The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Minutes 031594Q0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on March 15, 1994, in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. by Chairman John Perkins Members Present: Jack Hunn, John Perkins, Buz Reynolds, Sue Railton Rhoda Schneiderman, Henry Vest Patti Dixon Staff Present: Steve Amsbaugh, Director of Community Development, Mary Holden, Town Planner, Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary All members were present. Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development Public Hearing Steve Amsbaugh stated that this is the second regular session having to do with the continuation of the public hearing for this PUD amendment for Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision. A little bit of history, for the record, the Commission did meet earlier on this matter and it was tabled for consideration of some design issues. Last Monday night the Commission met in a sRaial meeting to try to identify those design related issues. P & Z and the applicants walked the site and came back here and met and identified some of those issues. Since that time the applicant has tried to address those issues in a modified plan of sorts and that will be presented to the Commission tonight. Amsbaugh stated that in addition to that, at the end of the meeting last time, he was asked to prepare details related to the issues that had been raised and he stated that he would review those in a minute, and how the Town plans and codes relate to those issues, and the findings that could be made on this project, and consideration of a set of conclusions and recommendations on this project proposal. He stated that he has done that. He has prepared a second, revised Staff Report that was hand delivered to the Commission yesterday. He stated that, for the record, he would like to be careful with his presentation, and read into the record most of those findings and conclusions that he has made, from PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 2 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development. Public Hearing. (cont) the point of view that these are the States findings and conclusions, based upon their interpretations of the codes and plans that are available that are adopted by the Town of Avon. He stated that he would outline the topics and what approvals are necessary and what findings on each of those approvals are necessary. He stated that he would like to begin by briefly summarizing the modifications the applicant has brought forth tonight for the Commission's consideration. After that he will re -identify and discuss each of the issues the Commission felt were important at the last two meetings and then following that go into the Staff recommendations. Regarding the revisions, Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision, which is before you tonight, has been further described as a result of the two meetings as three building lots, one open space tract, and the Hurd Lane right-of-way. Amsbaugh then provided copies of the revised maps for the Commission to review. He stated that basically what that shows the Commission is the fact that they have reduced the density to a total of 150 units at this point in time. For the record, several years ago when this was originally annexed to the Town and zoned PUD there was approval for approximately 200 units, so the property has been reduced in size from the original initial down to the point of 150 total units. Those units are distributed on basically two development lot proposals. Proposed Lot 3 along the railroad track is 2.6 acres in size and would hold 84 condominium units, which is about 26.8 units per acre in density for that portion north of Hurd Lane. Lot 4, south of Hurd Lane to the river, running the length of the property, is approximately 4.688 acres in size and would hold 66 townhome units and the density of that parcel would be approximately 11.8 units per acre. Lot 5, as it is now shown on the plan is Mauri Nottingham's property and that will be exempted out of the further development of this property at this time, but it needs to be called out as something on the PUD approval, so it is called Lot 5, exempted from consideration. Hurd Lane right-of-way, which we have required at Staff level and carried through on this project thus far would be 1.75 acres n size, fifty feet in width, running east and west throughout the property as shown. Tract C is the open space tract that they are dedicating to the Town of Avon, and would be 3.4 acres in size and would also contain the pedestrian walkway that will be discussed later. They are also proposing in this new plan that the landscaping area would be a minimum of 35%. All of our zone districts now are asked for a minimum of twenty percent. They are providing in excess of all of our zone districts minimum standards. Maximum building coverage is proposed to be 25% of the developable area of 9.05 acres, that is subtracting out the open space tract. Building 6 at the far east end of the lot has been relocated to the north away from the tree cluster that you looked at during the field trip last week. It has been put up on top of the bench and basically is in back of the area that you walked that was staked for a building last time. In addition to moving building six, that necessitated the dropping of the building that was previously behind that to the north and that is basically where they reduced the ten units from the last meeting. Amsbaugh stated that this would preserve, as he estimates, approximately 80% of the tree cover in that sensitive area that the Commission identified last time. In response to the two meetings held thus far, he stated that he OWN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 3 Lot 3. Notting -ram Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing (cont) would jump ahead to the identified issues that the Commission felt were the strong turning points in this project. He stated that the first issue was the overall density. Is the overall density appropriate for this site? What are the impacts caused by this density on such things as the environment and traffic and ci -culation in the area? Staffs comment to that would be that the overall density still remains at approximately 17 units per acre for the entire site. To give you some frame of reference, that is halfway between Residential Medium Density at 15 units per acre which is a zone district that is used in this Town and Residential High Density, which is 20 units per acre, so it is somewhere between medium and high density in terms of our standard zoning classifications. The Nottingham Lake area is basically a mix of both of those two zone districts and they are in approximately the same proximity to the Town Core as this property is. In addition, the highest proposed density is proposed along the railroad tracks, closest to the Town Core for pedestrian orientation and proximity to the Town. The Town feels that the placement of this density is in a proper location. The townhouse properties are basically located along the, river front, and as mentioned before, runs about 11.8 units per acre, only in that area, which is below the residential medium density criteria. The second major issue was the Eagle River corridor and all the things that had to do with that river corridor. They are proposing in this application a minimum of a 30 foot mean high water setback requirement on this project. This is from the Town codes and regulations. It is the minimum setback. It doesn't mean that they are putting the buildings right up to the thirty foot setback. In fact, in several locations to the east of the property, as the project starts to work its way up the hill on to the flats, your probably more like sixty feet or seventy feet from the mean high water line, and as mentioned earlier, in addition, building six has been relocated away from the trees and the river environment at the east end of the site. The Hurd Lane connection was also important. That is the connection between Eaglebend Subdivision and this property. Should Hurd Lane make a full public connection in this location? Again, as in the first Staff presentation, Staff feels that the Transportation Plan has been clear on this subject and 'Staff supports full public connection of this point for secondary access along the north side of the river between the subdivisions. That is called out for and identified in the transportation planning efforts and remember that all the plans are relatively new. They are not update plans. They were prepared and adopted in the early 90's. A related topic would be traffic impacts themselves. This has more to do with the Avon Road intersection than with the connection, but they both intermingle with one another. Are the proposed traffic impacts at the Avon Road/Hurd Lane intersection within the range anticipated by the Town for growth in this area? Amsbaugh stated that the transportation plan, as he mentioned earlier, built into its traffic assumptions and analysis at that time approximately 200 units on this site as well as 14,000 ,iquare feet on Lots 1 and 2, therefore, it is Staffs conclusion that this project is within the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 4 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development Public Hearing.(cont) scope of the transportation impacts anticipated by the Transportation Plan. The Transportation Plan then carries the identification of those impacts one step farther, and that is that they identify potential future mitigating measures, such as alternative modes of transit, pedestrian pathways, bicycle pathways, intersection improvements, streetscape standards, and those things are necessary to handle developing Town of Avon. Amsbaugh stated that there are two more issues. Views and Visibility seemed to be an important issue. Does the proposed project impact the view of the Eagle River corridor when viewed from Highway 6? Amsbaugh stated that he thinks, quite obviously it does impact the river corridor. He will go over in his findings some of the conclusions he has drawn on that statement. The proposal does meet the river corridor guidelines set out in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he has the Comprehensive Plan and if they want him to read any of those details, he would be glad to. Amsbaugh stated that the final thing that was raised last week, and it probably is a minor detail, but it is important is are they proposing enough landscaping for this project? To not only replace the trees that might have to be lost in this development, but to provide ample landscaping for a project such as this. Will they meet the Town's 20% standard? As stated earlier, the fact that they are proposing 30% of the developed portion of the site become landscaping, not open spate, that is already segregated away and given to the Town, but actually of the remaining developable land, 35% of that will be landscaping. As you know, the P & Z will see each one of the development phases as they come in and you will have a chance to review those landscaping proposals and those individual site plans during design review in the future. Those are the issues that Staff feels, from listening to the tapes, we have before us to be talked about and resolved. Amsbaugh stated that with that in mind and in keeping with typical Staff Reports, because this is a public hearing and because this is in effect an amendment to a zoning ordinance, in that context it might he consistent for him to read a series of findings that they feel our plans can make on this project. He stated that at the conclusion of reading those findings, and he did want to take his time in reading those, he will then make a Staff recommendation. Findings: 1. The PUD is consistent with the development patterns and locations set forth in the Town Comprehensive Plan. 2. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to land use and proximity to the town core. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 5 Lot 3, Nottin�am Station Subdivision. Planned Unit Development. Public Hearing. (cont 3. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to the environment. 4. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to access to the Eagle River corridor and open space dedication along the Eagle River corridor. 5. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to sensitivity_ to the natural riparian environment along the Eagle river corridor. 6. The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives related to the construction of Hurd Lane as access serving the north bank of the River. 7 The PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objeztives related to the River front District Subarea 10 related to visibility from Highway 24, public access to the rived, buildings capitalizing on the River, setback from the river to preserve the natural character, limit building heights to three to four stories, and where possible, locate buildings and parking to preserve and promote the health of existing quality trees. 8. The PUD is consistent with the Transportation Paan traffic generation forecast for this property. 9. The PUD is consistent with the Transportation Plan goals and objectives related to providing a continuous two-lane connection along the Hurd Lane corridor. 10. The PUD is consistent with the Transportation Plan goals and objectives related to pedestrian and transit improvements. If The PUD is consistent with the Recreation Plan goals and objective related to location of off- street bike/pedestrian paths. Amsbaugh stated that he also forgot to mention that this new application actually does show in a dotted line symbol on the maps a proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway location in that 30 foot setback along the river, extending along the length of the river and then tying into Hurd Lane at the east crud of the property Therefore, Staff would recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve PUD dcveiopment plan and the development standards for Lot 3, Nottingham Station with several Cuuu:vtu. on He stated that he would also like to go back to the flip chart that he did two weeks ago. that shows of the three things that are required in a rezoning of a property. They have iia PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1904 Page 6 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development Public Hearing, (cont) accomplished the first, and that is that they do now have the PUD zone district designation on that piece of property, so we do not have to decide what zoning shrald occur there, The do have to fulfill the other two requirements and that is that they receive approval of a development plan map, that is the plan that shows the fundamental standards related to uses permitted, overall densities, basic circulation and access, phasing plan if necessary, and adequate services and utilities. Then secondly and more specifically in a PUD zone district designation we also approve standards and guidelines for the future implementation of the project, in terns of densities per area, like we have talked about on those lots, that is why we have segregated it, setbacks, parking requirements, maximum heights of buildings, site coverages, and minimum landscaping requirements. Amsbaugh stated that those are the categories that are in all of our zone districts and therefore we need to assign some sort of standard for each one of those in a PUD. PUD is a negotiation process, therefore they can ask for deviations in the typical setbacks and the typical heights as long as P & Z is comfortable with those issues. He stated that he thinks that they identified at the first meeting that they have asked for some deviations on the setbacks along Hurd Lane, not along the river corridor. They are consistent with the parking requirements of the Town. They are asking for a maximum height of 48 feet. They are asking for site coverage of 35% or rather 25% and minimum landscaping of 35%, and a density of about 26 units per acre on the upper parcel across from the railroad tracks and 11.8 units per acre on the one along the river corridor. Amsbaugh stated that as individual phases would come in they would be discussed for design constraints and the geologic constraints, the soil constraints, whatever the issue at hand are, one phase at a time. This is not the last chance you have to get the buildings placed on the site adequately. This is a representation trying to prove to the P & Z that they can fit this many units on the site. This doesn't mean that it will actually look like this at the end because they might find a tree cluster that they want to preserve, or a tot lot they might want to add, or they might have a soil condition, or whatever, they might modify this phase by phase, but this is a general guideline for the future growth, proving to you, hopehilly tonight that this many units are justified in this location generally on this site. Therefore, the six conditions that Staff proposes are: 1. The PUD Guidelines and Standards described in this report, including allowed uses, density, site access, and development standards, be incorporated into and binding upon the PUD zone district designation for this parcel. 2. The Hurd Lane connection be completed to public road standards through to Eaglebend Drive, by the applicant, prior to the construction of Phase I. 3. No site disturbance, including grading or structures, be allowed within the 30' mean high water setback. _,, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 7 Lot 3. Noringham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing- (cont 4. A protective and erosion control fence be installed along the 30 foot setback from the mean annual high water/ 100 year flood plain, whichever is more restrictive, prior to and during all construction phases. 