Loading...
PZC Minutes 050493RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 4, 1993 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on May 4, 1993, at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins. Members Present: John Perkins, Henry Vest, Sue Railton Jack Hunn, Rhoda Schneiderman, Buz Reynolds, Patti Dixon Staff Present: Rick Pylman, Director of Community Development, Tom Allender, Town Planner Chairman Perkins stated all members were present. Lot 45. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Falcon Point, Color Change Request Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that Steve Lyden, manager of Falcon Point Condominiums, is requesting final design review for a color change. The specific request is to repaint the green trim to Blue Spruce, the stucco is to be painted Navaho white, and the siding will be a natural wood color. Allender stated that as this was a color change request the staff had no official comments. Rhoda Schneiderman voiced concern that there was too much trim color and that it was like doing the whole building in the Blue Spruce. Mr. Lyden said that not quite half the building would be painted in the trim color and the front of the building has more stucco than wood. Patti Dixon commented that the concept of the colors was good but because of the brightness, it may need to be thinned out a little so it is not so strong. Chairman Perkins asked if the Board agreed with that comment. Jack Hunn asked Mr. Lyden if the proposed stucco color was very similar to the current stucco color. Mr. Lyden stated that is was much lighter. Jack Hunn then asked Mr. Lyden what he considered was trim which would be painted Blue Spruce. Mr. Lyden replied just the fascia and around the trim on each balcony (the trim board on the top of each balcony). Rhoda Schneiderman asked that with the stucco being brighter and if the wood was left the same color but maybe a little more intense, there would be much more contrast because of the white is much whiter than the current white, wouldn't that be quite a big visual variety? She said with there being so much wood, it wood be too bright. Patti Dixon stated that she thought they were trying to get the wood back to a natural wood color. Rhoda said then why not do a honey pine color, a color that is not such a color as a wood color. Patti said real cedar is the color they are requesting. Mr. Lyden said the natural color they are taking this color from is the closest color they could come to match in a reams wood color. Henry Vest said the one problem was the color samples were too small. Buz Reynolds stated that he had no problem with the two colors but since the painter is still trying to find a wood color, he requested that when he find the color he paint part of the building so the board can see it and then Mr. Lyden could come back to the next meeting in two weeks to approve the wood color because the building couldn't be completed in two weeks. Mr. Lyden said the painter would be using a lift for painting so it would not be possible to paint just the two colors and then go back and paint the wood color. Jack Hunn asked what the schedule was to start painting. Mr. Lyden said he was scheduled to start spraying tomorrow. Chairman Perkins asked if it would be unacceptable to leave the wood color the same color that it is currently and just re -stain that and go ahead and approve the change of the green and the stucco. Mr. Lyden said that would be fine. Sue Railton said that she didn't see why they should deny people the right to paint a building some sort of color scheme that they want and doesn't see anything wrong with it. Chairman Perkins then suggested that Railton make a motion. Sue Railton motioned to approve the color change for Lot 45, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with the condition that the siding color be as near to the natural new siding as one can get. Patti Dixon seconded the motion. Allender asked Chairman Perkins to specify where exactly the colors would be going because the application was different that the request. Chairman Perkins stated that the greP:i color would be on all the current green trim. Then Sue Railtin said Blue Spruce would be on the trim and Navajo White on the stucco and the natural siding color would be painted on the Piding. Chairman Perkins then asked if there was anymore discussion to the motion. The motion was carried with Rhoda Schneiderman and Jack Hunn voting nay. Lot 71, Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Variance From Front Yard Setback, Public Hearing Tom Allender stated that Sam Sterling of Sterling Homes, Inc. representing Steve and Lori Thompson is requesting a variance from their front yard setback of Lot 71, Block 1, Wildridge. A specific request is for 10 feet of relief from the required ten 25 foot front setback. The applicant believes that a variance will allow them to construct a driveway with a reasonable grade, avoids a bridge type drive and substantially reduces required site grade. Lot 71, Block 1, slopes down steeply to the south of Saddleridge Loop. In the areas of the required 25 foot setback the slope is in excess of 45%. Staff Comments are: p„ d r..:..., APPROVAL CRITERIA: Before acting on a variance request, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors. a. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. COMMENTS: The applicant is proposing a single-family structure for this residential lot, which is zoned PUD with a duplex designation. The structure on the adjacent lot received a variance from the required front setrack, and is within 15 feet of the road. b. