Loading...
PZC Minutes 060193P'1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES m4m June 1, 1993 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on June 1, 1993, at 7:35 P.M.in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins. Members Present: John Perkins, Jack Hunn, Patti Dixon, Sue Railton Staff Present: Tom Allender, Town Planner Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Chairman Perkins stated all members were present except Henry Vest, Buz Reynolds and Rhoda Schneiderman. Election of Officers Since only four of the Commission members were present at this meeting, this item was tabled to the June 15, 1993 meeting. Other Business Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 93-5 Granting a Front Yard Setback Variance for Lot 71_ Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision This variance was reviewed and approved at the May 4, 1993, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Jack Hunn moved to approve Resolution 93-5, Sue Railton seconded and the motion carred unanimously. a a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 2 Other Business (cont) Plan-ing and Zoning Commission Resolution 93-6. Granting A Special Review Use To Allow Automobile Service Center As a Principal Use On Lot 4 Block I Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision This Special Review Use was reviewed and approved at the April 20, 1993, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Patti Dixon moved to approve Resolution 93-6, Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Reading and Approval of the May 4 1993 and May 18 1993 Planning And Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Sue Railton moved to approve the May 4, 1993, and the May 18,1993, minutes as submitted. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 5. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Single Family Residence Final Design Rgview Tom Allender stated tha+ Mark Donaldson, representing Gloria Mitchell, is proposing a single family residence on lot 5, Block 2, Wildridge. Lot 5 is located on the east side of O'Neal Spur. It is o.65 acres in size. The lot has a prominent ridge running through it parallel to O'Neal Spur. From the road the lot slopes at 50% for 30 feet, up at 12% for 64 feet, down at 26% for 30 feet and then down at 601/6 for 85 feet. Zoning is PUD with a duplex designation. The proposed residence is approximately 3000 square feet in size and includes an attached two car garage. the structure is two stories tall and is sunk into the top of the ridge. The exterio* of the upper level is finished with one by eight masonite siding in a sandstone brown, Spring Blush colored stucco is used as the finish material on the lower level. White windows will be used. Fascia will be built up from two by four and two by eight wood in a spring blush color. Plywood soffits will be painted to match the stucco. The roof form is gabled with dormers on the front and rear elevation A 350# asphalt composition will be used to finish the roof. The proposed color is a Timberline Driftwood Blend. The proposed landscaping is adequate and an automatic irrigation is to be included. Site lighting has not been discussed. As proposed, the project appears to meet all setback, lot coverage, and height restrictions. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 3 Lot 5. Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision. Single a family Residence Final Design Review (cont) Regarding the criteria, on 6.14, the lot has very complex topography, the proposed improvements have been placed in a reasonable manner, the project appears to have been designed with the topography in mind. Staff recommends approval, with the condition that electric and gas meters be attached to the building. Mark Donaldson provided samples of the colors to be used, and also provided a color rendering. He stated that siding is an 8 inch lap with a rough sawn cedar finish. Jack Hunn asked where the dirt would go. Donaldson stated that in order to provide a sensitive enough design for the site they need to do the project this way. They tried a variety of driveway designs. What became apparent was they could take the top 6 or so f^_et off of the hogback and put the basement in there and backfill up against that. What they have is the main level walks out at grade. In doing so they were able to create a more compatible structure into that hillside. The dirt will be used for the driveway. Considerable discussion followed on the location of the structure on the site and the drifting snow etc. Chairman Perkins asked about the grade of the driveway. Donaldson stated that it starts off at about 4 or 5% and gets up to 6 or 7%. Discussion followed on the landscape plan. Discussion followed on limiting the disturbance on the site. Hunn asked what the retaining wall finish would be. Donaldson stated it would be the same stucco finish as the lower level. Hunn asked about the site lighting. Donaldson replied soffit lighting at the entries. There will be no pole lighting or any exposed wall mounted lighting. Sue Railton moved to grant final design approval to Lot 5, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, with the staff condition that the gas and electric meters be attached to the building. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 71, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision. Thompson Single Family Residence. Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that Sam Sterling is representing the Thompsons. He stated that the Commission has looked at this project a few times. It has received a variance for a front yard setback. It is on Saddleridge Loop. The lot is a very steep, sloping down to the south. It is a duplex lot. At a previous final design review the Commission was concerned with the lack of a turn around in the driveway, the grading plan, the landscape plan, and the windows on the south elevation. The applicant has addressed all of these issues, however, they should be aware that the parking shown on the road maintenance easement will have to be approved by the Town Public Works Department. The exterior of the lower level is finished in stucco, the cc'or is La Habra "Chablis X-12", the upper level is 1x8 channel rustic in a cedar tone finish. Windows will be aluminum with a bronze finish, trim PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1.,1993 Page 4 Lot 71, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Thompson Single Family Residence Final Design Review, cont will be 1x4 rough sawn cedar, fascia will be a 2x10 rough sawn cedar with a cedar tone stain, soffits will be 3/8 fir plywood. The roof form is an offset gable finished with Heritap• Two asphalt composition shingles in a Shadow Gray. The landscape plan leaves the majority of the lot natural. What is planted appears adequate, a drip irrigation is proposed. The retaining wall will be constructed of Rylite rock. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the electric and gas meters be attached to the building. Sam Sterling stated they have addressed the Commission concerns regarding the differences of the heights of the ridge lines by offsetting the end ridge lines, with the result being to equalize the different step., from the ridge lines. Also, regarding the window fenestration on the west elevation, they have moved the windows in the stairwell to the right slightly to give them a little bit of separation from that lower bathroom window. The roof massing at the back of the garage was an issue. By offsetting the roof it has given it a bit more mass. They have added retaining walls as per the recommendations of the Commission. They have also rearranged some landscaping for better snow storage at the side of the garage, and removed landscaping from both sides of the driveway to allow for snow. Jack Hunn suggested offsetting the house in one area and backfilling the area to provide more area for maneuvering. Sterling stated that they could but then you would be looking at a possible 16 foot high foundatian wall, which cuts off a window sill. Then you can't make the grade change at the comer of the house. They already have a six foot high retaining wall. He described how the slope is now. Hunn stated that he thinks the landscape adjustments are favorable. Hunn asked about the Rylite product. Sterling stated it is a natural shale product. Discussion followed on the retaining walls. Sterling stated that the lower one at the southwest corner of the property there is a section of two that taper from zero to three feet at the centers. The one that is on the north side of the property tapers from 6 feet at the window to zero at the outside. The one at the edge of the driveway tapers from zero to four feet. The one closest to the road is two to three feet. Discussion followed on the trench drain. This is a secondary drain. Jack Hunn moved to grant final approval for Lot 71, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, with the condition that the electric and gas meters be attached to the building. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 34, Block 1. Wildridge Subic ivision_ Single Family Residence Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that this is also a Sam Sterling project. The Warnkes are requesting a final design review. The lot slopes down to the north at about 19%. This is the lot that does not have access p, �— PLANNING AND ZONING CONMUSSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 5 Lot 34, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Single Family Residence, Final Design Review, (cont) except through a 30 foot easement on Lot 33. The structure is one story high with a walkout basement. It has approximately 2000 square feet of habitable space not including the garage. The structure as proposed is within all Town height, lot coverage and setback restrictions. The exterior is finished in stucco, the color is "LaHabra Chablis". Windows will be aluminum with a bronze finish, trim will be 2x6 and 2x8 rough sawn cedar with a cedar tone finish. Fascia will be 2x 10 rough sawn cedar with a cedar tone stain, soffits will be 3/8 fir plywood. The roof form is a combination of gables and hips and will be finished with Heritage II asphalt shingles in a rustic redwood. Allender stated that at the conceptual review the Commission was concerned with the hip roof over the garage, that there was too much stucco, the landscape pan needed work and that the entryway should be enhanced to make a real statement. The applicant has added a raised band around the middle of the structure, added arches to the entry way and has increased the amount of plant material in the landscape plan. The roof form above the garage remains a hip. The landscape plan leaves the majority of the lot natural. What is planted appears adequate. The grading plan appears to be adequate. The application indicates irrigation by sprinkler. Exterior lighting has not been discussed. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the meters be attached to the building, and if the irrigation system is not automatic, it should be recommended. Sam Sterling stated that they did change the west elevation by adding a dutch hip. They changed some of the landscaping around a little bit. Discussion followed on the size of the windows. The applicant stated that they will be sliders. The applicant provided samples of the colors to be used. Hunn asked about using a second material. Sterling stated that the applicant is adamantly opposed to any wood siding of any kind. Hurn suggested stone veneer. Sterling stated that at this point that becomes a cost issue. The applicant is set on all stucco. Discussion followed on the raised relief band. Hunn suggested a change in color on that. John Perkins stated he feels that it does need some separation, in color or material, because there are large walls in one color and texture,and large window areas. Perkins stated that he does not understand the arch. He does not think that the way they are shown now will be a very successful detail. Hunn asked if the applicant would consider doing a different, possibly darker color stucco on the base of the building. The applicant replied that they would. 