Loading...
PZC Minutes 021594.�N RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 A Planning and Zoning Commission Worksession was held at 6 P.M. Steve Amsbat ,gh thanked the Planning Commission members and the Town Council members present for attending the meeting on such short notice. Topic of discussion was the Town of Avon Recreation Center. Chis Carvelle, project architect, presented elevations, color and material samples for review. He stated that they will be using a combination of stone and masonry and small accent areas of stucco in the eaves instead of the previously proposed brick. The massing has not changed. Discussion followed in the areas that would be stucco and also on the proposed colors for the stone and the masonry, the accent colors, and the roof color. Discussion followed also ea! ;the interior colors to be used. Discussion followed on the square footage. Discussion folkywed on how the interior floor would be installed. Discussion followed on the lighting. The Planning and Zoning Commission members were generally pleased with the proposed materials and colors presented. They cautioned that they should be careful when choosing the bright color, so that they would not be too overpowering. Also, there needs to be more discussion regarding the roof color. The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on February 15, 1994, in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Vice Chairman Jack Hunn. Members Present: Jack Hunn, Patti Dixon, Buz Reynolds, Sue Railton Rhoda Schneiderman, Henry Vest Staff Present: Steve Amsbaugh, Director of Community Development, Mary Holden, Town Planner, Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary All members were present at the worksession and regular meeting except John Perkins. OMIN PLANNING aND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Februan, 15., 1994 Page 2 Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Westpate Building, Planned Unit Develapment, Public Hearing Steve Amsbaugh stated that this public hearing is a request to hear a change in zoning from RHDC (Residential High Density Commercial) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The lot is approximately 1.02 acres in size and is adjacent to the intersection of Highway 6 and west Beaver Creek Drive. It is also at the intersection of Prater Lane for Beaver Creek Resort. RHDC allows a variety land uses, including commercial uses, residential uses including hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast multiple family dwellings and does allow support retail, restaurants and service shops up to twenty percent of the gross floor area of the building area. Because this application is for a strictly commercial proposal the applicants decided to seek a rezoning request to change the zoning to Planned Unit Development which allowed them the flexibility to come in and talk about some design modifications, as well as allow the commercial use as an outright use. The proposal basically has four elements to it. The commercial elements are retail stores, professional offices, personal service shops and restaurants. The proposed PUD development standards, as mentioned before the lot is 1 02 acres in size, maximum building height is proposed to be forty eight feet, the minimum building setbac: s are: front yard setback is 25 feet, rear setback would be 10 feet. However, they are requesting the parking be allowed to encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback. In addition to that, roof overhangs on the building would be allowed to encroach five feet in the required 10 foot rear yard setback. In addition, they are requesting that a trash enclosure along the -north property line be allowed to cut into the rear yard setback as shown on the site plan. Maximum site coverage they are proposing is 30% and minimum landscape area they are proposing is 20%. Maximum square footage, on two levels of 20,000 square feet of commercial area is proposed. Parking would be according to the Town's zoning standards. Staff analysis is, basically: They meet the allowable PUD standard of one acre in lot size. The existing RHDC would allow a building up to 60 feet in height, they are proposing 48 feet. Setbacks are consistent with both zones. Maximum site coverage could be 509/o site coverage, and they are proposing 300/a. Minimum landscaping area is consistent with other zone districts. Maximum density does not really apply, because it is 25 units per acre, with up to twenty percent commercial in RHDC and this is an all commercial project. The proposed PUD would provide development which is consistent with or less than the development standards in the RHDC zone. Site access to the property would be a separate site entrance off of West Beaver Creek Blvd., opposite the Sumidge Condominium entrance. Because this intersection is called out in our Transportation Plan as a secondary intersection for possible street improvements in the future, we are going to request in this application that, if the Town, in the future decides to make improvements to the street in this area, or intersection improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks or intersection improvements, this applicant would agree to participate in the costs of such improvements. In reviewing it with the Town Engineer, they felt that now is not the time to call for those improvements because there are no other improvements on either side of the street, up and down the street. At this time, it would be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 3 Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Building, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearin cont more in keeping with the drainage patterns of the area as well as the circulation area to leave it as it is and have them to just agree to participate, if and when the Town decides to —ake those necessary formal intersection improvements. In terms of surrounding lands uses, there is residential high density on all sides within the Town of Avon. That would be the north, east and west sides of this site, which is the Sunridge Condominium development. To the immediate south is