Loading...
PZC Minutes 0419940" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 19, 1994 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on April 19, 1994, in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Chairman John Perkins Members Present: Jack Hunn, John Perkins, Patti Dixon, Sue Railton Rhoda Schneiderman, Staff Present. Norman Wood, Town Engineer Mary Holden, Town Planner, Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary All members were present except Henry Vest and Buz Reynolds L13.t lock 4. Wildridge Subdivision_ Schneider Single Family Residence, Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this project will be two levels and approximately 30 feet in height It will consist of dimensional fiberglass shake shingles, with stucco. She stated that the basic standard comments regarding the site plan and the design are listed in the staff report She stated that the lot boundary shown on the topographic survey does not match the platted boundary. She stated that as a conceptual review, staff has no recommendation Michael Schneider stated that he will go back and have the surveyor take care of anything that needs to be done. He stated That he does not have nay problems with the staff comments Chairman Perkins asked what the square footage was The applicant replied it is about 2800 square feet on the main floor and about the same in the walkout. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 2 Lot 13, Block 4. Wildridse Subdivision Schneider Single Family Residence. Conceptual Desi¢n Review Discussion followed on the window trim, and the turnaround in front of the garage, The applicant asked what is required for snow storage. Mary Holden stated that 20% of the paved area is needed. Discussion followed on the accuracy of the grading on the elevations and the need to show the retaining walls. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that this did not conform with the steep slope guidelines, but she thinks it is a nice design. Sue Railton also questioned the slope, which is like 17 feet. Discussion followed on this. Chairman Perkins stated that the applicant needs to make sure the grading plan and elevations are all in sync. Sue Railton asked if there was a need for a cross section on this. Mary Holden stated that they were not asking for it on this. Railton asked why not? She stated that they asked for one on a 30% slope and this is 40%. Mary Holden stated that one of the reasons they asked for it on a previous application was basically dealt with the drainage on the site, and the amount of fill that was being placed on the site and how drainage would work on that site. It is a case by case and it basically the Town Engineer asking for the cross section Discussion followed on the plexiglass element in the handrails. Jack Hunn suggested concentrating the landscaping a little closer to the home. He stated that he would be looking for some shrubbery as part of the final landscape plan, in a fair amount of variety. The applicant stated that this was a very basic landscape plan He stated that this is going to be his home and there will be a lot of trees there by the time he is done with it Mary Holden informed Sue Railton that if she felt it appropriate, she could require cross sections of the site. Sue Railton stated that she felt it was a little inconsistent that some people have to do it at some expense and other people don't and she wondered what the reasoning for it was. It costs a couple thousand dollars to go to an engineer and have all that done Norm Wood stated that it has to do with how it fits on the site and on some you can follow how it is working and some you can't If you can't follow it, that is when we ask for it. Railton stated in looking at the design for this one and how they have drawn the contours and fitted that in it isn't exactly what we have recommended, carving out that flat platform on a forty percent slope where you've got a drop of maybe fifteen feet or maybe more from the front to the back of the building. She stated that they have to start being consistent. Railton stated that she thinks they need to see a side elevation with the existing grade and the proposed grade and how you are treating that Jack Hunn recommended the west side as it is the most severe condition c* aim PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 3 Lot 13. Block 4. Wildridtte Subdivision Schneider Single Family Residence Conceptual Design Review Chairman Perkins stated that was as far a they go tonight As a conceptual review they take no action. Lot 116. Block I Wildridge Subdivision, Wertz Single Family. Conceptual Design Review. Mary Holden stated that this lot is located on ';:aver Creek Point and there is an additional height restriction of 24 feet This residence does meet that requirement The materials will be cedar shakes and stucco The standard requirements are listed in the staff report As a conceptual, staff has no recommendation Michael Sanner stated that one request from the owner was to investigate whether the Board is sympathetic with cultured stone He stated that he has brought pictures and samples Chairman Perkins stated he thinks it is listed under a group of materials that requires a special approval. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that they have approved it before They will either use this or river rock. Discussion followed on how the cultured rock was applied and how it was made Most of the Commission had no problem with the cultured stone, however, Jack Hunn quoted the guidelines stating that the following materials and wall finishes will not be ordinarily permitted in exterior construction and it includes imitation stone It really doesn't go on to say that it can be approved by the Commission. It talks about metal siding, concrete block or concrete will be permitted only with the specific approval of the Commission Hunn stated that his experience with this product is that the cultured stone has gotten a lot better and the real trick is how you deal with the corners The applicant stated that they now make corners for that purpose that are "L" shaped Schneiderman stated that she thinks the key is the limited use of it Discussion followed on the rounded window and the log trim Hunn stated that one concern is they need more information on the amount of fill and regrading that will be done northeast of the garage Mr Sanner explained how that would be done and where other regrading would be done Hunn stated that he thinks it is a good solution for that site Chairman Perkins stated that those were the Commission's comments and they are all pretty positive The applicant asked if the Commission wanted a sample board of the stone They Commission stated that it was not necessary at PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 4 Lot 90, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated this is proposed to be two levels and stand approximately 28-1/2 feet in height. It will consist of composition shingles and cedar channel lap siding Shc: stated that the standard comments have been listed out in the staff report. As a conceptual design review, Staff has no recommendation. The applicant stated that they did not have the colors for this review. They are talking with two people that are looking at purchasing the property and they are trying to work with them on something that will keep both of them happy He stated that he did not realize that the grade lines were so faint on the plans. He stated that he thinks the lot only drops about 28 feet in approximately 180 and six of it was from the road. It is a pretty gradual grade. The applicant stated that they are looking for anything at ground level as being stucco and on the upper levels it will be broken up between stucco and some siding, Discussion followed on the asphalt shingle roof, the garage facade, the roof line variety which do not seem to fit together, integrating the bay windows better, integrating the roof slopes, and changing the deck strategy It was suggested that the applicant make a nice statement with the landscaping. Lot 20, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is a conceptual review for the site plan. She stated that the standard comments are in the Staff Report The applicant is also requesting a variance regarding the retaining walls She stated that this review is for the design of proposed retaining walls, site layout, and meter location in enclosure at base of driveways She stated that they have provided a section of the retaining wall that she is scaling at approximately eight feet Her comment is to break up the retaining wall. That is part of the guidelines. Another comment is that the radius of the first turn of the driveway is tight, so to lessen that turn, you would be creating a steeper driveway, which