Loading...
PZC Minutes 071994r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JULY 19, 1994 The Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission ht!d a worksession starting at 6 30 P.M Topic of discussion was the proposed ordinance adopting the Wildridge Restrictive Covenants All Planning and Zoning Commission members were present Others present included Bill James, Town, Manager, Norm Wood, Town Engineer, Mary Holden, Town Planner, and Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary. The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jack Hunn at 7:40 PM, July 19, 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 Lot 3_ Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Modifications Design Review Mary Holden stated that the Big Sky Townhomes were approved on March 15, with conditions. The conditions being addressed by this submit!al are 1, Revised site plan 2. A, roofing material sample 3 A revised landscaping plan. 4. Changed elevations by supporting the decks with posts instead of braces She stated the proposed changes meet the Town of Avon Codes and Guidelines .. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA (CONT) Patti Dixon moved to grant approval for the Consent Agenda Buz Reynolds seconded and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Lot 2. Foxx 4 Subdivision, Side Yard Setback Variance Request. Public Hearing Mary Holden stated that this applicant received approval for a variance in June, and basically what has happened is that the survey did not include the overhangs Now that the survey does include the overhangs and it shows a four and one half foot encroachment on the north side and a 3' encroachment on the south side The criteria is listed in the packet and Staff recommends approval of Resolution 94-13 She stated that the applicant is in the audience. Chairman Hunn then opened the public hearing. With no public input forthcoming, Chairman Hunn then closed the public hearing. Chairman Hunn asked if, since this en, vaches into a drainage and utility easement, there are any utility companies that need to be contacted Norm Wood stated with it being that far above the ground there should be no problem. Buz Reynolds moved to approve Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-13, A Resolution Approving A Variance From The Side Yard Setback Requirements As Stipulated in Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code, For Lot 2, Foxx 4 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 one or more of the following reasons I The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship 14 1 A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 3 Lot 2. Foxx 4 Subdivision. Side Yard Setback Variance. Public Hearing, (cont) inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2 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 same zone distc ict The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district Bill Sargis seconded and the motion carried unanimously FINAL DESIGN REVIEWS Lot 56. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Vail Bank Center Final Design Review. Mary Holden stated that this is for final design review approval of 18, 000 square feet of office. It will contain four levels and stand 43 feet in height with the towers standing approximately 56 feet in height The plant and building materials are called out in your report She stated that Staff concerns are as follows The first one deals with the Metcalf Ditch and sewer line relocation Prior to an application for a building permit, the builder does need to provide to the Town approval from the respective agencies for relocating and that it will also meet their standards Holden stated that Staff would like to make the applicant aware that all improvements outside the property line, which does include the sidewalks and the street lights, will be supplied and installed by the developer, at no cost to the Town of Avon This has been done with other developments, by the developers, at the developers cost. There are a couple notes on the plans stating "to be provided by the Town of Avon" She stated that the parking that has been provided is 41 spaces and that would be correct if they did not include the basement lobby area Staff has included it into the parking calculation, thereby increasing the parking requirements by one space Staff will be looking for an additional parking space for a total of 4 on site The reason they included the basement area is it is an area that can be used for storage, freeing up other space upstairs for more occupancy, and also because of the future use in Phase 11 A� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 4 Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Vail Bank Center, Final Design Review_ (cont) She stated that there are some Fire Department concerns regarding standpipes if the building is not sprinkled, and also using an addressable fire alarm system. Also, the developer and applicant must address all engineering concerns relating to the drainage, grading and access, prior to an application for a building permit She stated that the design review criteria is called out in the report and Staff recommends approval with the conditions that are also outlined in the report. Dean Koll, ofZeheren Associates, stated that the grading and drainage plans were left in the office and his associate has gone to get them. He stated that basically, rather than readdressing the issues that were stressed in the design review guidelines and were discussed at the conceptual review, he will review the plans and then discuss some of the Staff comments. He stated that he also has the plans for Phase Il if anyone wants information on that. He then proceeded to describe the plans, stating that there is surface parking in Phase 1 The walkway still comes from the busstop across to Lot 55 He stated that originally they had set the building 7-1/2 feet back from the property line and they