the only provision of the rules is that it be discouraged. Jack Hunn stated that each of the Commissioners has to vote their individual conscience and, yes, he thinks that they can, and if the applicant disagrees with that outcome, the applicant can appeal it to the Town Council. Buz Reynolds made several suggestions that they might try to break up the mirror image. He stated that this Board has been together for a long time now and they have really tried hard to work at doing everything by the rules, otherwise it gets way out of hand. They are not trying to discourage your project, just the mirror image. Rhoda Schneider man moved to table this final design review. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. r °�! PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 9 Lot 33, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision_ Klein/Shearwood Landscape Plan Final Design Review Steve Amsbaugh stated that the applicant has submitted a landscape plan that conforms to the Commission's request. He stated that he and the Town Engineer have worked with the applicant to achieve a better road grade. He now has about a 4% grade in the first 20 feet. Discussion followed on the lack of sufficient vegetation and the retaining walls. The applicant was not present. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table Lot 33, Block 1, Wildridge, with the recommendation that it come back for further review with additional plant materials to be added on the overall site and the retaining wall be shown in detail in both materials and elevation drawings, and revegetation and restoration of the adjacent lot be included. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried with Henry Vest voting nay. Lot 45, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivisiom Anointed Christian Fellowship Church Final Design Approval for Colors. Chairman Perkins stepped down as a voting member due to a conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Jack Hunn presided. Steve Amsbaugh stated that the hard samples of the proposed colors have been provided. The stucco surface is proposed to be a Thorowal 5-322, which is a cream color, the cedar siding would be a Devoe Candy Sweet, and the trim would be a Devoe SC -14, which is a light navy blue. Erwin Bachrach stated these colors are presented in response to the Commission's request. Discussion followed on the soffits being wafer board Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the colors for Lot 45, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision as submitted. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Perkins returned as a voting member of the Commission. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 10 Lot 21, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Slifer Designs_ Fence and Storage Shed Design Review Steve Amsbaugh stated that the Commission reviewed a new sign application for Slifer Designs on July 20th and approved the sign with the condition that the applicant return with a request for approval of the storage shed located at their storage loading dock area. The applicant is requesting approval of a "Tuff Shed" in that location to store materials which were previously stored along side of the building. In addition, they are asking for a screening fence to surround two sides of the loading storage area to help deter potential vandalism problems and deter people from cutting through that loading area. Amsbaugh stated that an overall site plan for the entire site for this building. This is so the Commission could look at an issue that has come up. There is a history of a variance request for parking, the number of parking spaces on the overall site. When that variance was approved it was for 45 spac ;s, but four of those spaces were in the rear loading area. This "Tuff Shed" is proposed to sit on top of two of those spaces. After going through this with the applicant, they determined that because of some improvements that the Town has made along that right-of-way to their north, that they now have adequate paved surface to accommodate 45 spaces and locate the shed where it is. therefore, they will not be in violation of their variance. Amsbaugh stated that the second site plan provided shows the detail of the loading area. It shows the two parking spaces that remain, the 9 x 10 foot shed and the existing trash enclosure. The fence application encloses that paved surface. It is approximately 50 feet along the Wal-Mart side and 59 or so feet along the railroad track side. That would be a solid wood fence which conforms to the design guidelines. Staff would recommend approval of the storage shed in this location and the six foot fence on the east and south property lines with the following conditions: The shed be painted/stained a color compatible with the building and the dumpster enclosure. 2. All on-site parking areas be re -striped to show the parking plan submitted (45 spaces). 3. that the fence be constructed consistent with the Design Guidelines and other Town Codes. Fence should be cedar or redwood with stain compatible with the building and dumpster enclosure. Dimensions should be submitted to staff for approval. Mimi Timbrook of Slifer Designs stated that the color of the shed and fence will be compatible with the building. 1• t� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 11 i Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Slifer Designs, Fence and Storage Shed Design Review cont The Chairman stated that he felt that Steve Amsbaugh had done a good job researching this and they feel that the fence will be a major improvement there. Patti Dixon stated that the exposed metal vent on the one side needs to be painted to match the building. Jack Hunn moved to grant final design approval to Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Slifer Designs, Fence and Storage Shed, with the condition that the color of the fence closely match the building, and that the exposed sheetmetal on the side of the building be painted to match the building, and also that the Staff recommendations 1, 2, and 3, be included. Patti Dixon seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Reading and Approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 17, 1993 Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the minutes of the August 17, 1993, Planning and Zoning Conanission meeting. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Considerable discussion followed on the matter of mirror images and amount of connection and what the Commission has done in the past on other projects, and what should be done to rectify this problem. Jack Hunn stated that probably what is needed is a hard and fast definition. Rhoda Schneiderman felt that the Commission should be flexible also. Steve Amsbaugh asked the Commission if they want him to encourage all applicants to go through conceptual. The Commission stated that they felt it was necessary. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 93-7. Approving, a Variance From the Setback Requirements for Lot 46. Block 1. Wildridge Jack Hunn moved to approve Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 93-7, Approving a Variance From the Setback Requirements for Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge. This project was actually approved at the August 17, 1993 meeting. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried with Buz Reynolds abstaining from voting, since he had declared a conflict of interest. l� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 7,1993 Page 12 r Other Business (cont) Jack Hunn mentioned that there is a duplex being built on Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge that has a black asphalt roofing material on it and he does not remember approving a black roof. He asked Staff to check out what was actually approved. Buz Reynolds moved to adjourn, Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary z- .