would be fine with the Town Engineer if that radius were lessened As a conceptual review, staff has no recommendation Brian Vedder stated that he just wants to get something worked out with the Commission regarding the retaining wall situation, because it is a very difficult site and what has been done to it already has really made a mess of it Mr Vedder described how the wall would be made He stated that he would try to work in natural colors Considerable discussion followed on coloring the wall The applicant described some of the landscaping for the wall. The matter of the wall being eight feet high was discussed. It was suggested that the wall be stepped. The applicant stated that the slope was so steep that his sense of it is that if they try to do that it would be too difficult Discussion followed on where the landscaping would be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 5 Lot 20, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) located. The Commission was concerned that the snow plow would wipe out the landscaping, especially on the curve. Considerable discussion followed on this. The applicant pointed out where the address would be recessed in the wall and also where the utility meters would be enclosed in the wall. The Commission in general stated that they would probably support the wall with the right color, etc., and if some of their other concerns were answered. Tract P. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementary School, Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that the school will be two levels, approximately 36 feet in height. Materials will be a metal roof, stucco and brick and Stab's main comment is that the site plan not encroach or change the contours of the berm east of the building. This berm and detention area are for holding overflow from the lake. She stated a drainage study and plan which addresses treatment of runoff from the parking and drainage coming onto the site from the north, will be required. In addition to those comments, the standard comments are listed in the staff report. Staff has no recommendation at this time. Brian King and Tim Christensen from the architectural firm doing the school were present to answer any questions. Sue Railton asked what color would the brick be. Mr. King stated that they are looking at two different types. If they go with the brick it will be a tan and if they go with flagstone it would be kind of a red native color that they find in the hills. Railton stated that they would need to see color samples. Chairman Perkins stated that they would need to see all color and material samples. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she did not like it. She stated that a school is an institutional building, but, and she thinks they went through this with the library, and luckily the library did not come to the Commission looking like an institutional building like it could have. She thinks a school should be friendly looking and she does not think this is a friendly looking building. The applicant asked her to define friendly. She stated warm materials, not so many sharp, linear quality. she thinks it needs softer forms. She stated that it is not that she does not like the design, but she does not like it for here. She does not think it is appropriate for in the middle of Avon. It will be surrounded, except for that one public works building, with wood structures. The applicant stated that the finish on this would be a synthetic stucco. Schneiderman stated that it is hard to explain because it obviously is a very subjective feeling. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 6 Tract P Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Avon Elementafy School Conceptual Design Review cont The applicant stated that they are dealing with a very restrictive site and that dictates that they have to do two stories. Schneiderman stated that she just does not like the feeling of the building. It is too industrial in design for what they are going to use it for. She stated that the only thing she can use for an example is the library. She stated that this building would be a great corporate headquarters. Sue Railton stated that a lot has to do with the very flat elevations that don't give any relief to it. Schneiderman agreed. She stated it is very regular, the windows are very regular, there is a lot of flat roof. The applicant stated that a lot of the flat roof is the gymnasium. Schneiderman stated that she does not feel this design is right for Avon. She did not think the brick was appropriate for Avon. The applicant stated that the materials are materials that are already being used in Avon. They do not plan to make an all brick building. It will be a combination of materials. Schneiderman asked what the columns would be made of. The applicant stated that they would be painted steel. Chairman Perkins stated that he would rebut those comments. The building that has been approved for the Avon recreation center is a very very contemporary building and it will be right across from the lake from the school building. He stated he likes the building they have designed and he thinks it is very interesting. He stated that they should build a scale model of this building and present it to the board, just because of the scope of the project. Just a massing model. He thinks brick is a traditional material for schools and is fine. He likes the contemporary approach and he thinks a good landscaping scheme can soften the design. He stated that he thinks the Commission should be very careful about using words such as friendly when they are very hard to define architecturally. He stated that he would encourage the applicant to continue in this vein. Patti Dixon asked about the winnows. She stated that she likes the lines of it. She would definitely want to see a model, and all the materials. Discussion followed on the various roof forms and what areas they were. Railton suggested some sort of sun screening for the windows facing south. She suggested that the applicant think about some fun things to do. She asked about some of the outdoor areas. The applicant stated that they have not yet developed that. There will not be a whole lot of that type area. Discussion followed on the drop-off area and the parking area. Jack Hunn stated that he is not as concerned with the style of the architecture, but with the fact that the applicant mentioned a tight budget and this looks like a cheap building. He 11111111 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 7 Tract P. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Avon Elementary School, Conceptual Design Review (cont) thinks the applicant can make this interesting. He suggested a gabled form over the entrance to kind of help attract people to that. Chairman Perkins stated that those would be the Commission comments for the applicant to consider at final design. The Chairman called a short break, stating they would reconvene at 7 30 PM. Chairman Perkins called the meeting 'back to order at 7:30 PM. Lot 20. Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Front Yard Setback Variance Request, Public Heariim Mary Holden stated that this was a request for a variance to the front and side yard setback for the construction of retaining walls and an enclosure for meters and entrance lights. She stated that the walls will range from four to eight feet in height. The approved criteria is stated in your packet. She stated that this application does meet with the criteria and Staff recommends approval with the findings listed in the packet which are granting this variance will not constitute a special privilege and will not be detrimental and the strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the vicinity and the strict or literal interpretation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship i iconsistent with the objectives of this title Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing for citizen input. With no comments forthcoming, Chairman Perkins then closed the public hearing. Chairman Perkins stated that he thinks that in the future they will be seeing more and more lots that will require special treatment and he feels this is certainly one of them and he would be in favor of granting this variance request Sue Railton moved to grant front yard and side yard setback variance to Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with 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, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 8 Lot 20_ Block 3. Wildrid¢e Subdivision Vedder Duplex, Front Yard Setback Variance Public Hearing, (cont) safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. ii. 