are now 10 feet back because of the utility easement and they are actually taking the Metcalf Ditch and the sewer line through that location He the proceeded to describe the locations of the mechanical room, elevator and etc. He stated that the client does not intend to do any kind of storage in the elevator room or the electrical/mechanical room. He stated that when Phase 11 is built an entrance from the parking garage will be made in the basement wall for access to the elevator. This will not be truly leasable space and he does not think it should be looked at that way. He stated that the entire first Floor of Phase I will be used by the bank. He then proceeded to describe each Floor use He described the elevations He provided a color board for Commission review He stated drat they have changed th- roof color and materials from a patina to a forest green color Discussion followed on the pavers to be used. Discussion followed on the texture of the base color It will look I — hig pieces of stone He stated that he has in hand the letter from Fred Haslee approving the design of the sewer line that is in the ten foot easement between the building and the property line He stated that Norm Wood has seen the design for the Metcalf Ditch and he had five comments and Inter - Mountain Engineering is taking care of those and should have them done by Thursday morning. a A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 5 Lot 56. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Vail Bank Center Final Desi¢n Review. (cont) Regarding the site plan note stating "All site improvements outside of the property line to be supplied and installed by the Town of Avon", basically the client's intent is to take everything from one property lint to the other (he pointed out on the plans what property lines) As far as the other property line to the road, because of the fact that it is located a great distance from the road, he is proposing to negotiate with the Town to try to accomplish the up grades in that area. Basically, from one property line to the busstop they are considering that area as basically being part of the busstop or mall area rather than their own property, so they are holdirg some rights to negotiate as to who should pay for those improvements. He stated that forty one parking spaces are provided. He stated that they did not include the basement space in their calculations. The basement space is really only there because the elevator needs to go down to connect to Phase 11. The space seen that is now a lobby really needs to be a one hour corridor, so as far as the building official goes, if the elevator goes down that far and the stair goes down that far to serve the mechanical room, they have to have means of egress out of that basement, so as far as cluttering it with storage, he is not sure that the building department will even allow storage down there. Therefor the forty one spaces is actually a space or two more than is what is required. There are a couple locations where they could force the parking stall on the site One of them would be in an extreme snowfall area and the other one is on the other side by the dumpster, which would probably complicate that comer of the site. The client is willing to say that they are not going to lease the basement space. They will actually go to contract to say this Regarding the standpipes, the mechanical/electrical engineers are working on this at this time. Koll stated that, regarding the letter from Jerry Landeck of Shapiro Development, about the pedestrian access that goes through the site, they do not feel that there needs to be a dedicated easement for pedestrian access as they always intend to have people going through the site He stated that the design teview considerations were all positive, so he will not address any of those. He stated that ;most of the staff recommendations have been covered He stated that the flues, Flashings and vents will be in the recessed portion of the roof and none of it is visible from the streets, but anything that shows will be treated that way. Regarding the meters being placed on the building, all meters will be in a cabinet in the basement on a wall of the mechanical room and will have remote readouts. Regarding the streetscape improvements, he stated he has already explained. The client is more than happy to do all the improvements in between the property line all the way out to the existing asphalt, as far as A t% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19; 1994 Page 6 Lot 56, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Vail Bank Center, Final Desien Review. (cont) the east and the west, two different properties, he is asking that there be some negotiating there as to who pays for those improvements All others have been covered. Buz Reynolds questioned the reason for phasing this project as he sees no room for phasing and have usable area for the parking lot when you build. He stated that is a large concern of his Also, he feels that the glazing will be extremely reflective Other than that he likes the color scheme and the building. Dean Koll stated that if the phasing happens next year they can use the bus parking lot that is there, but ten years from now it is probably not an option. They understand that it will be fairly difficult As far as specifics it is very difficult to do a plan for next year if the plan actually takes place four years from now Discussion followed on the glazing. Patti Dixon stated that she thinks the landscaping is adequate. She especially likes the plaza idea with the landscaping. She likes the colors and in general thinks it is a smart looking building. Henry Vest asked if the colors are compatible with the Shapiro building. The applicant stated that they have been talking and also the other building across the street does have a forest green band The forest green and the bottom color blends with the neighborhood Vest stated