Highway 6 and 24 and beyond that there is the Beaver Creek PUD Mr. Amsbaugh stated that they feet this application is in conformity with the Town of Avon's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan calls out a mixed use application on this site. Stafffeels that the definition of a mixed use application is consistent with an all commercial application in this case because there is offices on the second floor and commercial/retail on the first floor. This is in conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town. The style of the proposal, the proposed landscaping, the massing and the height and the scale of this development is in keeping with the design theme of the Town of Avon. It is compatible with the neighborhood, in terms of architectural design and scale, bulk, building height, buffer zone, etc. This building does not exceed or come near the allowable height of buildings, the current allowable building coverage on this site. This is a small planned unit development, so there will not be large scale vehicular/pedestrian circulation systems on site, other than parking and pedestrian oriented circulation for the commercial activity itself. Internal circulation and parking has been reviewed by Staff and they feel it is adequate for the project at this level. There is no phasing proposed. There are adequate public services and adequate utilities to serve the site. The existing streets in the area are suitable and adequate to carry the proposed traffic volumes. Mr. Amsbaugh reviewed the criteria for reviewing a zone change. He stated that the commercial at this intersection is appropriate. Again, it is consistent with The Town's Comprehensive Plan. It is compatible with surrounding uses in the area. There are adequate services to serve such a rezone request. Mr. Amsbaugh stated that Staff would recommend that the Commission approve the rezoning for Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, from RHDC to Planned Unit Development, with the following findings and conditions AN r PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 4 Lot 3 Block 3 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Westgate Building, Planned Unit Development. Public Hearing. (cont) Findings: 1. The rezoning is justified due to the changing character of the area. 2. The rezoning is consistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed use is compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding area and uses. Conditions: 1. The PUD Plan and PUD Guidelines (including allowed uses, site access, parking and development standards) be incorporated into and binding upon the PUD zone district designation for Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, 2. If the Town determines that future street and intersection improvements are necessary in this location, the applicant agrees to participate in the cost for such improvements. Rick Pylman, representing the Elk Meadow Partnership, introduced Frank Navarro, Managing Partner of Elk Meadow Partnership. Mr. Pylman stated that they are in agreement with both of the Staff conditions. They are proposing an approximately 15,000 square foot retail and office building. Their goal with this building is to build a high quality, mixed use commercial building that can serve both the immediate neighborhood and the Town in general. They think they have done that while creating no adverse impacts to adjacent properties. This proposal allows commercial development on this property and allows appropriate commercial uses. They used the Town of Avon's Urban Design Guide Plan in designing the building. Mr. Pylman reviewed the background of proposed developments on the property and the re7cning of the property. In 1991 the Town of Avon went through a rezoning process. The property wa- zoned RHDC. At that time the RJ -IDC zone district allowed as a use by right a gas stw;on, a car wash, restaurants, retail stores, offices and automobile repair. The uses they are asking for now would have been allowed by that zoning. In 1991 the RHD% zone district was redesigned as a residential and lodging zone district. The Town was going to rezone this property to Neighborhood Commercial. The owner of this property, at that time, decided he would stay with the residential property. He never developed the property and eventually sold it. The Elk Meadow Partners are PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 5 Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Westgate Building, Planned Unit Development. Pubic Hearin;, cont really zoning the property back to commercial. The are asking for the PUD because they want only retail, office, personal services and restaurants as allowed uses Mr. Pylman then reviewed the building standards, i.e height, site coverage, etc. Mr. Pylman then pointed out the site plan with proposed landscaping, and showing the access He also reviewed the color rendering and the model provided. Vice Chairman Ilunn then opened the public hearing for comments from the audience. With no comments forth coming Vice Chairman Hunn closed the public hearing Sue Railton stated that she thinks it i!: a good use for this property and it is a nice project. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she also likes the proiect. She asked if the West Beaver Creek entrance was the best alternative. She asked if they could put thr entrance on Highway 6 with a right hand turn lane. Mr. Pylman stated that the State Highway Department would not issue an access permit for a piece of property that had an option to access off of a local street. Henry Vest asked if the parking mct the requirements. Steve Amsbaugh stated it did Paiti Dixon agreed writh the fa, orable comments Buz Reynolds asked if there would be a restaurant on the first floor Pylman stated there could be one. Reynolds questioned the parking Pylman stated that the PUD states that all uses in the building must conform to Town of Avon parking standards. If a restaurant went into a retail space, it could only have a seating area equal to the number of parking spaces required by that artca. Reynolds stated that he had no problems. Jack Hunn stated that