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, iii The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified relpdation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously Lot 29-A Block I Wildridge Subdivision Home Occupation Special Review Use Public Hearing Mary Holden stated that Linda Schorr is requesting approval to conduct a consulting business in her home She will have no clients or employees coming to her residence Bolden stated the criteria for a home occupation is listed in the packet She stated that this request does meet the requirements Staff recommends approval with the conditions that the building retain it's residential character by not installing any business signage on the property or building and that no employees are allowed to work on the property Chairman Perkins asked if the applicant cared to add to that presentation Ms Schorr stated she did not Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing for public input With no public comment, Chairman Perkins closed the public hearing The Recording Secretary stated that on this application and also on the previous public hearing, no correspondence or phone calls had been received Ali A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 9 Lot 29-A, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision. home Occupation Special Review Use, Public Hearing, (cont) Jack Hunn stated that the other half of this duplex had a similar use approved and there has been no detrimental impacts, therefore he would support this application. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant a special review use for Lot 29-A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westaate Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that in the packet she reported that the cedar would be a natural color, but it will be an opaque. She stated that this is for final design approval for a 15,000 square foot commercial building. There will be two levels and will stand approximately 30 to 35-1/2 feet. The materials will be a metal standing seam roof, stucco, stone. Staff comments are basically that the grading plan shows some grading in the State right-of-way and the applicant needs permission from the State prior to building permit. The mechanical equipment is shown in the rear yard setback which is not part of the PUD Development Plan and must be removed from the setback or the PUD amended. Holden stated that details were not provided on the sign, therefore the sign will have to come back separately. Staff does feel that this application does meet the design review considerations and would recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant submit to the Town the State permission for grading in the right-of-way. 2. The mechanical equipment be removed from the rear yard setback or the PUD amended to allow for the encroachment 3 The landscape plan meet the minimum Town standards 4. The meters be placed on the building 5. The flues flashings and vents have a finished surface PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 10 Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Westeate, Final Design Review. cont In the staff report condition number five in the staff report where it states that the applicant agrees to participate in any future street improvements should be deleted completely Town Council deleted that as a condition. The Recording Secretary stated that a letter from Sunridge had been received regarding this project and had been provided to the Commission. Mary Holden stated that the Commission had also been provided with a landscape list for this project, which meets Town standards. Rick Pylman, representing the Westgate Building, stated the developer of the project, Frank Navarro was also present. Pylman stated that the Commission has seen this before during the zoning process, and he thought Mary Holden did a good job of describing the building in the staff report. He stated that one thing that doesn't really come across in the staff report is that when they went through and designed this building they really followed the design guidelines. He stated that he is not sure that there has ever been a project that has gone through the design process yet and used the design guidelines that the Town went through and approved about a year and a half ago. They are really for the commercial core area, from here to City Market, but as developers of a commercial building, they felt it would be appropriate to look at those and they worked very well for them. The materials, the styling and the detail on the building all worked well with those guidelines. Pylman stated they show some grading in the State Fliway right-of-way and actually going around the corner on West Beaver Creek Blvd. and that is really defining the two ditches that have been somewhat neglected over the years He stated that he has a little concern with the way that this is worded, that states if that grading plan changes due to the State reviewing and issuing an approval for the regrading of that ditch, that it should come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and he would like to request that the Commission allow Staff approval of a change in the grading plan It won't effect any of the site planning or building design at all. Pylman stated that condition number three in the staff report says that the landscape plan must meet Town minimum standards and he stated that he believe is does. M PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 11 Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Westgate. Final Design Review. cont Pylman stated that they do not have a sign program yet They will wait until they get a little further into the leasing program and no signs will be put up until they come back for the sign program. Pylman stated that meters will be placed on the building and the flues, flashings, etc will all match in some way. Pylman stated that when they went through the PUD process, as you recall, this property had a little bit different zoning, it was zoned RHDC and approved for 25 dwelling units and a sixty foot building height, etc. He stated that when they came through the PUD process they gave themselves a ten foot rear setback which is where they were placing the building and then through the PUD process and the way they described that setback, they allowed the roof overhang to encroach five feet into that, halfway and they also, through the site plan and specifically in the text of the PUD, allowed the dumpster enclosure to sit up against the property line in its location. One thing that they had not taken into consideration through the zoning process was mechanical equipment and when they submitted a full set of drawings to Mary for the design review process, she noticed that the chillers for the air-conditioning system is sitting in the back of the building What they have are two foot by two and a half foot boxes that sit in back of the units in the building. Staffs interpretation is that since they gave themselves a ten foot setback that those would require an amendment to the PUD He stated that this is a sixty day process and they do not have time to do that They could come through, it is a thirty day public notice to come to Planning and Zoning, they could go to Town Council for two hearings of the ordinance Given that they already have the roof overhang five feet into the setback and the dumpster was enclosed, he thinks that this would have been approved if they had realized that mechanical equipment would be called out that way and brought that through Their option is to take those chillers and put them up on the roof Their concern through the whole design of this building has really been trying to be a good neighbor to Sunridge and in working with them they have put some windows where normally you wouldn't see them and they have quite a nice landscape plan. He stated that they can take a two foot air-conditioning unit and screen that very easily with some lattice work and some shrubbery If they put it up on the roof. out of the setback, it will be much more visible and he does not think that is a good solution. He would like the Planning Commission to make an interpretation that this is not a setback issue The way you read the definition of a setback in the zoning code it says that setbacks shall be measured from the property line to the nearest building wall These are not the building walls, they are in front of that There is also a statement that setbacks should be clear from the ground to the sky and that is what the staff is basing their interpretation on, and it is somewhat reasonable, but PLANNING AND ZONING CORIMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 12 Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Westgate Final Design Review, cont he thinks that is really intended for building projections. If you really took that at face value, clear from