5. A hard surface pedestrian traiVpathway, consistent with the Town's Recreation Plan, be shown on the PUD Plan along the Eagle River. They have done this. This trail shall also connect to Hurd Lane west of Building 1. As you can see on the plan in front of you, they also have a set of stairs graphically indicating the connection for not only this property, but public connection on this property. 6. The final PUD Development Plan show existing Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision as two development tracts, Lots 3 and 4, one lot exempted from PVD proposal, Lot 5, and one open space tract and that each tract show the size, intended use and .saximurn allowable density. Amsbaugh stated that actually condition number 6 has been satisfied in the map that is before the Commission now, so when you get down to reading conditions, that one does not need to be included because they have done all that. Mr. Amsbaugh stated that this concludes his Staff presentation. He stated that they had public testimony at the first public hearing and that public testimony was closed, however, because there are some new design considerations before the Commission it might be appropriate that if there are additional questions from the public related to this project over and above what was discussed last time it might be appropriate to open it up to the public briefly again. Chairman Perkins stated that the next item on the process would be the applicant's presentation. Mark Donaldson, representing SouthWest Limited, introduced Tom Kirk and Bill Sargis of SouthWest Ltd. and Jeff Spanel and Russ Thrasher, the civil engineers on the project and Mohamed Bouabdesselam from his office. Donaldson stated that he would like to hit the highlights of the revisions since the last meeting to follow up with Steve's report. He stated that they have reduced the density from 160 to 150 total units. He stated that they have pulled out the building out of most of the trees on the east end of the site and eliminated the building to the north of that, thereby causing the reduction in density. They have increased the distance between the buildings along the riverfront. They have increased their open space minimum by 75%, that is they have gone from 20% open space requirement to a 35% open space requirement. They have decreased the site coverage by buildings by 28%, that is to say that they have gone from 35% maximum site coverage to 25% maximum site coverage. They have no steep slope development being proposed. There are many recommendations and studies made regarding the Comprehensive Plan through the Staff review. The most critical are those that address the issues around the eagle river corridor and A *04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 8 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing. (cont) riparian habitat. fie stated that he would not go through a great amount of detail in the Comprehensive Plan, but he would like to highlight a couple of the goals and objectives that are specific to land use and the Eagle River corridor, Subarea 10, along the Eagle River. Goal number A-4 is to capitalize on the Eagle River as a focal point for future development. Emphasize the river corridor as a site for development of recreational amenities and linkages. He stated that his proposal is dedicating three and a half acres of riverfront site for use by the Town of Avon for use for these recreational amenities, and including the linkages as been requested by the Town Further linkages that they are providing are the Hurd Lane through their site, and he will touch on that in more detail. To promote the orientation of future development along the river corridor to the river as an asset and an amenity. Under Goal number 1, under environment in the Comprehensive Plan, Ensure that the high quality natural environment is preserved and integrated into the developed areas of the Town. Ensure that future development will minimize degradation of the environment, particularly in sensitive natural areas. Enhance the water quality of the Eagle River He stated that these are some of the highlights of the issues that he thinks they have discussed mostly in the worksession a week ago yesterday, and it is their position and strong, belief that the development they are proposing here will enhance this riparian corridor habitat while being integrated into the development standards of the Town of Avon with this riverfront development. The degradation of the environment that is occurring on the vacant property today will be minimized and the landscaping maintenance and the common area maintenance will be turned over to a homeowners association who will be far greater caretaker of this type of site than no caretaking being done, which is what exists today. Donaldson stated that they were very happy to be here tonight to hear Steve read his eleven findings regarding this application. It is no small feat that Steve was able to report those issues tonight. It has been a great effort on the part of Steve and his staff as well as the development team in achieving these goals and standards that are very far reaching through the Town standards fie stated that the highlights that he would like to remind the Commission of from the last meeting is some of the benefits that their development proposal is bringing to the Town. They are proposing to build appropriate residential density that has a wide range of prices for rental and ownership They are providing a 1500 foot length to the city standards to connect the Hurd Lane from the west where it exists, where it terminates today, through the entire length of their property He stated that they are proposing to dedicate three and a half acres of riverfront property to the Town of Avon for use as open space and river recreation as designated in the Recreation Master Plan. This also will serve as a vital bus linkage from an existing dense neighborhood to their east to the rest of the Town Core, which will be in a more efficient service manner They are also providing a continuous linkage of essential residential components that have been identified in the Comprehensive Plan. They are proposing a sensitive design that will work into the future along this riverfront corridor. They are improving the quality of water in the Metcalf Ditch by taking it from an open ditch flow to a closed and more controlled environment for the flow of that water through their site. They are also ;A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 9 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development. Public Hearing, (cont) improving the Swift Gulch drainage which manifests itself on the northeast potion of their site, which at this time does not flow entirely correctly in high water years. Donaldson stated that, regarding the highlights of Steve's flip chart, the PUD development plan, their permitted uses they are requesting are purely residential in nature, the densities as Steve outlined in his Staff Report. The overall density being 150 units. Allocated on the north side of Hurd Lane is ar average o!'26.8 units per acre That comes from a request from the worksession that they provide more density per acre on the north side of Hurd Lane than on the south side of Hurd Lane. On the south side, which they are now designating as lot 4, they are down to 11.76 units per acre. The circulation and access he believes is well defined in their PUD development plan proposal The phasing plan has remained unchanged since the original submittal and it includes the infrastructure of Hurd Lane, all the site improvements that accompany that right-of-way enhancement, along with the first building to the cast, the townhome building that has been moved back to the north, and the rest of the phasing follows as described in the PUD guides with the original submittal. He stated that they have demonstrated adequate services and utilities from each and every utility company that needs to serve their site, including telephone. television, gas, water, sewer and electric. He stated that the maximum density they have discussed is 150 units between Lc is 3 and 4, the newly designated lots. The setbacks are as they have presented them previously and have been agreed upon by the Town staff, including public works and engineering The parking, they are adopting the standards that exist today in Title 17 and again, he will reiterate that they have created parking standards that accompany each building, thereby imposing greater standards, than if it were just the whole, so they have the guest spaces allocated with each building as they go. Therefore one or two buildings do not rely on the completion ofthe future buildings to meet minimum standards of Title 17 The maximum building height remains as requested, at 48 feet. The site coverage, as Steve has pointed out. they are proposing a maximum building coverage of 25%. The norm in nearly all of the zone districts that include residential is 50%, so they are cutting this in half in terms of the impact of buildings on the site coverage. The minimum landscaping ranges in similar conventional zone districts ranges between 20 and 25%, they are proposing 35% Donaldson stated that in closing he would like to go through the conditions of approval that staff is recommending He stated that he agrees with conditions number I, 3. and 4 Number 2, they would appreciate the consideration of the dedication and the improv ements that this developer/applicant is proposing and reword condition number 2 to ead as follows The Hurd Lane connection to be completed to public road standards through their site by the applicant prior to construction of pha-e I. Number 5, They do not believe the ohysical implementation of this request is possible. They will work with the Town and create a reasonable foot trail through there, but the routing that is being proposed and seems perfectly logical takes this pathway right through those precious cottonwoods that they have been discussing on the east end. There is steep topography there, it is heavily forested with those cottonwoods and he thinks the idea of meeting the strict and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 10 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivisig% Planned Unit Development Public Hearing (cont) literal requirements of the Town's recreation plan is a bit onerous on this type of dedication. The agree with the previous notion that maybe a foot trail or a semi -improved trail for pedestrian type traffic be developed. This is being proposed in a wetlands area in what is known as flood plain and there is some sensitive vegetation there. The buildings do not impose on those areas, and they would like to see that the rest of the developmem surrounding their proposal would not impose anymore than the standards you have held them to He stated that those are his closing remarks and he would be available for any questions the Commission may have. Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing. Chris Ekrem stated that she lives at 4130 Eaglebend Drive. She stated that first she would like to present some things that came to her attention Sunday. She stated that she bet no one knew that they could go out and buy one of these, presale. There was an advertisement in the Friday paper, the Vail Trail, and one in Sunday's paper, the Vail Daily. And taere was an accompanying article that said "approval has been given for a mixed residential complex along the river and to the south of Bob th _• Bridge. The project will consist both of for sale and for rent housing and will take several years to complete." Ekrem stated that she really objects to this kind of thing. She stated that you people give your time and energies, and we who are the watchdogs give up our time and energies, and the developers have given their time and energies, and then she reads in the paper that approval has already been given, so why should she even come tonight. She stated that she bets they wish she hadn't. Neverthr s, she feels this is wrong that this can happen. She would like sombody to take care of this because it should not be when it hasn't been approved and they are still working to get a solution on it. She would like to direct this next question to both Steve and Mark Donaldson and ask about this Hurd Lane connection, number two, that is to be completed, because in the master Plan Hurd Lane going into Eaglebend is supposed to be a continuous road. There is still a no mans land. No one has considered the no mans land. It has been a silent thing thea a in that there is some tariff to pay if it is connected to Eaglebend Drive. She stated that she would like to have this brought out in the open and have some answer on that. Thirdly, she does not believe that the traffic situation, even thought the density has been reduced somewhat, is going to be any less either on access out to Avon Road or down to Eaglebend Drive and on to Stonebridge Road. She thinks they are just putting too many cars and problems in those two areas for it to be a manageable traffic solution. She would also to see the setbacks and maximum heights established in numbers before it goes any further, not just on saying three to four story buildings. She would like them to be established in feet, so that the rest of us who have built to twenty five foot setbacks and thirty five foot height limitations. Understand that there has been some leeway given because of where thes Y buildings were placed or some other reason that they have this greater capability of having lesser perameters to meet. She is still concerned about the natural trees at the west end. She thinks something has been done about them at the east end, from what she understands the ones at the west 00 .o as ASIA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 11 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision_ Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing, (cont) end are to be annihilated. And then again, in reading one of these articles it says approximately 47% of the land within The Boulders has been dedicated to green space. Well boy show her on that plat 47% of that land, if she is to believe what the article said. She would also question a bus link on a street that is thirty feet wide, which is what the paving actually is on a fifty foot right-of-way. How you can get bus traffic going both ways and still have room for pedestrian access and just general car traffic. She stated those were her points, thank you very much. Chairman Perkins stated that they would get those answered as they went through the process. He called for any further comments and hearing none, he closed the public hearing. Perkins stated that since Chris Ekrem's comments were current they should be addressed. He stated that he would like to address the issue of the press. He stated that the Commission had no control over the press, nor does the developer. Perkins stated that if she had ever spoken with a reporter on these issues, they just don't, with all due respect to Cliff Thompson (who was present), some reporters have a hard time with development related issues. He stated that he does not know who passed the information out. Perkins stated that he thinks the numbers for the height limitations have been clearly pointed out to be 48 feet. Perkins asked Mark Donaldson abuui rhe setbacks along Hurd Lane. Donaldson stated that the setback on either side of Hurd Lane is 10 feet. Perkins stated that he thinks Ms. Ekrem brings up a very good question regarding Hurd Lane issue and asked Mark Donaldson to lay that whole scenario out and tell them, because he has asked that the condition be reworded to only require them to improve that road to the end of your property and he thinks that relates very well to Chris's question. Donaldson stated that he would like to take Chris's comments in order, if that was alright. He stated, as Perkins stated, the publicity is beyond their control, but the writer of that one particular article was obviously in error and if she wants to yell at somebody, go yell at the writer. He stated that there have been many projects before the To%vn of Avon since its incorporation that have been marketed on a presale basis, on reservation agreements. It is totally legal. There is not a law in this state or this town that prevents press or marketing or reservation agreements. They are totally refundable, there is no commitment made by the potential purchaser and he is kind of disappointed that they have to discuss this kind of issue in a public hearing. The reason for this kind of publicity, this kind of advanced marketing is so that the developer can find his niche in the market. You cannot go into a twenty million dollar project and not know what your market is. He stated that they have employed Vail Associates Real Estate to market this project and they have done a very very excellent job in doing market research, analysis for the type, the sizes, the design of these PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 12 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit D,welopment. Public Hearing, (cont) of these units, the price ranges and everything about this project. What is going on here is the developer is validating his business plan. The other methods of validating a business plan include bidding with subcontractors that is going on now. There: are unit prices being developed and analyzed for costs versus sales so that this business plan can remain intact through this process. As you know, they have given considerable concessions through this review process. They feel that they are very close to meeting the goals and objectives set forth by the Town standards, and this is just another day