Loading...
PZC Minutes 031693RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was meld on March 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 Rai'ton, Jack Hunn Rhoda Schneiderman, Patti Dixon Buz Reynolds Staff Present: Rick Pylman, Director of Community Development, Tom Allender, Town Planner Charlotte Pascuzzi. Recording Secretary Chairman Perkins stated that all members were present. Lot _1_,_@,I cmc-.___�,_ w 1 1 dr i dge Subd i v i s i pn , Ander son/ "nns f i !NVh AmendmgnttLkgn_q Czhange, Public Hearing 'Tom Allender stated that Chapter 11.147.110 of the •von ;,xiinyl tnt7w addresses amendments to Planned Unit Developments, It state* in the code that an amendment may be initiated by the prnc*wrtr !sutler, Page Anderson, representing the owner* of tot *loci, !R Wildridge is petitioning the town to change the ai woo ire* on that lot from a C unit multi -family designation to s 4 ;nit chola• designation. A9 part of this process the app, -went♦ s,e pur Win* a subdivision of the lot into 2 separate 4up w. lot% who too newly created lots will be turther divided all. +r.e '.L. & t r Vict i!trR of the two duplexes. Allender stated tti•• ­ e purpose of the Planned Unit Development is intend" to p n,.•.H for f-a.Rb%tic• and creativity in the development of land in nr"r to vef~to tis most appropriate use. The owners of this lot ra;entiy roceiv4W4 #a" i *Wetw-, +n.r. They applied for building permit for C■M1Y of tP40 dk040a0*, %R.e finance company has refus" to prm'•ids the =an•e tF%"4.+am +1,'riw unless the lot is dtvidad or trio ot,^*r ta4i *0 04* r4,F4e_ve* 1N0 it rights to the other halt of the 10� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 2 of 19 Lot 2. R1ock 5, Wi ldr_idge___ Subdivis_i_on,_ AndersonjConne_l_l__ PUD Amendment/Zone Change, Public Hearing. (conte Allender stated that there was a voice resolution done by the Town Council a while ago that basically said that there could be no subdivisions of undeveloped multi -family lots in Wild n dge. Staff, was concerned about that, because this is a subdivisiion of a multi -family lot in Wildridge. This matter %,.s taken to a Town Council worksession and they encouraged the applicants to go forward. This would be a down zoning from 6 units to 4 units. Allender stated that the regulations do not stipulate findings so much as it does criteria for the PUD. There are eleven criteria. Allender stated that this particular project flits all the criteria very well. He stated that the record should reflect that the staff report contains all eleven criteria. Staff recommendation, because this protect has received final design review approval for two duplexes, that a reduction in density is appropriate in this location, and that the applicant is seeking relief from a situation beyond their control and the conformance of the proposal to the eleven criteria listed, tbtatt believes that a recommendation of approval is appropriate. Page Anderson stated that she thought that Mr. Allender had pretty well summed up any comments they would want to make. Chairman Perkins opened the public hearing and with no public input forthcoming, closed the public hearing. Chairman Perkins stated he sees this as primarily a housekeeping matter and he has no problems with it. Jack Hunn asked if there was a definition in the Town's ordinances that would stipulate that on a six-plex lot duplexes could not be built. Tom Allender stated he believes that the torn f,4 definitions would preclude that. He believes that, multi -family lots is three or more. Jack Hunn quetit,lons whethinr the Commission may have made an error in approving two duplexes on a six -plow lot in the beginning. He is also concerned about setting ■ precedont. He stated this seems to be a unique situation, but in waking s motion, he suggests that it be carefully worded so that the bot «a not, opened again on the uncontrolled resubdivision issue. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she is in favor, 100%. of nnytninq that down zones any lot in wildridge. Allender stated that this originally came in for design review prior to the voice resolution, so it predates shutting do dolls off. This is basically Just cleaning up a situation tr%st to ktho a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 3 of 19 Lot 2. Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, Anderson/Connel.l.__PUD Amendment/Zone Change, Public heari_ng,_A ont) of a holdover before that resolution. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 2, Block 5, PUD amendment zone change, based on design criteria 1 through 11 as stated in the staff report. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 29, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision. K1ein.DWlex.Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that this prr,ject received conceptual design review on February 16th, receiving positive comments, with the only concern being with the mirror image. The applicant has addeo dormers to the front elevation in an effort to soften the mirror image. The lot is located on the east side of Long Spur Road. It is approximately a third of an acre. It slopes to the west. it is a pretty flat lot. The exterior is predominantly finished in an antique white stucco and 1 x 8 channel lap natural finish siding. Window trim will be 2 x 8 cedar, door trim wil be 2 x 4 cedar, the tascia will be 1 x 10 cedar, all with blue shadow stain. The roof form 1s an offset gable, that will be finished with a 3200 Tamoco Redwood asohait shingles. The landscape planting plan appears adequate. It includes planting beds on the street side of the structure and a small sod area in the back. The majority of the lot will be left natural. An automatic drip irrigation system 1s proposed for the planting areas, the small sod area will he watered manually. Snow storage and parking meet Town requirements. Site lighting has not been addressed. Allender stated that Staff does not see a problem with the mirror or near mirror image of the duplex, which 1s offset. It would hot be the only one 1n the area. Neither the design with the dormers or the one without would visually detract from the neighborhood. The house fits all the criteria of the Town. Staff recomrrngs approval. Michael Sanner stated that they would prefer the first design without the dormers. He stated that if a mirror image is 0cwto correctly it shouldn't detract from the nelghborftMid. Chairman Perkins stated that he still has a probl N with .her• the party wall comes together on the front elsysttor„ Ne thtn.e th00 need to try something to soften the vertical line. Jim ■.le+n ■e • 940 ■ e1 ■ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 4 of 19 Lot 29, Block 1, Wildrid4e Subdivision Klein Duplex. Final Design Review, cont stated that the way the building is sited you would never have the view of that vertical line straight on. Buz Reynolds commented on the roof line, however, since he was standing away from the microphones, it is not clear what he is saying. Jack Hunn stated that at the last meeting he questioned the amount of asphalt in front of the southern garage door, wondering if it would be adequate. He asked if it was adequate, especially when the snow builds up in the winter. The applicant replied that they felt it was adequate. Hunn stated he is also concerned with the landscape plan. For the most part three elevations of this home are unrelieved by landscaping. There is no landscape texture against the home, witn the exception of a few trees in the center. The applicant replied that all the houses up there are naked. Hunn also asked about the necessary retaining walls for the sod. Tom Allender stated that it is a pretty flat lot. Jack Hunn stated that he was suggesting two or three more trees on each side of the home to relieve the perceived height of the house. Hunn stated. regarding the mirror image, he thinks it could be improved. The party wall is awkward. He agrees that the dormers do not help. Sue Railton stated that what she would have really liked to have seen is more height difference, otherwise she has no problem with the mirror image. Henry Vest questioned the size of the window trim being 2 x 8. The applicant stated that this is Just the top band over the windows. Vest asked why no automatic irrigation system. Tho applicant stated that they would have a drip system on the trees. but the sod area will be small enough for the use of a sprinkler to cover the whole area. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she inadequate. She feels that it is well finish it. She stated that add anything to the design either. also thinks the landscaping is up to the developer to pretty she does not think the dormers Patti Dixon stated that she thinks the house is tine. Her only problem is the vertical line between the left sno right house. Jack Hunn asked about the colors of stain and rooting. the aplicant provided both. e► • es PLANNING AND ZONING March 16, 1993 Page• 5 of 19 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Lot 29, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Klein Duplex_ Final Design Review. con .1 Discussion followed on how far out the eaves would come between the two units. It was suggested that it come out 18 inches. Jack Hunn stated that his concerns are mainly the minimum amount of pavement and the lack of landscaping. Chairman Perkins echoed those comments and added that he does not think that they have solved the mirror image problem. Sue Railton moved to approve final design review for Lot. 29, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions: Three more trees be added to each end, plus some low shrubbry. A landscape plan, reflecting this be resubmitted to Staff for approval. 2. The dormers be removed. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. Under ,'urther discussion it was suggested that the overhanging eaves of the front party wall be extended to match all the other overhangs on the building, and this be an added condition. Railton so amended her motion, Schneiderman seconded thF' amendment, and the motion carried with Jack Hunn and John Perkin voting nay. Loi lz,. Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, valley Wide Plumbing and Heating, Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that Shepherd Construction ReSOUrses. MikF' Etem, and Thomas D'Agostino of valley Wide Plumbing are requesting final design approval for an 18 000 square foot commercial/industrial building on Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark. He stated that this is the lot that the Commission went through the variance hearing on at the last meeting. The variance was denied. they appealed to the Town Council, the denial was upheld by th. Town Council. The proposed building is two stories, 27 teet high, metal Butler type building. The exterior is finished in a Canyon Gray siding with an 8 foot redrock colored stucco band around the botton and on the gable torms over the doors. Allender stated that when this was brought in for conceptual, all the siding was a white. They have also added a gabled roof form over the entrances. The sign was originally up on the side of the building, but they have removed that. The roof will be a metal standing seam finished in PLANNING AND ZONING March 16, 1993 Page 6 of 19 COMMISSION MEETIP!G MINUTES ion,_ ValleZ a stone white. The building would contain spaces for offices, dispatcher, warehousing, servicing vehicles, a laundry and restrooms. A security fence is proposed across the center of the parking area. Staff has not seen a design for that. A minimum of 20% of the lot must be dedicated to landscaping and the applicant has barely met that. They have agreed and the landscape plan reflects landscaping in the right-of-way to further screen their access and their parking. Twenty percent snow storage is needed, figured on the paved area. They do not have that. They are proposing, as a condition of this, snow melting the entire parking lot. The owner is committed to doing that. He sees it as a show case for his product. Staff suggests that this be a condition of approval. Allender stated that, as proposed, the project meets all Town setbacks, lot coverage and height restrictions. The parking provided exceeds Town requirements. The original parking plan submitted had parking abutting the front property line and the variance and appeal were denied. They have basically trip flopped the parking. They still have paved to the front property line, but that. will be an access drive, which meets the regulations. This would be visually acceptable. Allender stated that the proposed improvements appear to be visually compatible with the neighborhood. As proposed, the building will improve the appearance of the area. Paving to the property line should be acceptable due to the absence of parked vehicles at the property iine, the grade separation between the road and the parking area, and the landscaping adjacent to the property line. Staff feels that this is a vast improvement over their original submittal and recommends approval. Ken Robertson, of Shepherd Construction Resources, stated that they tried as best as they could within the scope of the program and the budget to address each one of the last meetings comments. He stated that they have an updated drawing of the proposed fence. It is a security fence. It will be a vinyl coated chain link in an olive green. He provided some spec sheets on site lighting also. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the color rendering was accurate. the applicant stated it was as accurate as he could get it. Schneiderman stated that the color looked kind of taupe. The applicant provided a sample of the color. Schneiderman stated sha would like to see the color of the fence. the applicant stated PLANNING AND ZONING March 16, 1993 Page 7 of 19 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Valley Wide Plumbing and Heating, Final Design Review,_Lcont1 he did not have any samples of that, but it could be in colors. Schneiderman stated that she felt it was a big improvement, design wise. Sue Railton asked where the signage would be. The applicant replied that the signage would have to be studied and they will be back with that. Buz Reynolds asked about the slope of the roof. The applicant stated that it is a half twelve slope . Reynolds was concerned with the ice and snow falling over the garage doors and entry. Schneiderman asked how high the fence was. The applicant stated six feet. Chairman Perkins asked if the landscaping plan meets the Town's requirements. Tom Allender replied that it did. He also stated that Stafr was originally concerned with the appearance of the fence, but with recent events that have taken place up there, Staff understands the need for that added security. Perkins asked if Lhere was an irrigation system with the landscaping. Allender stated that there was one to be installed by the landscape contractor. Sue Railton stated that she thinks it is a vast improvement. Jack Hunn had some concerns about the snow melt. He stated that he had some recent experience where the snow melt had been turned off because the condominium association had found out how much it cost, and if this thing clearly doesn't meet regulations with the snow melt either failed or turned off in the future, he has * concern about that. He is also concerned with where the water would go. How will it be managed? The applicant stated that they have a drainage design. There is a filter interceptor trench, and the lot will be sloped to drain, and pickup the interceptor trench and then go into a drain that daylights down the hill. Nur►n stated that if there are no obstructions, that would w -►, but it there are obstructions it will flow down to the intorsectian grid posr,ibly out into the road and freeze. Tom Allender stated that at bui''-d►ng permit this gets hah4e4 Larry Brooks and if he doesn't 1►k* it you are back to *Quare v Jack Hunn stated that he thinks that the &"Is cant has put improved cosmetics on the *a" architecture, whil.n Yft It ► better, but it is the sum unintere*ting m**s {<AVpareq to s of the properties up and down the *treat tnot ere *+wilar waa. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 8 of 19 Lot 12, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Volley Wide Plumbing and Heating. Final Design Review. (cont) this comes up short. He stated that he is very concerned with the fascia image of the parapet at the very top of the street side elevation. It does not turn the corners. You've got this flat image and he does not know how it is supported, but from the side elevations you will see the support system and the fact that it is about two inches thick and there is no return. The applicant stated that it is built out from the front of the wall about one foot three inches and has a steel support and then a closure on the bottom that prevents a view from the bottom side. He stated that he could make sure that the closure is on the sides as well. The snow accumulation was their concern. Hunn stated that contrary to previous comrt,�nts about the building not beinn visible from the road, he thinks it would be extremely visible when you come down the road. Also, the image of the fence concerns him. There is a lot of asphalt, not much landscaping, and then the security fence is a predominant image. Selecting the right color for the fence is important. He stated that he understands budgets and recognizes the challenges they face, but he is not comfortable that this building is as good as it could be. Buz Reynolds commented that the three garage doors make that halt of the building look so funny. He stated that something needs to be done to break up the flatness of that half of the wall. It was suggested that they be the same color as the Canyon prey walls instead of the white doors. Discussion followed on the matter of the white fascia. If they take away the whits doors then the white fascia would look out of place. Discussion followed on the added formers. Copper would be used on the roofs of the dormers. Patti Dixon stated that she feels it is an improvement from the previous plan, but she dislikes the white glaring doors. Henry Vest felt that the doors should be the Lanyon uray. Chairman Perkins statad that he still has the Bare prObleus he hod before, in that he regrets that they are starting to Met at**' prefabricated builjinge on Metcalf Road. It is so +siportent as the front door to Wildridge and Mountain Star. r•e had ho"d that those buildings could somehow be reflective of aaae sort If multi -family residential architectural Cnorec_er and st+lI wcaro ae warehouses, etc. PLANNING AND ZONING March 16, 1993 Page 9 of 19 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ON Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 12, Block 1, commercial/industrial building, final design review, with the following conditions: 1. The three garage doors be painted the Canyon Gray color to match the siding. 2. The chain link fence color be some sort of earth tone color to blend in with the building. The applicant return with a sample of the fencing to be used, for approval. 3. The applicant return with the building signage for approval. 4. The snow melt system be finalized in its drawing to the satisfaction to the Town Engineer. Patti Dixon seconded. Chairman Perkins called for a vote and the motion failed with a four to three vote, John Perkins, Sue Railton, Jack Hunn, and Buz Reynolds voting nay. Lot 50 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision, Lundell Single f -amity Residence. Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that Robert Lundell, architect and owner of Lot 50 is requesting final design review approval for a single family residence. This project went through conceptuai design review on August 7, 1992 and received comments which indicated that the project would be appropriate. There was some concern with the metal roof. Lot 50 is 63 acres in size and slopes toward the south at approximately 27%. The lot is zoned SPA with a duplex designation. The building has three levels, with the lower level partially below grade. The main entrance is on the third, or street level, The building is a narrow rectangle with flat roofs on the lona sides. A small metal gable roof runs down the center of the structure. Stucr;o covered parapet walls are located at the ends of the gable roof form. The house is approximately 2900 square fe-t of habitable space. A large dock is located at the south eno of the upper level and is connected :.o the lower level patio via a metal circular staircase. A small circular town is adjacent to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 10 of 19 Lot 50, Block 4. Wildridge_Subdivi_sion, Lundell _Side _Family Residence, Final Design Review_ cont that patio. The proposed exterior material is split faced concrete block in a buff sandstone color with stucco accents, also buff. The gabled roof form is a metal standing seam finished in a forest green. Windows will be white clad casement, doors are two panel, left in a natural wood color. Deck rails will be metal to be painted either white or green. There are two driveways in this proposal. One enters the property from the northeast and terminates at the two car garage which is located under the parking area that enters straight into the lot at the third level. The Commission has approved one metal roof in Wildridge, after it established criteria in a worksession, held on December 1, 1992. The Commission stated that metal roofs could be considered in Wildridge on a case by case basis if the following conditions are met: 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. 