004 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 6 Lot 34, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Single Family Residence Final Design Review, (cont) The Commission felt that the posts for the arches need to be more substantial. More discussion followed on possible solutions. Discussion followed on the landscaping. Hunn asked if the driveway would be paved. The applicant stated it is. Discussion followed on the entrance and the site lighting. The applicant stated that there would be some sort of lighting near th- entrance to the driveway, sort of a joint entryway with the two house numbers on it, and additional lighting at the true entrance to Lot 34. Sue Railton moved to grant final design approval for Lot 34, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1. The electric and gas meters be attached to the building. 2. The applicant return with color samples for the stucco, being a light color on the top and a darker color on the bottom, and also provide details on the column treatment at the entry arcade. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 86_ Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision FourolexFinal Design Review Tom Allender stated that Mark Donaldson is representing the Perrys, requesting a final design review. The zoning is a PUD with a fourplex designation. The proposed fourplex is a modular which has a repetitive facade. The structure is two stories tall with garages on the lower level. Each unit has approximately 1500 square feet of habitable space, not including the attached garages. The structure as proposed is within all Town height, lot coverage and setback restrictions. The exterior is predominantly finished in a 6" woodsman lap siding. Windows will be wood clad, trim will be 1x6 wood, the fascia will be 20 on 2x8 smooth cedar, soffits will be plywood. A gabled roof with a series of small dormers is utilized. A 350# fiberglass Timberline shingle will be used. Colors will be presented by the applicant. Allender stated that at conceptual review the Commission was concerned with the repetitive facade, the amount of landscape material, that the roof line needed variety, and that the rear of the building behind the garages lacked interest. The applicant has introduced more landscape material and a more appropriate type around the driveway. The roof line has been altered, the breaks been increased between the two halves, the rear has been altered and has additional landscaping. The front facade remains unchanged. Landscaping and grading are adequate. Staff recommends approval with the condition that all electric and gas meters be attached to the building. Mark Donaldson stated that they have addressed four of the five issues discussed at conceptual review. He described what had been done, again. Donaldson stated, regarding the concern over the Allofts ^. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 7 Lot 86, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Fourplex. Final Design Review, (cont) mirror image, they tried a variety of things. He stated that he did a very extensive photo tour through Wildridge, and he noticed that a lot of the changes that have been adapted in duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes to break up the mirror image are very contrived. You look at one half and the window arrangements are very balanced and you look at the other half they are different, but they are not better. He stated that they researched the design regulations and guidelines and found that the guidelines address the discouragement of mirror images on duplex residences. He stated that they feel that the color combinations that they have added, the landscaping materials, the offsetting and changing the roof line should be very acceptable. The applicant provided samples of the colors to be used. Hunn stated that at the last meeting he was concerned with site disturbance to get the driveway there and without some cooperation with some adjacent property owner, this is really the only practical solution. He stated that it does appear that access to the property could be gained from an existing road that goes right to the edge of this property. He asked if that has been explored. Donaldson stated that it has. He stated that they have looked at the cost of that. He stated that he has some letters from people that are in the neighborhood. He stated that it is not in their benefit, or the neighborhood benefit. It creates more confusion. The driveway is not designed and constructed to handle the kind of traffic it would have to serve 16 units. The price tag put on it - the first sentence in the letter received states "a situation has arisen which puts some cash in our pockets". Donaldson stated that he is more interested in design tonight than someone else's cash. Donaldson stated that they have a very unique property. It is a little bit more challenging in terms of vehicular access than any of them believed. However, they are developing individual townhome units for sale and people in a townhome situation would much rather have more control over it regarding snow removal, maintenance, how it is constructed, how it works, etc. By situating the building on the property as they have, they have allowed good vehicular access and good building privacy to the south and the west. They feel that this is the best product. Sue Railton asked if there was a way that varying the back of the west elevation on some of the lower balconies you could build the swell up to them. Donaldson stated that they tried that, but the grading is so steep that it is not a usable situation. Further discussion