in business in development and he is sorry if that offends anyone. He stated that he does not know what they can do beyond that as far as the press, but he would suggest that anyone that is concenied about that call the writer of these articles and tell them what you think. Donaldson stated that the fact that this no mans land has not been considered is absolutely in error. He stated that they have talked about this at every worksession they have had with the Staff. They have explored it extensively. There have been ongoing negotiations with the developers of Eaglebend to provide the necessary access and agreement, the costs have been laid on the table and are being analyzed. At this point his client is not willing to pay four hundred thousand dollars for a ten foot strip of land. That is not to say that this developer would not be a participant in this neighborhood in future development. The Town of Avon had an opportunity years ago when the Eaglebend project was proposed for development to act on that and to acquire that missing piece of land through eminent domain or through condemnation proceedings and it elected not to. It would be onerous to place that entire responsibility on this developer at this time. What they are proposing by requesting that you modify that condition, or consider modifying that condition before they go to Town Council, is that you consider the other offerings and dedications that this developer is proposing to complete essential linkages to neighborhoods on either side of this development. As far as the traffic, he stated that he could not follow Chris's statement saying how can you say that traffic impacts are not reduced just because the density is reduced. Traffic impacts are directly related to density, and he does not know how else to explain it. Donaldson stated that the building height, as John mentioned, has been proposed in specific feet. The comment about three to four stories is a general statement, it is a guideline that is taken out of the Comprehensive Plan. The trees at the middle, or the west end of the site, it is just not possible for them to save those trees. They have gone back and studied different road configurations, different allocations of densities since the worksession last Monday. He stated that he assumes that the trees Clus is talking about is those up on the plateau of the development. There are no trees being taken out at the west end along the river. Those are far out of their development area. he stated that the problems evolve around the grading. He stated that they have consulted with a tree expert, who is also a consultant with the Town of Avon and their landscaping and tree preservation issues. He has given them some good information to go by. The grading that is required to complete the Hurd Lane connection through this site would impact the root systems, the F40 I• C7 C� Irl PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Paige 13 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing. (cont compaction of the density with roads, etc., the trees would die regardless, because of grade changes, s etc. Otherwise, the destiny of the trees is not good because they are going to relocate the Metcalf Ditch that is an open flow that meanders through the most buildable part of the site as it exists today, and they have, by contract the right with the Avon Metro District to reroute that particular flow through their site and they are in agreement that piping that ditch and controlling and engineering the rerouting of that ditch is far superior than the condition that exists there today. As far as the perception by Chris that Hurd Lane is grossly under designed, it is false. They have designed it completely with the Town of Avon's standards. The are the same width roads that we see around here that the buses drive on every day, all over Eagle County. They have been very very careful to design these rights -of way, the curb and gutter sections, the pavement sections and everything in strict accordance with the Town standards. John Perkins asked if it was possible to make four-way stops out of those two, uh, has any thought been given to that, and we talked about speed limits last time, what is the proposed speed limit? Donaldson stated that that is designated as a collector street in the master transportation plan and it imposes a speed limit of thirty miles an hour. They would be more than happy to see that reduced, however, they are kind of flying in the face of engineering standards there. The heart of this matter goes back to the transportation plan you've adopted and the three types of streets that are described in there. This is a collector street because of the linkage it is providing through dense neighborhoods. He thinks this is something that they can discuss in greater detail. Their engineers can provide greater information during the design and construction and working with the Town engineer on these standards, but they do not take issue with the speed limit. They want to do what the Town wants to do on that matter and if there is enough sentiment to reduce that speed limit they can still build the road to the standards being proposed, yet reduce the speed limit and so that it could be monitored, it could be regulated by public input. We all recognize that thirty miles an hour becomes thirty-five miles an hour and that becomes thirty-eight and children are crossing streets and there are plenty of pedestrians on a site like this as well as other sites in the neighborhood, but please keep in mind that the impacts of connecting or completing the Hurd Lane connection also will effect the rest of that neighborhood to the east. The opening, the parking lot access, the building accesses that open on to the existing portion of Hurd Lane will be impacted just like ours will. Eventually, they contemplate that there is one other missing piece to the east where the Town boundaries cease, just beyond the Eaglebend development, or right at the Eaglebend development, there is another land owner there that owns several key pieces that will allow Hurd Lane to vet be completed to the other bridge, to thereby alleviate more congestion, so that entire road would have three points of access. to other streets. It is not just their project that the Hurd Lane impacts will effect. Patti Dixon asked if this was going to be done in phases and have you assigned which parts' ^1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 14 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision. Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing, (cont) Steve Amsbaugh stated that this information was provided in the March 1, Staff report that was included in the packet. Bill Sargis pointed out the various phases on the site drawings. Dixon asked if there was a bus stop designated in the area° Donaldson stated that it is near the middle, where the interior townhomes are stopped and heading east. They have designed that bus lane pull -off to Town standards, the radius, the width, the pedestrian areas, the improved surfaces and the shelter itself is being proposed to be provided by the developer as part of the street furniture and infrastructure improvements at their cost. Dixon stated that then it would stop going in the east direction and then would there be a stop going west. Donaldson stated that what they understand from the projections for the bus routing is that this bus would want to stop east bound for these people, make its loop and probably either turnaround there, depending )n what year we are talking about and what linkages are provided further east, but on the way back if the bus should travel that way, there would be no stop in that direction. It is likely that that bus would then come down on Highway 6 and make the loop coming back around. There are other fringe developments that likely be incorporated into the Town of Avon that will be needed to be served by that same route. John Perkins asked Staff how they felt about the applicant's request to reword the two conditions. Steve Amsbaugh stated that Staff would still suggest that condition number 2 remain as stated, that they provide full connection at their expense. He stated that they are asking the Commission to reconsider that and that is part of the Commission's deliberation. That might be more appropriate for Town Council to consider. That might be an economic issue rather than a planning issue. If you stick to the planning issue do you want a full connection, that is the main point there. Buz Reynolds asked who actually owns that land. Jeff Spanel stated that the Eaglebend Partnership owns that piece. Reynolds and John Perkins asked what piece of land it was and does it gr, all the way through. Jeff Spanel stated it is a piece of property retained by the Eaglebend Partnership at the end of the cul-de-sac within the Eaglebend Subdivision. Mark Donaldson described on the plat map where this missing link which is ten feet wide is located. He stated it is between the property line of Eaglebend and the end of the existing Eaglebend Drive. Jack Hunn asked for some background on why such a lofty price tag for that ten foot chunk of land. Mark Donaldson stated that there is a little bridge that was built across the Eagle River that cost about eight hundred thousand dollars. Hunn asked if it was with the concept that it would be Oft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 15 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development Public Hearin cont shared and now it is time to share the cost. Donaldson stated yes, and they b^lieve that others should share in it Some of the notions that the Town has considered, and they have talked about in worksessions is do they have a special improvement district to complete this, or how is the cost allocated At this point, he does not think any of them know enough to say who should bear those costs. Eaglebend bore the brunt of the initial capitalized investment because thev wanted to build two hundred forty units and they built a bridge, and they own that ten feet of land and that is a fairly good form of security for that bridge Donaldson stated that they are just another private developer and what he is getting at is that there are other parcels eastward that will eventually benefit from the completion of this road. Mr. Bill Nottingham's two parcels, Lots I and 2, there are benefits that would accrue to those two development sites. All the parties that should bear the cost of this improvement are not being considered at this time. That is why they are asking for such a limitation Donaldson stated that he would remind the Commission that what exists is an emergency access across that ten feet, so it is not a matter of life swing, it is a matter of public transportation and completion of a collector street linkage Chairman Perkins stated that the chair would like to recognize Ms. Ekren. She stated that %lark was in error as far as the Stonebridge bridge goes. She stated that this harrpened, she believes, in 1982 or 1983, whereas the Eaglebend Partners purchased land and it became the Faglebend partnership property. In order for them to build the Stonebridge units and develop and subdivide that area east of the Doll's residence, all the way to the east edge of what is now Avon city limits, they could not have access through Hurd Lane as their secondary access They had the original road that went into Bill Nottingham's property where he had his airport and where now the ready mix is, etc They were forced, in order to develop anything on Eaglebend site to build that bridge at a cost of eight hundred thousand dollars, as she understands it Therefore. when she purchased her property there in 1984 the amount that she paid for her lot included a part of that bridge She has already paid for it and she does not intend to pay for it again Since thev were not allowed to hook on to Hurd Lane, then they, as she understands it, the Eaglebend Partnership kept this no mans strip of ten feet and said if that road ever is needed to go through, then whoeve- wants to do it has to pay us half the cost of the bridge Personally, she does not think it is up to the Town of Avon to do it, she thinks it is up to the developers to do it She stated that she has already paid for it once, and she pays highly for the Town of .Avon's good services in taxes Buz Reynolds asked which developer she thought should pay for it then She stated that she thinks that he who wishes to develop The Boulders has the obligation to put that road through, and should be the one that bears that cost, because they knew that it was in a part of the deal This hasn't been kept from them and this is why she has been asking the question, who is going to pay for it, because as she understands it, that is their obligation to do so. if in fact as the plan says, the road must go through Buz Reynolds asked Mark to show him where the ditch exists now and where it would be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 16 '7 U- Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing_(cont) relocated. Donaldson pointed out the general areas. He stated that everytime they make a bend or a _ comer there will be a manhole for cleanouts and access. Reynolds asked Donaldson to point out where the existing big trees are located Reynolds stated that the path that they have drawn and goes through that stand of trees ends up in Lot 5. He asked if they had any plans for Lot 5 at this point as a tag on for this project. Donaldson stated that they did not That is why they have excepted it from this application. However, the exact, precise location of that pathway, however it ends up being defined, is certainly negotiable. This is something that the he and the Staff have worked out in the last few days as far as a reasonably appropriate location and most importantly it is the connector feature, where it stops and starts and where it takes you to and from Reynolds stated that the last big question he has is on this Hurd Lane connecti,,u ::nd this can go back and forth for a long time. He stated that he feels it has to go through, one way or the other, fie stated that he realizes where the applicants position is and where their position is The Town itself has developed a guideline where this road should connect Reynolds asked if there was anyway that Staff knows of that they could reach a happy medium without leaving it to the developers to hash it out with Town Council. Steve Amsbaugh stated that to keep this in the perspective of a rezoning application and not an economic solution of one of the subconditions, that they were just trying to formulate a condition of approval that stated what they truly wanted to have, which is a full connection and to make the statement that the developer should make that connection or make every reasonable attempt to make that connection and if they end up having a problem with that, the proper forum to discuss that problem is town Council, who can actually snake economic decisions for the Town Other than that you really can't negotiate the economic solution, but you can recommend the direction the Council should take with this applicant and Staff is recommending that you recommend they do it or make every attempt to do it. Mark Donaldson stated that the stumbling block, he believes is quite simply this, they don't feel that they are the only other parties that should contribute to this, and to reflect Chris's comment, they also do not intend that she be paying two dollars for one either, because as she has stated very clearly and correctly, that she is a member of a homeowners group that has already made their contribution There are other small tracts and participants that will eventually need to participate in this That is really all they are saying It may best be resolved at a point in the future in the establishment of a special improvement district that brings all these landholders together whether they are ready to develop or not The funding sources would be unknown, the method of repayment would be unknown, but these are issues that are certainly well within the capabilities of the developer he represents, and the Town of Avon and Eaglebend to work out in the future The answer is not at hand They are willing to accept the condition that the Staff has proposed as written. They would PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 17 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing, (cont) prefer not, but as Steve has stated, they can delve into these economic issues in a little bit greater detail before the Town Council as the true governing body in this particular zoning matter. He stated that, as we all know, economics are not a part of the criteria before this Commission. Iohn Perkins stated that, in the interest of moving ahead, they should try to put the Hurd Lane, he thinks everything has been said that needs to be said When the Commission votes on this they can decide how they want that to be Reynolds stated that, as they have heard in two meetings now, if there is a way of saving the trees in the center of the property by placing the buildings in different directions, and he realizes they have tried, but he still feels strongly that there might be a way to do that. Jack Hunn stated that he appreciates all of the applicant's efforts and the flexibility they have demonstrated to work with the Staff and Commission. He feels that they have made a lot of progress. He stated that for him, it comes down to wanting to express support for the S!affs conditions and with regard to those conditions, a question about conditions 3 and 4, which talk about establishing that thirty foot setback including a construction fence there prior to construction, which really forces your final footprint of your buildings some distance back from that thirty foot setback. In order to facilitate construction they are going to have to do it in such a way that they do not encroach into that thirty foot setback. So effectively that puts your building back some additional distance from thirty foot. Donaldson stated that it depends on how you approach construction. he stated that they are prepared to do the shoring necessary to preserve that thirty foot high water mark. it will not be easy in some areas. When you look at where the building elevations meet the existing topography, the challenges are not as great as you would think They are not cutting sheer cuts right at that line. fie would remind them that the balcony projections are at that line and he would also add that about fifty percent of the length of the site they go from thirty feet to fifty feet and as Steve pointed out on the east end where it is sixty to seventy feet away from that mark. The point being that the building foundations re already eight feet away from that protective line and they envision that protective fencing being a continuous insulation of hay bales for sediment and erosion control as well as highly visible fencing that machine operator, contractors, anyone on the site can readily recognize and respect the no trespassing type fence. There will be no construction materials stored beyond that line. There will be no grading, fill or cut or any destruction of any existing vegetation. So they are clear on the simple sentence that Steve has put in there regarding a protective fence. Hunn stated that in looking at the Staffs memo it occurs to him that the Hurd Lane connection is imperative. The traffic impacts are somewhat out of our controls. As discussed at the last meeting, it is really the State Highway Department that determines when a signal might go in at either of the two locations, and additional traffic is imminent, regardless of who develops this site and the n PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 18 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision. Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing, (cont) commercial site. He stated that for him it really comes down to a kind of subjective call as to the degree to which you are being sensitive to the natural environment, the river corridor, the riparian vegetation, and he stated he has read very carefully, and he won't read them into the tape, but several sections of the Comprehensive Master Plan, the Town's goals, the Subarea 10 quotes that you made earlier. He thinks that progress has been made, but it is difficult for him in fulfilling his responsibilities as a Commission member to say that you have been sensitive enough. The thirty foot setback is a minimum, that is why he was asking you, and it sounds like you are really no closer that thirty eight feet for an actually building and no closer than thirty feet for site disturbance. A little further up the road, under different standards, the buildings are fifty feet back and that appears to be a more reasonable standard. He stated that he recognizes that the Town standard is thirty feet minimum, but the degree to which you protect the existing vegetation and the significant existing trees is a subjective call and for him, as one Commission member, he is still concerned that they are being a little too aggressive in that one area. You have made excellent progress in the other areas. Mark Donaldson stated that they will find in the Comprehensive Plan, almost everytime they talk about protection of the riverfront environment, or riparian corridor the speak to the issue of integrating development with this river corridor, and they feel that their proposal will be held to a very high standard when they come back for design review. The regrading, the methodology of erosion control and :evegetation, the plantings that are proposed and approved for landscaping around these buildings would be a continuation and extension of that riverfront. They expect to employ one of the areas better landscape architects and have good expertise in that area. He stated that he does not pretend to know everything there is about these matters and he thinks they can satisfy those concerns at that point in time. To him the one element that is in the balance, as you say Jack is subjective, is the amount of land that is being given up, if you will, to still be able to develop an economically viable project that produces all the results that he mentioned in his opening statements. That is subjective, and he feels very strongly that they have made great progress in protecting that riparian environment. He stated that they have some definitions that he could read out of the Core of Engineers Manual, but he doesn't think that this meeting deserves that They are very detailed technical definitions about grasslands and change of vegetation. He stated that they are clearly out of the wetlands, the flood plain, the special vegetation areas and My are saying and confirming that they will protect that line with a protection fence, as they may agree to in design review, building permitting, or what ever. Hunn stated that one other question he forgot to ask was what is the setback now between buildings that you are proposing. Donaldson stated that it was fifteen feet. Hunn asked separation? Donaldson stated yes, they went from ten to 15 feet. A. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 19 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development. Public Hearing, (cont, Patti Dixon stated that her intention was to have more view corridor to the river and she does not think anything has been changed because she thought it meant to have a little bit more spacing between the condominiums right on the river, because there is not much view corridor to the river. There is access with the path, but not, it makes it just the buildings so close to the river, with the minimum setback and not visually view to the river. Other things were met, but she does not think that this was and my concern. The environment nning along the river putting the path in might be better if it were gravel as opposed to black top. it 'ght be better for the environment, but she thinks it is essential that that is done in the beginning of the development instead of at the end in case we run out of monies. She stated that she agrees with Staff that road, in order for this development to work, that the Hurd Lane has got to work, and that should be your responsibility as developer to work out the details with whomever. Donaldson stated that the view to the river, he will remind you, if you are not on the edge of the river bank, you cannot see the river. The river is down there and the idea of one of your goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to focus and orient development on the river to enhance that riverside development and that is what they are doing. As you recall, they were asked to widen the distance between those buildings and they have done that. Henry Vest said something about just kind of continuing, he is just going to talk about some of the buildings along the river. He mumbled something about it being tough, but what he said is not clear. He asked what is the, do you have nay decks between the buildings. Donaldson stated that they are thinking that they would wrap the decks around maybe six feet on the ends of the buildings in the areas where they splay apart from one another, but as they have proposed in their development standards, the rooks and deck overhangs may not project into that setback more than two feet in each direction. Vest asked what was the width of the decks going from the building to the river. Donaldson stated that they vary from six to eight feet. Vest stated just as a point of reference, kind of as a, you know I also feel that, well just, I think that the building, there is a lot of building running around, running along the thing. For instance, what is the difference in the width of the buildings in the middle versus the width of the buildings of a unit on the river. Donaldson stated that he was not sure he understands the question. Vest stated a unit in the middle section from the middle townhomes, what is that width versus the width of the townhomes. Donaldson stated that the interior townhome units, and this is a balance between market value, square footage, entry level pricing of the townhome. The interior townhomes that are not on the riverside are 18 feet wide. The riverside units are 22 and 24 feet wide. It drastically effects the arrangement of living spaces. Vest stated that the only other thing, on the western units, on the western buildings, then part of the second from the west, it seems that there is going to be just an incredible amount of fill according to this particular drawing here, with that parking lot is sitting right on top of, there is quite a few topo PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 19 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision_ Planned Unit Development, Public Hearin cont Patti Dixon stated that her intention was to have more view corridor to the river and she does not think anything has been changed because she thought it meant to have a little bit more spacing between the condominiums right on the river, because there is not much view corridor to the river. There is access with the path, but not, it makes it just the buildings so close to the river, with the minimum setback and not vis -ally view to the river Other things were met, but she does not think that this was and my concern. The environment running along the river putting the path in might be better if it were gravel as opposed to black top. It might be better for the environment, but she thinks it is essential that that is done in the beginning of the development instead of at the end in case we run out of monies. She stated that she agrees with Staff that road, in order for this development to work, that the Hurd Lane has got to work, and that should be your responsibility as developer to work out the details with whomever. Donaldson stated that the view to the river, he will remind you, if you are not on the edge of the river bank, you cannot see the river. The river is down there and the idea of one of your goals in the Comprehensive Plan is t� focus and orient development on the river to enhance that riverside development and that is w�lat they are doing. As you recall, they were asked to widen the distance between those buildings and they have done that. Henry Vest said something about just kind of continuing, fie is just going to talk about sorne of the buildings along the river He mumbled something about it being tough, but what he said is not clear. lie asked what is the, do you have nay decks between the buildings. Donaldson stated that they are thinking that they would wrap the decks around maybe six feet on the ends of the buildings in the areas where they splay apart from one another, but as they have proposed in their development standards, the rooks and deck overhangs may not project into that setback more than two feet in each direction Vest asked what was the width of the decks going from the building to the river. Donaldson stated that they vary from six to eight feet. Vest stated just as a point of reference, kind of as a, you know 1 also feel that, well just, I think that the building, there is a lot of building running around, running along the thing. For instance, what is the difference in the width of the buildings in the middle versus the width of the buildings of a unit on the river Donaldson stated that he was not sure he understands the question Vest stated a unit in the middle section from the middle townhomes, what is that width versus the width of the townhomes. Donaldson stated that the interior townhome units, and this is a balance between market value, square footage, entry level pricing of the townhome. The interior townhomes that are not on the riverside are 18 feet wide The riverside units are 22 and 24 feet wide. It drastically effects the arrangement of living spaces. Vest stated that the only other thing, on the western units, on the western buildings, then part of the second from the west, it seems that there is going to be just an incredible amount of fill according to this particular drawing here, with that parking lot is sitting right on top of, there is quite a few topo AWN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 20 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision. Planned Unit Development Public Hearing. (cont) lines there and he just was wondering, is there, why would you not be able to maybe make that work with the topography a little better. Thats kind of, you know, as far as a planning, as far as a design review, you would kind of want the person to make that building work with the topography. Donaldson stated that the site sections demonstrate the three different types of conditions they have at the least the west and what he would say is the softest spot in the middle, which is probably what you are referring to where the topography is the shallowest. He pointed out that section. He stated that what they are proposing is that if they build down at that riverside level then they can't see the line very well. They are right on the existing grade at the lower level and yes there is a small arnount of fill within the buildings to level the garages on the north side of the buildings. They have an enormous amount of earth to move on the site to grade the street properly and to provide the good points of access and line of sight. When you imagine the distance between those buildings in this so called fill area that will provide and allow for some very interesting landscape between those buildings. It will allow them to imitate the undulating grade along the river and recreate some of that natural environment there. Most of what you are referring to as fill is building. He pointed to the other cross sections stating that they represent, on the east end where they have moved that building back to get out of the trees, this is truly a building built upon a flat portion of the site. At the west end they go back to, it is very naturally stepped and benched into the terraced hillside there. Vest stated well and also as he looks at that also just above those cross sections that you have there that is a pretty good indication of how much mass you are going to have right along that river corridor, so, you know, and I can understand that you all have brought it down to 150 units and all that and the funny thing is, for the condos you know, 27 units per acre, you know we don't have a problem with that, it could be thirty, you could make it for how ever many you want, what we are really working on is just this section right here. He stated that for himself he thinks they have done a great job and they are below all the, you've really tried to make this work with this site, but he would think that they would want to, he would want to work and push those buildings, you know, thirty five or forty feet. He just thinks thirty feet, even though that is in the Comprehensive Plan, he thinks that was an error in the Comprehensive Plan. It should have had a fifty foot mark there and he knows that those two numbers were tossed back and forth, but anyway those, he would, he would feel comfortable with forty feet. He asked if they would be able to do forty feet. Donaldson stated "You bet we will. We'll do forty feet if you'll give it to us the entire length." Vest stated he can't do that. Vest and Donaldson were both speaking at the same time and neither statement is clear. Donaldson then stated that he respects what he is saying and he appreciates his comments. He stated that they could negotiate this as long as you like, but they know where their boundaries are for density, type of product they are going to market with. They do not want to give up anymore in that area. Vest stated his last comment, on number five in the staff conditions, he feels that the, he feels that if it is supposedly a walk a bike path he thinks that that is unreasonable and he thinks that it shouldn't be paved. It should be just a simple footpath and it certainly shouldn't be a, there shouldn't PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 21 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing. (cont) be any asphalt on there. He thinks it would be detrimental to the look that you are trying to provide here and plus you do have that real steep section that goes up through those cottonwood trees So he would agree with you that number five of the staff recommendations could be reworded or some thing different than a hard surface pedestrian path there fie stated that those would be his comments. Donaldson stated thia he could not agree more regarding the path and he feels that this is an item that they can all come together on during design review and negotiate the precise materials, location, the width and more particularly the disturbance to the natural environment there, So he appreciates him taking his request to heart Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she has come to terms with the density She thinks that they are living in a dream world if they think that the Town isn't going to get built up to the point where the traffic and the density makes this a real town instead of just kind of an open area where everybody goes their merry way It is going to be a real town with all that entails The landscaping, she can't see a way that they can save those trees on the west end, but she hopes they will be ready to plant some substantial stuff in their place, because otherwise your going to get a pretty hard time from her I lurd Lane, you will have to do what you have to do, including going to the city council and seeking some relief if you have to. She