6. A metal roof must be compatible with the arr;hitectural design. Allender stated that at the conceptual review concerns were raised about the lack of t::rnaround space for cars in the drives. This design still requires vehicles to back on to Longsun Lane. Allender stated that it is e: cul-de-sac with a real limited amount of traffic. The area below the long drive and the area below the house are at 66% or more according to the grading plan. we have a requirement that they not exceed two to one unless there is real strong evidence it will hold at one and one half to one. He stated that he thinks the final landscape plan will require a little more use of retaining wall. The long drive is slightly over 10%, nut he thinks this could be easily rectified. Allender stated that the project does not appear to require an unreasonable amount of site disturbance or regrading, lhere is not a dominant design theme in this area of wildridge. This residence will be unique to the area, but should be vieualiy PLANNING AND ZONING March 16, 1993 Page 11 of 19 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Lot 50, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Lundell Single Famii_y Residence, Final Design Revie, (co wnt) compatible with the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. A revised grading plan be presented with the building permit application to be reviewed by Staff. The grading plan should rectify some of the discrepancies in tte grading plan and make sure that nothing is over two to one. 2. The metal areas of the roof follow these guidelines: Seam spacing be a minimum of 18 inches. Material be no lighter than 24 gauge. Integrated trim pieces must be utilized. Bob Lundell stated that the drawing shown is not the grading plan, just the landscape plan, and some of these issues have been taken care of in terms of the grades. Also, they have added a hammerhead inside the property line for the cars to turnaround. This is reflected on the model provided. He provided a sample of the proposed metal roof, stating that he thinks it is a 26 gauge. He stated he wanted to use a propanel because the seams are nine inches together, plus the application is a lot more cost effective. Discussion followed on the sample provided, which was very shiny. The applicant stated he would like approval on the roofing material as presented. Patti Dixon stated that she had no problem with the roof, even though it is a little bit shiny. There is so little of it. She feels it is inovative and would be an asset to the area. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she has always liked the house, but she would like to see the criteria for metal roofs upheld. if the applicant was at the very top of wildridge, with no possibility of someone looking down on the house, maybe the shiny roof would not make a difference, but in this case it is too shiny. It should be the green color. Henry asked about the triangle pop -out and how it would De shedding. The applicant explained that it has a scupper coming out the back. Mr. Vest like the design„ stating that it fits weir with the lot. He stated he thought the metal roof was appropriate for this house, but the applicant will have to follow the guidelines. John Perkins asked about the railing detail. They would be mesh, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 12 of 19 Single Family probably a 4 x 4. Perkins stated that he would also require upholding the specifications for metal roofs. He is also concerned about the maneuverability out of the garage. Discussion followed on this, and the retaining walls materials. Sue Railton stated that she thinks it is a real interesting design and her only comment is that it should be a matt finish on the roof. Jack Huhn thanked the applicant for providing a model. He asked if a variance had been granted to allow the garage to encroach into the front setback. Tom Allender stated that they are actually right on the setback, not into it. Jack Hunn stated that he is not sure that a car could be turned around in the hammerhead provided. Architecturally it is an unusual home for Wildridge, it is proposed with unusual materials. Discussion followed on the proposed use of concrete block. Huhn also felt that the applicant should meet the criteria for the metal roof. He is uncomfortable with the proposed roofing product. The applicant stated he would research other products. Buz Reynolds stated that this is a highly visible roof. He stated that he is not a proponent of metal roots in Wildridge. Discussion followed on the rock size to