the ground to the sky, you would not be able to put a shrub or spruce tree in the setback either. It is not a building projection, it is mechanical equipment and he does not think it is any different than a meter that would sit on a building wall that was against a setback. Fie stated that they have some drawings that shows how it works on grade behind the building and some that show how it would work on the roof. He thinks it works and looks better down on the ground The building sits up on a bank about ten to twelve feet higher than Sunridge, so they are looking up the bank at the building and those two and a half foot units are going to go away. If they are on the roof, they won't go away Sue Railton suggested berming there, The applicant stated that if they did berming their drainage would be going down into Sunridge parking lot and they are trying to keep the drainage on their side. The applicant provided drawings showing where the equipment would be. Frank Navarro stated that they would use lattice and landscaping to screen the equipment. Discussion followed on the landscaping, etc Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she is disappointed in the proposed rear facade It is not acceptable as far as she is concerned. It is not fair to the people living in Sunridge. She thinks that the trees proposed will be dwarfed because people will be looking up at it and you will see a lot more of the building on top. She would like to see some of the same solutions done on the back as is done on the front. The applicant pointed out what changes have been made to the building, indicating the roof line change as suggested at a previous meeting, the addition of windows, which were added to a hallway, and the raised stucco bands, etc Considerable discussion followed on this. The applicant reminded the Commission that they could have come in for a sixty foot building under the RHDC zoning, and if you look at that this is a much more generous massing for Sunridge Schneiderman stated that she was not disagreeing with the applicant that a low rise building is preferable to a sixty foot building, however, what they have in front of them is a low rise building and it has to be judged on its own merits, not on what it could have been The applicant stated that he just wants the Board to recognize that they, as developers, have made tremendous efforts to strike a balance between what will work economically and what will be aesthetically pleasing He stated that this is a balancing act that they have been going through for months Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she is saying that there is not enough visual interest to the back of the building She would never go as far as what the letter is stating that the back should be as nice basically as the front 044 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 13 Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Final Design Review. cont Rick Pylman stated that it would be interesting to hear everybody else's comments. He stated that they were trying to achieve a more subtle detail back there. They cannot put a store front back there. Patti Dixon asked about the stone, and where the various colors would be. The applicant stated that the color board is done in the same progression you would see on the building, pointing out the field color, the stucco lentils, and the opaque stain. Actual transcription was difficult since several people were talking at the same time JackHunn asked if there were any parking changes since the last meeting. Sue Railton and Rhoda Schneiderman were talking at the same time, therefore the applicant's reply is not clear. It sounds like he stated that they removed one parking space Mary Holden stated that they still meet parking requirements. Hunn asked if there was any proposed restaurant tenants. The applicant stated that there is a small hamburger shop that is considering coming in. The design allows for this. Hunn stated that restaurants have particular needs like deliveries, trash and certain mechanical devices. The applicant stated that all that is taken care of in the leases. Those issues will be addressed in the tenant buildouts. Hunn stated that if they have type one exhaust the fan could be three feet in diameter, several feet high and expressed through the roof and he wanted to know if the applicant would have some control on that. The applicant stated that he would. He has always had the philosophy that if he was going to be involved in development he would make it nice or he would not do it. Pylman stated that the initial building permit will be for construction of the building and each tenant finish will require its own permit and if there are mechanical equipment issues, staff would refer those through the Commission. Hunn stated that as far as the air-conditioning units, he thinks they need to find a way to allow this to occur in this position, because this is a good place to put them, to screen them. It seems to be consistent with the other things that you have already gained approval for encroachment on, and had this been suggested at that time, he thinks that this would have been made a part of the PUD. Hunn asked if that interpretation would be a problem for staff such as a precedent setting situation. Mary Holden stated that not if it was clearly outlined the approval. Hunn stated, regarding the north elevation, this is a commercial building and he thinks that the applicant has done a pretty good job of making it look like it doesn't have aback door It could be more interesting and it becomes a subjective call as to whether it is reasonable as the applicant is proposing it. He thought that Patti might be on to something with the possible introduction of different colors in some of the stucco that might add interest and give the impression that there are perhaps different materials used on the back. Discussion followed A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 14 Lot 3 Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Westgate Final Design Review, cont on what could be done. Discussion followed on the snow shedding in the back. Discussion followed on the lighting fixtures. Hunn asked if there would be any lighting on the emergency, north side doors. The applicant stated that he thinks there is a requirement for those. Hunn stated that his concern would be for the intensity and control strategy and the lights being on all night and facing residential. The applicant stated that they would be shielded. Chairman Perkins asked if Jack Hunn was proposing that the rear elevation come back for further review. Hunn stated that he thinks so. He stated that he thinks it is a reasonable solution right now and he would support it as a final approval with no changes, but he hears the applicant willing to study it and come back and voluntarily embellish it further. He stated that he does not think they should be penalized and held up from getting a final approval. Perkins asked if Rhoda would be comfortable with that approach, She stated that she would. Railton asked what they are going to do about the air-conditioning units at the back of the building. Rhoda Schneiderman suggested that as long as he is bringing back the back of the building, if they approve the units to be placed in those locations, they would like an amended landscape plan to show what screening is proposed. The applicant stated that he would come back with a new landscape plan with the units and an elevation that shows the units, lattice, hedge, shade, shadow, etc., the whole thing. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design approval to Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with the following Staff recommendations: 1. The applicant submit to the Town of Avon permission from the State of Colorado to grade on State property prior to plans being submitted for a building permit. If permission is not granted, a revised grading plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission if the site plan has substantial changes 2. The mechanical equipment will be allowed in the rear yard setback without the PUD being amended, based on the fact that it would have gone through original approval with the original PUD and it is consistent with the rear overhangs that exists in the PUD. a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 15 Lot 3. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Westgate, Final Design Review. coni 3. The landscape plan will be returned to show additional screening for those air conditioning units that are to be allowed on the rear. 4. A master Sign Program must be submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. All meters shall be placed on the building. 6. All flues, flashings and vents shall have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building. 