PZC Minutes 0216939�
[•
® RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 1993
•
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zonirg Commission wp�_ held
on February 16, 1993, at 7:31 PM in the Town Council Chambers,
Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Rd., Avon, Colorado.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins.
Members Present: John Perkins, Henry Vest
Sue Railton, Jack Hunn
Rhoda Schneiderman, Patti Dixon
Staff Present: Rick Pylman, Director of
Community Development,
Tom Allender, Town Planner
Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording
Secretary
Chairman Perkins stated that all members were present, except ,
Buz Reynolds and Rhoda Schneiderman. Ms. Schneiderman arrived a:
7:40 PM.
Lot 4, Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Stone Creek
Condominiums. Spr- ial__Review _U_se, Public Hearing
Tom Allender stated that the applicants had not arrived yet, but
he would begin without them. He stated that. Jim Poppleton of
Property and Rental Management Company is requesting a Specini
Review Use approval for construction of one accessory apartment in
addition to the maximum allowable density on Lot 4, Beck c.
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, which is the Stone Creek
Condos. They came in and got an amendment to the Zoning Code
approved that allowed, in that particular, zone district, on,
additional caretaker unit above and beyond the !na�,imum density.
That was approved on the 22nd day of September.
The proposal is to convert an existing common area/amenities roc,
into a 375 square foot dwelling unit os an on --site maintenance
person. The unit will be owned by the Condominium Association ana
cannot be sold as a separate unit. This does not alter th,
exterior of the building, with the addition of the accessor.
apartment, the parking requirement would 59 spaces. The project
currently has 61 spaces. The Uses By Right in this zone district
are multi -family dwellings, including townhomes, condominium* And
QO
[•
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 1993
R401 Page 2 of 18
Lot 4, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Creek
. stone
Condominiums,_ Special Review Use, Public hea_ring._(_cont_)
apartments. Special Reviews Uses are: home occupations,
residential bed and breakfast, aboveground g public utilities,
church, accessory apartment per lot in addition to the maximum
WJ allowable density.
Allender stated the proposed use complies with all requirements
imposed by the Zoning Code; the proposed use is in conformance
with the Town Comprehensive Plan; and, as far as the Staff is
Concerned the proposal is compatible with adjacent uses as it does
not alter, the exterior of the existing building and there will be
minimal construction traffic and the traffic generated by the
on-site manager will not be much.
Staff recommendation is for approval as submitted.
Chairman Perkins asked if the applicant wished to add to Statt
comments. He stated he had nothing to add.
Chairman Perkins opened the public hearing. With no public input,
Chairman Perkins closed the public hearing. The Recording
Secretary stated that one call had been received from a Mr.
Mahler, owner of Lot 6, and he had no problem with the request as
long as it did not adversely effect the Town.
Chairman Perkins stated that he had no problem with the request
and asked the Commission if they had any problems, wnl,.,h they did
not have.
Sue Railton moved to approve the Special Review Use for Lot, s,
Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Patti Dixon
seconded.
The motion was amended to include the fo;lowiny c.riter,M.
A. The proposed use complies with all requirements imp.,sed try t -he
Zoning Code.
B. The proposed use is in conformance with t"ie Town lo+eprenenwrve
Plan.
C. The proposal is compatible with adjacent. uses a» it dc.ea rsol,
alter the exterior of the existing building and it apC»ara tnat
other than minimal construction traffic end traff,L pwne14t*1 ts.
the on-site manager, there are no adverse impacts,
Patti Dixon seconded the amendment, any t e,t.tor: ::.4,r.sry
unanimously.
a
a
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 1993
Page 3 of 18
Lot 4, Wildridge Acres Subdivision, Setback _Variance, __Public
Hearing
Tom Allender stated that Robert and Trudy Matarese have submitted
an application requesting that they be granted a variance of eight
feet from the required front yard setback. The garage on the
existing residence appears to encroach into the 20 foot setback by
eight feet.
Lot 4 is 0.60 of an acre and is part of the Wildrndge Acres
Subdivision, at the west end of the Shepard Ridge cul-de-sac. The
builder, Bob Kedrowski, received final design approval on August
6, 1991, a temporary certificate of occupancy on November 7. 1991
and a final certificate of occupancy was issued to the owners,
Corwin -Brown on August 28, 1992. The landscape issues were what
held up the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy.
In October of 1992 the new owners, the Matareses, brought to the
attention of the Planning Staff a discrepancy between the oriainai
Improvement Location Certificate and their ILC received when they
were going tnrough the finance process. Their survey revealed
the setback encroachment. Allender stated that Staff has no
explanation for the discrepancy between the two surveys. Statf is
just acting as if the second survey, that shows the encroachment,
is the correct one.