that he would be concerned about the parking if there was a restaurant in the building. He asked where the dumpster would be located the applicant pointed out where it was located and described the landscaping around it Vest asked about the four parking lot lights The applicant stated that they are a take off of the Town of Avon lamp, but considerably smaller Bill Sargis stated that he thinks it is a handsome building and feels it will be an asset He asked if it was within the Commission's power to address off site expenses Norm stated that Staff is approaching it from the stand point that it is really not offsite improvements Basically v hat they are asking is that they extend across public right-of-way to tie in with the Avon Road streetscape It is the same requirements made for Avon Town Square and the same procedure they followed in extending from their lot Line across public right-of-way to tie in with existing improvements. All they are asking is a thorough connection where it would be going beyond the property line. If they were asking them to put improvements on 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MLE I i\t.i MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 7 Lot 56 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Vail Bank Center, Final Design Review, cont private property, that would be different This is something that has been asked of everyone else and should be addressed by the Commission Sargis asked about the requested extra space Mary Holden stated that it had to do with the fact that that basement area can easily be utilized as storage. regardless of what the building inspector allows Sargis asked if storage space has always been included Holden stated that they have in the past because that area that is use:. for storage in the basement frees it up for more people space upstairs, thereby allowing more people to occupy upstairs Storage area is part of the lease Reynolds asked if the mechanicalielectrical room was included Holden stated it was not Further discussion followed on how calculations were done Mary Holden stated that the calculations were done on what the applicant filled out on the application ?S gross leasable, which comes out to 41 spaces The definition for gross leasable was then discussed Sargis asked if there were ADA requirements Norm Wood stated that ADA requirements would apply The applicant stated that it is basically ADA accessible Sargis asked Jerry Landeck about the intent of the dedication of the walkway Mr Landeck stated that they have no objections to Phase I. and they like the colors chosen Their only concern was that earlier on in their discussions there was some taik about eliminating the pedestrian way as one way of dealing with Phase II He suggested that the best way to build Phase II would be to add onto Phase I He hopes that the Boa -4 will see that the walkway is maintained through all phases Rhoda Schneiderman stated that any revised site plan will have to cone before the board to be approved, so it is not as if they can just do it at their will She asked if Avon Center can see any of the recessed mechanical equipment The applicant stated that the upper two to fotir levels will seethe roof Schneiderman stated then she %orad have to he in favor of getting everything painted to blend with the roof She asked if there was anything that they could do to the lobby space to insure that it can't be used for storage that would sausfy Stall' She asked if the space could be made smaller The applicant stated that they could not because of the gridlines Mary Holden stated that this entire building is being calculated as office space, no retail Schneiderman stated that she feels that 41 parking spaces is about ten short of what is really going to be needed, so she doesn't think that one parking space is really going to tip the scales Schneiderman staved that she also heels that they should be held up to everybody else's standards about the streetwape It is just a fact of life in Avon now Otherwise she thinks the budding, is fine Sue Railton stated that she had on comments �i Al PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEET?NG MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 8 Lot 56, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Vail Bank Center Final Design Review. (cont) Jack Hunn asked if the applicant had considered building that lowest band of darker colored stucco so that it appears a different thickness The applicant stated that they felt that the color change with a really good score mark was fine The lentils will be built out Ii -inn asked about the sign program The applicant stated that the locations for the signs has been decided, but they will bring back the sign program for approval at a later date He pointed out the locations on the plans Hunn asked if they are going to call it Vail Bank Center even if it is located in Avon. The applicant stated that that is the name of the bank Hunn asked if the applicant has given any consideration about how the trash truck will maneuver The applicant stated that they have considered it There is no restaurant intended, there is no retail, etc , therefore the demand for the dumpster will be a lot less They feel that the chosen location has the least impact for both Lot 55 and the Avon Center Also it is not on Benchmark or Avon Road Hunn stated that aesthetically it works well until the truck shows up I lunn stated that they should maybe look for a safer location Hune : ggested that the applicant work out the parking space issue with staff Buz Reynolds asked if the dumpster would have a lid on it The applicant stated it would not Reynolds stated that he feels that it needed a lid Schneiderman stated that Avon Center could look straight down on it and it needs a roof Hunn asked if the landscaping is irrigated The applicant stated it was Bill Sargis moved to grant final design review approval with the following conditions I The