followed on this. Discussion followed on the trim above the small windows. Discussion followed on the gas fireplaces and the venting. Sue Railton moved to grant final design review for Lot 86, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, with the condition that eiectric meters be attached to the building. and gas meters as near to the building as possible. Jack Hunn seconded and rhe motion carried with John Perkins voting nay. PLANNING AND ZONING CO?VMSSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 8 Lot 4, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Automobile Service Center and Car Wash Conceptual Design Review Chairman Perkins stated that this applicant was granted a Special Review Use for this site approximately a month ago. Tom Allender stated that Ron Bifani is proposing to construct and operate a full service Goodyear Automotive Automotive Service Center and Car Wash. No gasoline sales would happen on the lot. Lot 4 is .70 acres and is zoned neighborhood commercial and is located on Nottingham Road. It is the westernmost commercial lot in that area. It is adjacent to Buck Creek. The property west of Buck Creek is zoned residential and is developed with multi -family projects. The project as proposed would include eight interior automotive service bays, 2 automatic car wash bays, office and storage space, and one accessory apartment for employees. The business would provide full service auto service and repair, tire sales,limited auto accessory sales and car washing. The main level of the structure would house the eight service bays, the office, and the automatic car washes. The apartment would be in the upper level, and storage in the basement. The exterior would be predominantly finished in split faced block. the upper level would be finished in cedar board siding. The roof form on the front of the structure is gabled with a dormer. The roof over the service bays will be flat. Fiberglass shingles will be the finish material. Colors will be presented by the applicant. Allender stated that as submitted, the proposal does meet all Town height, setback and lot coverage and landscape requirements. Allender stated, as mentioned before, this received a Special Review Use approval only for the automobile service and repair component of the project. The car washes and the accessory apartment are uses by right. The conditions placed on that approval are: 1. That the Planning and Zoning Commission should ensure that potential negative impacts to the residential property to the west are addressed during the design review process. Factors critical to review include the lighting plan, building architecture, landscape buffers, trash storage, noise buffers, and general site planning. 2. The catch basin design must ensure that any site runoff is filtered and all oil, gasoline, soap, or suspended material be removed prior to d;scharge. 3. No underground storage tanks be allowed. 4. No auto repair or service will take place outside. There will be no storage of junk vehicles or miscellaneous parts outside. All trash receptacle and used tires waiting for proper disposal shall be stored in a well screened area. a 0% .pw'�' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 9 Lot 4.131ock 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision_ Automobile Service Center and Car Wash. Cunceptual Design Review. (cont) Allender stated that Staffs only comments at this conceptual review would be that the landscaping in the stream setback could be bunched up in massings, the boulder wall seems unnecessary, the addition of some riparian shrubs near the stream could be added, and the angled parking in front should be squared up. He stated that as this is conceptual there will be no Staff recommendation provided. Ron Bifani stated that he had no problems with any of the staff recommendations or suggestions. Jack Hunn stated, regarding the previous site plan and the conceptual elevations that they saw as they gave it a special review use, as he recalls, the orientation of the building was quite different. It has now been rotated 90 degrees. He stated that his concern is that some of the ne:ghbors that were present at the last meeting took some comfort in the fact that the garage door images were not facing the residential units. They were facing the street or the interstate. This proposal has a more significant and adverse impact visually on those people with all those garage doors, whether .;t an or closed. Ron Bifani stated that he thought that had to do with the do it yourself car washes and they have eliminated them. They just have two automatic ones now and they are down at the end of the lot, the furtherest away from the residential area. Hunn stated that the service bays for the repairs also have garage doors associated with them and the image of those doors will be facing those residential units. Ron Biftni stated that they had to change the orientation of the building because of the high water level and 30 foot setback of Buck Creek. This is the only way they can get it on the lot. Hunn replied that cne of the charges is that the Commission must consider the neighbors, with regard to lighting and architecture, etc. This new orientation presents some real challenges for mitigating those impacts on the neighbors. Hunn asked if the pavement is proposed all the way to the property line on the east side. That does not allow for any landscape buffer as part of this development. Tom Allender stated that there has been some discussion of having a shared driveway. The lot next door, however, is putting off for at least a year in doing anything. Hunn stated that another concern is the lack of any landscaping along the south property line, against the interstate, and the proposal to park a number of vehicles there. It will be quite visible to people on the on ramp as they exit the town. Hunn stated that his recommendation is that possibly the Highway Department would grant some encroachment permission to put the landscaping on their road right-of- way. Some landscape buffer along that edge is critical. Hunn stated that he is also concerned with the architectural image. At the last meeting there was some discussion of attempting to give the building a residential scale and character. The apartment takes on PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 10 Lot 4. Block I. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Automobile Service Center and Car Wash, Conceptual Design Review. (cont) that appearance, but the rest looks Hke a very straight forward commercial solution. The flat roofs and boxy forms do not make this building sympathetic to the architectural style that is in that area. Sue Railton agreed with the comments made by Jack Hunn. She would strongly oppose the architecture as proposed. It looks far too commercial. Patti Dixon stated that it needs to have a more residential look. John Perkins stated that he agrees with Jack Hunn's comments. He stated that he noticed that there is a backing, maneuvering lane of only 17 feet between the parking against the interstate and the wall of the last wash bay. He stated that he feels this is too tight. He also feels it is a little curious how the parking on the front side has been handled, with the wide landscaping element coming out there. He feels that landscaping will be their salvation. He feels that the cars along the interstate need to be buffered, and paving to the property line on the east side is a problem. Architecturally, this could be handled with more character. The general consensus of the Commission is that they owe it to the neighbors to make this the best solution possible. Further discussion followed on all the above comments. Discussion followed on the parking situation. Another concern is the noise of the tire service, etc. Further discussion followed on what could be done architecturally. The applicant was urged to provide better elevations, etc. and to consider the Commission comments. Lots 14/15. Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Commercial/industrial Building, Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that T. J. Conners and Karl Bell are requesting final design review for a 57,600 square foot commerciaUmdustrial building. The lot is located on Metcalf Road north of Avon Auto Body and the recently approved Valley Wide Plumbing building. The proposed building is four stories high. The exterior finish is metal on the upper level, with a stucco product utilized on the lower level. The building utilizes a metal mansard roof form which has been decreased in size in response to comments at the conceptual review. The top two floors of each building will contain self storage mini warehouse space. The bottom two levels will contain spaces for service commercial office warehouses. As proposed, the two buildings exceed the maximum allowed height by a few feet. A variance would be required. Staff does not see this as a major problem as the lot is very steep and Metcalf Road encroaches into the lot by 10 feet. The applicants would also be seeking a variance from the required parking for self storage units. This Commission has granted a similar variance in r lf�► PLANNING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 11 Lots 14/15, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Commercial/Industrial Building Final Design Review, (cont) this area in the past and there have been no problems with that. The project would also require the vacation of the lot line dividing lots 14 and 15. The applicant has redesigned the parking and :jading configuration in response to Commission comments about truck parking on the road. It looks like the i vast majority of truck traffic could actually turn around in the parking the way it is redesigned. Exterior lighting and signage has not been discussed. Other than the height slightly exceed ing the maximum required and the parking variance, the project appears to meet Town requirements. Staff recommendation is For approval with the following conditions: 1. The grading plan be approved by the Town Engineer. 2. The applicant apply for and receive both a height variance and a variance for the required parking associated with the self storage unit. A final design approval should not be construed as a pre - approval for either variance. 3. The property line between lots 14 and 15 be vacated. 4. A grading plan be submitted that does not show a re -location of Metcalf Road. Allender stated that there are a few spots on the grading plan that exceed 2 to 1 and those will also have to be corrected. Karl Bell stated that they have redone the plan to provide access for a 55 ft. vehicle to pull on to the site and back up to the loading dock. He stated that they will resubmit a final grading plan to the engineer. They have reduced the depth of the mansard, down to 18 ft. they did not change the rendering. It has been changed on the elevations. The applicant provided a study model showing the existing contours. The building has been cut into it. It is not a finish model. John Perkins stated that he is a little suprised that they need two variances. He asked why they are coming up at this late stage in the game, when the Commission has seen this before. Allender stated that he has actually mentioned the variances at every presentation. Perkins asked why they are not reviewing the variances with the design. Allender stated that it was Staffs suggestion that the applicant go through design review first. Perkins stated that in the past, when a project has needed a variance, they have always had the variance filed with the design review. Allender suggested that since the applicant needs to redo the grading plan also, this could easily be tabled, with whatever suggestions the Commission has, until their variance hearing. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. a a ^ 0*4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 11 Lots 14/15, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Commercial/Industrial Building, Final Design Review. (cont) this area in the past and there have been no problems with that. The project would also require the vacation of the lot line dividing lots 14 and 15. The applicant has redesigned the parking and loading configuration in response to Commission comments about truck parking on the road. It looks like the vast majority of truck traffic could actually turn around in the parking the way it is redesigned. Exterior lighting and signage has not been discussed. Other than the height slightly exceed ing the maximum required and the parking variance, the project appears to meet Town requirements. Staff recommendation is for approval with the following conditions: 1. The grading plan be approved by the Town Engineer. 2. The applicant apply for and receive both a height variance and a variance for the required parking associated with the self storage unit. A final design approval should not be construed as a pre - approval for either variance. 3. The property line between lots 14 and 15 be vacated. 4. A grading plan be submitted that does not show a re -location of Metcalf Road. Allender stated that there are a few spots on the grading plan that exceed 2 to 1 and those will also have to be corrected. Karl Bell stated that they have redone the plan to provide access for a 55 ft. vehicle to pull on to the site and back up to the loading dock. He stated that they will resubmit a final grading plan to the engineer. They have reduced the depth of the mansard, down to 18 ft. they did not change the rendering. It has been changed on the elevations. The applicant provided a study model showing the existing contours. The building has been cut into it. It is not a finish model. John Perkins stated that he is a little suprised that they need two variances. He asked why they are coming up at this late stage in the game, when the Commission has seen this before. Allender stated that he has actually mentioned the variances at every presentation. Perkins asked why they are not reviewing the variances with the design. Allender stated that it was Staffs suggestion that the applicant go through design review first. Perkins stated that in the past, when a project has needed a variance, they have always had the variance filed with the design review. Allender suggested that since the applicant needs to redo the grading plan also, this could easily be tabled, with whatever suggestions the Commission has, until their variance hearing. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 12 Lot 14/15, Block I. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision_ Commercial/Industrial Building Final Design Review. (cont) Jack Hunn asked about the reduction of the height of the mansard, but not the height of the building. W. Bell stated that Mr. Reynolds, at the last meeting, felt that the mansard was tco heavy for the rest of the building. Hunn stated that he appreciated the improvement in the truck maneuvering. Discussion followed on the size of the building. Mr. Bell stated that they had reduced the building after the first meeting, but they have not reduced it since. They reduced it 10 feat on each end. The applicant provided color samples. There are three sections. Up to the balcony will be the drivet, then the light metal and then the dark metal will be the top layer. Bell stated that they are going to add windows on the end walls, as previously suggested. The garage doors will be the same color as the roof. The balcony railings will be the same dark brown. The areas for signage will be built out with drivet. The elevator shaft will be drivet. The Commission suggested, after seeing the narrower mansard, going back to the wider mansard. The applicant stated that they could do that. Discussion followed on the width of the access ramps and the 8% grades. The width is 16 ft. The highest retaining wall will be 14 ft. The applicant pointed out where this would be. Hymn asked about snow storage. The applic?nt pointed out where the snow storage would be. The applicant stated that they have not designed the retaining wall yet. Hunn stated that he still feels that this is a real push on this site. A maximum building on a tight, steep site. Hunn commended the applicant for listening to the comments and providing solutions, but his biggest concern is that he feels that it is too much for the site. He would be more comfortable with less development on the site and something that would be more sympathetic with the existing topography. Considerable discussion followed. Discussion followed on the parking along the road. The applicant stated that will be revised. Perkins asked how much of a height variance is needed. Allender stated that the building at the very front is 52 feet. Allowed height is 48 feet. It is just the first few feet of the mansard that is over the allowed height. The parking variance would revolve around self storage. This space doesn't really need parking. People are there to load and unload only, not spend the day. Allender stated that this is unusual, but he feels he needs to change his recommendation to tabling. He let the retaining walls slip through the cracks. They need to know what the material is. that is a major feature. He thinks there is time, because they do need the variance. Further discussion followed on whether final approval could be given. Chairman Perkins called for a straw vote on support for this design as presented. Hunn stated that he would have difficulty supporting it as presented. Railton would support it. Dixon and Perkins would support it. A A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 13 Lots 14/15 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Commercial/Industrial Building.Final Design Review. (cont) Jack Hunn moved to table lots 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried with Patti Dixon voting