agrees with Henry that the pedestrian pathway should not be paved And, she guess if that overall linear view of what it is going to look like from Highway 6 is a true indication she won't have a major problem with it. You had indicated that there were going to be some very distinct changes in roof slopes and elevations and she thinks what she feels is it is far enough away from Highway 6 that she thinks thats whats going, what it is going to look like, it is going to look like very same fifteen hundred feet of building. Donaldson stated that he did not say that there would be very distinct roof changes Ile stated that he said there would be roof changes in the range of four to six feet, and that is what is illustrated Schneiderman stated she stands corrected, she does remember that he had made that qualification, and she does not think it will be enough, okay She stated that she passes by every day and she looks at it every day and its just going to, with only 15 feet between buildings and quite a few units per building mass, she thinks it will be too much. Lastly, speaking personally, she stated that she was incensed When she read !hose articles, which could not have been written without the information provided by the developer and/or marketing of Vail Associates Donaldson stated that this is a public hearing, the whole public is here, the press is here, you cannot accuse us, Schneiderman stated that Dan Pastorini was specifically quoted in one of the articles, okay, so that wasn't taken from a public hearing Schneiderman stated that this is not up for argument, this is just her opinion, okay Donaldson asked if they could stick to issues. Chairman Perkins asked that they let her finish her comments. Schneiderman stated that as far as she is concerned, it is the developers responsibility to correct any mistakes or inconsistencies in PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 22 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing cont any articles written, essentially in what is on their behalf. It is a marketing tool and she thinks quite a few people in this town or whoever has read the articles thinks that the developer actually gave that information to the press, and that is all she has to say about it. Bill Sargis stated that the developer did not give the information to the press. He stated that they all talk to every body and they do not know who they are talking to and this developer, and he does not know of any other developer that can control the press. He apologized that she is sensitive about it, but there is nothing he can do about it. Sue Railton commended Mark on working along with the Commission and coming to some good solutions on this pt eject. She stated that they all got pretty hot under the collar when they first saw it, but she thinks it is working much better, and she thinks they are following the Town's guidelines with nearly everything here, so she is pleased with what's going on so far. John Perkins stated that this is a tough issue. He understands the motivation, he understands the site planning from a development and an architects point of view and yet as he looks at that site plan from a planning commissioner's point of view, he wishes for fewer units. He wishes for a variegation in the alignment of the units and the way they are laid out. He feels like the orientation, it being so consistent, Steve used the word consistent, this is a very consistent proposal, and it consistently meets our guidelines, our rules and regulations, and that is what makes it tough because we are looking at, at something that he for one thinks could be better done, but it all shakes out to a matter of numbers and a philosophy of life that has been generated in this valley that pushes everything incrementally up every, got to get enough for the land, got to get enough units on there to make it what you have to pay for the land, it is the economics of development that, in this county, that drives a plan like this and this is where we live and that all the reality and he thinks improvements have Leen made, like Rhoda, he had asked that the elevation drawing be drawn to see if that was going to look like a wall of buildings, or to see if it was going to have some kind of relief, and it really does look like a wall of buildings. The buildings are pretty much the same size and uniform consistent, consistent spaces between every building give it kind of a difficult look for him to see that and we are all gonna, we're all gonna, once it is all built it is here for all of us to live with and he thinks the architecture is probably going to be good, but maybe there is too much of it and he just, he wished that those two buildings in the center could be redistributed, 1, this is the third time I've said this, if that density could somehow be redistributed and I, and I don't know what the answer, 1 realize that creates all kinds of problems with what you want to do here. He stated that he honestly does not know how he wants to vote on this. You have got going for you the fact that you have consistently met all of the Town of Avon's requirements and guidelines and yet he wishes there was more there,. He stated that his first job was with a guy that said about consistency, he said "consistency is for 0% PLANNING AND ZONING CUN... 7N MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 23 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development Public Hearing- (cont) pancake batter" He said it never did mean a lot to him but he thinks, he wishes he saw some inconsistencies and he is torn on it. He stated that would be his comments. He stated that if there was no further discussion, somebody needs to make a motion and they need to move on with this. Jack Ilunn stated that this is a PUD application and it is a negotiation, and the Commission is being asked to approve certain elements of the I roposal that exceed, or are not in compliance with the normal standards, and they are as follows: the setback from Hurd Lane at 10 feet, typically 25 feet and that is a significant deviation from a development standard if you will. You are allowed to do that, that is something we are doing tonight. The other thing is the space between buildings would typically be 20 feet or 25 feet, we are being asked to approve 15 and that is something that we can do, but it deviates from what we might typically do in a zone district. The other thing that he keeps coming back to is the subjective call we each have to make with regard to the degree to which they are being sensitive to the environment, and it is a difficult decision because you have made some progress and I thinks this is a quality development for the Town and it is a difficult decision for him. John Perkins stated that he was sure it is a difficult decision for all of them. It is a difficult situation for those guys sitting out there. Vest stated that he would like to make one comment that he'd be a, he would like to make a motion, but he would like to, just to asked the applicant first, in his motion he would ask for a forty foot to the mean annual high water mark and he would ask for twenty feet between the buildings, would the applicant agree to that. Donaldson stated that he was sorry, they cannot. Vest stated that then he does not have to make the motion. Donaldson stated that the impacts of that request are another thirty units, and that just dead serious they have looked at that. They have tried moving it farther away and they have dropped their density as low as they can drop it and it has everything to do with the product they are offering for sale, the arrangement of the living spaces, the type of structure they are proposing, he kno ,s that he is speaking of economics, but those are the hard facts that they are dealing with. He would have to say that that would kill the project. Perkins asked if the redistribution of the density in those two middle buildings, was that ever looked into, is that an impossibility, would that force you into an elevator on the back, was that ever looked at. Donaldson stated it was in great detail. Perkins asked that he tell him about that process. Donaldson stated that anything on the north side, Lot 3 north of Hurd Lane. That site represents all the parking it can support in a type five building and wood frame construction. They could go to steel and concrete and they would be back in here and asking for probably two hundred twenty five units and eighty foot building heights to develop that kind of a structure. They, and their marketing specialists do not feel that is an apnoea late structure or product for this particular site. They have carefully arranged three leve!s of wood frame construction with offset massing with Floor levels. Th y do not have PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 24 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing. (cont) stacking floor plates, they have relief in hip roofs on the ends, offset laterally, horizontally, vertically. They have a lot of architectural opportunities here. Perkins asked about the units north of Hurd Lane if they were a unit on each level for three levels. Donaldson stated yes, they are all flats. Perkins asked about the square footage. Donaldson stated that they range from around 400 fc 4 to 1200 feet. Donaldson stated that all of those units have south facing living areas. They all have covered protected entrances, and there is carport parking incorporated into those structures. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she would like to make a motion that they approve Lot 3, Nottingham Station -'ubdivision Nottingham Station PUD, with the following staff recommendations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and in addition one that states that setbacks between the buildings will be 20 feet, with the following findings 1 through 11. Perkins stated there was a motion on the table to grant approval of the Boulders PUD development plan as presented with the Staff recommendations as stated one through five in the report and a condition six would stipulate that the open area between, every building on the site? Donaldson stated that he believed she said setbacks between buildings to be twenty feet. Schneiderman stated she would revise that to state between buildings on Lot four to be no less than twenty feet between buildings. Perkins stated okay the sixth condition would be that there would be no less than twenty feet between buildings open for all buildings cn Lot 4, and the motion states all eleven of the Staff findings. Perkins called for a second. Sue Railton seconded. Perkins called for further discussion. Dixon asked if the setbacks were 20 feet does that mean that they would have to alleviate a couple of buildings, or could they do that by alleviating a couple buildings, that would give them the option to do that in that motion. Perkins they would have to find a way to meet that, it probably means they have to lose some units. Schneiderman stated they could not have any more than 150, but they can always have less. Jack Hunn asked Rhoda if she felt comfortable and wanted to include the ten foot setback from Hurd Lane in that. Schneiderman stated she thought about increasing it to 15, but if the Town Engineer doesn't have a problem with it, she thinks she can live with it. It is interior and it doesn't affect the views very much and there is a pedestrian walkway and if they think snow removal is not going to hinder those aspect of :he street, she can live with it. Perkins stated that that might be possible and be acceptable to you if you gave us maybe a large+ building and then ... I think there needs to be some variegation in the footprint of those buildings and it might be possible to give us a larger building and then some smaller buildings and arrange those buildings differently that might be accomplished almost without losing any density. Perkins asked for further discussion of the motion. Donaldson stated that he thought he heard substantial sentiment from the Commission that they might like to revise condition number five. Perkins stated that condition five is the issue of whether thats a hard surface Schneiderman amended her motion to include that Staff recommendation PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 25 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing (cont) number five be amended to suggest, strongly suggest that the surface be non paved. Railton seconded the amendment. Hunn stated one other question for Rhoda and the other members, are you thereby saying that you feel that they are being sensitive enough to the environment by being thirty foot back from the river. Schneiderman stated that she is saying that she thinks she can live with it and that in the design review process they are going to further mitigate some of the things that are going to be done and how they will be done, the landscaping, etc., so I guess the answer to your question is yes. Sue Railton stated that that is the Town's guidelines, thats it. Hunn stated that is a minimum setback it is not the absolute, it is not a development right. Schneiderman stated that she thinks the Town made a big booboo in doing it as well as a lot of others, but unfortunately ...Perkins stated that is the rule of the game, that is the rule they've worked under and that is the rule that we judge this on. Hunn stated take a different perspective on that though and realize that it leaves some subjectivity and determine whether it is sensitive enough. Schneiderman stated that she thinks that they are not going to get, ever, as sensitive as we all would like to see it. She thinks that is an impossibility financially speaking, not that she cares if anybody makes any money off this, but she thinks that something is going to get built and if it does we can just do our best to get as much as we can for the Town and for the surrounding area and for the environment and at some point it is going to look like a garbage dump or it is going to get built on and she thinks these people are probably one of the better ones that will be able to follow through on some of the promises and commitments that they are making to the Town. She thinks it is a crap shoot either way. Perkins stated that his comment would be that with a, if he reads it right, with five spaces between, along the river we are looking for twenty five feet, and he doesn't feel thats quite in that amount of distance is.. is a ... its incremental. Rhoda Schneiderman asked what he was referring to. Perkins stated your motion. Schneiderman stated oh the space between buildings. Perkins state yes, you gained twenty five feet of open space. Schneiderman stated that that meets the Town requirements between buildings, thats what residential is at any rate, ten foot setbacks on the sides. Steve Amsbaugh stated that in Eaglebend the setbacks are seven and a h Jf feet on each side for a total of fifteen between buildings. It is Wildridge that has ten feet on the sioeyard. Schneiderman stated she stands corrected. Hunn stated that the building code allows for twenty feet or more unrestricted openings and as soon as you get closer than twenty you have to perform some heroics to meet the new standards the closer you get. Donaldson stated that aQtually they could build within three feet by the building cod, but they were having two hour protected openings, etc. Five feet there is more relief, ten feet there is more relief, as you say twenty feet is wide open. Perkins stated that if there was no further discussion he would call for all in favor of this motion. The motion failed with a two for and five against vote. 00 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 26 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development Public Hearin (g cont) Perkins stated he would entertain a second motion. Henry Vest moved to approve Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision PUD with the Staff recommendations one, Staff conditions one, two, three, four, and five be amended to be a soft surface, recommended to be a soft surface, with the addition that six be... the setbacks between the buildings in Lot 4 would be twenty feet and that a seventh condition be that the buildings on Lot 4 be a minimum of forty feet from the mean annual high water mark. Perkins stated they have a motion that is exactly the same as the first motion, with the addition of the change in provision number six, I'm sorry, it would carry, it is the exact same motion as the first motion with a condition seven that the buildings be located forty feet from the mean high water mark. Perkins called for a second. He stated that the motion dies for a lack of a second. Hunn said question... currently the buildings are thirty eight feet and yet they are describing the limits of construction as either thirty, or are you saying Henry forty is the limit of construction and the buildings are eight feet further back than that. Do you see the distinction. Vest stated yes he understands the distinction, but the buildings are, because of the deck are eight feet away from the mean annual high water mark, but he would feel more comfortable, when we walked the site, he would feel more comfortable if they would be forty feet. He thinks thirty feet is very small and this just, this is his negotiation. He feels that forty feet would be giving them ten fee and giving us ten feet. Hunn stated that all of the specifications putting the boundary at the thirty foot mark would apply to the forty foot mark. The buildings would in fact be forty eight feet back with decks protruding in. Vest stated that would be the minimum. Donaldson asked if lack was suggesting a change in what has been proposed in terms of defining that... your talking about a different definition than currently exists. Hunn stated, on