7. The rear elevation design will be returned to show changes in that elevation to increase the interest by whatever means the applicant feels is possible. Suc Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously Lot 42. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision. Eubanks/Huber Duplex, Front Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearin Sue Railton stepped down as a voting member of the Commission due to a conflict of interest. Mary Holden stated that this request is to place the retaining wall and the garage in the front yard setback. She stated the approval criteria is listed in the packets. She stated that Staff would recommend approval with the following findings: 1. That the granting of this variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege 2. That the variance is not detrimental. 3. That the strict or literal interpretation would result in practical difficulty inconsistent with the objectives of this title She stated that staff would add a condition, which was an original condition of final design review, that the retaining walls be structural and designed by an engineer. M PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 16 Lot 42, Block 2.. Wildridge Subdivision Eubanks/Huber Duplex Front Yard Setback Variance Request, Public Hearing, (cont) John Railton asked if there were any letters received regarding this request Mary Holden stated that there were none. Mr. Railton stated that this has been discussed at the conceptual and final reviews and unless there are questions from the Commission, he had nothing further to add. Chairman Perkins opened the public hearing. with no public input, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Jack Hunn moved to grant front yard setback variance to Lot 42, Block 2, 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: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. Norm Wood asked if the motion includes the condition that the retaining walls be structural and designed by an Engineer. Jack Hunn stated absolutely. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 53. Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision Plavec Duplex Final Design Review Sue Railton returned as a voting member of the Commission. Mary Holden stated that the materials will be asphalt shingle, cedar lap siding and stucco. The landscape plan consists of aspen, russian olives, blue spruce, englemen spruce and potentilla She stated that the site disturbance is being shown up to the north property line Staff will be requiring a construction /erosion fence be placed prior to any site disturbance to avoid any encroachment onto the north property and mitigate erosion downhill She 01 do PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 17 Lot 53_ Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision, Plavec Duplex, Final Design Review. (cont) suggested that the applicant consider one driveway access instead of two The landscaping should be relocated out of snow storage areas. The applicant has not submitted information regarding the exterior building lighting Revegetation should include native bushes. She stated that this project does meet the design review criteria, which is listed in the staff report. Staff would recommend approval with the conditions outlined in the packet She then reviewed the conditions. Steve Riden, representing Mr. Plavec and Mr. Ecker, stated that Mr. Ecker has brought a model for the Commission review They also provided a board with colors and materials and lighting, He stated that the applicant has no problem complying with all staff conditions Chairman Perkins stated that it looks like a very complete application. Jack Hunn stated that basically what they have is a very wide driveway cut and he asked that if they had to make it a more conventional single cut, could that be accomplished. The applicant stated that basically what the would do is narrow it on each end and probably open the middle section down Hunn stated that on the driveway slopes Ile sees the intent to meet the Town's criteria and he asked if they have engineered it to the extent that they are sure that they can meet that criteria. The applicant stated that they had. Discussion followed Hunn asked if the applicant had given any windows to the garage to add interest The applicant stated that they have also added some siding interest and some banding Hunn stated that his only other concern at the last meeting was the brightness of the white and asked if they had a sample The applicant provided the color board. He described where the various colors and techniques would be used Hunn asked about the finish underneath the decks, but due to Sue Railton and Rhoda Schneiderman talking, the applicant's reply is not clear Discussion followed on the finishes under the arches and about what might grow under the arches. The applicant stated that they have added low lying landscaping in front of the arches Patti Dixon stated that she likes the design and she does not think the white is too bright and varying the textures will give it some more relief She stated that she loved the natural wood with the white. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she is still not crazy about the arches She asked what the tallest arch was, The applicant stated about six feet They are basically designed to facilitate the drainage through the property. Schneiderman stated that she thinks this would be a great spot for trees The applicant described where the bushes and -trees would be. Ari PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 18 Lot 53, Block 4. Wildridge Plavec Duplex, Final .Design Review. (cont) Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design approval to Lot 53, Block 4, Plavec duplex, with the following Staff recommendations: 1. The flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 2. The building lighting be approved by Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Revegetation include native bushes. 4. Meters be placed on the building. 5. The first 20' of the driveway must maintain a maximum of 4% slope. 6. Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/erosion fence be placed on site. 7 The blue spruce be placed on private property and out of snow storage areas.. 8, The grading plan indicate the finished grades for the east driveway entrance. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 36`A. Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Storage Shed Approval. Final Design Review Since no representative for this application was present, Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table this item. John Perkins seconded and the motion carried unanimously Lot 1-2. Avon Town Square Subdivision Master Sign Program. Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that one of the conditions for final design approval was that the tenant sign program come back She stated that she had provided the Commission with copies of some of the revisions to the proposed program. She stated that on Exhibit 6, item number 7 has specified that all signs will be illuminated with 30 MA transformers to provide even illumination in cold weather She stated that she had also requested information on the lighting for the sixteen square foot signs for the garden level tenants and they have provided that. She stated that Staffs main comment with this master sign program is the way the signage can be divided up If there is a tenant who has multiple spaces, they will get 1009/0 sign area, 30 square feet, plus 50% of each additional space This would allow for one sign A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 19 Lot 1-2. Avon Town Square Subdivision, Master Sign Program, Final Design Review, (cont) to be, at a minimum, 45 square feet. This would be a substantially large sign that would be centered over the three tenant spaces. Staff wants the space for the sign, which is basically 2 x 15, to go with the tenant space. So if a business owner has three tenant spaces, he will have three 30 square foot signs that will be centered over that space and provide balance. Staff is recommending this as a condition of approval. Staff is recommending approval with that condition. Larry Ast of Hightech Signs stated that the concern that they have regarding the signage for each location, he would like to show samples of both versions of sign placements. He proceeded to do so. Considerable discussion followed on this matter, but all Commission members and the applicant were talking at the same time, therefore none of the conversations were clear. Discussion followed on the type of channel lettering and type style and the colors Rhoda Schneiderman asked if Mary Holden would have a problem if they set limits on the size a sign could be if a tenant had like one space, which would be one size, two spaces would be one size and three spaces would be another and make them less than the whole amount Considerable discussion followed on setting a maximum sign square footage, but once again several people were making suggestions and comments at the same time The Commission and the applicant all agreed that the signage for multi -space tenants should he set up as follows First space 100%, second space 50"/6 and third space 25% Al Williams, Larry Ast, John Perkins, Rhoda Schneiderman, and Patti Dixon were all talking at once and nothing they are saying makes any sense. Rhoda Schneiderman asked about the colors Larry Ast stated that the background color will be a tan and the letters will be a green Patti Dixon moved to approve Lot 1-2, Avon Town Square Subdivision, Master Sign Program with the amendment that the square footage of the signF :: raai the same for one bay, if two bays are added then it would be 50% and if a third was added it would be 25% Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously Lot 87. Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision, MacNeil Residence Modifications. Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that Larry MacNeil is requesting approval for the following changes to his final design approved site plan 1. Building height reduced by 3' Oft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 20 Lot 87, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, MacNeil Residence Modifications, Final Design Review, (cont) 2. Building mass reduced. 3. Addition of four deciduous trees to existing landscape plan ( condition of approval for original FDR). 4. Adding 5' to the depth of the structure. She stated that the materials, colors, architectural style and window placement are remaining the same. She stated that Staff is recommending approval of the modifications with the conditions that the meters be placed on the building and all retaining walls over four feet be designed by an engineer. Steven Richards, representing the applicant, stated that this is a residence that was originally located in the location you now see. At one time the adjoining property owner and Mr MacNeil were going to work out a deal to use adjoining lots, so they located the house down the hill and then unfortunately they could not work out that agreement, so they have moved the house back up the hill. In the process of all that the house got changed a little bit Mary Holden stated that the Commission never saw the house moved down to another location. It never came before the Commission because there was not an agreement between the two parties. Chairman Perkins asked about the five foot depth addition. Mr. Richards stated that the living room was extended and it made the house five feet longer Rhoda Schneiderman asked how steep the driveway was. The applicant stated that he believes it is right at eight percent Jack Hunn asked about the retaining walls The applicant stated that they are trying to leave it natural. Hunn asked if the would need a variance for this Mary Holden stated that the reason that she did not bring this up was that this is basically what was originally approved. Discussion followed on the process Discussion followed on the type of wall to be put up The applicant stated that this would be a natural rock wall The commission stated that a variance would not be needed for that as it is a landscape feature. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant approval for the modifications on Lot 87, Block 4, Wildridge, with the following staff recommendations 1 Utility meters be placed on the building do PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 21 Lot 87, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, MacNeil Residence Modifications, Final Design Review. (cont) 2. Any retaining walls over 4' in height be designed by an engineer. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously Lot 37, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczky Duplex Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this lot is off West Beaver Creek Blvd. The duplex will contain two levels and stand approximately 30 feet in height. It will consist of asphalt shingles, I x 8 cedar channel siding and stucco. The standard comments have been provided in the staff report. As a conceptual review, Staff has no recommendation. Steve Richards stated that this is a single lot in amongst all the buildings on West Beaver Creek Blvd. Basically this is a duplex residence. He stated that they will be doing a concrete driveway. The grading information on the site plan is fairly minimal because the site itself is basically flat. It slopes a little bit back to the southeast corner about 8 inches They are really not going to change that other than a recommended foot of slope in the first ten feet away from the building that the engineer has recommended. They will be glad to get some spot elevations so that they could see just exactly what is happening on that. Snow stc1rage is intended to be kind of in the upper right hand corner where the driveway curves with half of it pushed in each direction off of the driveway. There is no landscaping in those areas. What they are trying to do with the landscaping is really keep a kind of a little bit of a berm and buffer between the street and the parking areas just so that with this fairly tight site and its location they want to keep their impact as minimal as possible to the street scene, They want to keep the cars somewhat hidden, but we still want to see the building beyond that The building itself would be slightly concealed by the trees they want to place along the front He stated that he thinks they have done a fairly adequate quantity of trees to give them some concealment. They want to use a low water grass, a tall fesque and they want to water by hand. lie stated that he does not think they will have any revegetation areas They will basically do sod and landscaping berms and flowers and that type of thing in the front. As far as the design goes they will have gas fireplaces He stated the design is a fairly simple structure The applicants are from England and this will be a second home for one side and they will sell the other side He then provided samples of the colors to be used. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 22 Lot 37. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Nawojczky Duplex Conceptual Design Review. cont Discussion followed on how the house was set on the site and the overhangs. Discussion followed on the snow shedding. Discussion followed on the deck sizes. Jack Nunn stated that he like the character of the building. He thinks that they have done a good job of integrating their goals and an appropriate form of architecture for Avon He stated that the only concern he has is that they intend to hand water. He stated that it is a second home and it is a duplex and who waters which half and it seems like it would be more successful if you are making this kind of investment in landscaping, to have an automatic system John Perkins agreed, along with the rest of the Commission Patti Dixon asked how they will know where the front door is on the west side of the duplex. Will there be a side walk" Mr Richards stated that this is the way the applicant wanted it. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that in general she also likes it and she thinks it will fit the site pretty well. The only elevation she has a problem with is the south elevation which is basically mirror image except as far as the windows go She would like to see a little bit more variety breaking up the pattern of windows so that it doesn't look, basically you've got four windows on the top that are exactly the same, the doors, and the bottom, everything is very ordered and exactly the same As far as the landscape goes, one of the problems in building in an area that is so tight as where you are and a lot of those homes have been there a long time and the landscaping is very mature in a lot of placed and she would like to Fee the addition of landscaping on both the east and west sides between you and your neighbors and since you are fairly tight maybe it would be more appropriate to do aspen trees or something that would not be very dense, but at least add a little bit of screening, and maybe even some bushes around the foundation wall Schneiderman asked if the chimney stack was all stucco The applicant replied it was Schneiderman stated that the only problem she had with shat is that it is such a maintenance thing. With the gas fireplaces there will not be any soot so forget that she said anything Sue Railton stated that her only comment is on the south elevation and she wondered about just on one of those pairs of doors connecting up the balconies so that you have got one long balcony than the two little ones The applicant stated that he thinks he can fix the mirror image look Railton asked if they would put a concrete patio out the back there' The applicant stated that they basically just want sod He stated that he has recommended that they go ahead and do some flagstone pavers and they are considering that Railton stated that they should think about putting some trees in some clumps in the back as well as down the sides. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 23 Lot 37. Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Nawojczky Duplex. Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Jack Hunn stated that this roof will stand out among the cedar shake roofs around it. Chairman Perkins stated that the presidential series is not a cheap roof The applicant stated that they prefer the asphalt because of its longevity. Chairman Perkins stated that he thinks that they should consider a wood shingle roof Rhoda Schneiderman agreed. Since they are really squeezed in there it will really show up, especially from the highway. John Railton commented on the matter of asphalt roofs and cedar shake shingles. He thinks that the Board ought to start thinking the other way, because most of his clients have stated that they don't want shake shingles and as people start replacing roofs they will probably go for the asphalt roofs. Also the fire departments are encouraging asphalt roofs. Further discussion followed on this matter. Chairman Perkins asked the applicant to research the various alternatives. Lot 31. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that Jerry Miramonti has submitted this application for a duplex. It will stand approximately 35 feet in height. The materials are asphalt shingles and stucco. the landscape plan is called out in the staff report. Holden stated that the duplex connection is done by a retaining wall which is stepped, a walkway/breezeway deck that connects into the roof. She stated that this is one that the Commission should take a look at. There is an architectural connection here. She stated that there are the standard comments for drawing the site plan and the design, but they are requesting and requiring a cross section through the timber retaining wall for final design review submittal Discussion followed on this Terri Miramonti addressed the staff comments as follows: He stated that there are not any slopes that exceed 2: l on the drawings Regarding the cross section through the timber retaining wall, those retaining walls are going to only hold back as much earth that is put in them. Further up the hill there is a concrete retaining wall that will take the big load of the site itself. These were put in there to delineate the walls and they can put ground covers in there and let them grow down the sides of the walls, so there is no major load on these timbers. Schneiderman asked how deep the steps were. The applicant replied that they are at three and a half foot increments, but they are backed up by a concrete wall at the most critical point. Schneiderman asked how deep L • Iii a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April I e, 1994 Page 24 Lot 31. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Conceptual Design Review. (cont they were. The applicant stated that they are about two and a half feet deep. Further EN discussion followed, but the noise from the plans being handled makes the discussion unclear The applicant asked if showing the utility meters on the units was not enough. Chairman Perkins stated that they want to make sure that there are no major cuts down the hill, etc., and that needs to be shown. The applicant stated that the driveway will be asphalt. Regarding item number five, he is not sure what it means, but the plan he has drawn up is very accurate and he is not sure what else they want. It indicates swails as well for draining of the property, but they are not labeled as swails. Perkins asked if this is based on a certified topo survey. The applicant replied it was. Perkins stated that there should be a note to that effect or give a copy of the topo to staff. The applicant asked how the construction/erosion fence would be defined He stated it would effect Bruce's work. Mary Holden stated that when the final design review is received, then they will be able to tell. They need detail on site disturbance indicated on the site plan The applicant asked if it wasn't obvious by looking at the way he has drawn the contours there on what has been disturbed and what is not. Mary Holden explained the reasoning for this request as giving the staff the limits and if the builder goes beyond that then staff has a way of knowing that. The applicant stated that if you look at the drawing that he did, it is very accurate and it is obvious what they are doing, but if you want him to draw the line around it and label it it sort of defeats his purpose of his nice graphics Rhoda Schneiderman stated that even though the grading may not change, if you get a dozer in there it can take off the top layer with grading staying the same and all of a sudden you've taken away all your vegetation without changing the grading at all, so your grading may stay the same, but unless you draw a line as to where, within what boundaries your excavators stay, then you could end up with a site that has not changed at all as far as grading, but has not one ounce of vegetation on it. The applicant stated OK, we'll draw the line. Perkins stated that the point she makes is valid because when you come in to do your scrape off where you going to put that. You probably will pile it up somewhere and that is an area that will be disturbed and your grade does not show it as disturbed. The applicant stated that he was not going to argue, he sees the point The applicant stated that there is no landscaping in the snow storage, however he maybe A A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 25 Lot 31. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Conceptual Design Review, (contl should have written in the words snow storage so this comment could be eliminated. He pointed out on the plans where the snow storage would be. The applicant stated that he had made a note on the landscape box how revegetation would be done. Regarding the item of native bushes, he asked if that was an absolute. Discussion followed on transplanting sage. The applicant asked if it would be acceptable if they designated on the landscaping legend that they would relocate existing sagebrush in the site in those areas. The Commission agreed it would, but they are not to disturb sagebrush on undisturbed portions of the lot Jack Hunn suggested that their seed mix for revegetation include a sage seed so that over time it will come up. The applicant agreed. The applicant stated that he is not sure why the comment regarding the building overhangs extending into the setback is even listed since they do not extend into the setback. Regarding the item about the first 20 feet of driveway where it ties into the street not exceeding 4%, the applicant asked if that is a written in stone rule now for the Town of Avon, Jack Hunn replied yes and it has been for quite a while. The applicant stated that they would take care of that. Regarding the item of building height not exceeding 35', his calculations show a 30 foot maximum. Considerable discussion followed on how the height is figured. Jack Hunn stated that he is pretty impressed with this building. He thinks it fits the site well. He stated that he is in favor of the duplex connection. The only comment he had was that they have the smaller windows stacked with the rounded corners and he feels that they actually detract from the importance of the one your putting in the center. He asked that the applicant study that. Discussion followed on squaring those off The general consensus of the Commission was that this was a very nice project. As a conceptual design review, no action was taken at this time. Lot 78, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision. Six-Plex. Conceptual Design. Review Mary Holden stated that this is a conceptual review for two triplexes. They will stand about 34-1/2 feet in height. They will consist of asphalt shingles, and channel rustic cedar siding. The landscape plan is called out in the packet. The standard comments for the site plan are also included in the packet, and also the design comments. She stated that details should be to a PLANNING; AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 26 Lot 78 Block I Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Conceptual Design Review, (contl provided on the sign and also there is a possibility that the sign is located in the site triangle and this is not allowed. She stated that as