developer address and receive approval concerning issues identified by the Town Engineer re,arding drainage, grading, and access prior to the application of a building permit 2 Approval of technical corrections identified by Staff 3 The flues, flashings and vents and roof top mechanical equipment have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building 4 The meters be placed in the budding 5 The streetscape improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, walkway/street lights, as required to complete connection with Avon Road and Avon Town Center Mall facilities be supplied and installed by the developer A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 9 Lot 56, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Vail Bank Center, final Design Review. (cont) 6 The developer provide to the Town of Avon permission for the respective agencies for the relocation of Metcalf Ditch and the sewer lines prior to the application of a building permit 7 Sign program be brought back at a later date for review by this Commission 8 The trash dumpster have some sort of cover, to be approved by Staff Sue Railton szc,)nded Buz Reynold,- asked why Staff condition six. regarding the parking space was left out Sargis stated that he agrees with Rhoda in that there is going to be a crunch in parking and the addition of one space will not make anv difference at all lie thinks that they are down to a definition, or argument between Staff and the client and lie does not think that one additional space is worth a lot of aggravation He thinks 41 spaces will be sufficient Chairman Hunn called the vote and the motion carried unanimously Lot 7 Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision, 10 Units Final Desmon ReyieN� Chairman Hunn stated that this application has been withdrawn from the agenda at this time Lot I. Eaglewood Subdiy_isio_n Brookside, 96 Unit Complex, Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is for 96 units in tour buildings. standing approximately 60 feet in height the building and plant materials are called out in the packet She stated that the applicant must provide evidence that potable water will be brought to the site prior to the application for a building permit A drainage report has not been submitted and needs to be provided and approved by Staff prior to the application for a building permit Permission from the agencies for the irrigation ditch relocation and permission from the highway department about access on to the site and plans for relocation need to be submitted to Staffprior to the application for a building permit The bike path on this side of the river is called out as a 3-6' soft surface path and the developer is indicating a 10' hard surface Staff is still discussing the surface type and width The Fire Department has concerns regarding internal circulation which the applicant has addressed and is outlined in the report PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 10 Lot I. Eaglewood Subdivision Brookside 96 Unit Complex, Final Design Review_ (cont) Holden stated that the applicant is stating that approximately 22 trees 25'+ in height are going to be removed from the site and that is all that will be removed. Holden stated that she would also like to clarify that no site disturbance whatsoever is allowed to take place in the 30' setback. She stated that no public access is indicated and there is a plat note for Eaglewood Subdivision that is in the report She stated that Tract W property line just kind of fades away on the site plans and Staff needs to see where that definite property line is A construction/erosion control fence will be required at the 30' setback. There can be no grading beyond or site disturbance into that setback. Signage and building lighting need to come back at a later date. She stated that the criteria is listed in the packet and Staff recommendations are listed out in the packet. Staff would recommend approval with those conditions Rick Pylman stated that they feel Mary wrote a very thorough staff report and they agree with all of her recommendations and all of her conditions. The property is zoned for 130 units. He stated that they have been in with a couple conceptual approaches With the townhouse approach they had about 110 units on there and they came to the conclusion that that was a great deal of impact on the site They showed a conceptual plan for condominiums with 106 units. The density now is at 96 units. There are four buildings on the site. They are trying to work around the major trees around the river bank and the major irrigation ditch that flows through the property The access will be off Highway 6, on the eastern edge of the property He stated that the buildings are all similar architecturally He described how the circulation would be he stated that they have tried to introduce some variety by using different size buildings. Discussion followed on the drop on the site They have two six bay buildings, a four bay building, and an eight bay building. They four story stucco buildings with a metal roof, with a 4:12 roof pitch. The building heights range from about 55 to 60 feet. He pointed out where the irrigation ditch comes across He described the site plan showing where the amenities will be, i e swimming pool, jacuzzi, cabana, etc. He described where the bridge over the irrigation would be and the path along the river. He pointed out where they will be losing some trees and where trees will be saved He stated that they have an aggressive landscape plan to make up for losing those trees. They are adding back 63 spruce trees, over fifty aspen trees, twenty-two cottonwood trees and well over 100 shrubs There is a lot of space in the landscape plan for flower beds and foundation plantings around the buildings. He then turned the meeting over to Frank Navarro to address the architectural issues Mr. Navarro stated the buildings are pre -cast concrete, and they will