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compati.bility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the -vicinity. COMMENTS: The structure on Lot 70, Block 1, Wildridge, immediately to the east of Lot 71, was granted a variance by this Commission in February of 1990 because of the site terrain. Staff feels that approving the variance before us would not constitute a granting of special privilege, and that the steep topography is a real and legitimate physical hardship. A variance for Lot 71 is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. COMMENTS: The requested variance would have little effect on the above conditions or facilities. FINDINGS REQUIRED: the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the fcllowing findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the 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 one or more of 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; ii. There are exceptional or e::traordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the •vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. Allender stated that the Staff recommendation is for approval based on the steepness of the lot. Staff feels all the above required findings can be made concerning this variance request. Chairman Perkins asked if the applicant asked to add anything to Allender's statements. The applicant replied he did not. Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing to the audience. There were not comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Perkins stated that the variance made a lot of sense and was s.i.ailar to one granted before and asked for board comments. Jack Hunn motioned to grant the Front Setback Variance for Lot 71, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision siting the findings of A, B, and C, 1, 2, and 3. The motion was seconded by Henry Vest. All the board was in favor. Sam Sterling, architect, is representing the Thompson's who are requesting a Conceptual Design Review for a proposed single-family residence on Lot 71, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. This project is concurrently requesting a variance from the required front yard setback. This lot is located on the south side of Saddleridge Loop and is approximatel, 1.01 acres in size. The lot slopes down to the south in some areas in excess of 0 percent. The zoning is PUD with a duplex designation. The structure is two stories high with approximately 2000 square feet of habitable space, not including the attached garage. The structure, as proposed, is within all Town height, lot coverage and setback restrictions. The exterior of the lower level is finished in stucco, the color is "French Vanilla", at the upper level is 1X8 channel rustic in a cedar town finish. Windows will be wood clad with a bronze finish, no trim will he used. Fascia will be 2x10 rough sawn cedar with a Cedar Town stain; soffits will be 3/8 fir plywood. The roof form is an offset gable, it will be finished with Heritage II Asphalt Composition shingle in a Shadow Gray, which is one of the real high definition shingled products. The landscape plan leaves the majority of the lot natural, what is planted appears adequate. Allender stated that he had some concerns about the grading plan which he expressed to Sam who said he could work on those. By shifting the house a little bit down the street it will alleviate a lot of the problems or put a retaining wall all along the downhill side of the road. Irrigation and exterior lighting have not been discussed. Since this is a Conceptual Design Review, no formal staff recommendation will be provided. Chairman Perkins asked if the applicant had anymore to add. The applicant said no. Buz Reynolds asked which way they wanted to shift the building. Allender said the problem is that they can't get the grading required for the driveway without encroaching on the neighbors. If the house is put more toward the center of the lot it will alleviate alot of the grading problems. Buz then asked if one side still will be close to the road. The applicant stated yes it would. Buz then asked if there was a way to put some treatment or windows in that area. Jack Hunn stated that the driveway looked like there would be no way of maneuvering a car on the property without backing into the street and that may be a safety concern because of the curve and hill in the street which could be a dangerous condition. There should be some provision for turning around on the property. The applicant said he has discussed that with his design subcontractor and a revised site plan is going to reflect a pull out in front of the garage on the street side. This will also allow an additional parking space besides the garage. Jack also said to consider the distance the snow is going to be pushed from the road. The applicant said they were looking into a retaining wall or flattening out the grade so it creates a step so the snow plow will set the snow onto that instead of spilling into the parking spot. Allender then stated that if they are going to put a parking lot that close to the road they will need a variance because it would be within 10 feet of the street of the right a way. This could reasonably be included in the variance. Jack Hunn stated that the applicants description would not provide the turn around opportunity that exists there and would Oequire additional retainage on the downhill side in order to swing a car around to get in and out of the driveway. The applicant stated that would require a very tall retaining wall. The wall they have now most of the length of the driveway is only 4 feet tall. if it is pushed out any further it will require different material such as boulders. Jack Hunn then asked about the architecture of the home. He confirmed that the base is stucco and the upper is wood. The applicant said that the corners were stucco treatment all the way to the soffit. Jack said that was an unusual treatment and was not in favor of it. He said traditionally what is done is stucco base and wood upper, but to drive the stucco up the