The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Minutes 060794RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 7. 1994 The Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission held a Worksession starting at 6:30 PM at which the following conceptual design reviews were discussed. All members were present except for Rhoda Schneiderman and Buz Reynolds. Schneiderman arrived at 6:40 PM. Lot 72 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Brofos Residence. Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is a single family home that is two levels and will stand approximately 25 feet in height. Staff concerns are showing the Wildridge setbacks or. the plans, the slopes may not exceed 2:1; spruce must be a minimum of six feet in height and the shrubs a minimum of five gallons. Holden stated that the standard comments are called out in the staff report. As a conceptual, Staff has no recommendation. Holden provided color and material samples. Tony Ryerson, of Parker and Parker, stated that there was a mistake on the site plan and they will provide an amended site plan showing the setback and the correct slope requirements and the retainage. He will also make sure that the landscape suggestions are included on the plans Discussion followed on the location of the lot and the steepness of the lot. Mary Holden stated that she calculated the slope at v.pproximately 26, percent. Jack Hunn asked how the driveway slope r • ed. Holden replied that it was alright. Henry Vest stated that it seems that they have the house... you look at the two houses that are the ones to the a... both houses that are right up the street.. they are both kind of stepping down the hill a little bit, whereas on this one you have it so that the whole house is the same level going straight out. He stated that he thinks if they could split the top level and make it so it comes down the hill a little bit, they would be able to a. that is the way he would think they might want to approach this He stated that he likes the house and the materials they are using He stated that on the north elevation there are three windows and one is underneath the others that, to him, is a little awkward Jack Hunn stated *.hat his concern is in the driveway design and the need to create the opportunity for maneuvering so that they can turn a car around ane :tot have to back out into the street. Patti Dixon stated that she thinks the garage door needs to be of a light color Jack Hunn asked if there would be an irrigation system The applicant asked if that was AN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 2 Lot 72, Block 1._Wildridge Subdivision, Brofos Residence, Conceptual Design Review, cont mandatory. Jack Hunn stated that it is strongly recommended and apparently the water district is coming out with new regulations that would almost necessitate watering with an automatic system. Hunn asked if there was a balanced cut and fill situation or would they be importing or exporting dirt. The applicant stated he believed it is balanced, Hunn asked if the roof pitch is 4:12. The applicant stated that it is. Sue Railton asked if the round circles shown on the drawings are really supporting the roof. The applicant replied that they do have a structural purpose. Discussion followed on the overhang on the south elevation. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks the east elevation needs more interest. Sue Railton stated that she would like to see a lot more landscaping around the house, groups of trees and shrubs. Hunn summarized, stating that the applicant should be aware of the site issues in the staff report; the maneuvering on site; an automatic irrigation system, additional landscaping; and clarifying some of the detailing on the elevations. Lot 55. Block 3 Wildridye Subdivision Sterling Residence Conceptual Design Review Henry Vest stepped down as a voting member of the Commission, due to a conflict of interest. Mary Holden stated that this is a single family residence which will contain three levels and will stand anywhere from 31 to 37 feet in height. The lot slopes to the west with slopes varying up to 40%. Holden stated that the Staff would like the applicant to consider access off Wildridge Road due to the gentler slopes Building height cannot exceed 35 feet and the retaining walls are in the ten foot slope maintenance drainage snow storage easement and the 25 foot front yard setbacks, therefore a variance will be required, and it must be kept out of the ten foot easement She stated that there is a note on the application that it will be reseeded with thistle and staff would like to let the applicant know that thistle is a noxious weed and is not allowed Holden stated that the standard comments are outlined in the report and as a conceptual PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 3 Lot 55, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision Sterling Residence Conceptual Design Review, cont review, Staff has no recommendation. Sam Sterling stated that this is the Pellerito residence, not the Sterling residence. The applicant stated that this is a very steep site and access is difficult. He stated that the suggestion to access it from the lower side would seem easier to access it there, but the use of the site and the disruption of the site might actually be a little b;t more in that you can't really utilize that Your not seeing that part of the property. You are not there where the views are and the comment that there is probably less traffic from above is probably the case They tried to address the site access issues by keeping it closer to the road and keeping that embankment essentially part of the road and site design and leaving the greatest portion of the lot itself undisturbed for vehicular use and keeping it as natural setting as they can. The owners have expressed a really strong desire to maintain the views to Beaver Creek and the lower valley It seems the location on the site would help to maintain those views considerably. The lower you get the only views you have actually disrupts neighbors views, etc. The applicant stated that the dash mark on the plans is the road grade. When you are up on the road you are actually looking down on .he roof itself Jack Hunn asked how steep the driveway grade was from the road to the garage door The applicant stated that it starts out at about 20% and flattens out to a relatively flat area of about 4 or 5 % until it flattens out to 2%. Mary Holden stated that driveway grades cannot exceed ten percent and the first 20 feet cannot exceed four percent where you tie into the roadway. Patti Dixon asked if that little area on the driveway was the turnaround The applicant stated it was Rhoda Schneiderman stated that they have indicated that the building would be stucco, yet on the elevations it show some siding The applicant stated it would be a combination of siding They would like to minimize the mass of the garage, etc and since it is closer to how the ground comes up have that be more part of the woodsy aspect Schneiderman stated that on the north elevation you show certain areas on the lower level it looks like there is siding there, but how far up does it go, is it supposed to be there"?', The applicant stated that it would be set to the window sill Schneiderman stated that that might be a little too hap- hazard the placement of it, you know maybe on the south elevation where you have your, 1 kind of agree with you on your garage, the use of it on your garage, the siding, but then PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 4 Lot 55, Block 3 Wildridee Subdivision Sterling Residence Conceptual Design Review cont you've just got this such small amounts on the main part of the house and the south elevation is all stucco, she thinks it looks like it is not integrated into the whole design of the house. Bill Sargis asked ;£they plan on keeping the retaining walls within the ten foot setback. The applicant replied yes. Sargis asked if they will be applying for a variance. The applicant stated that he guessed they will need to. Sargis asked if they could achieve the thirty five foot height limit with the house. Discussion followed on solving the height problem. Discussion followed on what can be done without a variance. The applicant stated that they have three foundation steps with the slope over about thirty feet. Patti Dixon stated that they would want to see a color sample. The applicant described the proposed colors. Jack Hunn stated that he would be concerned about the brightness of the stucco The applicant stated that it is really more of a gray. Hunn asked about the siding color the applicant stated that they would be the sage color. Schneiderman stated that the only problem she would have would be the roof color- While you may end nip with that color initially the same as a wood shake roof, it doesn't weather like a shake roof. You will always end up with that brown beige color which is riot reflected anywhere else in the building. She would rather see something in the slate tones or weathered wood tones. The applicant stated that they could work on that. Other Commission members had no problem with the color In summary Chairman Hunn stated that he thinks they are generally in support of the architecture. but there are some concerns about site and driveway grade and the elements in the staff report The applicant stated that he understands that if they need to build a retaining wall within the ten foot easement that requires a variance Mary Holden stated no, if you go within the twenty five foot front yard setback you can encroach up to fifteen feet they do not normally allow encroachments into the ten foot slope maintenance drainage snow storage easement You can encroach fifteen feet up to that point. The applicant stated that they think that with the site plan as it is where there is an average 6% grade from the entrance to the garage, they think that by moving the home down the hill they can still come under S%, while at the same time keeping any retaining walls outside of the ten foot slope maintenance and would not require a variance. Mary Holden explained that they would need a variance if they encroach into the front yard setback with a structure It depends on what type retaining wall PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 5 Lot 7. Block 5. Wildridtte Subdivision. Ten Units. Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is for two triplexes and one four-plex. The buildings will be three levels and the height 32 feet. She stated that the square footage of the units will cause a sizable impact on the site. She stated that the guest parking exceeds what is required and if they were to reduce the excess guest parking it might reduce a lot of the site disturbance. Staff will be requiring a perspective of the site for final design review, due to the amount of site disturbance and the number of retaining walls, the height, etc., of the retaining walls. Slope may not exceed 2:1. There will be a fire hydrant required at the entryway, on the driveway and at a point somewhere on site in the complex The other comments are listed out in the staff report and Staff has no formal recommendation, but they would like to point out that there is a lot of site disturbance taking place on this lot. Skip Organ stated that they have met all the requirements for the driveway/road, 4% at entry and not more than 10°/o grade on the road. He stated that the units are less than 1900 square feet, with garage and storage underneath. They are designed totally to fit into the hillside, He stated that they are a couple in excess in guest parking, but parking is always the biggest parking in this valley especially in a year with heavy snow. He feels that having the extra parking makes it a better project Granted there is a lot of site disturbance, but they are doing ten units on a two and half acre site. They are fitting them into the flattest part of the site. Flat in this ins; mce is somewhat a contradiction in terms They have eliminated a lot of the retaining walls and the ones that are there will be boulder walls so that they can be landscaped around. Rhoda Schneiderman asked how many bedrooms and baths. The applicant replied that there would be two masters and two guest bedrooms, each with a bath. Schneiderman asked if this was meant to be a Dan Karsden type project The applicant stated it was not. Schneiderman stated that all the extra parking set her to wondering The applicant stated that they have two car garages on all of these and you know that if you stack parking behind the garage you can cause a lot of problems Schneiderman asked if these would be for sale or for rent the applicant stated that they would be for sale Mary Holden stated that the required guest parking spaces for up to ten units is an additional three spaces. Mary Holden stated that she had not seen the revised site plan. Sue Railton asked if they had voluntarily revised the site plan The applicant stated that after they had submitted they looked at it looking for ways that made more sense on the site and eliminated a bunch of retaining walls, moved the buildings on to the flatter parts of the site and worked to build the units so that they fit the hillside as much as possible Patti Dixon asked how steep the retaining walls would be The applicant stated that they would be a series of walls stepping back, each one no more than four feet ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 6 Lot 7. Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision. Ten Units. Conceptual Design Review (cont Sue Railton stated that she likes the design very much and she thinks it works as far as grading goes. The more parking spaces you can have, the better. Jack Hunn asked how trash would be handled. The applicant stated it would be individually. Henry Vest if the reason that they did a full circle drive was for the fire department. The applicant stated that was the only reason. Vest stated that he thinks the applicants have bent over backwards in trying to work this site and he thinks it looks great. Patti Dixon asked if they know what the colors will be. The applicant stated they have not decided. Hunn asked if they will be seeing a landscape plan. The applicant stated they would. Sargis stated that he thinks the project looks fine and he likes the guest parking. Hunn asked if there were fireplaces. The applicant replied they would be gas. Dixon asked how wide the driveways were. The applicant replied 12 feet wide. Hunn stated that that could become a one lane road by the time snow accumulates. He asked if they would sign it as one lane. The applicant stated that they probably would, Chairman Hunn stated that he thinks that they have a winner this time. Lot 1. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Four-Plex. Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is a four-plex that will have three levels and stand approximately 32 feet in height. The applicant would like the Commission to comment on the connections shown on the elevations in your racket. the standard comments are called out in the staff report. As this is a conceptual design review, Staff has no recommendation. John Perkins stated that the site is in the big sweeping curve up there. It is a very nice site and has good views to the south, southwest and it makes sense to try to work their way with the curve and hold the building as high as possible on the site. He stated that the main issue that they want to gain clarification on tonight is if the Commission feels like they have made a strong enough connection here to develop it with this strategy. The applicant feels strongly that he would like to separate garage doors and have some room between units. His concept is that every space has the sun and the view Chairman Hunn asked what is contained in the connecting device, is it heated space. Perkins stated that there is really no heated space. The laundry and some storage area there is part of that space, but the final connection is a wall thats read on the street side as a solid wall across there and may penetrate with some openings. It is a solid wall and a full roof connection. Go 0% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 0 June 7, 1994 Page 7 L7 Lot I, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivi!.ion, Four-Plex, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) ® You would have a covered area from the street side that would absolutely read as enclosed space, while it would be open from the other side. Bill Sargis stated that he does not know if they have a clear definition as to what a connection is, but this appears to be a very strong connection. It is structural, it has roof material and definitely has the appearance of connecting the building, so he is comfortable with that. Sue Railton asked if the railing on the lower balcony comes down steps or something. Perkins replied yes, there is a grade change there within the unit, but that is not final. The need to take some square footage out of the floor plan, so next time you see it the units will be compressed slightly, etc Railton stated that on the east and west elevations there are no windows. Perkins stated that on the end units they probably will have some openings, but probably not the interior units. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she did not have a problem with the connections. Her problem lies with the mirror image of the units. There is not enough change in elevation that it offsets the fact that they are exactly the same and she could not support that. She also felt there would have to be windows on the east and west end eevations. Conceptually wise she thinks it is fine Schneiderman stated that even a small change in window fenestration isn't going to do it. Chairman Hunn asked, regarding the connection on the north elevation, how much of a wall mass would be interpreted. Perkins stated that they have made some changes to that and they have revised that to where it probably will be a solid wall there, even though it could have some penetrations in it. Hunn asked if it would be windows or open. Perkins stated that they could be both. It could have a window to what is a corridor space by the laundry and a similar size opening that could just be a penetration. Hunn stated that he thinks the connection works for him because it is an architectural, structural connection and it does read as an attached building. It is a creative way to give some individuality to the units, and it addresses the site very responsibly He would encourage them to try to create some individuality as some one else mentioned, but he is supportive of the concept Henry stated that lie thinks it is fine The roof connection is the best between units As far as the mirror image on all four, there certainly appears to be quite a bit of elevation change, because that thing goes down the hill as you come around the corner He stated he guessed it would be good to mix it up a little, but he would not make it too mixed 9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 8 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, June 7, 1994 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado 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 CONSENT AGENDA Mary Holden stated that the consent agenda is composed of minor items. What the Staff does is give a two sentence presentation on the consent agenda items If those items are fine with the Commission they can approve the consent agenda, which means every item on the consent agenda has been approved. If the Commission wants to get into an in-depth conversation about one of the items they will then remove that item and approve the rest of the consent agenda Rhoda Schneiderman moved to remove item number five from the consent agenda. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried with a six to one vote, Henry Vest voting nay. Lot 40. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Fence !Mary Holden stated that Tom Johnson is requesting to place a five foot split rail fence with netting on the south, east and west sides of his lot Staff would recommend approval with the condition that the fence respect the seven and a half foot side yard setback. Lot 4. Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision Covered Walkway Holden stated that the next item is a request to build an enclosure on the rear side of the triplex up on Wildwood Road It will match the existing building materials and Staff recommends approval with the condition that the adjacent property owners agree to the enclosure. low, 61 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 9 Lot 26/27 Block I Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Sign Program Modification Holden stated that this is a request to modify the master sign program to allow for a 2 x 9 sign to be shared by two tenants on the garden level. Staff would recommend approval. Lot 4143 Block -2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Beaver Creek West Modifications Holden stated that they are requesting to replace siding with metal siding; to replace the railings with metal piping, stucco the chimrcys on Phase II; and repaint fascia and trim on all buildings. The colors will be: Phase 1 will be a light gray fascia and trim; Phase II will be a beige fascia and trim; and Phase IV will be a gray. Staff would recommend approval. Lot 12. Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Value Wide_ Modifications Holden stated this is the item which has been pulled off the agenda- They are requesting the approval of the different canopy style and the two color modifications which has been provided. Resolutions Holden stated that these resolutions are regarding projects that have been approved, but needed the resolutions to be signed. Holden stated that that concludes the consent agenda with the exception of Valley Wide which has been removed. Chairman Hunn asked if there were any other concerns regarding any of the other consent agenda items. Sue Railton asked why the fence has to meet the seven and a half foot side yard setback. Mary Holden stated that normally the only encroachments into a side yard setback are at grade stairs and this also abuts Buck Creek. Railton asked if it is a regulation that you can't put a fence up on your property line. Holden stated that the setback provisions say that you have to keep setbacks open. Discussion followed. Chairman Hunn reviewed the consent agenda items, asking if there were any concerns about any ofthe items. Reynolds questioned the representative for the metal siding about the sheen. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 10 Consent Agenda (cont Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the consent agenda items as follows: 1. Lot 40, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Fence. 2. Lot 4, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision, Covered Walkway. 3. Lot 26/27, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Sign Program Modification 4. Lot 4143, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Modifications, 6. Resolutions: Resolution 94-5, A Resolution Approving A Variance From The Front Yard Setback Requirements For Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Resolution 94-6, A Resolution Granting a Special Review Use To Allow A Home Occupation on Lot 29-A, Block I, Wildridge Subdivision Resolution 94-7, A Resolution Approving A Variance From The Front Yard Setback Requirements For Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Item 5 of the consent agenda was pulled and will be discussed later. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 45. Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Front Yard Setback Variance Public Hearing Mary Holden stated that Brian Vedder is requesting approval for an eight encroachment into the ten foot slope maintenance drainage snow storage easement. He did receive approval in July 1992 to encroach fifteen feet into the front yard setback. This will bring it to fifteen feet and eight inches. The approval criteria, listed in the staff report, has been met. Staff would recommend approval with the findings listed out in the staff report, and approval of Resolution 94-10. Brian Vedder stated that he had nothing to add. Chairman Hunn then opened the Public Hearing. With no public input, Chairman Hunn PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 11 Lot 45. Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision, Vedder Duplex. Front Yard Setback Variance Public Hearing, (cont then closed the Public Hearing Chairman Hunn asked if any Commission member had a problem with this. There were none. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Resolution 94-10, A Resolution Approving A Variance From The Front Yard Setback Requirements For Lot 45, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously Lot 24. Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision, Sanner. Single Family, Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this two levels and stands 31 feet in height She provided samples of the materials She stated that the plant and building materials are called out in the staff report. She stated that building lighting needs to be approved by Staff prior to the building permit being issued, The landscaping should meet the minimum Town of Avon standards and the landscape plan should include native bushes for revegetation. Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the packet. Jim Klein stated that he would answer any questions the Commission might have. The original proposal was for two single family units. However, they have decided to concede and .just build one single family on the lower end of the lot. It is very close to the original design they showed the Commission in the winter. There will be minimum site disturbance and no site disturbance on the upper end. Jack Hunn asked if it was a half log treatment as a band board? The applicant stated that that should have been revised It should be a 2 x 10 band and the only log work on the home would be the vertical log posts There will be log trim around the garage. Sue Railton moved to grant final design approval with the following conditions I 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 Prior to any site disturbance, a construction fence be placed on site L PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 12 Lot 24, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision, Sanner Single Family. Final Design Review, (cont) 6. The applicant work out Engineering concerns prior to the issuance of a building permit. Hunn asked if this should be a condition that there be a minimum of 2 inch caliper The applicant stated that he would make it a point to make sure they meet this requirement This would be the 7th condition Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carred unanimously Jim Klein stated that they have two projects on the agenda and he asked if the Commission could now discuss his other project, which is scheduled further down on the agenda The applicant which was scheduled next had no problem with this. Lot 38, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Landscape Plan, Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this was a condition of approval, to revise their landscape plan the applicant is here to answer questions As a condition of approval, Staff does not have a recommendation The revised landscape plan is in your packet along with the original plan Michael Sanner stated that the issue last time was providing a berm with some trees, which they have done in the area towards the driveway Discussion followed on how high the berm is. It is about two to three feet high. Six foot spruce trees will be placed there Sue Railton suggested pulling the driveway back from the property line and put more landscaping in there and do away with such a wide landscape area in front of the house Bill Sargis asked if the landscaping on the terrace is bermed as well The applicant stated it was. They have a series of berms Sargis stated so that the additional landscaping on the property line and the berm is an additional additive to all of the berming and screening that they have created. Patti Dixon asked if the area between the property line and driveway was wide enough to get about three feet high. The applicant stated it was Michael Sanner stated that at one point he suggested to the neighbors that they do a combined berm and landscaping, but that did not fly Discussion followed on what the neighbors concerns of not the driveway so much as the house facing their back yard. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that as more and more houses get built people will have to share in the responsibility of screening themselves from other neighbors and vice se versa, and it is not going to be the new houses that get built that are going to have to bear all the responsibility She stated that as far as she is concerned this applicant has made a good faith effort and she is happy with it Discussion followed on lessening the driveway width. The applicant stated that the berm will be three to four feet high Sue Railton asked if there was an irrigation system. The applicant replied there was one. AMN M PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 13 Lot 38. Block I Wildridge Subdivision. Landscape Plan. Final Design Review. (cont) Chairman Hunn stated that in his view it is not a matter of appeasing a neighbor He stated that he supported the site development strategy last time the Commission saw this. He thinks it comes down to some of the design review considerations that are in the regulations. In concepts regarding compatibility and being sensitive to adjacent properties, etc It is kind of a responsibility of developers to at least consider the impacts on neighbors He stated that the thing that bothers him about the driveway strategy is the location of the hammerhead One of the concerns is that this is an area intended to allow vehicles to turnaround on its own property, but the owner of this property has an extra vehicle or a boat, camper, trailer, it will probably be parked in that location and it seems like it would be more sensitive to the neighbor if you could pull that hammerhead closer to your own project and put the landscaping back here and the driveway, that would help, if ii can be moved that would help, but none of those were conditions at the last meeting, so what needs to be discussed tonight is landscaping in an effort to screen the hammerhead lie suggested moving the hammerhead as part of the solution The applicant replied something about making the turnaround a little smaller, however he was not near a microphone and his response is not clear Discussion followed on the retaining wall in that area and how it could be moved The applicant stated that he thinks it would be possible to move the hammerhead a little bit, closer to the house Hunn stated that, in combination with what you %ie proposing to do with the berm and the trees is a good solution Buz Reynolds stated t:iat he is happy with the idea of widening the radius and getting rid of the hammerhead and he would feel comfortable with Staff approving it Buz Reynolds moved to approve the final landscape plan for Lot 38, Block 1, Wildridge, with the addition that the hammerhead on the southern drive be eliminated and that the radius where the hammerhead was be increased to allow cars to turn around arid that this change be approved by Staff Patti Dixon seconded Hunn stated that the motion is for final approval of landscaping and to eliminate the hammerhead and expanding the radius as necessary to allow maneuvering and to install the berm and additional plant material as proposed The motion carried unanimously Lot 27. Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Neiderhauser Single Fancily Residenc. incl Design Review Mary Holden stated that this will contain two levels and stand approximately 31 feet in height The plant and building materials are called out in the staff report She provided PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 14 Lot 27. Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision, Neiderhauser Single Family Residence Final Design Review !cont) samples. She stated that the turnaround area for the garage is in the ten foot maintenance drainage and snow storage easement and that must be removed from the easement. Detail must be provided on the boulders in that easement so staff can determine if it can remain. The driveway grade is not to exceed ten percent and the first 20 feet not to exceed 4%. She stated that this does meet design review criteria if the turnaround area is removed from the ten foot easement and staff would recommend approval with the conditions which are listed in the staff report Jack Snow, representing the applicant, stated that they have no problem in pulling the turnaround closer to the building. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if they had given any consideration to putting an oversized garage door in to lessen that gap between the roof overhang and the top of the door. The applicant stated they had, but due to the offset in the floors they can't. Schneiderman then suggest maybe some sort of banding. The applicant stateu that he thinks they can do that. Henry Vest asked if, around the windows, that was stucco pushed out. Patti Dixon asked about the roof specs The applicant stated that it was the Presidential series. The color will be a dark brown Patti Dixon asked what the stucco color would be It will be a white. Patti Dixon stated that they have found that a white white has too much glare. This was the general consensus of the Commission. It was felt that the color should be brought back for staff approval. Chairman Hurn asked about a gutter system, particularly over the garage area and snow management and dripline in the driveway. The applicant replied probably with a snow guard with a swale in the driveway and gutters as needed Discussion followed on the landscaping. Hunn asked if there were no coniferous trees. The applicant stated it was just juniper shrubs. Hunn asked if there would be an automatic irrigation system. The applicant stated they were not Hunn stated that there are some new rules coming out from the Avon Metro District regarding water usage that will almost require that they have an automatic system. Hunn stated that he would like to see more variety in the landscaping. It is a complete solution as all sides of the home have been addressed, but there are only two types of materials. It would be more successful if there were more variety of materials. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 15 Lot 27. Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Neiderhauser Single Family Residence Final Desi gn Review. (contl Henry Vest moved to approve Lot 27, Blocks, with the following conditions: The driveway grade may not exceed 10% and the first 20 feet of the dr;,/eway may not exceed 4%. 2 Detail must be provided to Staff on the boulders abutting the Wildridge Road West right-of-way to determine if the boulders may be placed there A site plan, certified by a licensed surveyor, showing utility connections and all other requirements, be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to a building permit 4. The first 20 feet of the driveway must maintain a maximum slope of 4%. 5. The Flues, Flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building 6 Meters be placed on the building 7 The driveway turnaround be removed and placed a minimum of 10 feet from the front property line 8 The applicant bring back the landscape plan with a variety of materials for Staff to approve 9 The applicant bring back a paint sample for the stucco for Staff approval Sue Railton seconded and t a motion carried unanimously Lot 42, Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Schrah Duplex Final Design Review_ Mary Holden stated that this will contain three levels and stand approximately 30 feet in height The plant and building materials have been called out in the staff report. Holden stated that an erosion control fence must be placed on the site prior to any site disturbance due to the nature of the site They are proposing a light fixture off their property right at the entrance to the driveway and this needs to be moved back on to their property and off Town right-of-way Holden stated that the former caretaker unit is now proposed as a bobby shop She reminded the applicants that lock -off units are not allowed She stated that this does meet the design review criteria, based on the fact that it is a AON roo PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 16 Lot 42, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision, Scharph Duplex, Final Design Review. (cont) hobby shop, and Staff would recommend approval with the conditions listed in the report. Jack Snow, representing the applicants, stated that Mr Scharph does a lot of woodworking there for the hobby shop will be a woodshop It is the space above the four car garage At the last meeting the primary discussion was on the entries They shrank the one on the north elevation and converted the other one to a shed rather than as dormer entry, with the same heavy timber snow guard The only other comment was about the lighting and that is no problem Discussion followed on the entries. It was suggested that something be done with the left side, possibly something horizontal to bring that down to scale Also it was felt that the white is too white Discussion followed on the window placements Discussion followed on the bare wall facade Jack Hunn asked about the grading plan He asked if they were working with the existing grades on the whole site The applicant stated that there is not a lot of regrading. The only place there will be some fill is right where you get on the site Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design approval with the following conditions. 1. The flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building 2 Revegetation of disturbed areas on site must include native bushes 3 Meters be placed on the building 4 The applicant address any engineering concerns prior to the issuance of a building permit 5 the light fixture indicated on Town right-of-way be located on the property 6. Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/erosion control fence be placed on site 7 The stucco color be resubmitted for Staff approval and it be a not so glaring white 8. Additional landscape material in the form of trees be added to the western facade in front of the blank portion 9 A strong recommendation that the vertical entrance be redesigned to bring some AS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 17 Lot 42_ Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Scharph Duplex Final Design Review. (cont) horizontal features into it. Sue Railton seconded :and the motion carried with a 6 to I vote, Bill Sargis voting nay. Lot 24, Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is a final design review of two units that stand approximately 30-1/2 feet in height. the plant and building materials are called out in the staff report. Holden stated that it is Staffs interpretation that the connection for a duplex is not there. The site disturbance is happening from lot line to lot line and a construction fence will be required if this design is approved. Overhangs are not allowed in setbacks. Staff does not feel this proposal meets the design review criteria due to the type of proposal and the zoning for this lot and Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this application The applicant stated that they are using an arch retaining wall system with stairs going up to each unit. What they have tried to do to make this element stronger in everyone's mind is to carry that arch over into the entry of Unit B What they have tried to do is wrap the arch entry with the same stone that will occur on all of the walls and then the same kind of arch is carried into the entrance of Unit B. The applicant provided photos of where similar connections have been made. The applicant stated that since there is no parking on the streets in Wildridge, the area of asphalt shown is necessary. She stated that they have revised the landscape plan by adding more trees She stated that if they try to raise one of the units, there would be more site disturbance. Discussion followed on the materials to be used, and how the elevations are really offset. even though they do not show it on the elevation drawings. The applicant stated that, as far as the site impacts, by putting even what they are claiming as a duplex, this lot will be impacted, no matter what you put on it. it is a small lot and if you put two nice size duplexes on it they pretty much cover the lot. She stated that, regarding the overhangs, at the grade that they are at, she was following the UBC saying that depending on the distance that you are from your overhang to a certain point of the grade. Mary Holden stated that the Town Zoning Code supersedes the UBC It is more strict and the setbacks need to kept free and clear from the ground up The applicant stated that what they propose in that scenario is to move the buildings closer together. '"� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 18 Lot 24, Block 