Allender reviewed the criteria for considering a variance, stating
that the project has been built out for about a year and there
have been no complaints about the structure seeming to be closer
to the road. Staff never picked up on any problem. Staff feels
that there is not a problem with the relationship of the requested
variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the
vicinity. He stated that the applicant discovered the
discrepancy, and brought the encroachment to the attention of
Staff. The encroachment existed prior to the applicant
purchasing the property and they were not a party to the creatior
of the encroachment. Allender stated that it was important to
understand that an ultimate effect of a denial would be the
removal of part of the existinc residence. Basically, the garage
would have to be torn down. Staff feels that a denial of this
variance would be an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship to
place on the applicant. The requested variance would have
virtually no effect on light, air, distribution of populati'>n,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities ana
utilities and public safety and Staff has not rdentifeo any other
factors for the Commission to consider.
Allender stated that the findings required for a Varian+.e ars
provided in the Staff report. Staff recommends approval, becouae
the applicant did not create the hardship, and brought the
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 1093
Page 4 of 18
tut 4�Wildridge Acres Subdivision- Set'-,ack Variance. Pbl_ic
Hear'i,Li , r_.ont
encroachment t,. Staff's attention and the effects of a denial
would consti-ute an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship. Staff
recommends the findings from Section 17.36.050 A, B, C (i) of the
Avon Municioal Code.
Chairman Per'<ins asked if the applicant wished to add to the
presentation, which they did not.
Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing, and with no
public input forthcoming, he closed the public hearing. rhe
Recording Secretary informed the Chairman that there were two
calls regarding this matter that needed to be read into the
record. Chairman Perkins stated that Mr. DuBois, owner of Lot 5,
has no problem with the requested setback variance and Mark
Harrison, owner of Lot 17, Block 2, also had no problems with the
variance.
Chairman Perkins inquired if the Commission had any problem with
the se`back variance. There were no concerns.
Jack Hunn moved to grant the setback variance for Lot 4. Wildridge
Acres, 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 one or more of the
following reasons:
i. The strict cr literal interpretation and enforcement,
of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardsnip inconsistent with the objectives of
this title;
ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary 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 end enforcement
of the specified regulation would deprive the sop IiAon t of
pr;vileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in tM
vicinity.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 1993
Page 5 of 18
Lot 4_ Wildridge Acres Subdivision, Setback Variance Public
Hearing, (cont)
Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Lot 3, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Vail Dail,_
Rezoning_ Reouest,__Publi_c_Hearing
Rick Pylman stated that Chapter 17.28 of the Zoning Code addresses
amendments to either the zoning map or to the text of the zoning
code and states that amendments to the zoning code may be made by
Planning Commission, Council, or by a property owner in the Town.
This action is a petition from a property owner in Town to amend
the text of the Zoning Code. Therefore, you are not affecting
just one piece of property, you would be affecting the total
Neighborhood Commercial Zone District. The request is to add the
term "newspaper facility" as an allowed use in the Neighborhood
Commercial District. Pylman stated that at this time there are
eight pieces of land that are zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Six
are on Nottingham Road: Coastal Mart is on one and then three
vacant lots just west of Coastal Mart, and across the street from
that is the Pizza Hut and one vacant lot. The other two lots are
Lots 1 and 2, in Nottingham Station Subdivision.
The purpose of that zone district states that it is intended to
provide sites for commercial facilities and services for the
principal benefit of residents of the community and also to
highway oriented convenience commercial needs. The allowed uses
at this time are retail stores, professional offices, car wash,
restaurants, accessory apartments, and churches. The Special
Review Uses are automobile service station and repair type of
facility. The intent of the publisher of the Vail Daily is to
combine his operations into one building. The offices are
currently in Vail and the Printing Facility is in the Deep Rock
building. The offices are allowed uses, but Staff feel that the
printing facility does not fall under allowed use categories in
the Neighborhood Commercial zone district.
The building would be a two story building with the printtntl
facility downstairs and the offices atnve,
Pylman reviewed the criteria for considering art anienSnoant to the
Zoning Code text, stating that in 1991 the ltiwn underttxi► a Major
restructuring of the Zoning Code and actually r0ftwied Lhasa
Particular lots from Residential High Density Crsaeftrrr: i;i will i r_r+
allowed a high density of residential use as well as ea~
commercial uses. In order to build residential Unita at teat
time, you needed devslopsisnt right*, and their* lot* were runt
assigned any development rights so they were by default. Codkiliertini
lots. Therefore, the zoning on these lents was chanped to 0
a
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 1993
Page 6 of 18
Lot 3. Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver. Creek _Subdivisi_ony Vai.l__Dal_y_,_
Rezoning Request, Public Hearing, ---(con
zoning that made more sense. Although nothing has changed in the
neighborhood to really justify adding a new use to it, the Staff
did not consider all types of uses that may he appropriatc to
some of the goals in Town.