corners creates some challenges where the wood is changed to stucco. The window groupings are all separated and particularly on the south elevation if the windows could be pulled together to get one concentrated view that would be more attractive. The applicant said the fireplace has been moved and closed the gaps in the window groupings on the south elevation by making them larger. They are drawn in the plans as 3 feet wide and they have been changed to 4 feet wide which narrows the gap. Jack Hunn said the north elevation appears to have a shed roof that does not have a gable return and looks like it will resolve itself as a shed next to the garage door. The applicant said that ridge actually occurs one foot to the left of the wall. It is an upslope overhang. The ridge actually occurs one foot to the left of the wall in the final drawings. Jack Hunn asked how long the wall is. The applicant said it is about 8 to 10 feet. Jack said it would be much more attractive if the ridge could be shifted so there would be a little more roof mass returning rather than being a shed roof. The applicant said it is not really a shed roof. G .a Jack suggested the ridge be shifted 4 feet to the right looking at the north elevation so that the roof can return down so there would be some roof mass shown so that it would have a gable form. The applicant said that could not happen without lowering the post. Jack asked how broad the overhangs were. The applicant said they were one foot. Sue Railton asked what kind of trim would be around the windows on the south elevation. The applicant said the siding would be cut to fit the windows, there would be no sills. The top windows on the side would be cut to fit also. Sue said they need some better elevations on some of the returns. Chairman Perkins said his comments were generally the same. He said it was important to solve the driveway problems and the site grading problems. Perkins agreed with Jack Hunn that he did not like the stucco running all the way up the corners and said that would not be an effective detail. With respect to the roof mass, it would be improved if it was brought back down. Chairman Perkins also encouraged the applicant to use trim on the windows. Henry Vest said he had the same comments but the parking lot turn around he felt was very important. He thought the idea of clustering the windows and making them 4 feet was good. He liked the tight siding. Henry was ambivalent about the stucco running up the sides. Henry didn't think it made a difference on the north elevation where the garage is. He also agreed with the retaining wall because there was such a steep slope. Rhoda Schneiderman agreed with the comments made regarding the windows. She also added that the first and third elevations looked like something was missing. The small raised section that is taller on both sections looks awkward. She would like the roof lines to flow more and keep more in with the rest of the building especially on the second elevation where there are long lines instead of step down. Rhoda also stated she would like to see a color rendering to see how the stucco will look. Patti Dixon stated that her concerns have already been addressed. Chairman Perkins next reviewed the list of comments made by the board. They are: the grading plan needs work; irrigation systems have not been addressed; consider shifting building placement south to have more room for driveway; site maneuvering space for backing and turning; corner stucco detail not advised; window fenestration needs improvement; awkward roof over the entrance to the garage; Chairman Perkins wanted window trim but Henry Vest liked the tight side so that be removed from the concerns; roof line needs grace; and color rendering so the board can determine what the corner stucco detail would look like. Jack Hunn added that it would be nice to see a model of the house to understand how the house would sit on the site. Chairman Perkins was in agreement and that it would also help to understand the roof line. Lot 45 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Anointed Christian Fellowship Church, Final Design Review Chairman Perkins had a conflict of interest with this item and turned the chair over to Jack Hunn. Tom Allender stated that Erwin Bachrach, representing the Anointed Christian Fellowship Church is requesting final design review for a proposed church and parsonage on Lot 45, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. The lot is a cne-helf acre in size and is zoned Residential Low Density; it is local.:.? on he north side of Nottingham Road. The lot is bordered by Town of Avon owned open space tracts on the east and north sides, and by the A -Y Townhomes on the west side. In May of 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Special Review Use for a church and parsonage to be located on this lot. The conditions of approval were basically that it had to stay relatively residential; church services on Sunday and keep the activity during the rest of the week down to a minimum. At the conceptual review of this project the Commission was concerned about the color of the proposed metal roof, some members ,ere concerned with the material itself, the finish treatment of the two dormers on the parsonage was an issue, and the size of the landscaping on the west side was discussed. The applicant has responded to all these issues. The roof material is now cedar shakes. All the dormers are stucco. The stucco color will be tan. The landscape plan has been changed to have larger plant material. Buzz Reynolds asked if all the dormers were going to be stucco. The applicant said only the west ones. Allender commented on staff comment 6.13 of the May 4, 1993 staff report which is the compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties. The staff comment is: with substantial landscape