Loading...
PZC Minutes 050394a a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 3, 1994 The Planning and Zoning Commission worksession was called to order by Vice Chairman Jack Hunn at 6:10 PM in the Council Chambers, Town of Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. Members present were: Jack Hunn, Buz Reynolds, Patti Dixon, and Henry Vest. Newly re -appointed members Sue Railton, Rhoda Schneiderman and newly appointed member Bill Sargis were also present. The following items were discussed at this worksession: Lot 7, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, 10 Units, Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that the applicant is requesting five duplexes on a lot zoned for 10 units. She stated that Resolution No. 91-17, from the Town council basically states that three or more units means attached dwelling units. Therefore the current configuration is not in compliance with Resolution 91-17. Holden stated that, should the Commission entertain this application, there are a list of comments in the packet which are basically standard comments. Since this is a conceptual review, Staff has no formal recommendation other than that the Commission would want to direct the applicant to comply with Resolution 91-17. Chuck Duff, the architect for the project, provided some copies of work done since the application was turned in and also made some comments regarding them, however with plans being rattled and several Commission members talking among themselves, the applicant's comments are not clear. Some of his comments were regarding the site being very steep and very long and narrow, therefore they needed smaller footprints. He stated that when you get a steep site like this and put a long building on it you end up with drainage problems. They also wanted the buildings oriented so that there were no driveways in the shadow of any buildings They felt that the smaller footprints of the various different grades makes a much more interesting complex than just one big building where you make a flat spot on the site. Another thing they wanted to maintain was dec: nt fire protection, That is the reason for the looped road. They have also worked very hard to maintain the view corridors for the units. The applicant went on to describe other features of the siting of the buildings, however noises from plans being turned blocks out his comments, since he was standing in back of the microphones. He stated that they are asking the Commission to consider guidelines as guidelines and to recognize that this is a unique site and it makes sense to put duplexes on the site compared to going to larger buildings X11 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 2 Lot 7. Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision 10 Units Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Vice Chairman Hunn asked Staff about fire access and the requirements. Mary Holden stated that the fire department did not get to review this application. Norm Wood stated that typically anything over 150 feet requires a minimum turnaround area basically like a cul-de-sac. Skip Organ stated that he had talked with Carol at the fire department to make sure that they had sufficient turning radius etc. Sue Railton stated that she likes this approach to this lot and she thinks they should be flexible on. It is a good use of the land and the design is good and she is in favor of it. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she likes the idea of duplexes. It makes it seem less dense, especially if they have good landscaping it would make it seem more residential. She stated that they have offered just one front elevation showing the jogging of the two units She asked if each of the other four duplex buildings jogged in the same manner? The applicant stated that they would be slightly different. Rhoda stated that she thinks that they are a little bit too much alike side by side, even with the maximum jog in place, you really have the basic pattern of windows on each side. She stated that she would like to see a little bit of variation. The applicant stated that if you are going to make a duplex, you should make it matching character. Schneiderman stated character she agrees with, but matching she does not agree with. The guidelines arc for no mirror images, and the only 1 hing that really differentiates these units is the change in elevation right now and she would like to see less sameness. Discussion followed on how far below one unit was from another, but with the rattling of plans the discussion is not clear. Schneiderman stated that she would encourage the applicant to make the rear elevations a bit more interesting also, and again not all the same. She stated that she thinks it is a good solution site wise. Henry Vest stated he agrees about the mirror image. He thinks the five duplexes is a smart idea. Vest asked about the masonite fascia. He stated that he has never really seen masonite used for fascia. Patti Dixon asked if those were fireplace chases. The applicant stated that they would be using a flueless fireplace, but they are making it look like a fireplace and putting some windows in it so there will be some light coming down into the living room. Dixon stated that she likes the concept of not having townhomes all lined up She thinks that it is a good use of the space and she would encourage them not to do mirror image, with some changes to the windows and maybe building materials PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 3 Lot 7. Block 5, Wildrid e� Subdivision. 10 Units. Conceptual Design Review. (cont► Buz Reynolds stated that, regarding Resolution 91-17, they have taken fourplexes and gone to two duplexes in certain situations in Wildridge. He stated that he feels strongly that this kind of application, for this lot especially, with the steepness of this lot, setting a tenplex across this lot would look rather ugly. Also, he thinks that it would create a giant parking lot about the size of a football field just to get the parking in it. He thinks this is a creative solution to the problem. He stated that he personally has a dislike for masonite He asked how big, and what kind the retaining walls would be that are holding back the road above the site. He stated that it looks like it would be about 25 feet high. The applicant stated that it is. He described how they are handling it and stated that right now they do not have any retaining walls up there, they have them across the front. He thinks they have them right now so that they are under four feet and they are considering whether they can use the boulder type. Reynolds stated that in interpreting 91-17, he thinks it is important that they look at the alternatives of having a tenplex or having chis. He would much rather see this. Jack Hunn stated that as a developer this is a creative solution. He is concerned though if they start redefining on a site by site basis the ordinance that pretty clearly defines what is multi -family and what is duplex we are raising some issues that we are not really prepared to deal with. He provided a colored map of Wildridge, stating that every thing that is: not colored blue or gray is multi -family lot and by redefining the ordinance for this lot he thinks that they have opened up the opportunity for every lot that is shown on this map that isn't already developed. He stated that if this Commission and Town Staff want to consider redefining what is multi -family and create this opportunity, they should do it for all multi -family properties, not necessarily on a case by case basis. The alternatives are not limited to just a tenplex, ten units attached It could be a threeplex, another threeplex and another threeplex and perhaps only develop nine units on this property Two threeplexes and a fourplex is another alternative, He stated that he thought the site strategy is good and he thinks it could be adapted to a threeplex scheme and meet with the current definition of a multi -family unit He thinks the Commission should think long and hard about changing the rules on a case by case basis Mary Holden stated that if the Commission does support this concept it would require going back to Town Council Discussion followed on what needed to be done to do this. Discussion followed on how many multi -family lots were left in Wildridge Reynolds stated that if they have come up with a creative solution, rather than a Beaver Bench, etc., you should go with the quality solution. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 4 Lot 7. Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision, 10 Units, Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Henry Vest stated that he thinks the way they have the road makes this one of the reasons that this is a creative solution and if they had threeplexes and fourplexes they could not have the road the way it is Jack Hunn asked about the grades on some of the roads He stated that some of them look quite steep. The applicant replied, however he was not near a microphone and his reply is not clear, it sounded like he stated it was 17%, Buz Reynolds stated that they would get an argument on that. Hunn stated that the Town's maximum is ten for driveways. Norm Wood stated that they try to keep the maximum at eight Jack Hunn stated that it sounds like there is generally support for this concept as a creative solution His concern is that there is a rule out there that prevents the Commission from approving this as submitted without amending that rule He stated that this Commission can't make up the rules on a case by case basis Norm Wood stated that the Resolution is specific direction to the Planning and Zoning Commission not to approve this type of project, single families on multi -family lots or duplexes on the multi -family lots and a minimum of three units per building. Further discussion followed on whether the Commission should go to the Town Council or should the applicant go Norm Wood stated that there is no point in them going to the Town Council if the Planning and zoning Commission does not support it. If the Planning and Zoning Commission supports this then the next step appropriately would probably go to the Town Council at the conceptual level and say this is in non-conformance with the resolution and will you consider specific approval of this variance from the resolution and then come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and complete the design review process The other option is to amend the contents of Resolution 91-17, another ordinance that maybe has a different definition and different type of allowed uses that would be recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and adopted by the Town Council. Hunn asked if Norm Wood would agree that if they made the exception on this one or changed the rules then it would apply to all multi -family lots Wood stated that in essence, with a variance procedure, maybe they could consider it specifically by one, by coming from the Council doing a resolution in the form of a variance Doing a resolution ending this one, which is probably more appropriate, then it would apply to everything Hunn stated that it may be appropriate for this Commission to have a worksession on this matter as it applies to all sites and let staff do research on procedural options. 