be used. Reynolds stated that the idea of moving this closer to the street is more intriguing. It would make the house work. He stated that he thinks it is a good idea to put boulders along the edge. Reynolds stated that the Town Engineer usually recommends putting a guard rail or some kind of wall. Sue Railton moved to grant final design approval with the condition that the roofing material meet the Town specifications. Patti Dixon seconded. Railton amended her motion to state that a sample of the roofing material be provided to the Commission before final approval is given on the roof. Dixon seconded the amendment. The motion carried with Jack Hunn and Buz Reynolds voting nay. Lot 10, Block 4._ Wildridge_Sub ivis�4nBla.Gk Single Family Residence w/Caretaker Unit Conceptygl Design Review Tom Allender stated that Russel Gies, representing the Blacks, is requesting conceptual design review for a proposed single family residence, with a lockoff apartment. The lot is approximately one and one half acres in size and slopes to the south at about 29 percent. The zoning is SPA with a duplex designation. PLANNING AND ZONING March 16, 1993 Page 13 of 19 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Lot 10, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Black Single __Family Residence w/Caretaker Unit, Conceptual Design Reyiewcontj The proposed structure has three levels w4t.h the primary dwelling unit on the upper two levels and a locko°f on the lower level. The lower level also contains the two car garage. The residence contains approximately 3400 square feet of habitable space, 2850 in the main unit and 550 in the lockoff. The structure, as proposed, appears to be within all Town height, lot coverage and setback requirements. The exterior is finished in a beige stucco, Doors and windows will be metal clad, in green or white. The structure has a flat roof. The site plan shows a long driveway with a constant grade of 10 percent with boulder retaining wall used extensively. The majority of the lot is to be left in natural landscape. The plan'_:ng materials proposed are dominated by dry land species. Exterior lighting has not been discussed. Allender stated that, as this a conceptual design review, no formal Staff recommendation will be made. Buz Reynolds asked if the windows would be set in. Russel Gies responded they would be set in flush. Reynolds stated that he thought this project would look very nice. Jack Hunn asked what percent was the driveway. The applicant responded that they did not exceed 10%. Hunn asked if the two units were detached or attached. The applicant responded completely attached. Hunn asked if the caretaker unit would have covered parking. This will be a vacation home so the caretaker will have access to the garage. Hunn asked what the flat roof material would be. The applicant replied it would be a ballast. Sue Railton stated she thinks it is exciting. John Perkins stated that he thinks the window fenestration needs some work. He stated the forms are great, but the window spacing is atrocious. What you have gained with the forms, you've lost with the way the windows were put in. He felt that it was very schematic and needs more work. Henry Vest asked about the lighting of the drive. Tne applicant stated that there would be significant lighting. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that it is a shame that this house is going in a place where exterior night lighting is a no -no as this house begs to be lit at night. She stated she likes the house. but feels that landscaping will be real important. The applicant stated that he doesn't see the need for any. The hillside is void of landscaping. At this stage he would be very reluctant to say that there will be any major landscaping. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 14 of 19 Lot 10, Block 4. _Wildridse Subdivision, Black _Single Family Residence w/Caretaker Unit. Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Patti Dixon asked if the windows on the south elevation at the top were glass block. The applicant stated that they were glass block. Dixon stated that she liked the window fenestration. Chairmar Perkins stated that the applicant E.hould consider the comments of the Commission. Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision,—Single Family Residence. Conceptual Design Review Tom Allender stated that Ken Harkias of Trends West, on behalf of James Robinson has requested a conceptual design for a single family residence. The lot is located between Eaglebend Drive and the Eagle River towards the east end of the Eaglebend Subdivision. The lot is .37 acres in size and slopes toward the river. The zoning is PUD with a duplex designation. The proposed structure is a two story log home, with approximately 4000 square feet of habitable space, not including the attached 550 square foot garage. 