buffer that is proposed, the residential feel of the design and the limitations imposed as part of the Special Review Use approval this project should have no adverse site impacts on adjacent properties. Allender added the staff is recommending approval of this item. Jack Hunn asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant, Erwin Bachrach who is representing the Anointed Christian Fellowship church, commented on the colors. Mr. Bachrach stated that one of the mayor items of controversy at the initial review was the color, particularly the roof. Therefore they have changed to cedar shakes medium in size and in natural color which caused them to change the stucco color and the siding color slightly. The trim color will remain the same. Mr. Bachrach showed the colors to the board. Next Mr. Bachrach commented on the parking. After taking a survey, they find they have an adequate number of parking spaces at 126. Patti Dixon asked Mr. Bachrach what the column material was. Mr. Bachrach said they were made of wood and they would be white. Patti said that the color should blend in more with the trim or the siding color. She then said she thought that the colors were fine. Rhoda Schneiderman commented she was sorry to see the metal roof being replaced by the cedar shakes. She thought it changed the whole complexion of the building. She agreed with Patti Dixon that the columns should probably be the same color as the darker color being used. Henry Vest commented that he liked the cedar shakes. He also though the colors need to be one of the two colors that the rest of the building was going to be painted. 11 D",-,% I- 'q 1, Sue Railton asked Mr. Bachrach what color the windows would be. Mr. Bachrach said they would be the same color as the trim. Sue said she thought the two colors chosen were not very compatible together. Buzz Reynolds said that he thought the colors were contrasting. He asked exactly what was stucco. Mr. Bachrach said the entire first level, one dormer and one pop up. Next Buzz stated that he was not proposed to cedar shakes on the roof, but with the majority of the residential units in that area that have the cedar shakes, he thought it was a good idea so that it would blend in. Buzz said he did like the white posts in the front. He said he did think there was substantial landscaping. :.rack Hunn asked what kind of material would be used for the retaining wall between the two buildings. Mr. Bachrach said they would be stucco. Jack then asked what material would be used for the retaining wall along the driveway. Mr. Bachrach said they would be made of treated timbers. Jack next commented on the parking spaces in front of the parsonage garage and asked if there would be a conflict there. Mr. Bachrach said there should be no problem. Jack Hunn then said he had some concerns about the colors. He thought the color samples would not be the same as the colors the manufacture would use. Mr. Bachrach said those colors were from the manufacture and that they would be the same as the samples. Jack thought the two colors did not provide enough contrast and encouraged Mr. Bachrach to reconsider the colors and bring back larger samples of colors. Jack said he did not have a problem with the white posts and that they might consider highlighting other elements in the entry. Jack Hunn next stated that they were ready to vote. Patti Dixon motioned to approve Lot 45, Block 1, Anointed Christian Fellowship Church with the contingency that t'ae applicant come back and resubmit color samples and that the siding on the stucco colors be in the same color family. Henry Vest seconded the motion. The motion carried with John Perkins abstaining. Lot 16 Bock 1 Eaglebend Sibdivision Construction and Design Services. Final Design Revie Tom Allender stated that I.ot 16, Filing 1, Eaglebend is a 16,000 square foot duplex lot that slopes south toward the Eagle River. Design and Construction Services is proposing 2 detached dwelling units connected by a breezeway. The structures have a total of approximately 5,860 square feet of habitable space, which does not include the attached garages. both units utilize finished walkout basements. Including the wElkouts, the buildings are three stories. The structures will be finished with vertical board and batten siding in blue grey color. Roof will be standing seam metal in a dark gray. Window and door trim will be 1x4 cedar, finished in a blue gray, the clad windows will be white. The soffit and fascia will be blue grey. The roof forms are 9/12 gables. The landscape plan appears to be adequate, and includes an automatic irrigation system. Site lighting is provided by wall lights at each side of the garage doors and at all exterior exits. T4 W -A The project, as designed, meets all setbacks, and has adequate snow storage and parking. Allender stated that as designed now the building is marginally over the height requirement but the architect said he could easily lower thc- building by the required one foot. If the building does get approved that would be a condition staff will check at building permit. He didn't think it was necessary to hold up the process just on that. Allender said staff's comments were that the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of the proposed project. He addressed item number 6.11 of the May 4, 1993, Staff Report which states: The conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable rules and regulations on the Town of Avon. Allender added staff's comment was that this proposal does not appear to be in conformance with the Zoning Code, it is very questionable if the two detached structures meet the Town's definition of a duplex. That definition includes " ..a detached building containing two dwelling units..." Staff believes this proposal does not fit the definition. The Planning Commission granted final