0 A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 5 Lot 7, Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision. 10 Units. Conceptual Design Review. (contl The applicant asked if they could get the Commission's recommendation that as a body they approve this concept. The members stated on a straw vote. The applicant stated that this way they would have that to take to Town Council. Mary Holden stated that the by the resolution Town Council has directed the Commission not to approve it, so any deviation the Commission has to approach the council, it can't be the applicant. Discussion followed on what changes or specific request the Commission should request from the Council. Hunn stated that he thinks the concept has some merit and they need to schedule some time to discuss it as it applies here and to other projects, perhaps set some criteria. It was decided to set a worksession for the next meeting in two weeks. Lot 27, Block 3. Wildrid¢e Subdivision, Single Family, Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is two levels standing approx-imnaiclY 31 feet in height The standard comments are listed out in the staff report. She stated that as a conceptual design review, Staff does not have any recommendation.. Pat Campbell, builder, stated that as far as he knows this house meets all the design guidelines etc, He stated that he will try to get all the questions in the Staff Report answered in the next two weeks. He will provide a color scheme when he comes back. Buz Reynolds asked what the grade of the driveway is. The applicant stated that they are trying to stay within the eight percent. Patti Dixon asked about the posts for the deck. The applicant stated that they are eight by eight square posts. She stated that she thinks the project fits nicely on the site. Henry Vest asked if there would be any gutter system. It looks like there will be draining over the garage. The applicant stated that they have not planned for that but it may require it. Vest stated that he likes the design. Discussion followed on the deck rails. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she is concerned about the shedding onto the deck. She stated that she thinks the design is nice. Sue Railton asked if there would be an irrigation system. She feels that they will need some sort of drip irrigation She stated that she would like to see the landscaping beefed up around the house, especially around the entrance and out near the street a 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 6 Lot 27, Block 3 Wildndge Subdivision, Single Family, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) Jack Hunn stated that he thinks it is a nice design and it fits on the site. He stated that the underside of the decks will be pretty visible from the roadway that goes below this lot and he asked the applicant how that would be finished. The applicant replied that they would be putting a coat of paint on the structure. Hunn asked what the soffit materials would be. The applicant stated that it would be a T-1 I I that simulates a one by material. Hunn asked what the driveway finish would be. The applicant replied asphalt- Discussion followed on the type of fireplace. The applicant stated that they may use gas. Hunn stated that the applicant needs to add some interest via windows or using a higher than standard door for the garage. He stated that it should be protected by a gutter, etc. also. Discussion followed on the shallow arch elements in the stucco walls on the top of some of the window groupings. Hunn stated that this detail might be more successful if they actually used an arched top window in that space. Hunn stated that the Commission generally supports this project and urged the applicant to continue Lot 59, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this lot has approximately 43% slope A variance may be required for the front yard. The standard comments are listed out in the Staff Report. As a conceptual design review, Staff has no recommendation. The applicant stated that the colors will probably be an off-white stucco with a light colored trim, spruce with a light stain, roof to match that, a shake roof The applicant described some of the door colors, brit there was considerable noise from other people talking and the microphone did not pick up his comments too well. He stated that landscaping has yet to be determined There will be a gas fireplace The retaining wall will be a boulder retaining wall Sue Railton stated that most of the building is quite handsome looking, but the single car garage door just does not look quite good enough The applicant stated that what they have is a two or three bedroom primary side and a one bedroom lock secondary and the owner wanted to provide a garage for the car Railton stated that the front door look a little bit like motel doors, with no definition She suggested side lights. a go PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 7 Lot 59, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision. Duplex, conceptual Design Review. (cont) Rhoda Schneiderman stated that th.- drawings do not reflect the 44% grade that you have on that block and looking at the east elevation they don't see any foundati:in. The applicant stated that they do not have any foundation plans yet. Schneiderman stated that in general it is a handsome structure, but one of the problems with the single car garage is that on the double you have aboard running along the bottom of the pop -out- She thinks that is one of the things that would solve the problem on the other side, do the same ki nd of banding. She stated that she also thinks the doors need work. Discussion followed on the fascia. Henry Vest stated that he thinks it is a good project. Patti Dixon agreed with the front doors needing attention. She stated that she is not opposed to the single car garage She likes the turret and the window fenestrations. She stated that she really likes this house a lot Vest stated that he agrees with Patti about the single garage. Buz Reynolds stated that he likes the layout, but he is curious about how it is going to fit on a 43 degree slope. The drawing does not truly reflect that. He suggested dropping the pop - out on the west unit down low enough to match the header band it would line up a little bit better. Reynolds stated that he does not think the drainage over the entry stairs is a good idea. Reynolds asked about the lattice work in front of the deck The applicant stated it was to close off the underside and there would be low shrubs there. Discussion followed on whether the roof should be shakes or asphalt. Jack Hunn stated that he thinks it is a pretty good design, but he had a couple suggestions The primary unit, over the garage door there is a grouping of windows and then a space and then transom windows above it and on the secondary unit you have chosen to join those windows all into one grouping and he thinks it would be more successful if you don't have the blank stucco space between the transom windows and your main window grouping. Also, both from a site standpoint and an elevation standpoint if you would consider raising the planting areas in the vicinity where you show the lattice, so that there is less of the height of the building expressed and the grade line is a little higher By raising those planter areas you will protect the landscaping, you'll elevate it and give it more impact and you might help to further define the approach to the building Hunn stated that he is concerned on the site plan that there doesn't appear to be adequate maneuvering space for a vehicle to turn around on the property and there may be the necessity to back all the way into the street, particularly the secondary unit, but the main unit as well. He asked the applicant to study that and consider widening the driveways immediately in front of those two garage doors that maybe 04 Iw► PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 8 Lot 59, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) necessary to facilitate your maneuvering He asked the applicant to also consider the amount of snow storage they may need and make sure that the maneuvering space does not become snow storage. Hunn stated that he thinks the Commission is generally in support of this project and encouraged the applicant to proceed. Riverside/Eaglebend Phase 11I, 59 Units, Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that Wintergreen Homes has submitted an application for 59 units on 2.5 acres. This is Riverside PUD. the proposed uses do not comply with the current PUD, so they will have to make application to amend the PUD It is for five buildings that will stand approximately 43 feet in height. The standard comments are outlined in the Staff Report. Additional comments are that this side of the river is designated for a pathway and also public access and they are not showing either one of them. The parking location that they are proposing is right at the front lot line. Our codes have a standard of at least being ten feet out. Again they can deal with this in the PUD amendment The length of the driveway is three hundred feet and the Fire Chief, Charlie Moore, has concerns that is going beyond their length for what they would like a second access for. They are proposing a cement sheet material for siding. Holden stated that she has not seen that called out in the design guidelines or the rules and regulations as an approved siding. She stated that, as a conceptual design, Staff has no recommendation. Jay Harkins stated that this is a continuation of the Eaglebend Affordable Housing. One of the things that they thought was important was that the PUD included a Lot I and Lot 2, and a Tract A which was an open space dedication to preserve the river corridor and the riparian and the stream itself They think that this is the important concept they will be working with on this site He stated that they wanted to get in with this concept early so that if there were concerns they wanted to hear them early so that they did not go down the wrong