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, zomplies with all Town zoning regulations. The exterior is to constructed of full diameter logs with a natural wood tone stain. A stone veneer is to be utilized on the chimneys and to cover the foundation. Fascia will be 2x cedar, soffits a 1 x 6 :>pruce tongue and groove, windows are clad casements, window trim will be 1x4 cedar, The rear door is a french clad patio door, the front door ;s wood, trimmed in cedar. The applicant has been informed that thea wood turning ♦fireplace will have to be converted to a certified gas appliance. The applicant is currently working with a landscape architcet on a design that will be presented at final design review. site lighting has not been addressed. Allender stated that there is no formal recommendation. Ken Harkias stated that this is a typical alpine log home. It is a full log structure and is fully chinked. The lops have no breaks in them, if it is a 50 ft. wall It will be a SO ft. lop. They use an acrylic latex chinking compound, not a mortar, so 1t doesn't crack. It is not a full two a':ory house inside. John Perkins stated that he thinks it looks great. Discussion followed on the roof detail, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 15 of 19 Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision. Single Fami�Residence_� Conceptual Design Review (cont) Jack Hunn stated that the applicant might consider the style of windows is a little bit large for the log home. The applicant stated that there will be grids on the windows, with the possible exception of the large windows in the rear. Discussion followed on the logs to be used. The applicant stated that they are all hand peeled. They are lodgepole, standing dead, beetle kill logs. No green logs will be used. Discussion followed on the shed roof that comes out over the deck. The applicant stated that it covers the deck. The applicant stated that they are still trying to determine the trim colors, but are considering a green, similar to a sage green. Also, they would like to use red grids on the windows. Discussion followed on this concept and the color of red to be used. Mr Harkias provide a picture of how it would look. It was suggested that the applicant provide samples at final design review. The general consensus was that this was an appropriate project for this neighborhood and urged the applicant to continue on. Lot 4. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivisi_on,___JUge_lin_e. _Condos,_ Roof Material Change Request._ Tom Allender stated that the request is for A RiaLetial change for the Ridgeline Condos. The group wishes to substitute an asphalt shingle, with a 30 year guarantee, for the previously approved wooden srial-e shingles. The product is a Tampco Heritage Premium in a weathered wocv color. Allender stated that Ridgeline Condos received final design approval in August of 1990, a building permit was acquired in August of 1992. Construction has not begun, however, an extension of the building permit was granted in December of 1992 until June of 1993. Tad Degen, builder, provided a sample of the product. Allender stated that this appears to be a good product which retains the appearance of shakes, while improving on the fire resistance and longevity. Staff recommends approval. Rhoda Schneiderman mcved to approve Lot 4, Block 1, wiidridge, material change request. Patti Dixon seconded. The motion carried, with Jack Nunn not voting, as he was not present at the time. PIANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 16 of 19 Lot 26, Block 4, Wildridge, Gallagher_Sing_e Family_ Residences Conceptual Design Review Tom Allender stated teat Kathy Langenwalter, representing the Gallaghers, is requesting conceptual design review for a proposed single family residence on Lot 26, Block 4, Wildridge. This lot is located on the southeast side of Coyote Ridge. Ir, is approximately one acre in size. The lot slopes to the southeast at about 37 percent. The zoning is SPA with a duplex designation. The proposed structure has three levels with the main living area on the middle level. It has approximately 3100 square feet of habitable space, not including 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 metal clad. Fasica and soffits will be of wood, and color samples will be presented. The roof form is gabled, finished with concrete tile. The site plan shows a driveway with a maximum grade of 8%. Site drainage is directed away from the structure and overall the finished grades do not exceed 50% or 2:1. The majority of the lot is to be left in a natural landscape. The planting materials proposed are dominated by dry land species. Providing an irrigation system will be left to the owners. Exterior lighting has not been discussed. Allender stated that the applicant actually wants final design on this, however, the plans were not received soon enough. Since this is a conceptual design review, no formal recommendation wiil be provided. Kathy Langenwalter stated that there is one change. The sotfit and the fascia are actually stucco. She also provided a color rendering and color samples. She stated that she thinks she does have a complete submittal. Discussion followed on the entire building being stucco. The applicant stated that there is a wood railing and between upper and lower windows is a wood kind of header. Discussion followed on the type of roof and the pitch. the applicant asked if the Commission would give her a final design approval at this time. The Commission asked how Staff felt about this. Allender stated that he has not spent much time on it, if the Commission is comfortable with it, the applicant could bring the landscape plan back. The applicant stated that the landscape plan is provided and she proceeded to describe what would be done. Discussion followed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 17 of 19 ing-le Fami ly Jack Hunn moved to grant final approval for Lot 26, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, with the recommendation that an automatic irrigation system be incorporated. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business The following items were received too late to be placed on the agenda as regular items. Lot 55, Block 2.Benchmark at Beayer_Creek_Subdiv_ision,__Shapiro Century 21 Building Tom Allender stated that the applicant originally wanted to come in for final approval, however, there were a few glitches that Staff was uncomfortable with in the landscape plan and the grading plan. To avoid any more last minute changes Staff suggested that the applicant let the Commission take one more look at the project. The applicant has brought a model for review. Discussion followed on how the mechanical equipment is screened and the fact that Avon Center tenants will be able to see it. Discussion followed on the roof, the parking and the need that it be figured on mixed use parking. Discussion followed on how deliveries would be made, should a restaurant be one of the tenants. The applicant stated that the perspective restaurant tenant has expressed the idea that all deliveries be by mini -van. The matter of deliveries being made via the passenger elevator was discussed. Most of the discussion is not clear since everyone was standing around the model and talking among themselves. The general consensus was that this was a very attractive and workable project. 3. Wildridge Subdivision, Tony Scharpf, Material Chgnge_Rgqueet Tom Allender stated that Tony Scharpf was requesting a material change for the duplex being built on Lot 33, Block 3, Wildridge. He wishes to substitute a masonite siding for the previously approved wood siding and change the color from off white to light beige. He also wishes to change the color of the clad windows from white to a light taupe. The soffit and fascia would also be changed to match the windows. The approved color was beige. This Commission granted final approval with conditions on October 20, 1992. One of those conditions was that the siding be wood as opposed to masonite. This siding appears to be a reasonable product and the color change should be fine, therefore, Staff PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 18 of 19 Lot 33, Block 3 _Wildri_dge Subdivision, Tony Scharpf. Material_ Change Request, (cont) recommends approval. Tony Scharpf stated that the color changes are just a little darker in tone. He provided samples. Scharpf stated that the reason he prefers the masonite siding is because of the maintenance on it, compared to wood siding. He provided a sample of the proposed siding. Scharpf stated that more than halt of the house is stucco. Discussion followed on how it would be applied. Henry vest moved to approve the material change request and the color change for Lot 33, Block 3, Wildridge, as submiLLed. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried with Rhoda Schneiderman and Jack Hunn voting nay. Rendin��lnli Aooroval of_the _P_Ianning__and,__Zoning Comm iss1on__Meeting Minu>y.ga_of March 2.. 1993._ Buz Reynolds moved to approve the minutes of the March 2, 1993 meeting. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Qt,he_r___pus i nesse (cont) Jack Hunn asked if someone doing an in-home business should get a special review use, with a public hearing, before they get a business license. Tom Allender stated that this had been discussed at the last meeting. Currently, as the regulations read, that is correct. However, there are a lot of instances where the home occupation might be an answering machine. Technically, they need a special review use. The discussion last meeting was regarding the impacts to the neighborhood. If there are no impacts, no employees, no exterior changes,should someone be required to go through the SRU process. Jack H4nn stated that there is a day care being conducted that has not received a special review use. Rick Pylman stated that the Staff was aware of this and the party had been willing to come in for the special review use. However, since the party stated that she was down to one child a day, three days a week, Staft felt that this was not a business. Staff will be working on changing the regulations so that home occupations that consist of an answering machine, etc., only, will not have to go througk. the special revie•v use process. Discussion followed on the matter of subdividing multi -tamely lots. The Commission felt that criteria was needed. Discussion followed on design guidelines procedures and directions the Commission should give applicants, especially if a project is a i 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1993 Page 19 of 19 Qlbkr -evv i neolL .lsQri-At1 denied. Discussion also followed on better communication between the Commission and the Council. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 PM. 44saectfully sutaltted. Jo rws.;etta �e«cera+ I a y r