he is in support of it also. He commended the applicant on his proposal Henry Vest moved to grant approval of the Planned Unit Development for the Westgate Building, Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with the following findings and conditions. Findings I The rezoning is justified due to the changing character of the area 2. The rezoning is consistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan 3, The proposed use is compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding area and uses PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 6 Lot 3. Block1, benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Westgate Building, Planned Unit Development. Public Hearin cont Conditions: I . The PUD Plan and PUD Guidelines (including allowed uses, site access, parking and development standards) be incorporated into and binding upon the PUD zone district designation for Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek 2. If the Town determines that future street and intersection improvements are necessary in this location, the applicant agrees to participate in the cost for such improvements. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously Steve Amsbaugh stated that this would be a recommendation to the Town Council, so that will be on one of the next two Council meetings LotBBlock 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Wests g to Building. Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is a 15,000 square foot commercial/office building. It will be two levels between 34 and 36 feet in height Materials include a metal standing seam roof, with stucco and stone as siding materials. The landscaping plan includes adequate spruce, cottonwood and crabapple and they are proposing an irrigation=.ystem. Site plan comment are I An accurate grading plan.. on a certified topo, showing true limits of site disturbance will be needed 2. Landscaping should be located out of snow storage areas. 3 Snow storage be indicated on the site plan 4. A loading space be identified. 5. Treatment of the runoff from the parking be addressed. 6. Detail on the dumpster, materials, etc 7. Site and building lighting detail be submitted Holden stated that as a conceptual review, Staff has no formal recommendation Rick Pylman stated that they have not done a lot of detail design work at this time They have a strong concept and they know what they are doing with materials and are pretty comfortable with the colors, ano the scale of the landscape plan Regarding the site lighting and exact colors, they have not moved that far along yet It will be a metal standing seam roof and they are looking at a shade of r PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION [MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 7 pj IyBlock 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Building Conceptual Design Review cont green the pointed out the color on the color rendering). It will be a stucco building in a buff type of color. A lot of natural stone will be on the building. That mix has not really been determined at this time. The landscape plan will roughly as indicated. There will be an automatic irrigation system and a drip system. There -will be annual and perennial flowers in the beds. Jack Hunn asked if they have given any thought to the lighting strategies for the parking lot and building. Frank Nav arro stated that they have hired a landscape architect, who will be integrating the lighting with the landscaping. Some soft lighting will be along the arcades. Patti Dixon asked where the building signage would be. Navarro stated that there would be a regular freestanding sign on the comer. The offices will not have signage. The retail businesses will have some sort of lighted sign. It wi!i be a uniform signage. Buz Reynolds stated that at the back of the lot is a pretty steep grade going down to the existing parking lot and he asked if they will check to make sure that there is enough room at the back for the fire department. Navarro stated that they were concerned about that, but in consultation with their civil engineer, they feel that there is enough that can be done and the grade does not start until about eight feet out from the property line. Reynolds asked if the sidewalk in the back is where the delivery trucks wwild be going in. The applicant pointed out where the formal loading dock would be. Iie stated that it is possible that the people will use the sidewalk to move goods. It is also possible that deliveries will be made at off hours. Reynolds asked if the dumpster enclosure would have a lid on it. The applicant stated it would and would also have doors on it. Henry Vest questioned the one space in the triangle. He stated it seems it is just trying to fit a small space in a good landscaping area. He thinks it is weird. He stated, after looking at the model, that the front of the building is pretty dressed up, but the back is much more bland. That side will be facing the Sunridge units The applicant stated that it is true that the front is nicer than the back of the building. That upper area is a corridor for the second floor offices and they are putting in a lot of windows there to help light up that corridor and by adding a lot of windows will help the elevation and allow them to detail the windows with stucco, etc. Regarding the comment about the parking space, the applicant stated that the site is so irregular that they have reached for parking spaces where ever they could. Vest stated that he did not understand why the Town Engineer wanted to move the access up. The applicant stated he liked the way it was before because it worked better from the aesthetic point of view and the people could drive in and see the shops. However, there seems to he a fairly strong direction with what they want to do there and the offset would have created an unfortunate situation from their point of view. Al PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1.494 Page 8 Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Buildin& Conceptual Design Re -view, (cont) Rick Pylman stated that the model was built as a massing model, and not a lot of design was included. He stated that the elevations show more detail and the fenestration on the windows are pretty nice and there is some stucco banding that breaks it up. Jack Hunn asked if they would consider a color of stucco on the lower portion of that elevation that would simulate the stone color, so it would have that heavy base look. Pylman stated yes, and also there are the back doors that they could possibly do something with. Hunr, asked if every one of those doors would have a security light, because that would be a lot of light toward the Sunridge project. The applicant stated that they would work with the Staff on that matter. Pylman stated that if there are lights that need to be back there they will be shielded. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that her concern that the snow storage, by increasing the parking into the setbacks on the west side of the building they have given themselves a narrow band for landscaping. She thinks that the city plows will decimate a lot of the big trees. She asked how that small parking place would be plowed. In general, she thinks the building is very attractive. As far as the back side, for the most part it is interesting enough, but she finds the flat space, (she pointed it out on the model). She thinks the roof line needs to be extended as they have on all the other comers. The applicant stated that could be handled. Schneiderman stated that they should be careful that the stucco color they order is the color they get, because that color is tricky. Sue Railton stated that she thinks it i, ! building. She questioned the location of some of the landscaping since the access has be . ged. The applicant stated that it would be adjusted accordingly. Railton asked that they make the dumpster enclosure covered all the way down the back so the apartments behind would not see rubbish out the back. Patti Dixon asked if the sidewalks went around the perimeter of the building. The applicant described how the walks would be. Hunn stated, regarding the single space, if they would shift the landscaping and let it be open on one side, it would work better. Hunn stated that he would be interested to see how the snow and water coming off the metal roof would be handled. They are working with Peter Monroe on that. Hunn stated that at this level of review, no action would be taken. Lot 18 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Metcalf Place, Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is for a 27,648 square foot warehouse. It will be two levels and stand approximately 48 feet in height. The main materials will be a metal roof that will be colonial red, • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 9 Lot 18, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Metcalf Place Final Design Review, (i:ont �► with concrete block with the main concrete block being amazon beige and the accent concrete block being henna, and the stucco will be jasper tint. Landscaping includes spruce, lodgepole pine, aspen and wildflower mix. They all meet the minimum Town of Avon standards. Irrigation is being proposed. Holden stated that the applicant is proposing a variety of bay finishes and the configurations will be decided once the tenants are in place. Even though this would help break up the mass of the building, this approval would include only the elevations that are shown. The majority of the snow will be hauled off site, with some storage east of the parking area.. Lighting and sign program will be brought back for approval. The finai drainage and grading will need to be approved by the Town Engineer. The retaining wall on the west, at its highest point, will be approximately 21 feet. The wall will be utilizing a Keystone concrete block retaining system. This project meets the design criteria and Staff would recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. The lighting and sign program be brought back for approval. 2. A construction fence be place on site prior to and during construction, that delirv: les construction and non -construction zones. 3. The grading and drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 4 Meters need to bz placed on the building. 5 Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface. 6. Retaining walls over four feet in height be designed by an engineer. 7. Disturbed areas shall be revegetated with native vegetation in addition to the native grasses they are proposing, (sage, etc.) 8 The elevations shown are those approved. Any variations will require final design approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 9 Special Review Use approval will be required for uses other than those specified in Section 17.20.010.13. Mark Donaldson, representing Nancy Shapiro Adam, stated he would go right to the staff comments and say that they agree with all nine with the exception of number eight. He stated that they've a typical situation and they are proposing a unique solution. They have carefully orchestrated building materials and elevations in a way that they are expecting flexibility to occur over the duration of the occupancy of this building. The infield areas are a mixture of overhead doors, personnel doors, store front doors, etc. They are proposing that all the tinashes be the same in each use. All the metal doors would always match the other metal doors, all the store front systems would match the other store front systems. What they are asking for in the latitude of this design review approval is the flexibility to create different varying configurations within the area below the bottom of the sign band PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 10 Lot 18/19, Block I. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Metcalf Place, Final Design Review cont and within the masonry pilasters in each bay. They do not know who the tenants will be or how big they will be. They feel that they can capture an acceptable look that can endure the changing uses of the building by requiring the same stucco color and same store front materials, etc. Patti Dixon asked what would change. Donaldson stated for instance, a tenant comes in and leases two or three bays and they may want to have a reception area or warehousing area different from where two bookkeepers may work. This would be similar to Les Shapiro's building. This flexibility would occur only on the lower level of the east face and the upper level, which is the only level of the west face. They think they have a good baseline quality of the architecture and maintained the quality of the material that would allow the configurations to change subtly. Sue Railton stated that she does not see any problem, with it being controlled as they have stated. Donaldson stated that the second floor windows on the east face would remain the same Rhoda Schneiderman asked if what they were looking for was the flexibility to change the door shapes on the main floor, but not colors. Donaldson stated yes. Schneiderman stated that she has a problem with the jasper color. It will be too pink in a big dose. She had no problem with the changing configurations as long as the colors remain the same. Henry Vest stated that on the rendering the garage doors are the same color as the stucco and he likes that better than if they were red. Donaldson stated that he would work with Staff to find a color that would not be so pink He also stated that the doors would be less impact the same color as the stucco. Patti Dixon agreed that the garage doors ,teed to be the same color as the stucco and it needs to be toned down a bit. She asked what material the little triangle roof shown on the rendering was. Donaldson stated that it is metal Dixon stated she thinks the red roof is very smart, interesting, but they need to keep it as an accent, not with the doors Dixon asked about the signage. Donaldson stated the tenant signs would be in a band. Dixon stated she likes the design of the masonry. Buz Reynolds stated he still thinks that the bulding is laid out to fit the site. He thinks it should be set up against the hillside. He asked about the Z I foot retaining wall and how it ends. Donaldson described how it was installed. Donaldson stated that the building block will match the retaining wall, .lack Hunn asked what the driveway grade coming into the main lower parking lot is. Donaldson stated around 4-5% at the entrance. Hunn asked how large trucks will get to the loading and what Olk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 11 Lot 18/19, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Metcalf Place, Final Design Review. cont kinds of grades would the driver experience. Donaldson stated that the limitations on this site is that they cannot receive semis. What they have done is to limit the maneuvering of the larger vehicles on site. A driver goes up Metcalf Road heading north, he does a 180 into the parking lot and backs into the loading dock, and when he leaves he simply drives out. This is designed for fixed frame vehicles, 35 ft. in length, the basic UPS truck, step vans, etc. Hunn stated that this would not work if there was any parking abuse in the staging area. Donaldson stated that this would be covered in the Condo Decs, and will be covered in the leases. Hunn asked if they met Town requirements for parking. Donaldson stated they were way in excess of the requirements. It depends on the tenant mix. Hunn asked where the dirt would be taken. Donaldson stated that there are about three sites where it will be taken, none in Wildridge. Hunn asked about site lighting. Donaldson stated that they were looking at high pressure sodium. They are looking at 20 ft. pole mounted lights, two along the roadway, facing back toward the building and the rest are building mounted. They do not reflect a lot of light off site. Hunn stated that the trend in lighting the parking is to spotlight it from the building and he wants to make sure that there will not be that lighting strategy here. Hunn stated that he would be very concerned if the signage would be the very bright back -lit signs that stayed on all night. He suggested a very understated lighting strategy. Hunn asked if the tenant signage did end up being back lit, could they make a deal on timers. Hunn stated that might be appropriate. Hunn stated it is an intensity issue more than timing. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design review approval to Lot 18/19, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with Staff conditions 1 through 7 and number 9 and with number 8 to be revised such that the window and door configurations can vary with tenant without coming back for design review, but all colors remain the same, and with an additional condition that the color palette be brought back to Staff lbr approval, in specific, the jasper color to be refashioned so as to be toned down and all the doors and bays on the lower level to be the same color as the stucco finish. Henry Vest seconded. Hunn suggested that since they will see this again for the sign program and lighting, perhaps they could review the color as a commission rather than put the burden on Staff. Rhoda amended her motion to reflect that change. Vest seconded the amendment and the motion carried with Buz Reynolds voting nay. Lot 46. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, 12 Units. Conceptual Design Review Steve Amsbaugh stated that this lot is right across the park from here. It is a "L" shaped lot. It is about .83 acres in size and about 2% in general slope. the applicant is proposing a 12 unit complex in a duplex configuration. in six buildings. The maximum height is generally 36-1/2 feet. Some of the major building materials proposed are: roof materials - cedar shingles, natural in color, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 12 Lot 46. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, 12 Units. Conceptual Design Review. Lconl2 siding - 6 inch bevel lap, natural in color on the top; and stucco - light in color on the bottom. Fascias and soffits would be natural in color; window trim would be white; and garage doors would be white. Some of the landscaping would consist of a combination of blue spruce, bristlecone pine, lodgepole pine, aspen, white poplar and cottonwood in sufficient numbers. He also proposes a sufficient quantity of juniper, dogwood, serviceberry and potentilla. Amsbaugh stated that the RHD zone district does allow townhome, condominiums, and apartments at a density not to exceed 20 units per acre. This proposal is approximately 14 units per acre. Required parking for these twelve units would be 24 parking spaces for the units and four guest spaces. He stated that a detailed site and drainage plan prepared by a licensed surveyor will be required. The building appears to abut the setbacks, in which case the overhangs should not he allowed to extend into the setbacks. An access agreement for the use of the 25' access and utility easement on the northeast property line must be p, ovided. This will be needed when Benchmark Road is realigned. Guest parking must be labeled on the site plan. The method of trash collection needs to be labeled on the plans. Staff would like the type of fireplaces indicated on the final plans. The proposed trees shown should be a minimum of 2" caliper in size. The final landscape plan needs to match the final site plan. Because this is a conceptual review, Staff has no recommendation. Mike Lauderbach stated the roof will be cedar shakes rather than shingles, and the hand deck rails are aluminum pickets. The fireplaces will be one in the living room and one in the master bedroom. The bedroom one would be a gas appliance and the living room would be a regular gas fireplace, not an appliance. Buz Reynolds stated that it seems like you are maximizing the interior of this with asphalt and trying to landscape the outside. He questioned the storage for snow in the center. Reynolds stated that he has no problems with the buildings, but he thinks the siting is too tight. He questioned the closeness of the buildings. The applicant stated that they were about 10' apart. Reynolds stated that he would like to see this in massing. Patti Dixon asked if they had exterior color samp!es. The applicant stated that he was not sure that the plan is to make all the buildings the same color. He stated they would be working in earth colors, tans and browns, but it may change from building to building. Dixon asked about the metal railings. The applicant stated the windows are a clad aluminum and the railings will be a clad aluminum. Dixon stated that the north, bottom portion of the building seems rather bland. She asked if it was stucco. The applicant replied it was. Mm" PLANNING AND ;ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 13 Lot 46, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, 12 Units, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) Henry Vest stated that there seems to be three different heights if windows going across the north elevation. The applicant stated it was a stairwell that throws it off. Vest was still concerned with the windows. He asked if the windows would be trimmed. The applicant stated that they might raise the elevation of the stucco around the windows and possibly make it a darker tint around the windows. Vest asked about the door and then the door on the north side. Are they going to be centered under the other two windows. The applicant stated he thinks that could be done. Vest stated that on the west elevation it seems like just a lot of stucco. Rhoda asked if, on the west elevation, they are two separate units side by side. The applicant replied yes. Schneiderman stated that the Commission strongly discourages mirror images, so this would not be acceptable to her. She finds the roof angles to be kind of bland and boring. The pitches could be increased to give it a little more interest. She would not fined all the same doors and windows on both sides acceptable. She also agrees that some wood needs to be introduced on the one side. The windows do need to be trimmed out, on the second floor as well as on the stucco level. On the east elevation there is the same kind of sameness. Again the roof lines are not interesting enough. The bottom stucco on the south elevation is too heavy. Perhaps a belly band would help the north elevation. With the right use of color they could probably do some different trim or shades of the same color, but the Commission would have to see exactly what it would be on every building, actual samples. She stated that she would also like to see a massing model to see how the buildings layout. Sue Railton stated her comments were much the same as Rhode's. She thinks the buildings are a little boring with having all the same windows. More detail and trim is needed on the building, certainly on the west elevation. The east elevation is very boring. More trim is needed on the north and south elevation. The planning for this lot needs good landscaping. The planters coining out from the garages need to be considered with the snow plowing. Jack Hunn asked how many bedrooms each unit would have. The applicant replied 3. Hunn asked if two per unit is the Towns requirement. Staff replied yes. Hunn asked if the applicant has given any consideration to a triplex configuration to try to get a little more space between buildings. The applicant looked at it, but it wasn't anything they were in love with. It looked too repetitive down the line. This allows the ability to change from building to building in colors and possibly different types of roofs. He stated that he is open as to whether they should be similar with little differences or dissimilar. Hunn stated that his personal preference would be the proximity of one building to another and similarity in architectural style. It should read more as a project, where all the materials are the same with some slight variation in a trim detail or accent element to give some individuality, He would prefer to see the same materials and the same basic colors used on all the buildings so it doesn't start to look too busy. Hunn stated that from the street, the way that these turn, the .1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 14 Lot 46, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, 12 Units, Conceptual Design Review, cont impression people will have of this will be pretty interesting, and also from the parL. He thinks the code implications of