a conceptual review, Staff has no recommendation. Mike Bruen of JMB Enterprises stated that their goal is to do something that they call affordable. He stated that this is probably around the lowest point of Wildridge as far as elevation. They think that they have taken advantage of all the possible views that do exist there, being more southwest towards Bellyache Ridge and off to the direct south. The units are somewhere between 1550 and 1650 square feet. He stated that they have already addressed nearly all the comments in the staff report. Utility connections are shown, they do have a detail of the sign, they are within the height limits, there is a drip sprinkler system provided, the exterior lighting situation has been addressed, they are within the setbacks. He stated that they would get with Staff regarding the location of the sign. He stated that the site itself has quite a bit of debris that has been put there. They have no idea where it came from. It is material that they will have to get rid of before they can even start digging the foundation. So, as far as the native bushes are concerned, the don't really know what is there. He stated that they have increased the caliper of the trees on the site. He pointed out the contrasts in off sets on the side elevations. Jack Hunn stated that even though the site is low in the subdivision, it is pretty prominent as people move down Old Trail Road and they will be looking down on the roof and you've really oriented the back sides of the building toward that perspective. He thinks that the way that the two buildings have been oriented askew from each other makes it a bit more interesting. Discussion followed on the location of the site. Discussion followed on the entry door for the middle units. Hunn stated that architecturally there is a lot of similarity from one unit to the next and he sees a few techniques to give them some variety, recognizing that they are trying to hit an affordable market, he would ask the applicant to study other opportunities to differentiate one unit from another. Primarily in roof form and different windows, etc. The applicant stated that that is one reason for the gabled roof in front above the garages and also another reason why the units aren't really uniform. Hunn asked how trash would be handled. The applicant stated that it would be individual cans stored in each unit. Hunn asked if the applicant felt that there was enough parking for multiple roommate situations. The applicant stated that these are three bedroom, two and a half baths and they see them more as family and they even have the option to go to two master suites on the units, so providing two spaces inside and two spaces in front of the garage as well as area probably that they can work on between the two buildings that would provide parking. Hunn stated that one thing that might make the building a little more interesting and it does add the • M PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 27 Lot 78. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Six-Plex Conceptual Design Review. (cont) cost up, is a broader overhangs and it is essentially a zero overhang proposal. Discussion followed on this matter. Discussion followed on the balconies over the garages. Discussion followed on the possibility of a parking problem The applicant stated that they did not think that there would be a roommate situation. Patti Dixon stated that her recommendation is to maximize the parking area. She stated that she likes the buildings and she Sikes the level of contrasts in the colors. Rhoda Schneiderman asked how far the units are set back from each other. The applicant stated about 12 feet. Schneiderman asked if there was some opportunity for some sort of minimal landscaping between the units, because you have basically a sea of concrete in front of thein, and maybe in between the garages It would green up the front a little bit. She stated that she would like them to work with the windows a little bit to provide a bit more variation. While you have, building wise, quite a bit of shadow etc., the windows makes for giving it a same appearance. Just make it so that every single window and every single door is not the same. Sue Railton stated that she likes the way the buildings step and the way they turn and the landscaping in between them. The only comment she has is the little triangles. She likes the trim and the contrast of the trim on the rest of the building, but those little triangles just do not look right. They need some work Chairman Perkins agreed, and he thinks the back side needs work. He also suggested weighting the fireplace at grade. He thought the colors were a little bit dark for the white stucco. Chairman Perkins stated that those were the Commission's comments and that is as far as they go with a conceptual review. Reading and Approval of the April 5 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. Jack Hunu moved to approve the April 5, 1994 minutes as submitted. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. me as PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 19, 1994 Page 28 Other Business Mary Holden stated that she had included the Steep Slope Guidelines in the packet and asked if the Commission had read them and if they were what the Commission wished to be distributed. Sue Railton stated that the only problem she had with it was that the drawings that show what buildings look like on the steep slopes look like single story homes and she thinks they should include an example of something that is a basement level and two above, etc. Considerable discussion followed on dirt deals, etc., but several people were talking at the same time. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that if they come up with steep slope criteria, the people will come up with it is so expensive to do step foundations, but that is the price you pay for buying a steep slope. Sue Railton stated that you cannot say to people that you have to build a certain house on a certain lot. Schneiderman stated they were not talking about what the architecture looks like, they are talking about conforming whatever architecture it is to the slope, not making the lot conform to the house. Jack Hunn stated that he has two goals in supporting these. One is that they do not see designs that butcher the size, and the other is the soils stability issue. Rhoda Schneiderman asked how strongly is the Commission going to get behind this. She stated that it is one thing to adopt it, and it is another thing when somebody come through here with a steep slope and the fact that he cut out a platform with a nice house and the Commission says it is OK If that is the case then the Commission should not bother. Chairman Perkins stated that these are guidelines, it is not an ordinance Rhoda Schneiderman stated that if they are going to all this trouble they need to make some sort of commitment to enforce them. Sue Railton stated that she thinks there is enough guidance there to tell people what the Commission will be looking at and if they are sensible they will take some notice of it. Every site is very different and you can't approach them all exactly the same. Hunn stated that this is subject to their interpretation. Norm Wood stated that these are to be tools to be used. Rhoda Schneiderman asked how fair is it to use them 100% with one person and then not at all with somebody else, even though you may still have a 40 or 50% slope on both cases and maybe because one house is really a better looking house and you just kind of like the house better, well then it is OK if they cut a platform. Patti Dixon stated that the Guidelines will tell the person up front what is expected of them, but if their architect comes up with another idea and it is a good one, then the Commission can grant that. Considerable discussion followed on the first item approved and the fact that it did not meet the guidelines- John Perkins stated that he did not think that in this business you can ride a hard and fast rule that will apply to every application Considerable d:.,;ussion followed. on this matter PLANNING AND ZONING COM, -%4i.. April 19, 1994 Page 29 Other Business (cont) MEETING MINUTES John Railton stated that he had just learned that John Perkins would no longer be on the Board and he stated that he thinks John has done a great job and he just wanted to say thank you to him. He also thought it unfair that the reason he is no longer on the board is that he is not a resident, although he has an office in Avon. Mr. Railton also commented on the matter of the continuing building of regulations in the Town. The meeting was then adjourned at 10:30 PM. Respectully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Commission Approval J.Perkins Date R. Schneiderman