he was not suggesting that, he was just trying to get clear whether we were leaving that open, because we were already thirty eight feet for the real impact of construction and he is just trying to get a clarification from Henry what his intentions are. Vest stated forty feet to the fence. Vest asked if Jack wanted to second that motion. Hurn stated that for this to hold up to the higher levels, where this is probably headed is if you give some reason for changing the Town standard. Vest stated that when he made his Commission review, that he felt that the existing thirty feet that is in the guidelines is in error, particularly for this site. Hunn suggesteL that that probably won't hold up because it is the printed word and he thinks they have to, at least for him to support that and second it, he would have to feel like at thirty feet we don't feel that it is in conformance with the Town's guidelines with regard to protection of the environment and the riparian vegetation and that we feel that it could come into compliance if it went back another ten feet. Vest stated that he would rather see it come back twenty more feet, but he is just trying to make something happen here. Donaldson asked if he could ask Jack and Henry a question What is the difference that you are identifying in the change in vegetation, the change in riparian habitat between thirty and forty feet, because he knows of no change there. Vest stated that he is not PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 27 Lot 3, Nottineham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development Public Hearing, (cont) that concerned with that one. He stated that when he walked that line that they had out there it seemed to him that, particularly just talking with everybody there, it seemed to him that it was really close to, it was close to the river, it was very close and I just, we are going by engineered stakes, and just as a comment, I think thats subjective, thats not a subjective thing, but there is a sense of subjectiveness in our vote of how it appears and it appears to be pretty dam close. Now we also have to have a pathway there, thirty feet is nothing, it really isn't. Perkins stated that they are still looking for a second to Henry's motion. Donaldson stated that it is a third of an acre in addition to the five and a quarter acres that they are already dedicating, so it is not nothing. It is a very critical... Vest interrupted stating that he thinks you guys have really worked hard in trying to make it work, and he can understand that, this is just, I sympathize, I'm just simply saying that I feel that thirty feet is very very close to a.. to the high water mark. Jack Hurn asked Chairman Perkins if it would be appropriate to nwess for a few minutes and have an executive session so we might bash this out. Chairman Perkins stated sure, he thought they could do that. Donaldson stated thank you for your consideration. Chairman Perkins called a ten minute recess. Upon calling the meeting back to order Chairman Perkins stated that the Chair deems the previous motion dead for lack of a second. He stated that the Chair would entertain a third motion on this item. Jack Hunn moved to approve the PUD application for Lot 3, Nottingham Station, subject to the six staff conditions: 7. that the front yard setback along Hurd Lane be in compliance with Town's normal standards of 25 feet. That the distance between buildings would be a minimum of 20 feet consistent with Town standards and that the setback from the river respect the edge of the riparian vegetation and a little explanation on that, in reading some of the Town's goals and objectives, one of them is, stating that land such as this property have a potential to be developed as long as the physical design of the site is sensitive to the natural riparian environment and the degree to which it is sensitive is the issue. Number 2, this comes from Goal G-1, Item A, Page 3.7; Insure that the future development will minimize degradation of the environment, particularly in sensitive natural areas, and from Sub Area 10, that the setback of 30 feet is considered a minimum, not necessarily a development right, is the way he interprets that. Set the buildings back from the river to preserve its natural character, and the final quote out of that section, where possible, buildings and other improvements to be located to preserve and promote the health of existing quality trees. Those are the reasons, in reading those sections, that he is not able to agree with the findings, particularly finding three and finding five of the Staff Memo, with conditioning the setback i40 1� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 28 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision. Planned Unit Development Public Hearing_(contj from the river to be sensitive to the edge of the riparian vegetation, and that is intentionally 7W not stating a specific distance. Chairman Perkins stated !hat there is a motion to approve this item with the Staff recommendations, and he believed there were five of them, the sixth one was the 20 feet that they had dealt with before, so, and would your motion include the soft treatment of the pedestrian path. Jack Hunn stated yes it would and it would also cite the eleven findings with the amendments to three and five as discussed. Perkins stated the motion to approve with Staff recommendations one through five, five being a soft treatment of the pedestrian path, and item seven would be that the front yard setbacks on Hurd Lane be 25 feet, that the distance between buildings on Lot 4 be 20 feet, and item eight that the setback from the river reserve and respect the riparian character and vegetation. The findings would be one through eleven with the exceptions of two and five. Jack Hunn stated three and five, and with the condition that he place on it he thinks he can agree with those findings with those conditions. Perkins stated, okay, with the stated conditions to findings three and five. Perkins called for a second. Patti Dixon seconded. Perkins stated the motion was by Hunn, seconded by Dixon, and asked for any further discussion. With no further discussion, Perkins called for a vote and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 63. Block I Wildridge Subdivision Sideyard Setback Variance Request Public Hearinst Sue Railton stepped down as a voting member of the Commission due to a conflict of interest. Mary Holden stated that this is a public hearing for a variance to the front and side yard setback. They are proposing a boulder retaining wall to encroach seven feet into the sideyard setback and they are proposing a concrete wall to encroach twenty two feet into the frontyard setback and six feet into the sideyard setback up front. The adjacent property owner is concerned about construction encroachments on to their property during construction of this. The request meets the approval criteria outlined in the Staff report, and Staff would recommend approval with the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 29 Lot 63, Block 1. Wildridme Subdivision, Sideyard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing_�contl 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity Conditions: 1. The applicant identify and mark the southeast property line pr, -;or to and during construction of the concrete and boulder retaining walls, so as to eliminate any encroachment onto the adjacent property This fence would be placed on the property line. John Railton, the architect for the project, stated that he would like to go through a fw points having to do with the hardship points of the project. He stated that this is a duplex lot that has a fairly large area, but a fairly restricted front approach for getting cars in off the cul-de-sac. The second thing he would note is the location of the adjacent Hazard house has been taken into consideration and they want to protect its views and its environment by not putting the building further down on the site. They would like to protect the views of the future house that might be built on the adjacent land on the other side. He stated the site is very steep and quite frankly, to push the house further down the site makes for a very difficult driveway access to the garages, and the other item is that the sewer depth is such that it would make it very difficult to provide a connection into the sewer Another thing that Mary did not mention is that they approached the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District and obtained from them a letter. He read the letter which stated that the district has reviewed the plans regarding the construction of a six foot retaining wall within the seven and a half foot utility easement for Lot 63 Because of the uniqueness of this situation at the end of Fox Lane there appears to be no reason that the district would assume development to occur in Tract E, Block 2 of the Wildridge Subdivision, therefore, the district will allow an encroachment agreement to take place. The District will require an eight and a half by eleven submitted drawing of the actual encroachment into the easement along with fifteen dollars for a recording fee. Once these items are obtained, the District will issue an encroachment agreement and have it recorded at the County. Railton stated the letter is signed by Fred Haslee. Railton stated that he also brought the model because Patti Dixon did not see it the last time. It further demonstrates what they are requesting. He stated that he spoke with Michael Hazard today and be wanted him to say that he does not have any problem with what they are proposing to do and the only thing he requested is that at the time of construction they have a construction site meeting so that he clearly understands the degree of excavation that will be going there. He stated that his client has undertaken to do any revegetation to any of the landscaping that is disturbed By that he means the landscaping of the tunnel now does encroach over into the Guida property, so they would undertake to do some restoration there. f ko PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 30 Lot 63, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Sideyard Setback Variance Request, Public Hearing (cont) Jack Hunn asked if the retaining wall is eight feet in height on the back side of the building. Railton asked if it was the rock one. He stated that it is actually layered in two areas. Mary Holden stated that there is a drawing in the packet and she believes that it is at about six & Hum stated that the new steep slope guidelines limit each tier to six foot maximum and it appearb you are doing two deep, and thai would be his only concern. Perkins asked for further comments, stating he has no problem with this. Reynolds stated he did not either, but he had a quick question. He stated that it seems like the sluff from the tunnel has created this. Railton stated that he did not know if they created it , but, and again he was not there when they built the tunnel, if you look at it visually it looks to him as though the way the earth is mounded on to the tunnel does definitely come over the property line. To be honest, it would have required a retaining wall without that. Probably the retaining wall is slightly higher than it would have been without that regrading. Perkins stated that the topo clearly shows that this applicant has been impacted by the backfilling of that tunnel. He thinks that is sufficient hardship. Rhoda Schneiderman asked what the concrete wall finish would be. Railton stated that they were going to do it the same kind of texture as the Hazard residence, which has sort of a sand mixture on it. Reynolds asked if it would be the same color. Railton stated that they were not going to do it the same color. Jack Hunn moved to grant the requested variance for Lot 63, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, citing the following findings: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for the following reason 11. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity. Steve Amsbaugh asked if the Chairman would open the public hearing for public comment. Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing. With no public input forthcoming, the A 10O. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 31 Lot 63. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Sideyard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing (cont) Chairman then closed the Public Hearing Jack Hunn stated that he would amend his motion to include Staff condition number 1, which is: The applicant identify and mark the southeast property line prior to and during construction of the concrete and boulder retaining walls, so as to eliminate any encroachment onto the adjacent property. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. John Railton stated that at the previous meeting there were about ten items that were items that could be taken care of at the stage when they submit for a building permit, i.e. putting constraints upon the degree of disturbance on the site. Mary Holden stated that those items were from the final design review and can be discussed at another time. Mr. Railton stated that he has the cut sheets for the light fixtures and he also showed some colors to be used. Steve Amsbaugh stated that this information is not on the agenda and he would like the staff to review any submittal prior to the Commission's consideration. Chairman Perkins asked Mr. Railton to please work that out with Staff. Sue Railton returned as a voting member of the Commission Lot 38. Block I. Wildridge Subdivision. Duplex Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that a letter has been place in front of the Commission members from the adjacent property owner regarding this application. She stated that this duplex would be three levels and stand approximately 36 feet in height. Materials will consist of asphalt shingles, cedar channel lap siding and stucco. The landscape plan is sufficient and revegetation is proposed with native grasses. Holden stated that the adjacent property is concerned about the privacy due to the orientation of the building. A grading and drainage plan will need clarification prior to building permit, the proposed wall at the northeast comer of the property will need to be relocated out of the setback or a variance applied for if it is a structure. If it is a landscape element that will be fine. Revegetation needs to include native bushes in addition to native grasses This project does meet with the design review criteria and Staff would recommend approval with the following conditions: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 32 Loot 38, Block I. Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Final Design Review (cont That coniferous landscape screening is provided in appropriate location between Lots 38 and 39. 2. The grading and drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3 The wall in the northeast corner is addressed 4. The revegetation include native bushes 5. All flues, Flashings and vents have a finished surface 6. The building height not exceed 35 feet Michael Sanner, representing the applicant, stated that he was not sure how the 36 feet was calculated, but he tried to make sure that it was under 35, but then can work that out. As far as the landscaping for the neighbors, he stated that he and Jim Klien have talked with Judy and Dave Yoder and they are willing to work with them to put some trees or whatever. but he is not quite sure that it is more of a case of not my back yard rather than truly being right in their face From the landscape site plan you can see where their house is and the orientation of their main w'ndows is west which is almost ninety degrees different from the main orientation of our living room windows. Plus, the building is sited as far away from their building as possible, rather than next to them, which he could have within the envelope. There is also a house up above, higher, two lots away and a house on the west side, so they are boxed in. He is not quite sure that you can't appease everybody by building anything there. If it was vacant, everyone would be happy. They have talked with them and thev are willing to try to work something out He poir,ed out on the landscape plan what they have in mind, and what the neighbors have planted in that area He stated that he does not think it will make as big an impact as she thinks it will. Perkins asked how much higher is their footprint or base grade elevation than hers Sanner stated he was not sure what hers was It is roughly about seven feet. Maybe ten feet higher at the upper living level. Perkins stated that he thinks this is kind of a tough issue and he thinks they will be seeing more and more of these as Wddridge starts to build out Sanner pointed out how the two houses were oriented and he stated that it is not a face to face situation Tie thinks that some of the onerous should be on them as well to provide their privacy Rhoda Schneiderman stated that the only thing she can see in their plan that is lacking is that they have concentrated the landscaping in areas which definitely are for your clients, however, 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 33 �i Lot 38. Block 1. Wildridtre Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review, (cont) landscaping the way we look at has to be viewed from other houses also, so it looks to her that it is kind of inadequate on the north and south edges. You need some bushes to soften the lines. Mr. Sanner described how the ridge continues up, but he was away from the microphone and his comments are not clear. Also Perkins was asking questions at the same time Mr. Sanner was speaking, and neither of their comments ate clear. It had