use stucco, the drivet system They have tried to introduce a base to the structure so that the height is not so PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 1 I Lot 1. Eaglewood Subdivision Brookside 96 Unit Complex final Design Review. (cont) obvious and they will use the drivet system also with a slightly darker color To alleviate the massiveness of the buildings they have used a healthy amount of wood timbers and trim for a lot of detailing The roof is a metal roof The dormers and gables are more to break up the mass of the roof The concept is to get 1000 or a little over square foot two bedrooms. so they could offer something in the 140 to 150 range and when you do that you compromise a lot of the flexibility There is not a lot of fat in these buildings Sue Railton asked if the buildings from east to west are at the same level Navarro stated that the building on the west is lower They will have to build up that west building some and that is because the irrigation ditch come from the site at this point and to get the parking to work out, they did not have enough room to actually drop it down to natural grade so this building will be two and half to three feet higher than the grade all the other buildings try to match the natural grade Schneiderman stated that on the model it is lower The applicant state that it will be lower Rick P-Iman stated that the reason that they are hitting the building height limitations is that there is underground parking under all of the buildings, but they couldn't start diving down because of the irrigation ditch that crosses the property They cannot lower the ditch The finished floor of the parking lot on this building is actually a foot above the existing topography The rest of the buildings sit down in the ground Mary Holden asked if the trees will really be taller than the buildings The applicant stated that they were in a bucket and the trees were well above them Sue Railton stated she did not like the rendering of the stairs It does not look like a mountain type building, but like some big city The applicant stated that from the cost standpoint they will probably consolidate the stairs The applicant disagreed with the idea that this was not a mountain building in that they are using a lot of timbers He mentioned a lot of the buildings in Beaver Creek that have used the same technique He agrees it is net a chateau stvle Rhoda Schneiderman asked if they would bring back the back elevation when the stairs have been worked out The applicant stated that they would bring it back when they have the lighting and signage, etc Schneiderman asked what the space was between the frontage of the buildings that run parallel to Highway 6 and the end of their property The applicant stated that the shortest point is twenty-five feet Schneiderman stated that while the landscape plan is pretty aggressive, it is kind of lacking on Highway 6 Pylman stated that there are quite a few trees along Highway 6 now and none of that is coming out Schneiderman stated that she would like to see some major clumps of aspens added She stated that while the height is going to be mitigated by Highway 6 being taller, you will still see a lot of buildings You have the space to do it Rick Pylman stated that they could oft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 12 Lot 1. Eaklewood Subdivision Brookside 96 Unit Complex, Final Design Review (cont) look at that They were trying not to disturb anything that they did not have to Schneiderman stated that it is not like you are tearing out anything Schneiderman asked if anybody looked at having a second streetcut to make better access. Mary Holden stated that that is controlled by the Highwav Department The applicant stated that Alpine Engineering is working on this for them Futcher discussion followed on how the access will be Schneiderman stated that she likes the way the base of the buildings come down She stated that she is hoping that the timber details will be more prominent than they show on the renderings Discussion followed on the timbers and the staining Schneiderman stated that she does not like the stairs either Bill Sargis stated that he thinks the applicant has gotten as creative as they can bet with the constraints they have He thinks it is a fairly handsome structure As far as the trees, he thinks they have done a wonderful job of preserving the existing trees Discussion followed on the access Discussion followed on parking the applicant stated that they have two spaces per unit plus the required guest parking Sargis stated that , -! ,hinks the colors are fine and he likes all the amenities Sa..gis stated that he '.hinks that erre-of the advantages of the site is because the topo is so low at route 6 at that level the buildings are large massive structures, but they will be down considerably and buried within the trees Henry Vest stated that one of the concerns was that where building C is located is where they will be taking out the most spruce trees He stated that on building A that will really have to be regraded Discussion followed on how the grading will be done Discussion followed on the existing concrete headwall Vest stated that they were concerned about being able to hold as much as they can of the trees, etc He s •ited that he wants to know more about which trees are where instead of just the clouds shown on the plans Buz Reynolds suggested plotting out the building corners on the site so that the Commission can tell where the buildings will be and what trees will be removed Considerable discussion followed Discussion followed on the ditch easement Reynolds stated that he likes the concept of what you are trying to do He thinks 60 feet is a little high, but he thinks it will work, but he would like to see where these building sit This is a large project He would like to see the four corner pins of the buildings, before voting on this Also he stated that he has seen a