design review approval for detached duplex structures on this lot on February 22, 1989, this approval expired in February of 1991. A building permit was applied for in June of 1991, but was never picked up. The staff report for that approval stated that the project complied with all zoning regulations, current staff believes that determination was in error. In 1989 the Avon zoning code required a 20% party wall. The previous approval was not near a 20% party wall. The applicant did send a letter to staff addressing these issues. Other than the duplex situation and the height regulation, the project is within all Town rules and regulations. Staff is taking the position that this does not meeting zoning and they are recommending denial. Allender said it is a nice design, but he does not think that it is a duplex. Chairman Perkins asked if the applicant would care to add to Allender's comments. The applicant did. Crohn Railton, the architect for the project and Dave Prater of Design and Construction Services were present on behalf of the project. Mr. Railton asked the board if they had read the letter he submitted which contained items he felt were pertinent to the design criteria of the project and also contained information on the history and precedent that can be established for this project. He said it was important to look at this project in terms of two things. One is the design and to judge it on its design merits. And, in terms of the history, note the evolution of events of the land use in the Eaglebend area. The area is unique in that sense. Mr. Railton said he designed the building not only as a resident of Avon and not in the Eaglebend but in terms of the neighborhood and what has happened in that neighborhood. Mr. Railton then showed two drawings to the board to explain his plans and discussion was held with board about the plans. (Applicant moved away from the microphone and papers were being ruffled so it was hard to hear and transcribe). Mr. Railton added they were trying to achieve the most amount of front yard and car parking space. He also said the house should be staked out on the site to make sure the views work and the adjacent houses don't have a problem. Chairman Perkins asked for comments from the board. Buzz Reynolds stated that as a builder, he likes the concept of a small connection between a duplex. Buzz said he understands that the staff has guidelines to go by. But, he felt John has brought a point to the board; that they have approved about 30% of the projects in Eaglebend having the same situation. Buzz said he could support this project. Patti Dixon stated that: she did not have a problem with the concept and that the buildings are separated. She thought it was a nice character that the buildings were connected the way that they are. She agreed the zoning should be kept duplex and approved it. She said the zoning should not be changed. Patti said she would support it. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that approving this project would not show any favoritism because it has obviously been done before. She thought the courtyard area of the plan was very attractive. Rhoda said she was in favor of the project. Henry Vest stated that all the duplexes on this street were bursting at the seams on these lots. He thought the proposed building would take up more than 50% of the lot. Henry said there was too much building for such a small lot and he could not approve this plan. Jack Hunn agreed with John Railton's approach and philosophy to this solution for the client. As a Planning and Zoning Commission member there are certain rules to uphold. The fact that there are other houses on the street that would suggest a precedent for this type of design does not have any bearing on how he feels about this project. It does not matter whether they like single family or dislike duplex, the lot is zoned duplex and this is not a duplex. He said this fact should prevent them from approving. If the rest of the board feels differently and want to approve this they must recognize they are creating a precedent for the entire town. This type of detached duplex development would be permitted in Every subdivision in town. Jack said he could not support it. Chairman Perxins concurred with Jack Hunn's decision. Chairman Perkins asked if anyone would like to make a motion. John Railton then stated that he had a problem with Jack Hunn's decision. He said there was a requirement of the town that duplexes could be built and had to have a certain amount of party wall. Under this requirement, the P and Z and planning staff has supported and approved various projects he has previously built. What really has happened is that this has established a certain precedent and a person has bought a piece of land knowing this was approved previously and has hired him to design this type of project. He said he has difficulty seeing that this is reasonable when he goes before the Commission and they deny this. He has further difficulty when he has seen change in the direction and a change in the wording of how that is to be regarded. Mr. Railton then asked why the board was approving buildings and doing so a number of times when there is a requirement of a 20% party wall then why remove that requirement if it doesn't provide architects with that opportunity to do something that does not have that party wall. Why are they now, having removed that requirement, saying no to those same architects and clients. He felt that was a very difficult position for the staff. He said the bottom line was if they did not want this done then why did they change the rules. He sees the building as one building not two. I.. =V4 A --;g r' -'k Jack Hunn said the problem with Mr. Railton's theory was that the other people in the neighborhood who bought a product that they thought would hold its value