2_ Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Final Design Review, (contl The applicant spoke more regarding moving the buildings, however, she had stepped away from the microphone and her comments are not clear. Buz Reynolds asked how much. The applicant stated that it is only one side that hangs over Discussion followed, but several people were talking among themselves and none of the conversations are clear. The applicant stated that it is just the comer of Unit A that encroaches. Chairman Hunn opened it up for Commission review, stating that one of the major issues is if this is a sufficient connection Buz Reynolds stated that when they met a couple months ago, they tried to figure out whether they wanted to open the can of worms and start splitting things up and doing this and doing that, and they Commission felt that they could honestly look at projects and feel if there was a strong architectural connection, and yet still allow the architect the freedom to come up with different ideas. He stated that he for one, duplexes themselves with coming tying walls, he personally does not like. He thinks that they create problems within the building, with the tenants that are in the two buildings, and you are allowing individuality to come a little farther apart and still have the same concept He personally likes this connection He likes what they have done, he likes the arch detail The buildings being offset from the road, he knows one is going to look higher than the other Reynolds stated that he does not know how much farther the Commission needs to go to give him guidance, so we don't have this problem again It is allowing the architect to come up with their ideas and he thinks this is a good one Chairman Hunn stated that as discussed months and months ago and set this definition, they were doing it to stimulate more architectural solutions and it was termed an architectural connection He stated that he would like to suggest that this is a landscape architectural connection and really not a building mass or structural element He stated that the one seen earlier, that John Perkins brought in had actual building mass connecting and roofs covering those masses and yet it accomplished their goals and he thinks that that is within his version of the definition created months ago He stated that this is clearly two separate units and there is a technique to try to connect them and the Commission is being asked to interpret whether that is enough of a connection. He stated that his biggest fear is that they have not necessarily stimulated a more creative solution. There is some pretty similar massing from unit to unit In allowing this connection, in his view, opens up a precedent that he does not think that they will be happy with down the road He stated that he thinks they have to be very careful about this and he would like to hear what the other Commission members think on this issue PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 19 Lot 24. Bloc 2 Wildridee Subdivision Ray Duplex Final Desitin Review, (cont) Bill Sargis stated that he thinks if you purposely create a definition as to an architectural detail, and leave it subject to an individual's interpretation, then we will always be confronted with this situation. He stated that he thinks it should be handled on a case by case basis He stated that he understands that there is the potential for problems down the road, as a precedent will be established. He thinks that, as Commission members, they either have to establish an exact sort of definition as to what is an architectural detail connection or be subject to interpretation. He stated that he thinks, because of the offsetting nature hear, moving the buildings closer together would help. He happens to feel that this, because of the site and the situation, that the buildings are connected, but you look at it and it will look like two separate buildings, but they are connected. He stated that he likes it and he thinks it achieves what it is supposed to achieve Hunn asked if he feels that the connection, even though it is a retaining wall element, is an architectural form. Sargis stated that with the lack of a definitive definition, he thinks it connects the two. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks if a connecting roof is going to be your guidelines for an architectural feature, which a roof can and can't. doesn't necessarily become an architectural feature. Sometimes it is a sheer practical feature, then that is exactly what the Commission should say... As got to be connected by a roof, and she thinks that would be the exact opposite of their intent in all the discussions. She stated that they openly discussed various forms of connections which included garden walls, courtyards, open areas, as long as it was visual, above ground and was an architectural feature. They did not exclude any of those items and for the Commission to now be back peddling is extremely cowardly. She doesn't think the buildings need to be any closer together, however if they must to conform to zone then she does not think it will be detrimental She thinks that, as pictures of Tony Scharph's house show, there is only one angle from that house where you can see a connection. Every place else it looks like two separate structures, so whether or not they are connected is just a matter of seeing it from the right angle She thinks that certain angles of this house will look connected also. She thinks the landscape plan needs to be beefed up. I know that we are supposed to stick to the subject of the connection, but she thinks that the improvements that they have made she thinks that the stone detail from the arches definitely add something to it and she thinks the entry ways are more attractive for it and she is in favorite of it. She thinks you can't ask architects to be very created if you are going to tell them that they have to put a roof over it Sue Railton stated that she agrees with Rhoda She asked for further explanation regarding that elevation, and the planted that is indicated in front of the archway The applicant pointed out where it was Railton stated that the exact planting, etc should have been shown A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 20 Lot 24 Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Itay Duplex_ Final Design Review, (cont) on the elevations. Hunn asked if Railton supported the connection. Railton rep'ied she would if she gets it right. Henry Vest stated that he feels that they need to incorporate in the duplex connection guideline that an architectural connection, primarily with a roof. Vest asked if they had contacted the two neighbors with this. The applicant replied that Michael Sanner had no problem with it, but they haven't talked with the Warmenhovens- Vest stated that the pictures they have shown, the one with the Townhomes doesn't really make a case for him, because that is simply an entryway arch on a connected building, connected architecturally. He stated, regarding the picture of Tony Scharph's house, that is probably a twer!y foot wall that is connected to the other one with a roof going into the wall of the other garage. That is a strong architectural connection. By pushing the buildings to the setbacks, he knows they could push a conventional duplex to the setbacks too, but that is one of the goals of this board is to try not to have everything all along the perimeter and he feels that they are pushing the building unnaturally into the grade to achieve the chalet style. Patti stated that she could support the connection. When the Commission had this discussion they did not say that it needed to be a connection with a roof It just needed to be a strong architectural connection. She thinks this is strong enough and she supports it. Jack Hunn commented on Rhoda Schneiderman's comment about back peddling, stating that he thinks that what they are seeing is applications of this opportunity that they have created. He stated that he does not think that a retaining wall is a sufficient connection. Norm Wood stated that he would like to quote the definition from the code which takes precedence over definitions by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that a duplex is defined as a duplex dwelling means a detached building containing two dwelling units, designed for or used as a dwelling exclusively by two families, each living as an independent housekeeping unit. Rhoda Schneiderman stated it doesn't say how th�,y are connected Norm Wood stated it says "building". Rhoda Schneider stated she knew that, but this is connected by masonry, so how do you define what is a building. Reynolds stated that if the foundation ties the building together... Mary Holden stated that building means any permanent structure built for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind, and does not include advertising signboards or fences. Rhoda Schneiderman stated "right", but the point is that if you have physical, structural features connecting two seemingly independent units, then they no longer have the definition that ten percent has to be common wall, they took that out, so they are left with as long as there is something structural holding these things together, that is one building. Mary Holden stated that without that wall those PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 21 Lot 24, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Final Design Review. (cont] two structures would stand. Rhoda Schneiderman state that without the walkway, a breezeway, John Perkins buildings would be independent Mary Holden stated that five years from now they could rip up those sidewalks in that wall and create their own units, so you have got two separate units Rhoda Schneiderman stated that they would have to apply for building permits and that would be against the code Mary Holden stated that it is structurally doable Bill Sargis asked, if some of the members like this, is the Staff telling the Commission that they cannot do this, or is there some sort of variance they can apply for, or is there something that can be done with the Town Council"9 Norm Wood stated that Resolution 91-17 stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission will not approve single family units on a duplex lot or multi -family lot that it is three units connected together