path. He stated that all of the buildings have been set outside of the 30 foot setback. None of the overhangs will intrude into the setbacks. Mr Harkins stated that they are preserving all the trees, however, he kept moving away from the microphone so that most of his conversation is not clear. The cement fascia that Mary mentioned they will change to gypsum siding because the cement siding is not on the particular approved list They would like to get it on the list as it is lower maintenance than even the gypsum siding. Buz Reynolds stated that the north elevation has a lot of character, but the south elevation need a little more. r" A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 9 River side/Eaglebend Phase III, 59 Units, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) Discassion followed on the site plan Patti Dixon stated that she would want to see a sample or photographs of the cement siding. Henry Vest stated that it is hard for him to visualize what it would look like from the street. Harkins stated that Highway 6 is actually four to six feet above any particular cross section through this site When you look into the project you will be looking down at it. On the three buildings in the center of the site you would see two stories plus the sloped roof. On the two buildings on the east and west of the site what you will see is a parking level, which is garage doors and two levels above that plus the sloped roof surface. Discussion followed on this matter. Discussion followed on the decks on the south elevation and on the north elevation Discussion followed on the proposed siding. Vest suggested that, since the buildings are so large, perhaps they should use some other material along with the siding. He stated that he would like to see an overview of the whole thing, either in a rendering or possibly a model. It is a pretty important property. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that one of her concerns is that with the parking being only four feet below the road level, basically what you will see is windshields up on a lot of cars, and since this will probably be full time residents it will be full all the time. She asked if there was any room for any berming. The applicant stated that they really don't. The site is extremely narrow at that point The parking is actually within two feet of the highway right-of-way Schneiderman stated that would not be acceptable to her They need to find a better solution No matter how good the buildings look it will be depreciated by all that parking showing first thing. The applicant stated that they have additional parking over the required parking, so they have the opportunity to break that edge up Schneiderman asked about the garage doors. The applicant stated that the furthermost building to the west and the one furthermost to the east have garages They would be rented out Schneiderman stated that she thinks that since you will be seeing the roofs from the highway, they are a little too massive. They need to work on breaking it up a little bit, either with changes in elevation or adding more gables to the ends, etc , especially on the south elevation. Further discussion followed on this matter Sue Railton stated that if there is not much room between the buildings for landscaping she would like to see at least a car space given up at the access point between buildings so that you can have some landscaping and have an access, even incorporate the design of the stairway into some canopy that comes out there a little more and add some interest She does not see a problem if you are granted a variance to get the parking on the property line, but she would want to see major landscaping done in front of the cars The landscaping at i� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 10 Riverside/Eaglebend Phase Ill. 59 Units, Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Eagiebend is not nearly good enough. She stated that she also finds the roof overwhelming, and if it is going to be anything like the quaiity of the roof on the Eaglebend Apartments it is extremely flat, no texture to it. She likes the rafter tails projecting below- She thinks the could do something more interesting where the roof comes over the balconies. She stated that the south elevation on Building B does not have enough interest. Jack Hunn asked what the Town's requirements would be with regard to parking setbacks from the road right-of-way. Mary Holden replied ten feet Sue Railton asked if there was storage for each unit. The applicant stated that they are providing a storage unit at the entrance way for each unit Jack Hunn asked about how the trash would be handled. The applicant stated that at this point is to provide trash pickup on a scheduled day and have boxes put out on that day, but they really don't have it worked out at this time. Sue Railton stated that she thinks individual trash pickup is a much better solution than dumpsters. Sue Railton asked about a playground or barbecue area The applicant stated that they haven't provided any of that. There are spaces both at the east end and the west end that they could provide that. Buz Reynolds asked, regarding the ten foot, because that is a highway, they can't get any closer into the right-of-way, can they. Norm Wood stated that basically this would require a PUD amendment and so that is part of the zoning that would be established through the PUD. The applicant stated that the original PUD had a zero lot line condition for an access drive along the highway right-of-way. Jack Nunn stated that the concern he has about that strategy, besides just setting a precedent, it is detrimental to the Town. There is no room. to landscape to screen this parking lot, unless you can get permission from the highway department to do it on their property, and his understanding is that if they were willing to grant such an easement, it would be revocable so if they wanted to widen the road they would have the right to come in and remove that landscaping. The way that the Commission would have to look at this is essentially if they were comfortable that they could come to the property line there is no landscape screening long term guaranteed at this parking lot Hunn stated that he would be interested in seeing a grading plan to see how much cut and fill would be necessary to facilitate this development, particularly some of the parking lots that get very close to the 30 foot setback and in some cases go into it The applicant stated that they have placed the buildings at the grade break and the garden level that they are showing underneath r+NA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page I I Riverside/Eaelebend Phase 111, 59 Units Conceptual Design Review, (cont) is a match cut and fill. Hunn asked if the parking lots required fill The applicant stated the center of the parking lot would require some. He described how it would be done. Hunn asked if any significant trees would be removed in this proposal. The applicant replied no. Discussion followed on how many units per acre were proposed and what was allowed in the original PUD. The applicant was away from the microphone, therefore his comments are not clear, but some of the comments were about the parcel dedicated to the city. Discussion on how the units per acre are figured on developable land followed. Hunn stated that there were 117 bedrooms proposed in this project and quite frequently there is a car per bedroom and the Town's requirements are looking for 109 and realistically there is a need for 117 cars, plus guest spaces and they are proposing 128, including garages Depending on the outcome of this ten foot setback issue and trash storage solutions, there maybe some reduction in parking. The applicant stated or reduction in unit count. Rhoda Schneiderman asked about the public access and pathway issue. The applicant stated that there is public access at the bridge. They will be happy to provide public access at the west end, however, they will not provide parking. The applicant stated that it was his understanding that the designated pathway was on the north side of the river and not on this side. Mary Holden stated that it is either the Comp Plan or the Recreation Plan that calls out a path on both sides of the river. This side is more of an informal soft surface path. Henry Vest asked about snow storage. The applicant stated that they have not worked that out yet. Jack Hunn stated that would be the Commission's comments. The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Jack Hunn at 7:30 PM. All members were present Members Present. Jack Hunn, Bill Sargis, Patti Dixon, Sue Railton Rhoda Schneiderman, Buz Reynolds, Henry vest Staff Present Norman Wood, Town Engineer Mary Holden, Town Planner, Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 12 Swearing In of New Members Town Clerk, Patty Neyhart, administered the oath to newly appointed Commission member Bill Sargis and re -appointed Commission members Sue Railton and Rhoda Schneiderman. Election Of Officers Vice Chairman Hunn opened nominations for Chairman. Buz Reynolds nominated Jack Hunn for Chairman. Patti Dixon seconded the nomination. With no further nominations, Vice Chairman Hunn closed the nominations. Jack Hunn was unanimously elected Chairman. Chairman Hunn then opened nominations for Vice -Chairman. Patti Dixon nominated Buz Reynolds as Vice Chairman, Bill Sargis seconded the nomination. With no further nominations, Chairman Hunn closed the nominations. Buz Reynolds was unanimously elected Vice -Chairman. Chairman Hunn then opened nominations for Secretary Rhoda Schneiderman nominated Sue Railton for Secretary Patti Dixon seconded the nomination. With no further nominations, Chairman Hunn closed the nominations. Sue Railton was unanimously elected Secretary. The Commission then commenced with the regular agenda. Lot 18, Filing 1_Eaglebend Subdivision, Special Review Use for a Home Occupation Public Hearing Sue Railton stepped down as a voting member of the Commission. Mary Holden stated that this is a public hearing for a home occupation. John and Sue Railton are requesting permission to operate an architect's office in their home. She stated that they do meet the criteria pointed out in Section 17.48.040. Staff would recommend approval with the findings in the report and the condition that no employees work in the home. Chairman Hunn opened the public hearing for citizen input The Recording Secretary stated that she had received comments from Chris Ekrem which states that she has no problem with the requested home occupation permit. With no other public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page r.3 Lot 18, Filing I. Eaelebend Subdivision, Special Review Use for a Home Occupation, Public Hearing, {cont) Buz Reynolds asked Staff that since it is a home owner doing their own occupation where they aren't really manufacturing anything for immediate sale out of their house, are we assuming that everybody that has that kind of setup in their home is going to be coming in front of us, because he stated he knows that about two-thirds of the population of Wildridge alone has a home occupation. He stated that if they are not manufacturing something that they put on a shelf for sale, if they need to see them. Holden's response was that according to code we do. Reynolds stated that they should look at changing that. Buz Reynolds moved to approve Resolution 94-8 as submitted, approving this Home Occupation. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Sue Railton stated that the Commission should have a work session on this matter, because she knows of a lot of residents that have home occupations and none of them are coming in for permission. She then returned as a voting member of the Commission. Lot 47, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivison Front Yard Setback Variance Public Hearing Mary Holden stated that this is a front yard setback variance request to allow a partially underground garage to encroach 15 feet into the front yard setback It does meet the approval criteria set out in the packet. Staff would recommend approval with the findings in the packet and the condition that no cut is allowed to take place in the ten foot slope maintenance drainage and snow storage easement Mike Perkin, architect, stated that he is here to respond to any questions. He stated that he is perhaps a little bit unprepared to address technically the issue of the cut in the ten foot easement, only in the sense that the same cut was shown on the conceptual plans and there was not a staff comment at the time He stated that with this lot being an incredibly steep lot he would hope that they could possibly consider the cut proposed in the ten foot easement as an acceptable solution. There are no utilities in the easement The only technical solution Ire can think of at the moment would be some sort of a series for substantial retaining walls to build that area back up to existing grade. Aesthetically, that would be detrimental to the whole idea of trying to hold the building back and away from the road rather than smashing it right against the road. Chairman Hunn asked Staff to elaborate on what the concern is. Norm Wood stated that their concern is the effect on the stability of the roadbed itself. Hunn asked if that would be a concern during the construction of the home, not necessarily as a final outcome once they 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 14 Lot 47, Block 3 Wildridae Subdivision Front Yard Setback Variance, Public Hearing. (cont) put the building into the setback Norm Wood stated as long as they have the same foundation as they had with the road bed it would be entirely during construction, but the finished product, that they still have at least the minimum, the same slope that they had originally that they don't go in and cut out basically the foundation of the road Reynolds stated so if need be they will ask the applicant to put in retaining walls Norm Wood stated that they have always recommended that if it requires any kind of cut that it be at least out to the ten foot setback line and retainage wculd be at that point, that it not be closer to the road and no cuts in that area Bill Sargis asked if Staffs only concern was the stability of the roadway or were there other concerns Norm Wood stated that the roadway is the primary concern Considerable discussion followed on the possible solutions The applicant stated that he would work with their engineers and Norm Wood to make sure that the road would not be effected Chairman Hunn then opened the public hearing The Recording Secretary stated that a letter from the property owner of the next lot had been received and he has no problems with this variance request With no further public input, the Chairman closed the public hearing The general consensus of the Commission was that the applicant could figure out how to work out the problem of the road stability Buz Reynolds move to approve Resolution 94-9, granting the variance with a change to the language to the condition to read that the applicant satisfy the Town Engineer with regard to structural stability of the road pfior to proceeding with construction Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanitnniisiv Lot 47_ Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision Smith Residence Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that the building will be two levels and stand approximately 24 to 27 feet in height She stated that they did comment on the no cut in the ten foot easement which is a condition of approval The driveway width needs to be a minimum of 16 feet The application does meet the design criteria set forth in the Staff Report Staff would recommend approval with the conditions that meters be placed on the building, flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface, and a revised site plan showing no cut in the ten foot easement and a minimum driveway with the sixteen feet be submitted and approved Michael Perkin stated he would address the Staff comments one by one PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 15 Lot 47, Block 3. Wildridye Subdivision Smith Residence, Final Design Review. (cont) He stated that the meters will be on the building and the flues, flashings and vents will be painted to match the adjacent surfaces. He stated that the wider the driveway means more cut on the uphill side and more fill on the downhill side. lie would request a bit narrower driveway to lessen the impact on the hillside. Reynolds asked if he Has talking about 12 feet of a:.phalt. The applicant stated yes. Reynolds asked if there would be shoulders. The applicant stated that there would be two or three feet on each side. Reynolds asked Norm Wood IT that would make it for the fire department. Norm Wood stated that he would think so. Jack Hunn asked if they would be widening the driveway for the guest parking by cutting into the hill. The applicant stated that they would Hunn asked how long the driveway was. The applicant stated that it was about 190 feet. Norm Wood stated that the fire department was generally looking for 150 feet and 15 to 16 feet wide. Hunn stated that they may have to leave that to the jurisdiction of the fire department. Buz Reynolds asked about the fireplace caps. The applicant stated that the firep'aces will be enclosed with an en6osed stucco over the top. Reynolds asked if they would be gas fireplaces not wood. The applicant stated that this still has to be determined. They might be a wood burning stove of some kind Reynolds stated that a wood burner has a tendency of blackening the stucco. If it is a wood burner he would like to see a stone -cap. Reynolds stated that they have a substantial amount of trees, but you don't have any low shrubs. He would like to see some along the driveway. The applicant stated that in response to the conceptual design review, he actually removed some of the landscaping from out along the driveway with the intent that man-made plantings might seem strange on a hillside of grass. Reynolds asked how the would revegetate the cut. The applicant stated by natural grass seed Patti Dixon stated that she thinks it is a nice design. She has no problems with the project. Henry Vest asked if there were color samples. Mary Holden stated she would get the samples. Discussion followed on The cantilevered section on the south side Vest stated that he thinks it is a great looking house Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks some low lying shrubbery was needed. Also, she likes the way the chimneys layout on the south elevation and she just thinks it looks awkward when you hit the sides, the west and the east Can it be angled both ways The applicant stated it was done as an attempt to soilen the lines. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 16 Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Smith Residence. Final Design Review, (cont) Jack Hunn asked if they would consider a terra cotta colored flue type to hide the spark arrestor that would be consistent with this architecture. Bill Sargis stated that he thinks it is a wonderfully designed home. He stated that he would also like to see a little bit more landscaping. He stated that if the fire department has no problem with the 12 foot wide driveway, then he would not have a problem with it. Sue Railton stated that she feels it is a competent design and she likes it. Jack Hunn asked if the applicant has confirmed that they can regrade the site and stay within the two to one requirement. The applicant stated that he sees no evidence that he cannot, however if there are areas that this would happen they would retain them. Hunn asked if they were going to store fill on the site. The applicant stated that they would not. Hunn stated that he agreed with Rhoda's suggestion about the chimney element. Hunn stated that the one wall that is visible from the road might benefit from the battered detail on some of the other walls. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 47, Block 3, final design review with the following conditions: 1. That the main chimney stack be redesigned to a battered on the east and west sides and brought back to staff for approval. 2. The spark arrestor be concealed by a terra cotta chimney flue, 3. All meters be placed on the building. 4 Flues, flashings and vents must have a finished surface, matching the color scheme of the structure. 5. The driveway can be less than 16 feet if approved by Town Staff and the Fire Department 6. Additional shrubbery be added to the project. Bill Sargis seconded and the motion carried unanimously PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 17 Lot 9. Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Final Desimn Review Mary Holden stated that this was for a single family with a future lock off It will be three levels and stand 35 feet in height She stated that the site plan and grading plan shows grading in the Metcalf Ditch easement and also grading in the thirty foot setback from the mean annual high mark. They are also indicating mature cottonwoods which are not in the footprint- Staff is requiring they be fenced to save them. She stated this does meet the design criteria outlined in the packet, with the exception of the grading in the easements. Staff would recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. Meters be placed on the building. 