nay. Lot 87, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision. Single Family Residence Conceptual Design Review Tom Allender stated that Steven Richards, Architect, is representing Larry MacNeil, and they are proposing a single family home. Lot 87 is located on the south side of Wildridge Road East and is approximately three quarters of an acre in size, and slopes down to the south. The proposed residencies approximately 2600 square feet in size, not including the attached two car garage. The structure is a soingle story with a walkout basement. the exterior is finished with one by eight channel lap siding, stained Stonehedge. The walkout level finish appears to be stucco. Windows would be wood clad with one by six cedar trim, also in stonehedge. Fascia will be two by ten and one by six cedar in heritage blues. Soffits will be cedar plywood, also in blue. The roof form is a series of gables, finished with slate gray asphalt shingles. The proposed landscape plan is adequate, however, hand watering is proposed as the method of irrigation. Exterior lighting and the placement of utility meters has not been discussed. The only major concern Staff has is that the grading plan indicates that the structure is on fill supported by rock retainage. This design does not respond to the site topography and the structure is over the maximum height allowed by zoning. Steven Richards stated that this is a difficult lot. He pointed out on plans the slope of the lot. He described various considerations for access and problems they had with these considerations. Discussion followed on the matter of building on fill. The applicant stated that they are not actually building on fill. Hunn asked how much over the height limit was this house. Allender stated that it is three feet over. The back wall is at 38 feet. Hunn stated that the driveway access is a pretty sensible strategy, but one way to get the house to fit into the site better is to leave the garage and entry level where it is and split the floor plan, maybe just a half a level or several steps to try to get the house to step down to respond to the site a little bit more. Discussion followed on how this could be done. Discussion followed on proposed materials. The applicant stated that they will use asphalt for the roofing materials. The applicant provided the proposed colors. Discussion followed on the landscaping. Hunn asked if the driveway will be paved. The applicant stated it would be. Perkins asked if the meters would be on the building. The applicant stated that they would probably be on the northeast comer of the garage. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 14 Lot 87, Block 4. Wildridge Snldivision. Single Family Residence_ Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Chairman Perkins stated that he hears a pretty positive response from the Commission, except the applicant needs to solve the height problem. Lot A. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Avon Center, Color Change, Final Design Review Tom Allender stated that Zehren and Associates is represting the Avon Center and they are requesting final design review approval for a change to the existing exterior colors. They are lacking one day to get a final vote to come in for approval for either scheme A or scheme B so they are going to present both. They are pretty confident that they will get approval for the second scheme which has the vertical banding that this Commission has seen before. Dean Koll, Zehren and Associates, stated that they are coming through for the color change only at this time. They will do some construction repairs later. It is a ten year plan. He discussed the color of the roof. He stated that what is on there now is the primer. He presented and described the two color schemes. The roof color will match the roof color of the Century 21 building. They are patching the stucco and replacing some of the windows. The banding color will be a maroon. The sign will be repainted to match the maroon. Scheme I does everything mentioned except for the banding. The banding is a built out detail. It is a fairly wide band. Discussion followed on the colors of the balconies. Discussion followed on the life expectancy of a paint job on a metal roof. Koll stated that they expect about five years, possibly longer. The previously proposed roofing turned out not to be feasible, because no one was willing to guarantee that the chemical reaction would not run and stain the building. Jack Hunn moved to grant the coli ,e request for Lot A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with a strong reconiumnuauon that Scheme 2 be pursued. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 1.Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Sunridge Phase II. Color Change Request Final Design Revie.y Tom Allender stated that Bonnie Dennis,manager of Sunridge Condominiums Phase II is requesting final design review approval for a change to the existing exterior colors of that project. Bonnie Dennis pointed out on the drawings what the changes would be. The body of the buildings a Cape Cod Gray, which is a light gray. The brown is a dark brown around the windows and they will blend the gray so they are not emphasizing all the windows. The top of the decks will be a forest green and also the fascia the forest green and the side rails. Samples were provided. She stated that they will do F through Q, which is the big side, and then next year do A through E. M PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 1,1993 Page 15 Lot 1, Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision SunrWge Phase II. Color Chance. Final Design Review, (cont) The flues should be painted to match the roof. r Jack Hunn moved to grant final design approval as presented. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Jack Hunn moved to adjourn. Patti Dixon seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary G J. S. R. A. P. H. J.