Pylman stated that the vision statement of the Comprehensive Plan
states that the goal of the Town is development of facilities and
activities which not only enhance the Town's role as a principal
year round residential and commercial center in Eagle County, but
also foster a strong year round tourism base. This type of
business certainly meets that goal. There is also a strong goal
that says "Ensure all land uses are located in appropriate
locations with appropriate controls." chis is where the Staff
varies from the specifics of the appl cation. Staff feels that
just adding a permitted use as newspaper facility doesn't ensure
those appropriate controls. Staff feels that this should be added
as a special review use rather than an allowed use, so that
discretionary review may be maintained. Staff suggests that the
wording also be changed from newspaper facility to commercial
printing facility.
Pylman stated that in order to keep compatible uses on these lots,
this should be a special review use as opposed to an ali.:jwed use.
He stated that adequate utilities are in place to serve this
development. The existing road is capable of handling the
traffic, including the loading and delivery needs anticipated oy
this use.
Staff recommendation, 1n a way is for denial as the use is
requested, but Staff recommends that the Commission approve adding
commercial printing facilities as a special review use.
John Pavelich stated that they are not a commercial printing
facility. The printing is a support item for the business ar. a
whole.
Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing. with no pJb,1C:
input, he then closed the public hearing.
Patti Dixon felt that this should be a Special Review use.
Rhoda Schneiderman asked why just this particular parcel could not
be rezoned instead of the whole district. Rick Pylman stated that
one piece of land would have to be rezoned to something else, and
what would that be? You really do not want to do &out zoning.
Pylman stated that they would spend a lot of time with zoning
issues if we got into that type of zoning.
[•
PLANNING AND
February 16,
Page 7 of 18
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
1993
Lot 3, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Vail Daily,
Rezoning Re uest,_Public hearing, cont
Henry Vest, Chairman Perkins, Sue Railcon, and Jack Hunn had no
problems with considering this request as a Special Review Use,
rather than an allowed use.
Chairman Perkins stated that a�iy motion should be to approve
"adding commercial printing facility as a Special Review Use to
the Neighborhood Commercial Zone District". Jack Hunn so moved,
Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried, with Rhoda
Schneiderman voting nay.
Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark .,at Beaver __Creek_Subd_ivislon,_ Parking
Setback Variance, Public Hearing
Tom Allender stated that Doug DeChant and Mike Etem, on behalf :,f
Valley Wide Plumbing, are requesting a variance from the required
10 foot front setback for parking. This lot is located on the
west side of Metcalf Road between the Warner Building and the
Troxel Warehouse. It is approximately .69 acres in size and the
lot slopes to the east toward Metcalf Road. The zoning is
IC-Industrial/Commercial. The applicant's intent is to pave to
the front property line and then landscape the right-of-way
between Metcalf Road and the parking area. There is a vertical
separation between the road and the proposed parking which
supplies some visual buffering. The applicant has indicated that
this is necessary to maximize their parking area. They need
parking for 17 vans, employee vehicles and customers. Their
submitted design shows 41 spaces; the Town ordinance stipulates
that there be a minimum of 29 spaces. Staff has looked at the
layout and believes it is possible to provide 39 spaces without
encroaching into the parking setback at all.
Allender reviewed the approval criteria, stating that the approval
of the variance would allow parking in relative close proximity to
traffic on Metcalf Road. Visually this could be mitigated,
however, if Metcalf is ever widened, has paved shoulders, or a
sidewalk added, that buffer would be lost. Putting the parking
right to the property line would not leave a lot of flexibility in
the future. As far as Staff can recall, there has been no similar
variances in this area. The lots on both sides of tnrs lot meet
the required parking setbacks. They also have similar topography
and uses. This requestd variance would have little effect. on
light, air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety,
other than the potential visual impact on Metcalf Road. Other
factors for the Commission to consider are a lack of hardship on
the part of the applicant and the precedent an approval would
create. It is possible through design tc come very close to
•
PLANNING AND
February 16,
• Page 8 of 18
40
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
1993
ision,__parkinci
accommodating the amount of parking the applicant wants. Town
ea requirements can be met without a variance. This lot is very
similar to others in the area tlat have not required a variance.