over time are now being told their product was inferior. Mr. Railton said that is not true. Conversation was held between the board and Mr. Railton regarding • these issues. Jack Hunn said he had problems changing the rules. Buzz Reynolds asked Mr. Railton if he drew the last project that was approved in 1989. Mr. Railton said he did. Buzz asked how many square feet it was. Tom Allender said it did not go as near to the river. Chairman Perkins felt that they could still make the concept work but make a bigger connection and he thought they made that clear last week. He thought the most recent plans appeared more detached than any of the previous plans. The symmetry of the two masses together makes it read as more detached than any of the others on the street. He thought Mr. Railton could have made a stronger connection and still kept the basic concept. Mr. Railton said he was in some agreement but it was not true that there was less of a connection. He went on to explain the connection of the two buildings. Chairman Perkins asked for a motion. Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to approve Lot 16, Block 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Final Design Review. Tom Allender asked to add to the motion that if approved the applicant will drop the height of the building by one foot to bring within the 35 foot height limit and staff will approve t'aat at building permit. Rhoda Schneiderman amended the motion to include the building height shall be brought within town limits. Buzz Reynolds seconded the motion. With Sue Railton abstaining and Henry Vest, Jack Hunn, and John Perkins voting nay, the vote was tied. Thus, the approval was denied. �� C 4M ik� #,.A OWP- . Lot 6. Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Robinson Sinule Family, Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that Ken Harkias , on behalf of the Robinsons, is requesting a final dc --sign review for a single family residence on Lot 6, Filing 1, Eagleb(.nd Subdivision. The proposed structure is a two story log home with approximately 4000 square feet of habitable space. The roof form is a series of gables with a shed roof over the front porch. Medium cedar shakes will be utilized. The structure as proposed complies with all Town zoning regulations. The exterior is to be composed with full diameter walls with a natural wood tone stain. A stone veneer is to be utilized on the chimney and foundation. The fascia will be cedar painted green, soffits 1 x 6 tongue and groove, left natural. Window are clad casements, grids will be painted a medium red color. The landscape plan is adequate and meets the approved design guidelines of the Town. Site lighting and irrigation has not been addressed. Staff recommends approval with the recommendation that an automatic irrigation system be installed. The applicant presented color samples. Discussion followed on the color of the grids. The driveway will be asphalt. The applicant also stated that he felt the owner would want to install an irrigation system, since they would have sodded areas. Jack Hunn moved to grant final design approval to Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision as submitted. Patti Dixon seconded. Hunn amended his motion to include the condition of an automatic irrigation system. Dixon seconded the amendment and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 14/15 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Commercial/Industrial Building, Conceptual Design Review Tom Allender stated the T J Conners is requesting another conceptual design review for a commercial/industrial project. They have reduced the size of the building slightly. They have brought in each side of the building five feet, which reduces it from 60,000 to 57,600 square feet. The building is still four stories high. The exterior finishes have changed. It is still metal on the upper level, with a stucco product utilized on the lower levels. The colors will be presented at this meeting. The elevator shaft has been moved from the rear of the building to the front of the building in an attempt to break up that long facade. As stated before, the two buildings do slightly exceed the maximum height allowed by a few feet and a variance would be required. The applicant would also be seeking a variance from parking. For the self storage units this Commission has granted a similar variance in the past. Staff has had no reports with parking with that self storage facility. The applicant described the changes they have made 1-n the buildings by changing the elevator location, adding the stucco material, shortening the buildings, adding panels for the signage, and changing the orange doors to a brown color. The stucco will be an off-white and the metal color will be the same as presented at the last meeting. Buz Reynolds asked about the pitch of the roof. The applicant stated that it would be about 1/2 per 12. It is a very shallow roof. You will really only see the mansard. Patti Dixon asked what they were proposing for the sign material. The applicant stated that they were proposing the same type of drivit or plaster behind those panels. He doesn't want to introduce too many materials. The applicant stated that they will have a controlled signage. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if they would be lit. The applicant stated that they would not be lit. Schneiderman stated that she felt that this was a vast improvement from the last time. Discussion followed on the metal railings and the color. The applicant stated that they would be painted black. Considerable discussion followed on the storage space behind the mansard. Jack Hunn stated he thinks it has improved, however, he still has a lot of the same concerns. He appreciates them shrinking it a bit, but he still feels that it is too much for the site. He thinks it is too tall, too long, too big, too bulky. The applicant stated that he has a study model that he will bring for the final review. Hunn asked what percent grade the access drives to the upper parking lots would be. The applicant stated that they are a maximum of 8 percent. Hunn asked how wide they would be. The applicant stated that they would be 19 feet. Hunn asked what type vehicles would be going up there. The applicant stated that the semi trucks would be loading from the lower level. There are two loading docks at the lower level. The• biggest trucks going up to the upper level would be like a panel truck. Hunn stated that the way it is organized on the site there are two road cuts that are quite close together. Hunn stated that there could be some concerns there. The grade change between the upper building and the lower building is shown being taken out in grade, but nothing will grow there. Realistically, that has to be a retaining wall with a railing on the top to prevent people from falling off of it. The applicant stated that next to the the buil,ing it will be very steep, but as it goes away from the building it levels out. It is not as steep. Hunn had concerns regarding the ability of any large trucks to maneuver on the site. Trucks stopping in the busy street, setting themselves up to back up to hit the loading dock will hold up traffic and this is not a good solution. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. Hunn also stated that snow storage looks like it may be a problem and should be considered when the applicant returns for final design approval. Buz Reynolds asked about the height of the mansard. He stated that it: ■s !a '00's looks to be about 21 feet. The applicant that. Reynolds stated that he sees that without any penetrations in there. rw► stated that it is about as too much massive brown, Chairman Perkins stated that he still feels that there is too much building for the site. He feels it should be cut down some more. As a conceptual review no formal action was taken. Chairman Perkins stated that the applicant should consider the Commission comments made when preparing for the final design review. Lot 65. Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Single Family Residence. Conceptual Design Review Tom Allender stated the applicant is requesting conceptual design review for a proposed single family residence on Lot 65, Block 4. The site is located on the north side of Longsun Lane where it intersects Wildridge Road East. It is approximately .46 acres in size and slopes to the southeast at approximately 120. Zoning is PUD with a duplex designation. The proposed structure has two levels with approximately 3000 square feet of habitable space, including the unfinished space above the garage, which the architect states may at some point turn into bedrooms. The 3000 does not include the garage. The structure, as proposed appears to be within all Town height, lot coverage and setback restrictions. The exterior is finished in stucco. Doors and windows will be clad, finished in desert tan. Fascia will be 2 x 10 with 11 x 4 shadow board.. A solid stain in flagstone will be utilized. Soffits will be in flagstone. The roof form is gable finished with Prestige one high definition antique slate 300 lb. composition shingle product. Site plan shows a driveway with a maximum grade which is marginally over 10%. Allender stated that he thinks this is a minor detail that can be solved. Site drainage is directed away from the structure. Overall the finished grades are moderate. The landscape plan is adequate on the south and east side. Allender stated that when he wrote the report he thought some landscaping was needed on one of the other corners, but after having looked at the site he is not sure it does. The majority of the _ot will be planted with a naive seed mix and the plans indicate that irrigation will be left to the owners. A drip irrigation system should be utilized. Exterior lighting has not been discussed. As this is a conceptual design review, no formal recommendation is made at this time. The applicant provided samples of the colors and the roofing material. Discussion followed on the roofing material and the ability of it to withstand the wind in Wildridge. Chairman Perkins stated that the window color would be a weather shield taupe desert tan, wood colors would be Sherwin Williams SW3022 black alder and SW3023 flagstone and the stucco proposed color is an G.ega product designer stucco color 10. Buz Reynolds stated he thinks the west side of the driveway needs more landscaping. Discussion followed on what would be appropriate. Hunn asked about the space above the garage. The applicant stated that there is about 500 square feet that will be unfinished. Hunn suggested introducing some landscaping around the north and northwest side of the house. The applicant stated that there is a 60 foot easement to another lot along that side, which will be someone's driveway at some point. That is why there is no landscaping there. Some of the Commission member felt that the stucco color might be a bit bright. The general consensus was that it is a very attractive house and that this was a very complete application. It was suggested that maybe the Commission could grant final design review approval if there were to be no changes. Henry Vest moved to grant final design approval for Lot 65, Block 4, as presented, with the consideration that some landscaping be added to the northwest corner and the stucco color be toned down and these recommendations be approved by Staff, and a recommendation for an automatic irrigation system. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Chris Ekrem Comments Chris Ekrem stated that in the last two years she has attended about a dozen Planning and Zoning meetings and she is very concerned that the input a neighbor or citizen gives, has very little weight in the view of the Commission itself. She stated that she has applied three times to be a member of the P & Z and has never been appointed. She reels that she has the qualifications to do this. The criteria for selection has said nothing about the members of the Commission being anything but an advisory group, rather than a group that comes close to being a dictatorship as far as making their comments the binding criteria for anything that is developed within the neighborhood. She stated that she is very worried about this beca,ise the Commission, as far as her understanding, been given any license that what you say has to be carried out to the word. the Commission also has not been given any license to ignore what the neighbors and .he citizens within the area being considered, that they still should have the capability of having some input and also that being listened to and taken with some degree of positive input. Staff comments have to go by the criteria that has already been decided and she understands that. Sometimes the comments given by the Staff are very narrow and don't leave enough room for some change to be made that is optimum and positive. She stated that she is very concerned, specifically for the Eaglebend area because as you know it is being developed :n a multi -use sense of the different parcels being developed in totally different ways. Yet we are adjacent enough as a tones throw or a hello across the street or down the street to the next group that is an entirely different residential criteria. She stated that she is also concerned that the Eaglebend Partnership that has developed the Eaglebend housing and is now developing the Alpines single family homes has not come up in the other residents views of doing it's part in keeping, or making the neighborhood as they said they would. She stated that she does not know whether to take her concerns to this Commission, or to City Council, or to Staff, but for the past three years there has been an awful lot of construction going on for these two projects and they have not fixed roads, they have not fixed fences, they have had large trucks traveling down the roads, not only noisy, but exceeding the speed limits. She stated that she has asked several times for some type of action by the Town and there has never been any action, and yet the Avon, Police Department can come out and ticket our cars, which we have tried to park in the approved zones because of some problem that they have made for use so that we can't park in the approved zones, like when they come through on the roadway and heap up the snow high enough that we cannot get over the buffers that they have created to get in our own parking places. She stated that she has been to court several times and have successfully fought the tickets that she or her guests have gotten, because of their negligence, but she has had to go to court to do this and she does not think that this is a fair way. Some of these thing, the Planning Board, the Council, the governmental aspect of the Town of Avon is talking out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. It concerns her because she feels that as a citizen she pays her taxes, 26% of her taxes goes to the Town of Aven, She feels she makes quite a big donation to them every year and she would like to have the nice neighborhood that she envisioned when she bought the property in 1984 and built in 1988. It is not that way, and she is most of all concerned that the people that sit as an advisory board are not listening to any comments in a positive sense from the neighbors of the group or the persons that are applying for approval of their building desires and -chis evening on Lot 16 is a very good example of that and the hearings on the Alpines was another good example of that and there were several of the residents that made comments in a positive way and were just ignored and they were given the approval to do A the way they pleased. She stated that she just wanted a chance to tell the Commission how she felt about it and hope that somehow they could get to the point to where they could have a chance to communicate and develope something that is workable, not on1v in the Commission position, but in the position of the people that live within the neighborhood where these activities are going on, whether it be Eaglebend, Wildwood, West Beaver Creek Blvd., or any new areas that might be developed. In order to have any neighborhood sense, we need to develop this. Electric Meters, Eaglebend Filina 2 Tom Allender stated that since this matter was brought up at the last meeting, he wanted to give the Commission an up date. ile stated that Holy Cross Electric is pushing this matter. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. Rick Pylman stated that the developer will be at the next meeting to discuss this matter. The Commission was very upset about the whole development of the Alpines. Di-scussion followed on how the CoL.,nission could make requirements for meter placements, etc. be clearer and more enforceable. Pardee Single Family, Staff Approved Change Tom Allender stated that the Pardees had to go with a different .g ^ [40 manufacturer, without having to change anything on the building 4D except the curved treatment on the sides. They will be pass throughs. The will be squared off on the ends. Under further Other Business, Buz Reynolds suggested that it is probably time to have another joint session with the Council and Staff and maybe go over this duplax situation. Reading and Approval of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 20, 1993 Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the minutes, Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was then adjourned. RReRespectfully submitted L Charle rCnui�- Recording Secretary • LG�.� ,._ � a Buz Reynolds