some of the windows you are showing could become quite restrictive when you get within ten feet of another building. Some of the windows are going to look directly into the other unit. they might want to reconsider the window placements on a building by building basis. The applicant stated that the bedrooms all have end views, rather than side views. Henry Vest suggested adding a small shed roof or small gable to the entry doors to show it is the front entry door. Sue Railton asked if they could connect from one building to the other. Staff stated that they were. Steve Amsbaugh stated that this property has a right for 31 units. One of the solutions they have worked on in the past was a structure parking lot with a Falcon Pointe on top of it and if the piece wasn't carved out that would be what should probably go there. But because of the unique shape of the lot, it really presents a difficult design solution and the applicant has come up with a low density solution, that in concept is in keeping with the park Peke setting. Mike Lauderbach stated he thinks that they are on the right track, they just need a little polish on their plan. Sue Railton suggested some sort of connection for the two duplexes that face each other. Rhoda Schneiderman was concerned that people would not be able to tell where the front door would be located. Jack Hunn stated that at this stage of review, no action would be taken. Lot 58, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Single Family Residence. Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that the lot slopes to the north at approximately 17%. The are proposing a single family residence of two levels, one level being a walkout basement. The materials will consist of asphalt shingles and I x 8 channel rustic cedar. The solar orientation is not optimum for the proposed residence. It basically faces north, but that is also the best views for this site. An accurate grading plan on a certified topography, showing true limits of site disturbance needs to be provided. Retaining walls over four feet in height need to be designed by a licensed engineer. Indicate gas or wood burning fireplaces. Floor plans for the basement level need to be submitted. Colors and materials need to be indicated on the elevations. Architectural detail needs to be provided on the deck and building lighting. A culvert will be needed where it ties into the street. Staff has no recommendation as this is a conceptual review. i-• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 15 Lot 58, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Single Family Residence, Conceptual Design Review. (cant) Mr. Bruce Sindlinger, the owner, responded to the following staff comments. The 1 x 8 channel has been changed to a 1 x 6 tongue and groove. The colors will be earth tones, light stains and will be submitted at final design review. The retaining wall will be at three feet. He has a site plan with him that shows grades. The fireplace will be gas. He has a basement plan with him. He stated the deck details and lighting has been completed. He did submit a landscaping plan, but not until yesterday, so that was late. Features that have been added are: On the west view, on the basement level there will be an added window to a bedroom. He pointed out on the plans where this would be. On the north and east elevation there will be a band going all the way around to flow in with the deck. Buz Reynolds asked what the trim around the windows and doors would be. The applicant stated they would be a one by four. Reynolds asked if it wits a cladded window and the applicant replied it was. Reynolds asked if there would be a patio area below the walkout. The applicant stated there would be and also a sidewalk in front of that area. Buz Reynolds stated he likes this proposed house. The applicant stated that at this time the basement will be unfinished, but it will allow for a rec room bathroom and the mechanical room will be there and a fourth bedroom. Patti Dixon asked if the wood just goes right to the ground. The applicant stated it did. She asked about the foundation area that is exposed. She stated that it needed to be dealt with. You could do stucco and use stucco somewhere else, or continue the wood down Reynolds suggested a small stone retaining wall. Dixon stated that it is a nice house. Henry Vest stated that one thing he likes about this is that it is almost all one material. He likes the beams. He asked about the window that is in between another one on the north elevation. the applicant thought it would add more light. Vest stated that the wood chimney needs to be changed. the wood chimney doesn't look good on this house. He also thinks that something needs to be done about the foundation walls. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that, in general she thinks it is a real attractive house. The only weaknesses She sees are on the south elevation the long expanse of garage wall. She suggested a couple windows. The applicant stated that the though about that but due to the grade you will not see that much of the wall. Schneiderman suggested addressing it with the landscape plan. She also agrees that the foundation wall will have to be addressed. She would like to see some sort of stone facade on there. If that were the case it would also be appropriate and very attractive to do the chimney in stone. She thought the east side was kind of weak. The applicant stated that the east is all bedrooms. The applicant stated that if another window was added it would be to another bathroom, not a bedroom. Sue Railton stated that the base needs to be tended to so it looks good. She thinks everything else PIN n PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 16 Lot 58, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Single Family Residence, Conceptual Design Review. (cont) looks good. Jack Hunn stated that his comments would be similar. The only challenge he sees is solving the base where the foundation would step. He thinks it is a much nicer house than the previous submittal. Discussion followed on various ways they could apply the stone or maybe stepping the site. Hunn stated that those would be the comments he should consider for final design review. Lot 6. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Identification Sign Design Approval. Mary Holden stated that this was for final design review of the identification sign for the Sunflower Townhomes. They are proposing a 1-1/2" urethane sign foam board. Larry Ast has brought the actual sign for review. Also, enclosed in the packet is the information on the urethane foam. The sign will be sandblasted to create relief. It will be located at the entrance to the project. It will be 6 ft. in height, with a gray background, white lettering and yellow, black and green for the flower. The sign does meet the criteria outlined in the sign code. Staff recommends approval. Larry Ast stated that the sign foam is a unique material that has a lot of characteristics that enhance the three dimensional effect and keep that effect. Wood has a tendency of warping and rejecting paint over time, while the urethane does not absorb water and does not expand or contract and therefore holds the paint and finish much longer. Rhoda Schneiderman asked what kind of lighting would be on this. Mr. Ast stated that there would be no lighting. Buz Reynolds moved to approve the identification sign for Lot 6, Block 1, Wildridge, Sunflower Townhomes, as submitted. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 1. Avon Town Square Subdivision, Landscape Modifications and Roof Cap Approval Mary Holden stated that this project received final design approval on December 7, 1993. This application is for modification to the landscaping and roof cap material approval. Basically what they are doing is decreasing certain materials and increasing others. The sod and the sculpture pedestals and landscaping around the dumpster are remaining the same. Irrigation has been provided. The landscaping is appropriate for the site and does remain in keeping with the Design Guidelines. Staff would recommend approval of this application as presented PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 17 Lot 1. Avon Town Square Subdivision, Landscape Modifications and Roof Cap Approval. (cont) Jim Nordly presented the colors to be used and described where they would be used. The Recording Secretary requested a listing of the colors. Mr. Nordly stated that they are listed on the plans. He described the element to be used to hide the boiler stack. He stated that the code does not allow a solid element above the boiler stack. This will be a grate element in the shape of a roof to hide the flue, but it will still have free air above it. The color will match. There will be a certain vitality to the color of the building, but in a very subtle way with detail colors and the tile. Nordly also presented the colors to be used in the interior of the building. Some discussion followed on this matter, however, several people were talking at the same time, therefore transcription of the discussion is not possible. Scott, of Land Design stated that they had kept the integrity of the original landscape design. They have just made some of the planting beds smaller. They have added some trees to the parking lot, which was an issue at the previous review. Discussion followed on what plants were deleted and what was added. lack Hunn asked if there were trees along Benchmark Road or the main boulevard to relieve the building. Mary Holden stated that there were some along the far end toward the Seasons. The applicant replied that there will be sculptures around the building. Hunn asked how high the shrub beds tied to the building on the north side would get. The applicant stated the shrubs are tall, but there will perennials planted there also. The trees were eliminated to allow for signage to be seen. Rhoda Schneiderman suggested using aspens along that area, because basically you have small trunks and in the winter you have no foliage and in the summer there would be light foliage. Further discussion followed. Hunn suggested continuing the street tree program out along the walkway. They would not be so close to the building as to compete with the signage. Buz Reynolds stated he would like to see aspens planted there. Sue Railton suggested grouping some of them at the northwest corner and where the pathway goes around the central sculpture on both sides of that and then they are not all along the building, but does give some relief to the building. Rhoda Schneiderman suggest some trees on either side of the hour glass walkway. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve final design review modifications, including colors and landscaping with the condition that Staff approve changes to include clusters of trees on Benchmark Road Northeast side in front of the building. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Readingand nd Approval of the February 1. 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Henry Vest moved to approve the February 1, 1994 Minutes as submitted. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. .0% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 18 Other Business Steve Amsbaugh stated that Bill James has requested the Planning and Zoning Commission attend a Town Council workshop at 4:45 to 5:30 PM next Tuesday to discuss the work that the Commi3sior has been doing at the worksessions on steep slopes, mirror images and some ofthe design issues. Sue Railton stated that the parking and driving situation at the new North Court building is disastrous She thinks it should be made o_.e way in and one way out so cars are not coming from all directions. The Commission asked Staff to look into this matter. Jack Hunn stated that in driving around Town and particularly in Wildridge there a lot of flues and mechanical devices that are very shiny. He asked if the painting of the flues is a system that has been enforced or not. Mary Holden stated that it was never enforced before. She stated that they are now requiring everything be finished off With no further business, Rhoda Schneiderman moved to adjourn, Buz Reynolds seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 15, 1994 Page 19 .-I'/. ,/ .%