Because of the lack of a hardship, approval of this variance
request would make it very difficult for this Commission to ever
deny a parking setback variance in the future.
Allender stated that there are findings required with any decision
the Commission makes.
Staff recommendation is for denial of the variance because of lack
of hardship, the precedent an approval would create and the
inability to apply findings from Section 17.36.050 A, Ci, Cii, or
Ciii. The findings just do not apply.
Mike Etem, construction manager for this project, stated that they
felt that they did have an adequate buffer zone between the
property line and the st-eet, both vertically and horizontally.
He pointed out a cross section on the drawings. He stated that
they felt that they do have a hardship in that they are required
to have an easement that spreads 25 feet to the adjacent lots for
ingress and egress. If they would move the parkinq back, it would
reduce the number of spaces. This particular plan works for 20
foot plumbing vans. He stated that on the adjacent lots, they
park at random and right up to their property lines. He stated
that they did put in additional vegetation as an additional
buffer. They felt the aesthetics and the safety, which they felt
was the letter of the law, was still enforced.
Doug DeChant stated that he would not dispute the 39 spaces, but
they are working with some strict program requirement.s. He would
suspect that the 39 could not be achieved if you consider that
easement across the front of the property. Also, relative to the
neighbors, their parking overflows onto this site now.
Tom Allender stated that the owner of Lot 11 did call in today and
stated that he had no real problem with the variance as long as he
retains access to his lot. He did understand the concerns of
retaining a landscape buffer between the lot line and the Larking.
Patti Dixon asked what would happen if the Town decides to widen
the street there. Tom Allender stated that there are not any
Plans at this time to widen the road, but if they ever did, it
would put the parking that much closer to the road. De Chant
Pointed out that toward the south end of the property along
Metcalf, it is quite steep and any widening would be very
difficult on this side of the street.
W
a
J
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 1993
Page 9 of 18
Lot 12, Block 1 Benchmark _at Beaver Creek Subdi_v_i.s_i_on,___Parking
Setback Variance, Public Hearing, (cont)
Rhoda Schneiderman had concerns about the snow removal getting
pushed down into the gully and any landscaping getting colered.
She felt that the landscaping should be big enough to be able to
be seen.
Henry Vest stated he would like to pass on this at this time.
Chairman Perkins stated that his problem is that the applicant has
riot convinced the Staff that there is a hardship and also the
precedent that this would set.
Sue Railton stated that these are also her concerns. Shc asked
the applicant to clarify the easement required. Mike Etem stated
that it is defined as 25 feet to the left of the property line, to
both adjacent properties. Rick Pylman asked if it was 8 fixed
easement. Mike Etem replied that it is the same as the Colorado
Ute easement.
Patti Dixon asked if there was parking in the back of the
building. The applicant stated that the building would be on the
back easement line, therefore no parking in the back.
Jack Hunn inquired about the parking spaces shown in front of the
garage doors. The applicant replied that these are for overnight
storage of the vans. Discussion followed on how the parking would
work if these were deleted.
Sue Railton asked if the whole building would be used by Valley
Wide, or would they be subletting a portion. The applicant
responded that it would be only Valley Wide using the building.
Jack Hunn stated that he understands what they are trying to
accomplish, but he has trouble finding hardship, and the criteria
that the Commission has to cite in making any motion for approval
is pretty specific and in looking at the criteria A, 8 a C, he
cannot find justifications for a variance.
Doug DeChant stated that the intention is to lock the vans up rn
the evenings, so they have tried to arrange the parking so that
they can fit all the vehicles in the one area in a way that can os
gate locked from the neighboring access easement. He stated that
there are also other program constraints that they have not
presented very well. There will be gates across the one area. the
Pointed out the area on the drawing) and the vans will be parked
there. Mike Etem stated that there will be nature) gas fill
stations blocked off inside there, so the vans will park therw and
plug in at night to refuel.
40
•
•
r1.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 1993
Page 10 of 18
Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision., Parking
Setback_ Variance, Public Hearing, ( co_ntj
Chairman Perkins asked if it would be a chainlink fence? The
applicant replied something on that order.
Rhoda Schneiderman stated that the applicant should out some
really high landscaping, as a fence, so that all you see are trees
as your driving up.
The applicant pointed out the site section and the elevation from
the street again, showing the relationship of the view you would
have of the site.
Tom Allender stated that there shouldn't be real tall vegetation
along the front as you need to retain sight distance as you tome
out .