something to do with cutting into the hillside. Mr. Saner replied about half a level. Rhoda Schneiderman asked how long his driveway was, but Sanner's answer is not clear. Sue Railton was asking him questions regarding elevations, but she also was not near a microphone and her questions are muffled. Chairman Perkins asked if they had colors. Mary f-Uden stated that she did, but would have to get them. Buz Reynolds asked if they had any problems at a couple points, one at the turnaround, making a berm and putting some vegetation in there. Sanner stated that he has the berm back of that. Reynolds stated he is not talking substantial, it is just right here in their back yard and he is not talking... he pointed out on the plans where he was concerned with. Sanner stated that that was to be snow storage. The rest of their conversation is not near as they are at the wall and not near a microphone. Jim Klein stated that they are more than happy to add some trees here and work with the neighbor, but just they all understand each other, these might be six or eight, 2 - 2-1/2 inch aspen trees and not necessarily ten 8 foot spruce trees. Sanner then presented the colors stating the stucco walls will basically be an off-white, a Devoe Egret color. The window would be a taup color. He pointed out the fascia color Discussion followed on the asphalt shingles to be used. Hunn stated at the risk of dragging this meeting on, he wanted to read from a couple things in the guidelines: the first thing we ask people to do is orient their buildings to take advantage of solar and view corridors. The second thing we ask them to do is respect their neighboring property view corridors and this building is a pretty tall building and it is taking of its view corridor at the same time it is blocking the view corridor of the lot to the north. The applicant stated that the lot to the north is higher. Hun stated that the next thing we asked them to do in their design is orient the project to emphasize privacy of occupants of neighboring properties. Those are the charges they have and the Commission's charges to review this, there are approximately seven of them, but the ones that kind of play into the concern expressed by the neighbor, suitability of the improvement, including type, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 34 Lot 38, Block I, Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review, (cont) quality of materials. Compatibility of the design to minimize site impacts to adjacent property, so it is kind of a tough call. He stated that if he were developing this site he would have a development strategy very much like yours. He thinks it is the right strategy for that site to take full advantage of the opportunity. He does think it is a little bit insensitive to the neighbors, just because of the fact that they are already there and they are oriented in a certain way. The real concern that he has is that that turnaround is probably going to have a car parked in it from time to time and maybe a travel trailer or snowmobile on a trailer and the temptation to kind of use that area is always going to be there and he thinks that it is imperative that that be screened or else minimized so that nothing could be parked there and it is really just there to turnaround. Michael Sanner asked how you regulate that so it doesn't happen He sees it happening all around. He thinks it should be a covenant Hunn stated that he agrees and to avoid the temptation to even park. Hunn asked if you could make it smaller and still have it functional. The applicant stated that they could make the turnaround part of it minimal, but you will want to be able to head out straight Klein stated that they could place a berm with some trees. Hunn stated that a coniferous tree would be most effective !o screen headlights, etc. it is a year round screening device rather than a deciduous tree that looses its leaves. Dunn stated that he thinks the stucco color is too bright of a white and he is concerned about putting that strong of a color on the fascia outlining the building. You are really calling a lot of attention to a fairly tall building There is a lot of other nice detail and he thinks that they are calling too much attention to the fascia and he would rather see them accentuate the railings, etc. Sanner stated they could use a taupe that matches the window and eliminate the red. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she also thinks the white is too white, something more muted would be better. She stated that she would like to see a revised landscape plan. She thinks what they have done so far is fine, but they need to add some low lying shrubbry etc. on the north side to soften the line between the bottom of the house and the ground and she would like to see that little triangle piece taken out and a combination of aspen and some kind of spruce along the south side would be appropriate. Not one exclusively or the other. Something very natural looking She thinks that the existing people, all over Wildridge, and she included herself, are going to have to start beefing their own landscaping up when people move in next door and all of a sudden they are faced with a house there that they haven't had there for the last five years. She would also like to see the colors come back. Chairman Perkins stated that he would entertain a motion that would grant approval with the condition that the colors and landscape plan come back for review. lack Hunn stated so moved. Buz Reynolds stated that he had one last question He stated that he see shutters on two windows of the building, are they going to see shutters on all the windows or just those two. Sanner stated that .-. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 35 Lot 38, Block I. Wildrid@e Subdivision, Duplex, Final Design Review. (cont) some of them are not appropriate for shutters. Sanner stated that they would be just where they are indicated. Discussion followed on where they would be. Chairman Perkins stated that there is a motion on the table for approval with the landscaping plan being revised with respect to, the specific respect to screening the neighbor's privacy and the colors also be bra-ight back. He called for a second. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. Sue Railton asked about the triangle bit of the driveway, does that come in with the landscaping. Hunn stated that that would be part of the landscaping revisions and also he statad that the Staff recommendations would be part of the motion. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded the amendment and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 3. Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision. Fiveplex. Final Design Review. Mary Holden stated that the fiveplex is proposed to be three levels. The materials will include asphalt shingles, horizontal lap siding, and stucco are the primary materials. There is an adequate landscape plan and revegetation is proposed to be native grasses and irrigation is proposed to be done by hand by the on-site manager. Holden stated that Staffs main comments are: A culvert is required and it is being shown. the driveway entrance has a ninety degree turnoff of Wildwood Road, which is being shown. All retaining walls over four feet must be designed by an engineer. Revegetation include native bushes in addition to native grasses. The site plan include limits of site disturbance, which is shown, and also prior to construction, erosion control and construction fence be placed on site at the limits of site disturbance. The drainage plan meet clarification prior to building permit stage. She stated that the application meets the design review criteria and Staff would recommend approval with conditions which would include the drainage plan be approved by the Town Engineer. The retaining walls over four feet in height be designed by an engineer. The construction/erosion control fence be installed prior to and during construction. Revegetation to include native bushes and all meters be placed on the building. The reason the flues flashing and vents is not a condition is that they are being proposed to have a finished surface, so it is part of the application. Sally Brainerd stated that she didn't really have a lot to add. She provided a little perspective. They have added a lot of flat roofed areas and before when you saw it it was entirely wood siding and now it is a combination of wood and stucco. She stated that they have no problems with any of the Staff conditions. Perkins asked if the height problems had been resolved and Brainerd stated that this is part of the reason for the flat roofs. Jack Hunn asked what the roof finish would be on the flat roof portions. Brainerd stated it would be a modified bithuthane. A single membrane and it comes in pretty much any color you want and they r■i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 36 Lot 3. Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, Fiveplex, Final Design Review cont are thinking of something the same tone as the stucco but a little bit darker. Hunn stated no ballast so you would see that color. She stated yes and they come in really nice colors. Hunn stated the second question is that the Staff summary indicates a cedar shake roof and some of your sections point to the roof and call it asphalt, which is it" Brainerd stated it is asphalt and is included on the color board It is an Independence Brand called Resawn Ceder asphalt shake Hunn asked if the stain proposed for the siding a semi -transparent stain. The applicant indicated yes. Hunn asked what elements on the building would be this redwood color Brainerd stated that there are some angle brackets and a sunshade up on the top level where the master bedrooms are and also she would like to match that same color. She stated that she thinks on the color board they called it out as semi -transparent, but they would go for a heavy body stain on that One level of the fascia is also that color and the railings. Jack Ilunn asked ifthere is a landscape plan lie stated that he sees a grading plan but no specific landscape plan Mary Holden stated that she did not hang that up and then provided the plan Ilunn stated that he thinks they have made some nice improvements to the project since the last time The Flat r,,)of technique is a very attractive solution Perkins agreed with that Reynolds asked about some shaded area, but due to plans being unfolded in front of the microphones his question is not clear The applicant answered that it would be all wood Rhoda Schneiderman stated she would like to see a roofing sample as she is not familiar with the Independence brand Jack I lunn stated that he is uncomfortable with the proposition that somebody is going to manually water The applicant stated that the proposed building manager is purchasing one of the units and this is nothing that she can one hundred percent guarantee Her other problem is that the soils investigation recommends no automatic irrigation The Commission members replied that every single property in Wildridge is that way Hunn stated that with an automatic system you have a tendencv to useless water You can control the amount of water more carefully Also, even property managers go on vacation and while on vacation the trees are dying. It is already a challenge to keep things alive up there He would be more comfortable with an automatic system The applicant asked to what extent She stated that especially below the building, with the exception of the addition of a bunch of aspen, they would like to leave the undergrowth exactly as is The Commission suggested a drip system for the trees and sprinkler system for the sod I Lunn asked how trash removal would be handled The applicant replied it would he individual from the garage Hunn asked about signage The applicant stated that they had not thought about that they were not really planning one Hunn stated that usually at a multi -unit the tend to announce Irli PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINU77ES March 15, 1994 Page 37 Lot 3. Block 5. Wildn Fge Subdivision, Fiveplex, Final Design Review. (cont) the name of the project at the driveway and if that is the case the commission would like to see that sign. The applicant agreed to bring the sign back if they decide to have one. Hunn stated that he was comfortable with the colors except for the red pinstripe around the fascia. He thinks that is starting to get a little busy. The use of the red in the other areas is attractive. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks they have enough aspens, but for five units she thinks they are shy on some low bushes around the perimeter of the building. she would like to see that revised. Buz Reynolds moved to approve Lot 3. Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, final design with the following changes: 1. That the red be removed from the fascia line. 2. An automatic sprinkler system be installed, or a drip system. 3. The signage and additional landscaping be brought back. 4. The drainage plan, including the culvert at the driveway, be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Retaining walls over 4' in height be designed by an engineer. 6. A construction and erosion control fence be installed delineating construction and non -construction zones prior to building. 7. Revegetation consist of bushes and grasses native to the site. S. Meters be placed on the building. Jack Hunn seconded. Rhoda Schneiderman asked that the request for a roof sample be added as another condition. Reynolds so amended his motion, Hunn seconded the amendment and the motion carried unanimously. A 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 38 Tract G. Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Library, Conceptual Design Review Steve Amsbaugh stated that this project has been before the Commission previously and what the applicant, Pam Hopkins, is doing tonight is bringing back the building you have seen before for conceptual design review. He stated it is conceptual because she was not quite there with some of the materials and color elevations or renderings that are typically required. This is a fairly complete conceptual application. He stated he would let Pam go over some of the details of colors and building materials. However, the Staff comments relate to some issues that were brought up in the Technical Advisory Committee meeting that they try to have on a bi-weekly basis at Staff level. They are as follows: The roof overhang on the east portion of the building overhangs the sidewalk in two locations. That will cause a maintenance problem that they don't usually accept, heavy snow shedding down directly o:i to the sidewalk Trash removal should probably be handled individually and not with a central dumpster The Fire Station currently has individual trash can removal and they are quite satisfied with it. The Committee just couldn't find a very good trash durnpster location. 3 Handicapped spaces need to be labeled on the site plan 4. An accurate drainage plan is required and they are working on that. The initial drainage plan looked like there were a couple holes that water needed to escape from. 5. Sidewalk on the west side not tied to the Fire Station. It bends around and goes in there 6. The chiller and transformer shown between the Fire Station and the Library should be screened with landscaping. 7. Drop off area be labeled on site plan. 8. Their proposed irrigation system should tie into the Town's central nark irrigation system so it could all be metered together The Town will maintain the landscaping on this site Because this is a conceptual review, Staff has no formai recommendations. Pam Hopkins stated that the roof overhang happened because the site kept getting more constricted. They stated that they did not have the information until two weeks ago and the road is really located and their building located so that they are at least six feet from the curb. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 39 Tract G. Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Library. Conceptual Design Review. cont They are going to snowmelt below the eaves and they are going to add at the very tip of the roof overhang a ten inch wide drain gutter that is heated, so that should be able to take most of the dripping and most of the sluffing and hold it. They will also use snow jacks on the metal roof. She thinks that will solve the problem. A lot of the heavy stuff will go into the landscape areas. This is only the three and twelve pitch that they are talking about. Trash removal they can do. Handicapped spaces are there, they are just not labeled. The drainage plan they are working on. The side,alk to the west, that solution came about with a discussion with Charlie and Carol. The chiller and(T,6sformer, they can do that. The dropoff area will be labeled and the irrigation system will be tied into the park. Chairman Perkins stated that she did not indicate a color for the roof. Ms. Hopkins stated that she did not have any colors yet. She will be back with a color board. She stated that this is the first time that they have had a site and a landscape plan to show you. Chairman Perkins stated he like the way they have cleaned up some of the window fenestrations. the last time they saw it t fere was a big block wall of something. Perkins asked what kind of stone would this be. Ms H 3pkins stated that it is a rainbow mix, back grouted with a sandstone fill and it will still be in a gray er grayish tone rough sawn board and batten finish and the window frames will probably be in that sai ne grayish tone as well as the roof. Rhoda Schneiderman stated a pretty weathered looking building. The applicant replied yes. Buz Reynolds stated that he would reiterate what he brought up the first time and that was on the west elevation, the afternoon sun on that roof is going to be a big thing and a sample of the roof is needed and they do make products now that actually is like a braised or rough finish on it that does knock down the glare a lot. Perkins asked about the window trim treatment used on the upper windows. The applicant stated that they would probably be a heavy rough sawn 3 x 12 or 3 x 10. They are still refining that a little bit. Hunn asked if there was dialogue going between her team and the Rec. team regarding colors. The applicant stated that she would not call it a dialogue, but she is aware of what they are doing. Hunn stated that they talked specifically about the roof finish opportunity being the same on both The applicant stated that they are looking at that. Perkins asked about the stone. Reynolds stated that the stone is a dark grayish color. Patti Dixon stated that it is not the same architecture between the two buildings and the colors shouldn't be identical, but they thought there could be some similarities, maybe the roof etc. The Commission felt this should stand by itself, but blend. i.1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 40 Tract G, Block 2.. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Library, Conceptual Design Re jew, cont Patti Dixon stated as long as they don't clash Further discussion followed on some of the rec centers colors. Ms. Hopkins stated that the rec center team could care less what color the library would be She stated that she is trying to get a nice little building that blends, that won't clash. Discussion followed on the trellis. Nunn stated that he had a concern about the siding that will he taken close to grade and a lot of it is in close proximity to hard paved areas and he is anticipating water drippirg off the roof and splashing back and making that maintenance a challenge He likes the image of the siding, but there is really no opportunity to mitigate the splash back because of all the paved areas. The applizant asked if it was on the north side. Hunn stated even on the east side The applicant stated that on the east side there is the walkway and they may have the opportunity to heat that Hugn stated that over time he thinks they will have a challenge regarding maintenance Chairman Perkins stated that as this is schematic. that is as far as they go There is no formal action taken at this time. Reynolds asked what the completion date was The applicant stated it all depends on when the new road is finished Lot 87, Block 4 Wild_6dgj� Sub iyision, Final Design Amendment Mary Holden stated that the applicant requested, prior to the meeting, but atter the agenda was set, that this application be pulled Lot 63. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision The Seasons at Avon,_Moditications Jack Hunn s,epped down as a voting member of the Commission Steve Am0augh stated tha; this was on the agenda at the last meeting, but the applicant did not have a representative present. There are two requests One is to place four skylights, similar to the one the Commission approved six of before, along the central corridor of that roof enclosure in the football area Those four skylights will go in the location of the approved roof monitor that was looked at several meetings ago they are seeking to substitute four skylights for that roof monitor rIiNL R�" PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March l5, 1994 Page 42 Lot 42, block 2. Wildrtdge Subdivision, Duplex, Conceptual Design Review, cont fence prior to and during construction. Snow storage needs to be addressed. Colors need to be indicated and samples orovided and a color rendering submitted for final design review Holden stated that they would like the finished grades to match the grades on the elevations. The grades on the site plan are showing about an eleven foot retaining wall but the elevations are showing it at maybe three. Since this is a conceptual design review, she has no recommendation. John Railton stated that he is representing Kay Eubanks for this project. He stated that this is a very steep site and there is.. quite frankly, a need for a variance to get the building to work on the site. It is rather difficult without that variance to get connections to the existing sanitary sewer. Because for that it pushes the building too far down on to the site and it is rather difficult to get a sensible driveway and access to the garage. It is only the garage that is going to require that variance. The rest of the building sits further back than the twenty five foot setback. Other than that, the building has been de.,igned as a long thin building so that it can accommodate the grade as much as possible. If you look at the side elevation you can see that the roof form is sloped so that it meets more as the contours of the land and there is a continuity to the roof that goes along on the view side of the building so that the roof form itself is sort of riding all the way through, but the building itself is stepping in and out and has recesses in the form of protected decks. Railton made a comment about the point of the building that rises to 35 feet, but he stepped away from the microphone to point it out and his comments are not clear. Railton stated that there could be some discrepancies between the grades shown on the site plan at this conceptual level and the grades against the building He stated that he believes that it is something different, which is that the actual line that is shown underneath the building he believes is the grade line that is right against the building and not the grade line that is forward of those retaining walls in front of the building. Other than that, he stated he would like some feed back from the Commission, because of the time table of the project and they would like to move forward John Perkins stated that he does not think he has a problem with the variance on that as long as you have adequate maneuvering space and you can get in and out of your driveway and turn around so that you are not backing out or. any of the roadway He stated that he thinks it would be helpful if he wouid give a spot elevation called out on the building elevations that corresponds with the points on the site plan that are critical Perkins stated that as far as the design, he likes it. It is very interesting. It is a difficult site and they have a creative solution for it Jack Hunn stated that he thinks it is a much better solution for the site than the last one 60 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 43 Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) He stated that the images shown on the south elevation shows stone veneer to grade, but there would also be an image of a retaining wall and he would like to see that shown on this elevation. He would also support the variance. He thinks it is appropriate. Patti Dixon asked if there were two driveway cuts. Railton stated that it makes some sense to connect the driveway through because they basically have some difficulty in getting in and off the site in any other places. By giving two driveway cuts it really gives some independence to the two units to have driveway access and it also means that to some degree that connection space or driveway that goes between those two gives them means of actually collecting the water and running it off. It does give the option of some additional parking and some interconnection between the two buildings. It provides for the lower unit a means of backing up slightly into that driveway and coming out as a means of getting out of that driveway area. Henry Vest asked about the twelve degree slope there. Railton stated it was sort of difficult to get the site to work well and he sort of took the perameter that if he could get the driveways as they come in from the street to be as flat as possible coming into the two units and sacrifice that connecting link it would be slightly steeper then it seemed to be a better way of solving it. There is a really flatish piece of driveway coming into each garage. Vest asked why the whole connection instead of having two separate dirveways. Railton stated that it is terribly convenient. He stated it provides additional parking, it resolves the drainage. Vest asked what the material is. He stated it looks like vertical siding all the way. Railton stated that it is actually board and batten and they are looking at a sort of a whitish to grayish kind of stain. They are looking at a beige color for the clad windows and the same color for the trim of the building along with a grayish/greenish kind of moss rock and a ratifier darker gray. Vest if he had any photographs of the... is there any reason why you want the board and batten for the whole building? Railton stated that he kind of likes it and he hasn't used it for a while. Vest sta*.ed that he would be interested in seeing a photograph. Vest stated its pretty... he would be... thats funny he just thinks it would be neater if you didn't have the connection between the two driveways, but that is his opinion. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if he could point out the discrepancy, maybe she is not getting it, between the east elevation showing where the garage doors are and your north elevation which shows that whole side. She can't figure out how you possibly can get the car in here. Where is the car coming in at. Railton proceeded to describe how it worked. Schneiderman stated that she likes the board and batten. She would like to see not too dark a roof on there if the building is all real white. Chairman Perkins stated that those would be the Commission's comments and he thinks they are PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 44 Lot 42, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Conceptual Design Review. (cont all very positive and he encouraged the applicant to proceed. Lot 54 Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision. Modifications To An Existing Buildinb Mary Holden stated that this is an existing building and they are proposing relocation of the chimney chase, elimination of shutters around the windows and window style changes and relocation. Staff has no comments. It is consistent with the Town Guidelines and Wildridge guidelines and Staff would recommend approval as submitted. She stated that the applicant is in the audience and she thanked him for staying through this long meeting. Chairman Perkins asked which existing house this was. The response was that this was the Patch residence. Perkins asked why they are removing the fireplace chase. The applicant stated that the owner wants to do some interior changes also. He is taking out a wood fireplace, moving it into a large living area and converting to a gas fireplace. He also wants to open up the south facing side of the building with a larger window grouping, bringing in more light and more of the view. All trim and windows will be consistent with the existing finish. Patti Dixon asked if all the shutters would be eliminated. The applicant stated that at this point in time, yes. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if, with these revisions, can we get them to pave the driveway. The applicant asked "pave it"? Schneiderman asked if it wasn't a requirement, isn't it a Town code. lack Hunn stated that there was a commitment to pave that driveway and they wanted one year to let it settle and that was five years ago. Chairman Perkins stated that he thinks it would be appropriate that the driveway be paved at this time. Hunn stated that there are some elements of non-compliance with the original, one is the paving, one is the asphalt shingles, they were approved as 300# but they put on something else. Also the landscaping never quite came up to what was supposed to go in there The applicant asked if they could assess this on the new owners of the building though Hunn stated we can try Hunn stated it is a difficult situation, but they are making an investment in trying to achieve some of their goals and we also have some goals, and there are some deficiencies in what is up there. Hunn stated, in responding to the application, the south elevation, the window grouping being a triangle and then trying to impose an arch shape within the triangle with the muntons seems very busy and he thinks what really fits this area is as big of an arch as you can get in there and not a triangle. He would prefer to see a large arch shape in there rather than having the arch munton competing with the triangular shape window. Discussion followed on what else could be done. Dixon asked why they are changing these windows. The applicant replied to add more light into the house and take advantage of the view. Dixon stated that she liked what they had before a lot better. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 45 Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Modifications To An Existing buildin , (cont Perkins stated that the house kind of changes character. Buz Reynolds asked about the substantial existing dog pens in the back yard. The applicant stated that it is a duplex lot and the owners are thinking ?';out adding a garage and another bedroom, not a detached, but an attached situation at a later period of f me, probably next year. Reynolds asked east or west. The applicant stated it would be to the east. Perkins asked if Staff knows if this property is in compliance with its approved plans. Mary Holden stated that she did not check that since it was not part of the application. Steve Amsbaugh stated that Staff was not aware of any non-compliance. Hunn asked if they thought it would be appropriate at this juncture to impose that on this applicant, or is A a missed opportunity. Steve Amsbaugh asked for a chance to get a legal opinion on that. Perkins stated that he would be willing to give it approval subject to verification of landscaping and d iveway prior to issuance of a building permit. So this applicant would have to come back and demonstrate a commitment to comply with the previous approval. The applicant asked how you could do that with new owners that bought the property. Steve Amsbaugh stated it runs with the land. Perkins stated it is a deficient property and the Commission is here to oversee that sort of thing. Perkins stated that he had no problems with the window changes as presented, with the exception, he tends to agree that a couple of half rounds over those doors would be a better solution, or a complete arch. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to give final design review modification approval to Lot 54, Block 3, with the following conditions: 1. The revised upper windows above the four connecting doors on the south elevation be either a solid arch or two quarter circles above those four doors to match the existing arch on the other side and be more harmonious. 2. No building permit be issued until the Planning and Zoning and Staff can get a chance to review any deficiencies in the landscape plan and the driveway paving which was originally approved when this house was built. Chairman Perkins stated that there is a motion to approve as presented with the exception or condition 1. That a full arched window, or a two quarter round windows be installed over the two south facing double doors. The applicant stated that he could not get a header in there to do that 2. That any deficiencies in the original approval of this project would be researched and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING M NUTES March 15, 1994 Page 46 Lot 54, Block 3, Wildrid,€ze Subdivision�Nlodifications to An Existintz Building, (cont► confirmed and that the applicant would address those deficiencies prior to the issuance of a building permit. Jack Hunn seconded. Perkins stated that he could bolt up a header with some steel plates. The applicant stated he understands that but he still needs twelve inches between the radius of the arch and the existing rafters without going into the rafter area. He stated that he does not have that. Hunn stated that they could reduce the radius. The applicant stated that it would not stack on the doors then. Hunn describe ' how to do it into the center of the two pairs, but the applicant was speaking at the same time, so neither comments are clear. Hunn pointed out another window grouping that it would look like and the applicant stated he could do that Perkins asked Rhoda Schneiderman if that would be acceptable and she stated it would be. Perkins called for a vote and the motion carried unanimously. Reading and Approval of the February 15, 1994 and the March I, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the February 15th and the March 1 st minutes as submitted. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously Other Busin s5 Jack Hunn asked about the exterior lighting on the Valley Wide Plumbing Building, and the color of the stucco Ile asked if they were coming back in to asked forgiveness. Mary Holden stated that they were supposed to be coming back in That was a condition of their TCO. Reynolds asked about the other two lights at the CME building Rhoda Schneiderman stated that they took that down. Mary Holden stated a4 ar as the other one, we have a letter of credit for a lot of work that needs to be done and a CO won't get issued until that gets done and one of the things that needs to get done is color and lights. Reynolds asked about some vents on a building in Wildridge, but Sue Railton was also speaking at the same time about the signature sheets and his question and the answer is not clear PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 15, 1994 Page 47 The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Commission 1.Perkins� S.Railtod R. Schnei�n A.'Reynolds P. Dixon H. Vest Date_/9 41c Lt---