2. Any retaining walls over 4' in height be designed by an engineer. 3. Revegetatien include native bushes. 4. No grading take place in the Metcalf Ditch easement or the thirty foot setback from the mean annual high water mark. 5. Existing cottonwoods be fenced and saved. 6. Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface. 7. A revised site plan indicating correct contours and no encroachments in the easements be submitted to Staff Kevin Heuring stated that he basically agrees with everything that Mary said. Recently they revised the contours in the thirty foot mean annual high water mark. They do have an issue with the driveway cut and they will work with staff and resubmit a corrected site plan He asked about the meaning of revegetation with native bushes. The applicant stated that there are three large trees basically in the middle of the lot behind the house that, based on photographs taken last summer, are for the most part dead He stated that the owner of the property would just like to take them down. Buz Reynolds asked if there was a sample board. The applicant stated that there was one brought at conceptual review Reynolds asked about the asphalt shingle He stated that they are looking for a shingle that has some depth and shadow lines. The consensus of the commission was that they need to see it Reynolds stated that he thinks the blue might be a little too blue Other than that and not seeing a roof sample, everything else is fine ro PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 18 Lot 9. Filing I, Eaglebend Subdivision, Final Design Review, (cont) Patti Dixon asked where else the blue would be. The applicant stated it would be on the fascia and soffit. She stated that she thinks the west elevation, with the front door, is rather boring. They need to do something with the window fenestration or how it is arranged or the sizing. It is too blocky. Henry Vest asked if the landscape plan reflects what is being landscaped. The applicant stated that there is a code on it that indicates what is what Basically, it is natural grasses and yet there are three cottonwoods in the impact area, there are no other trees. Anything that is on that drawing is all added. Vest asked if there is a sodded area. The applicant stated that there is a proposed sodded area directly behind the house. Vest stated that this application appears to be the exact same application that they saw at the conceptual review The applicant stated that he had addressed the comments from the conceptual review. Vest stated he didn't know about that. He stated that the garage sheds directly on the driveway, the window on the south elevation appears to be in the wrong location, it is in-between the sub floor there' the upper window on the west side. The applicant stated that that is open all the way up. It is a sitting room and there is no floor there Vest stated that he agrees with Patti Dixon about it being very boxy on the west elevation. Thirty five feet ofjust siding with no trim around the windows is a problem. The other thing is the bay window is sitting right next to the garage and one of the bays looks into the garage siding. The applicant stated that that is one foot eight wide and by the time you put it on an angle, the orientation of that sitting room, your not looking at the garage. He just wanted to create a little more open feeling there. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she did not have any problem with the building being all one material, but she thinks on the side elevations and the front where it is thirty five feet high it might benefit from maybe a belly band and maybe a darker color underneath it to kind of anchor it down and create a little bit variety. Landscaping wise, the north half of the building will be fine. She stated that she thinks that some landscaping, a few trees between the houses to create some screening between the neighbors, is needed and they should carry on the scale that everybody else seems to have done already Bill Sargis asked if the applicant had addressed the revised grading plan. The applicant stated that he has re plotted the thirty foot annual mean high. Sue Railton stated that actually it is a fifty foot in that area. Mary Holden stated that the plat for Eaglebend says thirty. Sargis asked if the grading plan also addresses the Metcall'Ditch The applicant stated it did Sargis asked if they have addressed the snow shedding on to the decks with gutters etc The applicant stated that he was not present at conceptual review and his associate did not mention that to him. Sargis stated that he would be concerned on the south elevation. r� n PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 19 Lot 9. Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Final Design Review. (cont) Sargis stated that he agrees with the comments on the east and west elevation and he would like to see a little bit more glass and a little bit more relief from the massing there if possible. Sue Railton asked if there was a reason for the driveway width being so wide where it crosses over the property line onto the street easement. He stated that with his meeting with Norm that is how it is to be done. Norm Wood explained why it is done that way. Several people were talking at the same time, therefore none of the comments are clear. Chairman Hunn asked if there could be one conversation at a time. The applicant stated that one of the comments from conceptual review was that it actually was a little narrow there and there was not enough room to turnaround. Considerable discussion followed. Sue Railton stated that she would like to see sod on the street side of the house. They also need some landscaping around the power box in the northwest corner and landscaping around where the driveway enters the property on both sides. Make it look like the rest of the houses down the street. Also, he should have a sprinkler system. Rhoda Schneiderman asked about the brand of roof to be used. The applicant stated that they are considering Trimco or GAI. Schneiderman stated that she does not feel comfortable approving a roof that she has never see before. The applicant stated that he brought one. Mary Holden stated that she has about seven asphalt shingle samples with no names on them. Jack Hunn stated that he sees a lot of similarity between this proposal and the one presented at conceptual. Some of the suggestions have apparently not been taken. One of the concerns was the fact that the garage doors front on the street and there is enough room on the site that the Commission suggested that maybe the garage be positioned differently on the site to conceal the fact that they are garages. The applicant stated that he was unaware of that comment. Discussion followed on this matter. The applicant stated that the owner wanted his front door on the west side and it would be a real sharp turn to j!et into the garage. Hunn stated that the window patterns are very consistent on three of the elevations and on the east elevation the window size is reduced and the pattern is very random. He doesn't see any change there. There are ten exterior light fixtures shown on the elevations and Hunn asked what they would be. More discussion followed on the windows. Hunn stated that one of his concerns is that they are looking at an old grading plan and if the three trees that are close to the home are in fact dead he thinks that they could rely on Staff to confirm that. Discussion followed on the matter of the grading plan being corrected. Hunn stated that he thinks the basic color is awfully bright. He stated that he thinks the windows having no trim will be a fairly weak detail. He would encourage them to reconsider and add some kind of window trim to help define and accentuate the windows. He stated that it appears that they are r+� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 20 Lot 9. Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Final Design Review. (cont) showing a corner board detail and perhaps a second color stain close in color to this might be utilized to help define the windows He thinks the landscape solution is incomplete as it only addresses half the site. He stated that it seems like there are a lot of unresolved issues at this time. If it is passed along for final approval it will have to be conditioned pretty specifically what they expect Henry Vest stated that his reaction would be to deny the final design review, but he thinks it would be to the applicant's benefit to table to give the applicant a chance to address some of the concerns voiced. Buz Reynolds asked if anyone had a problem with that blue color The general consensus was that it is pretty bright. The applicant stated that the owner called for the blue or a white. the Commission agreed that the white would be better Chairman Hunn summarized the issues as follows: I - The landscape plan needs work. 2. The colors, and the substitution of white is acceptable.. 3 Recommending some kind of window trim. 4. The window fenestrations on the west elevation. 5. The light be no more than 40 to 60 watt. Henry Vest moved to table this item. Patti Dixon seconded. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that he should return with a revised landscape plan, actual roof sample, it be white fascia, and possible revision of windows in addition to window trim, the shedding of the garage on to the driveway, shedding on the deck., a recommendation for an irrigation system and sod and perhaps a more formal landscaping consistent with other neighbors properties. The motion to table carried unanimously. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 21 Lot 44, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision Baca Residence Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this will contain three levels and stand approximately 35 feet in height The drainage plan shows drainage into the garage and Staff suggests raising the garage. The Staff would like the final grading plan to coincide with the elevations She stated that this application does meet the design criteria set out in the Staff Report. Staff would recommend approval with the standard conditions that are listed in the packet. Jim Brian, representing the applicant stated that the house is very similar to the one submitted in December. They have just regraded it and addressed the comments that Staff and the Commission had at that time. Sue Railton asked if there was a landscaping plan with this Mary Holden provided it for review Railton asked about the posts for the rear decking The applicant rerlicd, but due to the landscape plans being unfolded the reply is not clear and neither is Railto: 6 next comment Railton then asked what the chimney was the applicant stated it is a metal flue painted to match the surface Bill Sargis stated that he is concerned about the snow shedding, other than that he thinks it is fine looking Buz Reynolds stated that regarding the driveway at the corner of the lot it starts at 30 and goes down to 20 and he does not see how they are going to do that reflected Reynolds was pointing out on the plans where he was talking about, but others were reviewing other plans and Reynolds comments are not clear The applicant replied something about the boulder retaining wall taking up some of it, but once again his comments are not clear. They both moved back to the microphones Reynolds asked what the grades would be The applicant stated that it would be 10 percent after they get 20 feet off the road It flattens out in front of the house. Buz Reynolds stated that he thinks the house will look nice Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she likes the house She thinks the stucco color is too pink She asked if the posts for the deck were milled or hand The applicant stated that they were hand She asked if the applicant had thought of putting a log rail on The applicant stated they had not She suggested maybe using a half round log cap She stated that the spruce trees have to be a minimum of 6' She stated that she thinks it looks terrific but she thinks they will need an irrigation system because of the sod area Henry Vest asked if the chimney would match the asphalt color. Considerable discussion followed Rhoda Schneiderman stated that the roof is not green, it has blue in it Vest thought it was a pretty nice house He questioned the windows on the basement level PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 22 Lot 44, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision, Baca Residence, Final Design Review. (cont) Patti Dixon asked what the roof material on the bay window would be. The applicant stated it would be copper. She stated that she is confused with the colors. On the fascia it shows on the rendering as natural and on the report it shows forest green. The applicant stated it would be forest green. The top rail will be forest green also. Dixon stated she thinks that is too much green. She stated that the stucco should be a little bit more natural and not have as much pigment in it. She asked what color the garage door would be. The applicant stated it would be the unweathered cedar. Dixon stated that she thinks it is a nice looking house Buz Reynolds asked if they are going to have any more fenestrations coming through the roof for the heating system. The applicant replied no. Reynolds stated that the flue and the color of the stucco are the only two things that he finds to be a problem. He thinks they ought to look at different options for the flue. ,lack Hunn asked what the material for the retaining walls would be The applicant stated that they would be a treated timber. Hunn asked if there were any plant materials in those terraces. The applicant replied no. Nunn stated that at the last meeth g they talked about the underside of the deck and he asked the applicant how he is going to treat that. the applicant stated that they are putting a larger fascia board, Hunn suggested staining the underside the same as the logs so it looks finished Discussion followed on the driveway grades and the drainage into the garages. Norm Wood stated that this could be worked out. Hunn suggested that the colors be brought back for further consideration. Hunn stated that he has noticed that they are regrading quite a way dcavn the slope and he asked if they propose to limit site disturbance at the line shown where the grading stops. The applicant replied yes. Discussion followed on the revegetation of the sewer line cut that will have to go down the hill. Buz Reynolds moved to grant final design approval with the following conditions. 1. The chimney element be brought back prior to building permit being issued 2. Color samples be brought back prior to building permit being issued. 3. Revegetation include native bushes, in addition to the native grasses. 4. All flues, flashings, and vents have a finished surface to match the color theme of the residence. 5 The meters be placed on the building. Al A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 23 Lot 44 Block 4. Wildrid¢e Subdivision_ Baca Residence, Final Design Review. (cont) 6. An erosion controUconstruction fence be installed on site prior to any site disturbance. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously Lot 46, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Buck Springs 12 Units Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is for approval for six duplexes. The lot is located next to Falcon Pointe. They contain three levels and stands approximately 41 feet in height. She stated that the retaining wall on the east portion of the site, by Buck Creek will be requiring that it have a rock face due to the improvements taking place in Nottingham Park and its visibility. Further they would like this retaining wall to match the contours of what is existing. In addition to the work being done to Buck Creek by the applicant, the Town will be doing some work and they want to see how the applicant's work will tie into the Town's work. Holden stated that there will be a required variance for this site plan to work and that variance is for the driveway and some of the parking is encroaching beyond the ten foot setback allowed. The are proposing a silt fence and Staff would like that silt fence to extend along the east side of the site along Buck Creek to protect Buck Creek during construction. This meets most of the design criteria with the exception of the parking and Staff would recommend approval with the standard conditions listed in the packet and the additional conditions that the silt fence extend around to the east side and permission to use the access easement is granted and presented to the Town prior to a building permit, and a variance be applied for and approval given for the drive and parking to encroach into the ten foot setback, the retaining wall have a finished surface of rock and it matches the contours, and a drainage report be submitted that corresponds with the site plan. Mike Lauterbach stated that they agree with all staff comments. Regarding the comments about the parking and driveway being the setback, he thinks that they can move the driveway and parking over a couple feet to conform with that. Discussion followed on the colors to be used. Lauterbach asked which of the two proposed colors the Commission would prefer. He stated that even if they went to different color schemes, they would limit it to two different color schemes There is the materials list that has the grays and the whites and then there is the plan that shows dark brown on the cladding. Sue Railton stated that she likes the gray tones rather than the brown. She suggested maybe just changing maybe the trim to a different tone range on some of the units. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 24 Lot 46. Block 2. Benchmaik at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Buck Springs. 12 Units. final Design Review. (cont) Bill Sargis stated that he likes the design. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she likes the changes that have been made in the architecture. It is much more interesting. She still has a problem with every building looking exactly alike. While they are staggered on the site plan, she thinks that they need within each building, whether it be a change in roof lines or windows Probably the quickest fix you could make is to change the windows from side to side on the duplexes Its just that everything is the same, your balconies line up, your windows all line up on all three levels. She stated that she personally prefers the grays. It could benefit with a little bit variation colorwise building to building, not a block of four buildings and then two on the other side Henry Vest stated that this design is almost like a european looking design and it almost lends itself to being the sameness of a mirror image, but as far as the guidelines goes. Vest stated that he likes the brown/beige. He likes the decorative wood shutters Discussion followed on the overhang. Vest stated that they should take care of the shedding by making it more of a front entry. Patti Dixon asked what the parking was. The applicant stated that there are two spaces per unit. One enclosed, one behind the garage and then four additional spaces. Dixon stated that she prefers the grays and whites. She suggested varying the colors between the buildings as opposed to having two being one scheme and the others another color. You can make some slight shading differences to give some variety. Normally she does not like mirror images at all, but this would be the only exception because she thinks it is such a clean sharp architecture. Buz Reynolds stated that he likes the brown colors a lot. He asked if the windows were true lights. Discussion followed on the windows. Reynolds stated that he thinks the massing of the project is just a touch strong. He stated that he looks at the snow storage and the site plan and he thinks it is crowded. It is going to be a solid mass of buildings. He asked how far it is between the buildings The applicant replied that at the closest spot it is probably 10 or 12 feet. Reynolds stated that his concern is that it would be a crowded parking lot with only two spaces per unit. The applicant stated that they think that two thirds of these will be second homes. Considerable discussion followed on the snow storage problem Jack Hunn asked if the landscape plan respects the snow storage areas so that the landscaping will not be damaged The applicant replied yes Hunn stated that on paper it is a pretty tight project On the other hand he supports it because it is very good architecture and it r10 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 25 Lot 46. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Buck Springs. 12 Urtits. Final Design Review. (cont) transitions the scale of some pretty big buildings down to the park and the rec center very well and he would rather see this type of development on the site than another very tall building. He stated that, as far as the color scheme, there is the opportunity to differentiate one building to another with very subtle color differences, perhaps the same stucco and slightly different trim, etc., but to change from gray tones to brown from one building to another would be too busy. Currently, he feels the brown tones fit into the neighborhood setting best, but the rec center will have gray tones and he thinks either would work. The applicant stated that they could come back with more on the colors. Hunn stated he would be comfortable with that. Buz Reynolds moved to grant approval with the following conditions: 1. The colors be brought back. 2. The required guest parking be provided and the revised site plan approved by Staff. 