Henry Vest stated that he concurs with Jack Hunn that +dere is
noting in the findings that will allow approval of this request.
Some discussion followed on what could be done in the way of
parking without the va'iance.
Tom Allender stated that Staff has no argument with the amount of
parking the applicant wants, it is ,lust a matter that Staff feels
that they don't really need to go right up against the road. me
suggested angling parking spaces. The applicant stated they had
considered that, but with the 20 foot vans the angle reduc6,% ttia
back up radius. The applicant stated they have tried severs,
different plans, but this seems to fit their program the barer.
They considered the matter of the easement for the r+eighbair ,r,e
properties as a hardship, Jack Nunn asked if thane is nr�,
flexibility with the building. wike Etem stated that then efw
going with a pre-engineered bui lying, so t►.era a r.r,t a.• r
flexibility.
Rhoda Schneiderman moved to appro.ai the )eroi•Ngj Rettaa,,v, .»r+er.;o
for Lot 12, Block t. Benchmark at. 8eavef rreak tiubjir+sr+xn, Dened
on findings A, 8, an C-3.
Chairman Perkins .:.al led for a seKo" r)f the raot ir,4' try arct'(W-
died for leck of a &or.aria.
Jack Hunn moved to deny the varier+c+i regwet ►,sr i.It i.. *i.-« i,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek, bas" dpi the Ste*f treat
there if a tack of herdshlp, ar„] the kroti044•t *s V+`e,ry'ra` q
create. and the inability to a0gl y f indi"* fooa tew, t+rr• t t iS
A, C-1. C -ii, or C -iii,
a
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HTNUTES
February 16, 1993
Page 11 of 18
Lot 12, Block 1, --Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Parking
Setback Variance. Public_Hearina, (conte
Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried with Rhoda
Schneiderman voting nay.
Lot_ _12, Block_ 1.__ Benchmark at _Beaver _Creek Subdivision _valley
e
Wide Plumbing and Hating, Conceptual Design__Review
Tom Allender stated that the proposal is for an 18,000 square foot
commercial/industrial building. It is a two story, metal, Butler
type building finished in a stone white with bronze trim. The
roof will be a metal standing seam, also finished in white. The
building would contain space for offices, dispatcher, warehousing,
servicing vehicles, a laundry and restrooms. He stated that the
applicant originally requested this as a final design, however,
since the requested variance would determine the landscaping, he
felt that this should be only on a conceptual level at this time.
Allender stated that as this is a conceptual review, there are no
formal recommendations.
Discussion followed on the type of metal siding, the garage doors,
the colors, the roof, the location of the sign, the trim around
the doors and windows, the lack of any architectural design of the
building, the need to provide a proper entrance to the building,
the need for windows, etc. on the ends, and the trash dumpster
location. Rhoda Schneiderman asked why the garage doors are on
the entrance end of the building as opposed to the other end. The
applicant replied that there were two reasons; one the sunny
exposure for the offices, and two, there are some soils issues.
There is a basement under the offices and that end of the property
was better for this. Also for forty foot trailers this end would
be better for them. Jack Hunn asked how they would propose to
light the parking lot. The applicant stated that they had not
addressed that. Hunn asked about the proposed fence. The
applicant pointed out where they were considering locating the
fence. Hunn asked about the potential heating of the parking lot
and how the runoff would be managed. Hunn stated that he thinks
the materials and the colors chosen will be highly reflective. He
also inquired about the percentage of grade of the parking lot.
He agrees that this building is a very minimal approach. He
suggested that the applicants take another look at this and give
it some architectural character.
Chairman Perkins stated that
Commission takes no action, but
comiments made by the Commission.
at the conceptual level the
the applicant should consider the
[•
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
IRMI February 16, 1993
Page 12 of 18
Lot 62 Block 3, Wildridae Subdivision. McMahan Single Family
Residence, Final Design Review
Tom Allender stated that Eric Vogelman, Architect and Donald
McMahan, owner are requesting final design review on a single
family residence. The project went through conceptual design
review on November 17, 1992 and received positive comments.
However, after considerable discussion concerning the proposed
metal roof, a worksession was scheduled and held on December 1,
1992. At that time this Commission told the applicant to move
forward on their design with the metal roof.