for multi -family The question really comes down to the interpretation, does this conform with the definition in the code as a building which would contain two units One of the distinctions between John Perkins project and this one is that there is actually a common wall, there is a storage area that ties the units together, where this does not have that common wall or any really common element Hunn stated that the UBC, in plan checking this would interpret this as two separate buildings Mary Holden replied yes Considerable discussion followed, however, several of the Commission members were talking at the same time Sue Railton stated that she does not think that they can turn down things for the style of architecture Chairman Hunn stated that he thinks what it comes down to and what he is hearing Norm say is that there is a zoning code that supersedes the design guidelines and the Commission is here to interpret and apply the rules of the Town of Avon Sue Railton stated that they changed it Hunn stated that they changed it as a guideline, but the zoning code was not changed Hunn stated that he thought Norm makes a pretty good point. He stated that the Commission may have overstepped their bounds in creating this Rhoda Schneiderman asked why this was not brought up at conceptual If it truly is a fact of life that they cannot approve this and be legal zoning wise, then he should never have gotten a conceptual Norm stated that he believes that it was brought up and was the recommendation at the conceptual level from Staff Rhoda stated it was a recommendation that their interpretation did not meet the requirements, but we are not talking about our guideline now, were talking about the UBC guidelines Mary Holden stated it was just the zoning code Schneiderman stated that our zoning code is specifically vague, so it is open to interpretation Bill Sargis asked Norm Wood to explain Resolution 91-17 to him Sargis stated that Resolution 91-17 :elates "buildings" Wood stated it also states "lots" therefore the plural for buildings Mary Holden stated that the most specific definition we are going to get of a duplex is the Wildridge restrictive covenants Rhoda Schneiderman stated that they do not have to follow that Hunn stated that the Town's position is that they are not obligated to enforce them Mary 0 a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 22 Lot 24, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Final Design Review, (cont) Holden stated that she did not include the zoning code definition in the packet The one Norm just read is the zoning code definition of a duplex. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that in other words hours of meetings an determining that the Commission wants to become more flexible was for naught. Is that the bottom line, or is there another reason for opposing this, or do you really think that it goes against what the guidelines are. Norm Wood stated he believes it goes against the guidelines where it says duplex building, that is really nothing connecting it. It is two buildings tied together by a retaining wall. The architectural connection is a step forward in making the building, maybe at the corner or something that ties them together in a very small area of the building. Reynolds asked if there was anyway, through a foundation, that they could tie the buildings together. The applicant stated that the footings tie into the wall. Mary Holden stated that there needs to be a visible connection. The applicant stated that the stairs that sit on it would be the connection. Schneiderman asked if the arched entryway is a formal structural piece of the wall. The applicant stated that it is all one piece. Schneiderman stated that that is the connection If that is the entryway, it is apart of the building as opposed to just being attached Sue Railton stated that realistically, if you look at it, it is a contrived way of attaching A. Schneiderman stated it is architecturally part of the building. Railton asked if there was some way, even if it is oniy an entranceway, making it a stronger connection Did you think of other ways of making it look as if it is at least connecting at the second level as well as down at the ground Reynolds asked if there was anyway to tie a roof line into that belly band. Railton stated there needs to be a stronger connection at that level and that is the sort of connection that she would rather see than just at ground level. Schneiderman stated that if this has a foundation wall that is connecting these two buildings and an above ground extension of that foundation wall , as far as she is concerned that is it. Henry Vest stated that he agrees with Jack the Commission is really trying to step through a hoop here when the Staff is recommending denial because of what they have interpreted. They are the ones who spend five days a week working at it He stated that he would think they might want to table this if anything and possibly put a connection through the top. On the other hand, he feels that they are really trying to bend over backwards where he doesn't think they need to at all. Bill Sargis asked if the Staff felt that this is a legal question, whether or not Planning and Zoning can actually make a recommendatic -i contrary to the code. Schneiderman stated contrary to their interpretation of it. Sargis stated that assuming the Planning and Zoning Commission would say that this is a strong enough architectural connection, is this something that needs to be checked through legal and if they have an interpretation that they legally have the right to do that, is this something that staff could approve. Mary Holden stated that she would not do it at Staff level It wnuld have to be brought back to P & Z for final approval of conditions. Jack Hunn stated that he thinks it is pretty clear.. an ace beats a king, a king beats a queen and the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 23 Lot 24. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Final Design Review. (cont) rest of his comment is not clear because Patti Dixon and Rhoda Schneiderman are both talking at the same time. Norm Wood stated that what it boils down to is interpretation and the way he feels it would probably work would be the Planning and Zoning Commission could take Staffs advice or not, whatever, and then the process would be, if someone disagrees with it, then it can be appealed to the Town council for additional interpretation. Schneiderman asked who would appeal it. Norm Wood stated anyone could appeal either decision. Jack Hunn stated that if the Commission approves it, he will call it to the Town Council just to get their interpretation Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 24, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Ray Duplex, final design review, with the following conditions: Jack Hunn asked if they should finish reviewing the architecture before making a motion. Hunn asked if everybody was comfortable with all aspects of this project. Reynolds stated that he had not even gotten into that. He thought this was the main issue. Chairman Hunn stated that at the last review the commission had concerns regarding the connection, which they have just beaten to death, the large area of asphalt; the landscape plan being inadequate, the exact same units and similarity between the units, consideration of raising one unit, and mitigate the linear appearance of the roof Hunn stated that they haven't changed the asphalt since last review The applicant stated that they had improved on the width of the additional spaces. Hunn asked if they had modified the landscape plan. The applicant replied that they had. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that there is not one tree. The applicant stated that there were some aspens. Discussion followed. Henry Vest stated that he does not think the connection is strong enough, therefore, he would not want to approve this, and just for the record, he stated that he was a good friend of the Rays and he hates to have this opinion and he does find it interesting that Rhoda Schneiderman, who works with Nancy Ray has shown a vehement position in favor of this application Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she is in favor of separate buildings on all duplex lots. That has always been her view She also stated, for the record, that at the last meeting she did mention her connection to the Rays and asked whether or not anybody thought it was a conflict of interest and nobody voiced an opinion Hunn stated that his bigger concern on that matter is some of the conversations that might have been held outside of these public meetings. Buz Reynolds stated, for the record that he has been asked by A MI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 24 Lot 24_ Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision Rax Duplex Final Design Review, (cont) Michael what he thought of the project and he thought it looked nice and that is as far as it went. Michael Ray stated that he did not know how else to do it so he asked a couple of people what the guidelines were regarding connecting duplexes and then they proceeded to this. The architect stated that at that point there were only sketchy schematic sketches Buz Reynolds stated that he has know Michael for years and he just asked him what he thought and he told him. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she repeated verbatim what the guidelines were according to the meeting where they approved them. Michael Ray stated that he would have proceeded totally differently if he had gotten other information (It is difficult to hear what Mr. Ray is saying since he is away from the microphone and Rhoda Schneiderman is making a comment to someone else at the same time) Mr Ray stated that he likes this particular project and the idea of a duplex that is disconnected as much as possible }ie stated that he would havz gone in the other direction had he received information that said they could not do this. Chairman Hunn stated that some of the questions on the table are the similarity between the units and some discussion at the last meeting included bulk and mass, form of these buildings which is really identical, this was a concern at the last meeting. Sue Railton stated that she thinks that is the problem of connecting these buildings up in a really satisfactory way, is having these buildings as they are. She does not know what the roofs are doing what they are doing coming down in the middle. There is not really a very satisfactory way you can connect them Bill Sargis stated that he is looking at all the different elevations and unless his eyes deceive him, almost every elevation he sees two different buildings, two dissimilar structures from root. placement of chimneys, dormers, the glass, he looks at the front he sees different sort of fascia work and detail and one has two car garages, etc He sees a lot of changes in placement of fenestration He sees two different types of buildings Reynolds stated that it is kind of hard to do anything else with a chalet type building when you are trying to use as much solar gain as you can. Patti Dixon stated that since the massing is so similar, the only other thing you could do is make one larger and one smaller, one roof could come down further on one side, etc She stated that she is still in support of the connection for a duplex Chairman Hunn asked if Rhoda was satisfied with the landscaping She stated that she does not think that aspens are enough for a duplex, especially when they go out to the setbacks in certain areas, eight aspen are just going to get lost and she wants to see that beefed up, so she would like to see the landscape plan come back. The applicant asked what is needed. Schneiderman stated they need bulk and variety Also, an automatic, some sort of drip system or sprinkler system is needed 014 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 25 Lot 24, Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Final Design Review, (cont) Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design approval with the following conditions: 1. The landscape plan be brought back for Commission review 2 Flues. flashings and vents have a finished surface 3 Meters be placed on the building 4 The landscape plan meet the minimum standards 5 A construction fence be placed on site prior to any site disturbance 6 Overhangs are not allowed to extend into the setbacks Buz Reynolds seconded The motion failed with a three for and four against, Hunn. Railton Vest and Dixon voting nay Sue Railton stated that she would still like to see a stronger connection Henry Vest moved to table this application Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried with Rhoda Schneiderman, Bill Sargis and Buz Reynolds voting nay The applicant stated that when they came in for conceptual review, the Commission took a straw vote and it went four to three for the architectural connection, therefore thev proceeded with this plan Now when they come back for a final the wholg thing has changed and he can't understand why that would flip flop in two weeks time Chairman Hunn stated that he can't speak for the other members, but somebody on this Commission changed their opinion based on tonight's discussion Patti Dixon stated that maybe she is the one She stated that she likes the connection, but the massing is too similar The applicant stated that their feed back from the Commission was that they wanted some kind of similarity architecturally between the two structures, not only in the connecting wall Mary Holden asked if she could make a recommendation that the applicants work with Staff on trying to get a project that can get approved witnout going to appeal at Town Council Mr Ray stated that he thinks they are way beyond that point time wise To get through design review again, to get through the building season, and he would have to say it has been pretty difficult to work with staff to this point 0% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 26 Lot 24, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Ray Duplex, Final Design Review, (cont) Chairman Hunn stated that the formal action this evening is to table this item and he thinks that if there had been a different outcome it would have been appealed to the council and one form of action that may be appropriate is to take it to Council for discussion, because this issue will come up again and the matter of what authority does the Commission have, and this should be discussed with Council. Mr Ray stated in the meantime, how many thousands of dollars have they spent for nothing The applicants stated that they feel direction should have been given at conceptual review. The applicant was very unhappy about the straw vote that showed a four to three vote for it and now it is turned around to a three to four vote Chairman Hunn stated that he understands what they are saying, and they need to get on with the agenda, but a four to three favorable straw vote is not a done deal He stated that, based on information tonight, one member switched their vote. not because of the connection, but because there was no attempt to differentiate the style from one unit to another the applicant stated that there is nothing changed from the last meeting Hunn stated that is precisely the point The applicant stated that the massing was not an issue Hunn stated that it was. It was summarized as exact same units being boring, but there was quite a bit of discussion about the similarity of the units at the conceptual review Chairman stated that he understands the applicant's frustration, but the item is tabled, and he would strongly suggest that somehow they get the issue, whether it is relative to this project or in general to Council for discussion Lot 37, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Duplex, Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is two levels and stands approximately 30 feet in height Plant and building materials are called out in the staff report She stated that Staff needs a grading and drainage plan that shows contours the concrete driveway proposed must have an asphalt apron which ties into Beaver Creek Blvd Staff recommends that the landscaping be removed from the snow stack area and overhangs are not allowed in the setback She stated that this does meet the design review criteria and Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the staff report Stephen Richards, architect for the owners, stated that in general they have no disagreement with what the Staff is asking for The would like the possibility of maybe going to all asphalt for the driveway He did not realize that they had to change surface, so if they have to do the apron, they might go ahead and do the entire driveway out of asphalt He stated that the biggest issue from his standpoint is the contour map Basically this is a flat lot He stated PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 27 Lot 37. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Duplex, Final Design Review, cont that there is about a foot four inches drop from the street to the lot and then it slopes about a foot on the lot, so they held off on doing a survey because in their minds it would be a waste of money when there is going to be one grade line across the lot. The will institute positive drainage of about eight inches to a foot from the building out towards the edge of the site, but they still won't be at the perimeter of the property line, so they are not really going to change the grades. He stated that they will make sure that the overhangs do not encroach into the setbacks. They did change some of the landscape material around where they have located some of it along the sides of the house and they have added a tree or two. They have also increased the sizes of the trees. he stated that they will be happy to move the landscaping out of the snow stack area. Sue Railton stated that she is happier with the design this time Rhoda Schneiderman stated that the only problems she has are with the north and the west elevations On the north elevation the placement of the siding on just that one side with the vertica: piece separating it . she thinks it needs to be carried over on to the right hand side of that elevation to provide some continuity. Also, on the west side just that garage side needs to be sided or just landscaped or maybe a window. The applicant stated that there is one tree there and maybe they could relocate a tree from the snow storage area. Bill Sargis stated that he thinks the house is fine. Henry Vest stated that he agrees with Rhoda's comment, particularly about the north elevation that the siding needs to be carried across the top half Patti Dixon had no further comments. Buz Reynolds asked about the roof line on the north elevation. the applicant stated that there is no catch. It does inset and that is a covered porch that also covers the entryway and he stated that the explanation of why he broke the siding where he did was that the owner felt that he did not want that much siding and there was no other clean place to stop it once they wrap around the corner and then back around to the other side and they really wanted more stucco. They would rather keep it the way it is Reynolds stated that he agrees with the concept of the siding. The applicant asked if you would then take the siding down the west elevation on the upper level where the window is and then would tie into the wood siding into the back If he were to do it, that is the way he would want to do it. To take it from the belly board across and the siding wrap all the way around the side. He stated he would speak to the owners about this Chairman Hunn asked if this was a heavy corner board on the north elevation where they are using it to change from wood to stucco The applicant stated it was. Hunn stated that he does not see the need to add more siding on the north elevation. He stated that he thinks the applicant has responded well to the Commission concerns from the previous meeting. �o 0% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 28 Lot 37. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Duplex, Final Design Review cont He stated that the Staff will need topo information at some point before a building permit is issued The applicant stated that they could provide that Hunn asked if there is an automatic irrigation system The applicant stated that they have added that They still want to stay with the composition roof "rhev feel that it is a superior roof and it will be the Presidential seriws in weathered wood Sue Railton asked if the tree planting would be in a bed The applicant stated that they would be in a bed with perennials Sue Railton moved to approve final design review with the following conditions 1 All construction staging take place on the property, including parking of worker vehicles, and storage of materials as indicated in Note 3 en the site plan dated 5/4/94 2 A site plan indicating the grading, drainage, and certification, be submitted to Staff for their approval, prior to a building permit application Should there be substantial changes. Planning and Zoning Commission must review and approve the changes 3 An asphalt apron be provided where the driveway ties into West Beaver Creek Blvd 4 All Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface 5 Meters be placed on the buildings Bill Sargis seconded Rhoda Schneiderman and Buz Reynolds asked if they wanted to include the siding Discussion followed on how the additional siding would be applied Sue Railton amended her motion to include the additional siding with the belly band to the top story of the building on the north and west elevations Rhoda Schneiderman asked if she would also amend her motion to include three extra trees to the garage wall The applicant stated that they would move them from the snow storage Railton amended her motion to include moving them from the snow storage area to the west garage wall Henry Vest seconded the amendment PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 29 Lot 37. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review, contl The motion carried with a four to three vote Hunn stated that those voting nay were thinking that the siding was fine before. Lot 36-A. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Metal Shed. Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is a request to maintain an existing metal shed on the east side of this unit. Accessory buildings are allowed by the code. Metal materials require special approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, however, temporary structures are not allowed. This shed is encroaching into the sideyard setback and should the Commission approve this application they would recommend the condition that the shed be removed out of the sideyard setback and placed underneath the existing deck in the back. The applicant stated that they would not be able to get out the back door if they did that He stated that they moved into the valley last June and are building a home in Eagle. He stated that his goal would be to transfer the shed from its current position in October after the basic foundation of the house has been set and the frame is in place He stated that he is willing to move it out of the setback The general consensus of the Commission was that since it will be moved in the near future, the applicant can keep it at this site with a time limit set, if he moves it out of the setback. Buz Reynolds moved to allow the storage shed to be located at Lot 36. A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision until November 1, 1994, and it must be moved out of the sideyard setback Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously Lot 55. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Patio Expansion Design Review Mary Holden stated that Shapiro Development is requesting to extend their existing patio The plans are included in the report She stated the landscape area is reduced, but it still meets the minimum requirement Staff would recommend approval as presented Bob Kaufman stated that their tenant would like to have more room for tables and chairs and they are increasing the area of the patio by 377 square feet. It will cut down the landscaping, however they are still above the minimum Discussion followed on the proposed expansion which encroaches into the setback eleven feet from the property line. r-. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 30 Lot 55. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Patio Expansion, Design Review. cont Mary Holden stated that it is at grade so it is not considered as encroaching and will not need a variance. Patti Dixon moved to grant design approval for the proposed patio expansion. Bill Sargis seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The applicant asked if the steep slope guidelines have been adopted. Mary Holden stated that they are no longer in draft form. The applicant stated that he was a little disappointed that they do not address building height. Mary Holden asked if they could discuss this under other business and get along to the rest of the agenda at this time. Lot 1. Eaglewood Subdivision Conceptual Review Mary Holden stated that Rick Pylman and Frank Navarro were present to ask the Commission to review their conceptual plan. Holden stated that Staff only received the information from the applicants a week ago and Staff has not reviewed the plans or written a report on this matter Rick Pylman stated that they turned some drawings in a week ago and they were a little confused about scheduling and they thought they would be on tonight, so they asked that the be allowed to come in under other business and they do appreciate the time. He stated that the property is zoned RHDC for 130 units and has a sixty foot building height, They showed a townhouse plan at the last conceptual review. Working through that site plan and the discussion with the Commission, they have really changed that concept and all they are looking for tonight is this the right direction. Is this better than the townhouse approach9 Pylman stated that there are two nice rows of trees on the property One along the irrigation ditch and one down by the river. the townhouse project had a fairly severe impact on those trees By going to a condominium project the can put parking under the buildings and utilize the allowable sixty foot building height and really minimize that impact on the site. He provided drawings showing four main buildings. He stated that he understands that Staff has not reviewed this and they will work through all those issues when they get the final site plan put together He pointed out a whole row of existing trees that can be saved and another area of exiting trees that can be saved. There will be one hundred and four units. They had to go to more units since the condominiums are smaller than the townhouses. Frank h 1. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 31 Lot 1. Eaglewood Subdivision, Conceptual Design Review, (cont) Navarro stated that they are thinking of using the ditch, making it a feature, using a bridge, etc. as a means of separating the public bike path. Discussion followed on this matter. Jack Hunn asked how many covered spaces per unit. Navarro stated that they were told that they should have two per unit plus the amount for guests. They can get about 1.7 inside and the rest will be uncovered. They are still working on it. Discussion followed on how many stories would be seen. Several people were talking at the same time, therefore, none of the discussions are clear. Discussion followed on proposed materials, but once again the discussions are not clear. The applicants feel that this is the most sensitive solution. Discussion followed on the height. There were too many conversations being conducted at the same time to discern what any of the people were talking about Some of them were talking about the materials to be used. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that if they had sixty feet on grade with the road it would be unmanageable. Discussion followed Chairman Hunn stated that they cannot give them much guidance since staff has not had a chance to review this Lot 12, Block I. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Valley Wide Modifications Buz Reynolds moved to table this item. Sue Railton seconded and the rnotion carried with a six to one vote Rhoda Schneiderman voting nay. Reading and Approval of the May 17. 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the May 17, 1994 minutes as submitted Bill Sargis seconded and the motion carried unanimously Other Business Mr Bob Kaufman stated that the problem he has with the height is trying to determine how it is calculated He understands it to be the building height means the distance measured vertically from existing grade or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive at any given point to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the highest ridge of a sloping roof He described how they figured it The Commission stated that this was not correct Mary Holden tried to explain to the applicant how it was supposed to be figured, however, Rhoda Other Business. cont PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 32 Schneiderman, Sue Railton, Buz Reynolds and Jack Hunn and the applicant were all making comments at the same time. The applicant asked if the Commission has ever considered a height variance. The Commission replied only once, and that was discovered after the house was already built, Mary Holden stated that it is his right to apply for a variance and make arguments meeting the criteria. The general consensus of the Commission was that the applicant should be able to work within the height limitations. Mary Holden stated that the way it was explained to her is that the reason they are picking the steepest portion of this lot, which does have grades exceeding 50%, other portions of the lot are not that steep, but that is the spot that they are picking with this design to maintain views. Discussion followed. The applicant feels that they are at the best part of the lot. When asked how many stories, the applicant stated that there are three stories and a loft When asked how much over the height limitation it was, Mary Holden stated about twelve feet She stated that at one elevation it is hi' - ing 47 feet. The general consensus was that this could not be approved. Rhoda Schneiderman stated, for the record, that she resents Henrys implication that in any way she would be influenced by her working with Nancy as a project. If anybody on this board doesn't realize how scrupulously honest she is about her opinions and could give a shit about who hears it, then they haven't been listening to her for the past two years The meeting was then adjourned at 10:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 7, 1994 Page 33 Commission Approval —Date e --Z/ B. Sargis S.Railton / R. Schneiderman `��