3. All meters be placed on the structures. 4. All flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building. 5. The proposed silt fence be extended around to the east portion of the site to protect Buck Creek and the fence be installed prior to any site disturbance. 6. The applicant provide to the Town of Avon, prior to a building permit application, permission from the owners of the access easement to utilize the easement 7. The parking and driveway must be removed from the front yard setback or a variance applied for and approval given. 8. The retaining wall have a finished surface of rock and slope to match the contours. 9. Submission of revised drainage report corresponding with site plan prior to submittal of a building permit application. Patti Dixon seconded. The motion carried with Rhoda Schneiderman voting nay. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 26 Lot 78, Block 1_ Wildridge Subdivision, Six Alex, Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that the buildings would be three levels and would stand approximately 34 feet in height. Staffs main comment is that there is not enough backup space for the north and south units and this was commented on at conceptual review. It does meet the design criteria for the sign and the building. Staff would recommend approval with the standard conditions and an additional condition that a revised site plan showing adequate backup space for the north and south garages must be approved by Town Staff prior to the application for building permit. Mike Bruen stated that they have revised the site plan and they have it available for the Commission's review. He stated that he thinks they have covered most of the rest of the staffs comments. They have changed and added some things on the landscape plan Chairman Hunn asked how they would resolve the backup space issue. The applicant stated that they have actually rotated the buildings a bit and added some asphalt. Patti Dixon asked what they have allowed for parking. The applicant stated that there is two interior spaces and two exterior spaces per unit. Dixon asked how many bedrooms. The applicant stated that they are three bedroom units. Dixon asked if there was stucco on these houses the applicant stated on the fireplaces and garages. Dixon asked what the stucco color was. The applicant stated that it was an off-white color toward the gray off-white. Dixon asked what the roofing material would be. The applicant stated that it would be a Timberline roof in a weathered wood. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she has the same comments she had last time She can find no discernible difference in what they presented last time, and even thought they are set back quite a bit she still thinks that as you come around the front of the building is all the same She can't support it. The front and back elevations need work. She does not like the sameness of the windows and their shapes. The applicant gave a response, but his comments are not clear as he was away from the microphone and Rhoda was talking at the same time His comment was something about it not working by trying to make every townhouse different. He stated that he thinks the building itself would look better as a mass Bill Sargis asked how big the units are. The applicant stated that they are about 1400 square feet with three bedrooms The middle unit is slightly larger Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she doesn't understand why they can't achieve what she is trying to convey when they have done it on the north elevation and why can't it be done on PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 27 Lot 78, Block I. Wildridge Subdivision, Six-plex, Final Design Review, (cont) the east and west e''u;vations. The applicant stated that the comments on the back elevation got back to him, but he did not understand that it also included the front elevation too. Bill Sargis asked what the basic offset was. The applicant stated that the primary offset is eleven and a half feet. Sue Railton asked what sort of light fixtures are on the exterior of the building. The applicant described what they were but his response is not clear Railton stated that they are trying to get away from that type. Down lights are preferred. The applicant stated that that would be no problem. Railton stated that the elevation that shows the garage doors, she asked about the reason for the different pattern on the middle one at the roof level. The applicant stated that it had to do with the roof truss. Railton stated that she does not particularly like that detail there and she pointed it out last time at conceptual. The applicant stated that they thought the Commission was looking for more variety. Railton stated that that variety didn't give it enough variety. It is like you couldn't decide which sort of thing you wanted to do. Buz Reynolds stated that the windows are being shown as bronzed aluminum so what will the colors be. The applicant stated that they will look dark, not bronze. Reynolds stated that he does not liked the diffused lights Also, regarding the massing of the building, he really feels that it is a block form and the roof line going across the back sits so flat, even thought they are offset The applicant stated that they are trying to get a product here that is affordable and taking into consideration the buildings around it, the location of the lot, etc. Reynolds stated that the front elevation reads flat to him. He stated that he would have a hard time supporting this the way it looks now. Henry Vest stated that he thinks that the one thing about Wildridge is that the part of the building that you can certainly see is the roof and he feels that this is a really simple massing. Maybe one of the problems with the windows is that you have 1400 square feet and you are trying to accomplish a three bedroon: townhome. He stated that he agrees with the other comments. Jack Hunn stated that at the last meeting they talked about the benefits of giving a little roof overhang, more than they are showing and he asked if they gave that any consideration. The applicant responded to that, but he was seated away from the microphone and his reply is not clear. Hunn stated that on the entry on the center townhome there seems to be a drainage challenge dripping right through that. The applicant stated that that drainage is out about six feet from where the door is There will be a gable there. Hunn asked what the garage door PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 28 Lot 78, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Six -plea. Final Design Review, (cont) material would be. The applicant stated it wo:-ld be masonite, painted. Hunn asked if those would hold up well with the kind of drip there will be from the deck. Hunn asked if the base of the project is a stucco finish. the applicant replied yes. Hunn asked about trash removal. The applicant stated it would be individual cans. Hunn asked if the entry sign would be lit. The applicant stated they were not proposing it to be lit, but it could be done with a low wattage indirect type light. Hunn asked if there was any parking lot lighting. The applicant replied no, mainly because of snow removal. Hunn stated that the entry on the two outboard townhomes, the entry porch platform is limited essentially to the width of the door and it seems like there is room to make that just a little more generous and slide the stairs closer to the drive so that there is just a little bit of room for people to shuffle around before the door opens. Also, there is a trim board, you've got a belly band and another band that are pretty important to the design and up on the gable ends you've got another trim board that breaks up the gable and it might be a little bit more interesting to eliminate that and let the gable mass be just a little bit larger without being interrupted by the trim. The applicant stated that they would eliminate that all together. Hunn stated that he agrees with the other comments about the lack of interest on the rear. The applicant describe the square footage of the units. He stated that they also have the option as they are building this to go to two master suites. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table this application. Henry Vest seconded Under discussion the Commission felt that the roof line as it relates to the front and back elevation needs work; Front and rear needs added interest by changing roof line and/or changing window fenestrations from unit to unit. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 2. Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision Anderson/Connell Duplex Color Approval Mary Holden stated that the Andersons were present to get approval of their colors. She presented the trim and base colors. Patti Dixon moved to approve the submitted colors for Lot 2, Block 5, Anderson/Connell Duplex. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. LQt 3. Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision Big Sky, Conditions of Approval Mary Holden stated that the applicant has requested that this application be withdrawn at this time. Buz Reynolds so moved, Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously t� PLANNING AND ZONING dISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 29 Lot 2. Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision Roof Colors. Spiegel/Tracy Duplex. Mary Holden stated that the applicant was in not too long ago and received approval for the slate gray roof color. She stated that she would let the applicant explain why they are asking for a change, which matches the neighbors existing shingle. Chris Spiegel stated that when they got the shingles approved he called Miles Homes and they supposedly were going to ship the correct ones. They shipped the shingles on a Saturday and he left town on a Wednesday and came back on the following Monday and the house was half shingled with the wrong shingle. Hunn asked if the applicant would have recourse to have Miles Homes ship the right shingles and have them re -installed. The applicant stated that they won't pay to have them re -installed. They would replace the shingles. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the roofer was responsible for making sure that they were the right shingles. The applicant stated that he is the only one responsible. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. Discussion followed on the building colors Buz Reynolds moved to approve the roofing material for Lot 2, Block 5, Wildridge, Spiegel/Tracey Duplex, as submitted. Patti Dixon seconded lack Hunn stated that he is really uncomfortable with the whole sequence of events. He thinks the roofs look like tar paper. Reynolds stated that they have one roof approved and one not and he would rather see both roofs the same and he would like to see these guys go on with their life rather than deal with more roof samples. He feels that they have jumped through enough hoops. The motion carried with a four to three vote, with Rhoda Schneiderman, Jack Hunn and Henry Vest voting nay. Lot 3, Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Westgate. Conditions of Approval. Mary Holder stated that they have brought back a revised rear elevation As a condition of approval, Staff has no recommendation. Frank Navarro related a bt ief history of this project As requested, he is now providing the changes to the back elevation They have introduced a stucco band that will project out and create a shadow line He provided a colored rendering of the back elevation which showed the shaded shadow The elevation shows the mechanical units that are hidden with the uellis system and the landscaping that has been added They have made an effort to address some of the concerns that -she neighbors had Rhoda Schneiderman asked if there is any stucco color in the front The applicant stated that there is sonic Discussion followed on the colors i W W :2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 30 Lot 3, Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Westgate. ConL'itions of Approval. cont Mr. Havelik, representing Sunridge stated that this is still a very massive building. He was also concerned that the snow shedding would kill the landscaping underneath the eaves. The Commission asked to see the site plan. Mr. Navarro commented that they have made efforts to work with these people and they met with Mr. Havelik's wife and came away from the meeting feeling that she was satisfied Then they received a letter saying this building belongs in an alley. They met with Mr. Havelik the other day an -i he said it was a big improvement, everything's great, and now we get this stub again. The ne>t of Mr. Navarro's comments are not clear due to plans being unfolded by Mary Holden. Chairman Hunn stated that essentially the approval has been granted for the building, with the condition that this side be brought back. Munn stated that the sidewalk has been deleted so the landscaping could be placed in a protected area. Mr. Havelik stated that in the PUD they were granted an encroachment into the setback for the roof overhang only. Chairman Hunn stated that at the last meeting they considered that and determined that it was appropriate, Mr Havelik was unhappy with the tree sizes, stating that they are in caliper not height. Mr Navarro stated that they are the same trees that were on the landscape plan when he and his wife reviewed it. Chairman Hunn explained that deciduous trees are required in caliper and the coniferous trees are specified in height. Discussion followed on whether the landscape would be protected. It was the general consensus that they would be Discussion followed on maybe adding a bit more large caliper trees along the p; operty line- The-rplicant stated that they could do that. Mr. Havelik made other comments about this project, however he was not near a microphone and his comments are muffled. It was something about them being the direct neighbor and the applicant making concessions. Chairman Hunn stated that they do appreciate their concerns However, they have seen several proposals for this site and the Commission feels that of all the things that could be built on this site this was a pretty responsible proposal for the perspective that they would be looking at and they did feel that it could be further improved and that is why the applicant is back here tonight. Buz Reynolds asked the applicant and Mr Havelik what kind of landscaping they can agree on. Reynolds stated that something that would grow there and provide shielding would be like a cottonwood. Three, three inch cottonwoods would take up a lot of mass in a short period of time. He also suggested moving some of the other landscaping down towards the property line. Discussion followed on where the trees should go PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MIMJTES May 3, 1994 Page 31 Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Westgate. Conditions of Aooreval, cont Buz Reynolds moved to grant approval for the final condition of approval, with the addition of three, three inch caliper cottonwood trees that would be placed near the lot line. Patti Dixon seconded. Sue Railton stated that there is nothing stopping Sunridge from beefing up their landscaping either. She stated that if they want to complain about it they can do something about it on their lot line. She stated that they have see a proposal for a gas station on this lot. Then you would have had cars and dumpsters, etc. She stated that the applicant has made every effort to make this a good building. Chairman Hunn called the vote and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 54, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. Olson Residence. Conditions of Approval Mary Holden stated that the applicant is requesting a deletion of a condition that the Planning Commission imposed on their modifications at the March 18, 1994 meeting. That condition was that a full arched window, or two quarter round windows be installed over the two south facing double doors. The applicant is requesting that this condition be deleted due to the following reasons 1. The windows specified in the condition of approval will not structurally fit with the building, and 2. To make the windows fit structurally, they would be much smaller than the others and appear out of balance. Staff recommends the Commission approve the proposed modification as requested. Larry Olson stated that he is here to try to get this resolved so he can get the property moving along and get it up graded. He stated that with the exception of that triangle, everything else stays the same. Discussion followed on the window and the Commission's condition Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridge as submitted, which removes the condition for a different window Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. M a • om, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 32 Lot 70, Block I. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Bristol Pines Sign: Lot 4. Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Golden Eagle Service Center Sign: and Lot 29, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Kamen Supply Sign. Final Design Review Mary Holden st ited that all of the above described signs are in compliance with the sign size and sign locations. Golden Eagle will have metal letters done in white. They will be eight inch and twelve i ich. The Kamen sign will add one word., Fox. It will match the existing materials. The Bristol Pines sign color scheme will match the existing color scheme found on the building. Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission approve the application for Bristol Pines with the condition that lighting would be staff approved. Discussion followed on the three signs. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the Bristol Pines sign, Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the recommendation that the lighting program for the sign be brought back and be approved by staff. Bill Sargis seconded and the motion can ied unanimously. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the sign for Kamen Supply as submitted. Buz Reynolds seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the sign for Golden Eagle as submitted. Bill Sargis seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 26/27, Block I. Benchmark at Beaver creek Subdivision. Mountain Center. Sign Mary Holden stated that the applicant requested this item be withdrawn at this time Lot 2-12, Filing 4 Eaulebend Subdivision Eaglebend Apartments Identification Sign Design Review Mary Holden stated that Eaglebend Apartments is requesting approval of two signs. One will identify the office and the second sign will identify the corporation managing the complex It will match the existing materials and colors. Section 15.28.030 prohibits signs not pertinent and clearly incidental to the permitted use on the property where located. Staff is not reviewing or approving the small sign which identifies the managing corporation. The larger sign does meet the design criteria for signs. Staff recommends approval for the larger sign with two conditions; Prior to the placement of the sign, lighting be approved by Staff oft r PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 33 Lot 2-12, Filing 4_Eaglebend Stibdivi on, Eaglebend Apartments Identification Sign, Design Review. (cont) 2. The small sign advertising the compmy managing the project is not approved. Larry Asi of Hightech Signs stated that the client felt that they are entitled to a business sign. They are proposing only 2 square feet of'sign. TLe reason it is proposed as a separate sign is in case the managing company changes, then they wou!d not have to do the larger sign over Considerable discussion followed on the pros and cons of allowing the small sign for the management company. The ,general consensus was that this would be a business sign and zoning would not support a business sign in this location. Patti Dixon moved to approve the Main identification sign for Eaglebend Apartments and deny the smaller business sign. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously, Reading and Approval of the April 19, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. Buz Reynolds moved to approve the April 19, 1994 minutes as submitted. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Buz Reynolds asked about the removal of the power poles going up Metcalf When approval was given to put in the new lines, those poles were to come down. Discussion f-)llowed on this matter. Norm Wood stated that he would check on it. Henry Vest stated that he thinks that the wrong roof has been built on Don Pressley's building. Mary Holden stated that she would check into it The meeting was then adjourned at 11.00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzz; Recording Secretary w. PLANNING AND ZONING COMPvIISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1994 Page 34 AA