The Commission stated that metal roofs could be considered in
Wildridge on a case by case basis if the following conditions are
met:
1. Subtle, low gloss colors are used;
2. Seam spacing is at a minimum of 18 inches;
3. The roof material be no lighter than 24 gauge;
4. The applicant supply a large sample;
5. Integrated trim pieces must be utilized; and
6. A metal roof must be compatible with the architectural design.
The proposed residence is approximately 3000 square feet in site,
and includes an attached two car garage, The architectural dovign
is a southwestern style with off-white stucco as the Of isiar'y
building material. logs will be used ss accent elements. the
roof form is a combination of flat and gable forme. TK* prrvotimad
roof material for the gable forma is a patine green, 26 gaups.
metal with standing seems. The proposed lendacope pier+ to
dominated by dry land species and appears to be appropriate to the
site. Allender stated that this spplication rtriforms to try+
zoning code, it is appropriate to the neightsorhuod, it is wr;c
designed, it, is wry Compatible with the erto with roninlois; site
disturbance.
Staff recomrwnds aprovaI with the tra�dvt ions that tftn "We •a s A*&
of the roof follow these guidelines
1. Sean •pacing be s winiaaaA :A In
2. The roof material be rhoo i 1priter to, -vi ;4 qo, ao
3. Integrated tris pier -as wast be itilitW
•
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
!402
February 16, 1993
Page 13 of 18
•
Lot 62,,_Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, _McMahan Single __Family
Residenceon
_,_Final Design Review, (ct
i Chairman Perkins inquired if the Staff had compiled guidelines
for the approval of metal roofs, as discussed at the worksession?
Allender stated that the Staff has not yet completed this.
The Commission members felt that view corridors, and verification
procedures should be included. Chairman Perkins asked that this
be done for future use.
The applicant stated that he is not sure that he can get the roof
color in a 24 gauge. The one provided is a 26 gauge.
Chairman Perkins asked how they plan on irrigating the
revegetation program. The applicant stated that they will use a
drip irrigation system.
Jack Nunn asked if the drive would be paved and what the grade
was. The applicant replied it would be paved and the grade is 8%.
Nunn asked if the house was within the height regulations.
Allender stated that it was. Hunn asked about site lighting. The
applicant stated that there would be some lighting by sconces at
the building and some lighting along the driveway. Hunn asked
about snow storage. The applicant replied that it will all go to
the south.
Patti Dixon moved to grant final design review to Lot 62, Block 3,
Wildridge Subdivision, with the following conditions:
Seem spacing be a minimum of 18 inches.
10
The roof material be no lighter than 26 gauge.
3. Integrated trim pieces must be utillized.
Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. The motion was amended to change the
seam spacing to a maximum of 18 inches. Rhoda Schneiderman
svconded the amendment and the motion carried unanimously.
Loo. 59._ 8)VGk 1,_ q.!.1_Qr.i0g%.$V_W.Y?jon,_ $indl Inger Single, Fami ly
R.�614fnGe._S�QnVeRC�lA1 i?9s1gn Rgy_gw
Toes Allender stated that the application on this was received a
geek ago, but the drawing was only received on the 12th and Staff
has not had an opportunity to review this proposal. Staff
recommends tabling this application until the next meeting.
Henry Vest moved to table this application until the next meeting.
Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
:-1
PLANNING AND
February 16,
• Page 14 of 18
40
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
1993
lex,
Tom Allender stated that Jim Klein is requesting a conceptual
design review for a proposed duplex residence on Lot 29, Block 1,
Wildridge. This lot is located on the east side of Long Spur.
It is approximately 0.35 acres in size. The lot slopes to the
west at about 15%. The zoning is SPA with a duplex designation.
The proposed duplex is a mirror im-agw, two story high structure
with a walk out basement. It has approximately 2100 square feet
of habitable space per side, not including the attached garages.
The structure, as proposed, is within Town height, lot coverage
and setback restrictions. The exterior is predominantly finished
in an Antique White stucco with 1 x 8 channel lap natural fnish
cedar siding. Window trim will be 2 x 8 cedar, door trim will be
2 x 4 cedar, the fascia will be 1 x 10 cedar, all with a 'Blue
Shadow" stain. Soffits will be natural 3/8 fir. The roof form is
an offset gable that will be finished with 320 p Tampco's Redwood
asphalt shingles. As this is conceptual, Staff is making no
recommendations. Color samples, color rendering, elevations and
site and grading plan has been provided.
In reply to 3 comment by Chairman Perkins regarding a mirror
image, the applicant stated that this is an offset plan. so they
do not onsider it exactly a mirror image.
Chairman Perkins asked if the chimney cap covers would be of sheet
metal and painted. The applicant stated that they would be.
Patti Dixon asked about the material for the posts under the
patio. The applicant stated that they would use 4-4 x 4's for
each post to give them more mass.
Chairman Perkins asked if the Town Guidelines prohibit mirror
images. Rick Pyiman stated that they state that mirror images are
discouraged. The applicant stated that they felt that with the
off -set and the differences in the roof lines, this doesn't give
the appearance of a mirror image. Most of the concerns voiced
about this project were about the mirror image. The Commission
felt that the applicant should try to mitigate this, even if it is
just a different entrance feature. Jack Nunn asked if the
driveway would be paved and if there would be snow storaqe. He
asked if there would be an automatic irrigation system. The
applicant replied that the drive would be paved, there would be
snow storage and they were considering an automatic drip system
going to the trees and the rest of the site is natural. Hunn
stated that he is a little concerned with the overflow parking of
the southern unit and the proximity to the street ana no landscape
screening. Tom Allender stated that he had informed the applicant
that this area is in the setback and will have to be moved back.
The applicant stated that they considered that space as a backing
0
►J
Go
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 1993
Page 15 of 18
Lot 29,__ Block 1, WiIdridge_Sub_d_ivision,
Conceptual Design Review, cont
—�Tl out space rather than parking.
Jim Klein Duplex,
Jack Hunn stated that there was a lot of snow shedding to the
garage doors and the entry and in reconsidering the mirror image
aspect there might an opportunity to introduce some dormer
elements that help protect the entry.
No action was taken at this time.
Lot 4. 81_9ck 5, W11dr1dge Subdivision, Barrows/Peiffer�._,Stx-p1ex_,
Swwe--2t-vitl Design Review
Tom Allender stated that the proposal is for one building to
contain six one bedroom apartments that would be above garages.
The lot is located on the north side of West Wildwood Road, gust
above Wildwood Townhomes, Building C. It is a 1.62 acre lot which
elopes to the west at about 27 percent. Zoning is SPA with six
units allowed.
The units have approximately 800 square feet of living area above
the garage and laundry/utility room. The exterior is finished in
wood siding, the specifics of which have not been provided. The
gable roofs have windows incorporated into the western side, the
shingles will be asphalt, specifics of this has not been supplied.
the site plan indicates a driveway with a very tight turn off of
West Wildwood and goes up hili at a grade of 20%, which certainly
will not work. There is no landscape plan. Circulation in the
perking area appears to be questionable. The structure, as
proposed, is within all Town height limits, lot coverage and
setbsct. restrictions. As this is conceptual design review, no
foretel Staff recoswiendation will be provided.
Dave Barrows stated that, basically, they ,lust wanted to kind of
ovit this to the Coasfusion** court, to get their comments.
Ne stated that they just had a friend, who is not an architect, do
tlhe rendertnps. since they are just trying to get an idea of where
it would be on the site, etc.
Patti D ivon stated that it did not look like there was enough
par►tno, Toa Allender stated that they did have enough for what
t.ral were proposing. She stated that she thinks the end facades
nee+t1 more detailing. The applicant stated that they thought they
would out or~ sort of shed roof coming out on the south end with
d#viispster tnstde and the pas meters, etc. The north and no one is
gotn0 to sae it. Dtwon rusted that a lot of detail will have to
be given to the landscsping off the and of the parking lot.
a
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 1993
a Page 16 of 18 we
k wlldrid
Lot Q•�lQ.. b, 9e 5.kQ41_y t & i on., _Bbr.f.ow�Peiffer Six -plexi
%!?9Srli%irSa�� _�6sign Review, {r,Qn�)
Rhoda Schneider'tan stated that she thought the design kind of
looks like to motel. She stated that eta thrike it is
inappropriate for the area and thu site. The applicants need to
get team variety with some offset* as well as roof offsets. The
long line of roofs is veru unattractive. There mil be a problem
with the snow shed going right on to the balcony. The
lurnarri,ands in the brari,treg lot are •ray to{) narrow. She •uQQ0sted
garqvatinq into the aide of the mill a bit meetirq, so the building
towid be pia:.ed tta(.• a little ax>re..
••0x0'1 'r!#t hie 0541% t -Me go*dSavg er)d felt !hot they ngedAQ
e tx41►gair b." •+.j:s'.Q en.#'r-ire 4<: boe sbi* tss :'-4t 4+a con 0,4% the+e.
a►11 ••, • � •'k'r t. t too r a.€r t he • • • eat C ftbi•> • e A r x g'h t i h ar fiver . IHq
o+al�eeelw.sf �+,sR4 +! 0'.1. =are aimed a t.r'+ra►e wa •,og*6atetl the
•,� '. '. , e*^ '• • t • . ilra5'. t. Ry • iii:;+ � : ,e,. ♦-.
a<•.#�.q.• r`* 6 ,•.:• !!.#t e4 that 0,+W •,�I ��`. �'+-� 4`dMe :�1 aM! .t •
arae too a t t:i'y# •..y q r,.e l .. R a sr,' l aha r• --w 0'' t' r rx.# t e♦ a s '` E
,.t♦#is •rnmw 'a1.0*00, a-. 4I,4,a-:y •..r<=tea;t<tr#1.�,.
• tea. , #. , .:..:! !.. d -. is fen • IN * ado ,W t ♦•.e
01:% W l 4-1. a,; M -s . a r ,saw• t n, �Jpp� t 0 P,e .t .t
a • 1 -to a.. b ,. .a.a y,a y :. '' r #6 • awe a %,I ooa •-,e,0' jet ae t 490 1",
-.
a ba . 0'l • 0'y e. ; . 0'r s ', n a • a • w • t a
�r',..9 . *.r. f �L e� .. I r ..- A 1..•'. •.a ,. E+• .,.,0'y ! t e,a d'
1.0 a t'
1-e • ow- #1 .o- ..p `! a. • r.! a ,. .r .• 1: t +F' AV" _
L.S'oaia t*ii ales '•,1k.f ♦ - .
4 •w •.V�` •d r+ . ... xis . _
e jISR. •gMi.. .., <,yy a y'.;-..:raa j,-6 #.. a. ;., i`eaa
,+W t ' •Mt = - ,.r. a y r ar - r ; r.a. - s ys *;.:a.,, ,_. t
s,aq... 1., ,.. � _ � � •► 1` irk .•,..-. . a.• • ... <„w+e
•sr'•� 40,0 x.alY. ... -« rµ .n ,s. • -i-.i ,', ib ♦ i•• M .—.e ..
-W a•
=My[., � mal• (r•.. ••t!is ..� ,.}♦ ... � � �.. . . :w s , iy
go .W. s#r. .x to ! .,► 1c: f,•: y- 4 ye,.ob ..i ....
PLANNING AND
February 16,
Page 17 of 18
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
1993
Lois_ Block 5. Wildridge_Subdivision. _Barrows_Peiffer_SiX_plex_,,
Conceptual_ Design_Rev_iew,.(cont
the hill.
Chairman Perkins summarized Lhe Commission's comments as follows:
Parking circulation needs work.
End facades need interest.
Landscaping at the end of the parking lot..
Intergration into the site.
Looks like motel, needs interest in its form.
Snow pitching on to balconies.
Needs detailing.
Grading needs to be improved.
Too linear, break up the massing.
Is six units too much for this site.
Retainage needed.
Creativity needed.
Entrance into the garages.
Variation of roof forms.
Design with topography of the lot.
Twenty percent driveway grade is unacceptable.
Product mix may be needed.
vertical stepping of the units.
Dissimilarity with adjacent projects.
No attached gable soffits.
Consider varying floor elevations.
The applicant. asked hcw much landscape would be required. Rhoda
Schneiderman stated that the Commission strongly encourages people
to do considerable landscaping, unless the architecture blends
itself toward a totally naturalistic approach, like a southwestern
style.
Henry Vest stated that since these will be rental units, the
applicant would definitely want an automatic irrigation system.
Jack Nunn asked if there would be a aumpster on the site'
The applicant stated that they would have a shed thing on the
south .no. and the dumpater would be moved out for pickup. Hunn
stated that that would pose a problem for the trash truck as there
would be no way for them to turn around. They would have to back
out into traffic.
R*l►Qlt19._Wd Aj;prQy& l _pf th* Planning gnd Zoning Commi ss i cn Meeting
!'!..lf1MWO 91 Fe.bryorY.2, 1993.
Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve t>.o minutes of the February 2,
W
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI(
February 16, 1993
Page 18 of 18
STING MINUTES
?AM Reading and Approval of the Planning and Zoning -Commission Meeting
1993 meeting as submitted. Henry Vest seconded and the motion
carried with Jack Hunn abstaining since he was absent on February
2rd.
Other Business
Jack Hunn asked if the roof lighting on Denny's was part of the
approval. Rick Pylman stated that he thought it was.
Chairman Perkins asked about the status of the corner, wall.
Pylman stated that he would contact Mr Dowd regarding their plans.
Patti Dixon moved to adjourn. Jack Hunn seconded. The meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted.
Charlette Pascuzzi
Recording Secretary
Commission App al_ _ _Dste_.�__,
J. Perkins
S. Railton
R. Schneider and
P. Dixon
H. Vest _.�.
J. Hunn