runoff come through the ditch that could be a problem Henry Vest stated that he also would like to see the pins He likes the buildings Patti Dixon stated that, generally, she thinks they are good looking buildings She is in favor of the underground parking She likeF the exterior colors She is very much concerned PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 13 Lot 1. Ea,glewood Subdivision, Brookside, 96 Unit Complex. Final Design Review. (cont) about the trees and she would like to see them marked, which ones will be removed and which ones will stay. She would also like to see the corner pins Jack Hunn asked about the gauge of the metal roof The applicant . eplied, but he was away fiom the mic: ophone and is reply is not clear, but it sounds like he said it would be narrow spacing. Huan stated that he would also like to see the trees staked on the site and he is also interested in how they plan to protect the trees that they intend to save as some of them are quite close to the buildings and construction activity. He stated that the water quality of the ditch running through the site needs to be preserved during construction and that will be a challenge. Rick Pylman stated that as far as working in the ditch goes, the discussion has been to do all c --that after it has been shut off and dried out a little bit. That will all be done and put back together well before spring. Hunn sugge ted some variety on the landscape plan i.e., the 63 blue spruce could be mixed up with several species. He suggested that a six foot tree will be lost on this site He suggested perhaps an eight foot minimum and perhaps a couple of fourteens. He also suggested mixing up the sizes of the cottonwoods and aspens He also suggested perhaps another kind of deciduous tree other than cottonwoods and aspens for more variety He stated that he thinks if they can save the trees they think they can save they have done a pretty responsible job He stat-, that he would encourage them to get a little more landscaping, possibly with the Highway's permission, a more irregular edge to the landscaping in the highway right-of-way. That would elevate some of the planting. Hunn stated that he is concerned with the image of the building, not the design, but the image of how it fits into the context of the Town. In looking at how it can be improved, every idea effects saleable square feet. The way to make this building more interesting is to add variety and get away from the repetitious, stacking of every element and the best way to do that is to get some variation in the form by stepping back and having some intermediate little roofs and getting some play with the building form and that :s where you have to give up saleable square footage He stated that he is just concerned with the repetitious nature of it The applicant stated that when he started out he wanted to do townhomes, but the site issues overtook him and to do a project like this, it is Decessary to have the stackability He can't do otherwise What he has tried to do is reduce a little bit of the massiveness with some of the detail and the roof does have some detail. Hunn stated that he finds the front and side elevations more interesting than the back because there is less glass, more stucco and a little more interplay of materials, and yet you are trying to capture all the views on the back side, which is understandable, but might explore the possibility of introducing more wall mass on the back side of the building Discussion followed on the front of the building and where the entrances were The applicant stated that they would make the entrances clearer for the next meeting. A0% ti PLANING AND ZONING CONIMISSION MEET l\G MINUTES Jelly 19. 1994 Page 14 Lot 1. Eaglewood Subdivision. Brookside. 96 Unit Complex, Final Design Review. (cont) Sue Railton asked if there will be identifications on the buildings. The applicant stated that that will be part of the signage. Patti Dixon asked about trash enclosures The applicant stated that there is trash in the basement and there are also three dumpsters on site. He described where they were located. They are all in enclosures. Sue Railton asked if the path along the river is public access The applicant stated that it was public access for people who are on the path already, but there is no designated public access from Highway 6, but he is not providing parking He stated that he will not commit to providing access A. ugh before he discusses the ramifications with his attorney Discussion followed on maybe bringing the base color up further Jack Hunn asked if the applicant had a phasing plan. The applicant stated that they will see how many sales they have by September 30th and then go from there. He pointed out the first two buildings that will go in probably this fall. Mary Holden stated she has a question for the applicant regarding the Eaglewood Plat Note Number 3, which basicall%, -• •tes "Drainage, public pedestrian, park land and open space easement shall be for it Tthe general .public which use shall not be limited or interfered with by declarant or its uss,gns." She asked how they are meeting the intent of this Plat Note with what you are proposing as far as general public getting access on to the river Discussion followed on Tract W which is open space and which will be dedicated to the Town by 1997 Mary Holden asked if they were going to provide public access across their property The applicant stated that he thinks that is a legal issue and he is not going to commit to any public access from Highway 6 which is a 45 mile an hour zone, with no parking and which will be regraded even more dramatically than it is now and he is not going to encourage that without legal advice. Rick Pylman stated that as he reads the plat they are not required to provide access off of Highway 6 Buz Reynolds moved to table this it -in until such time that corner pins are set so the Commission can see where the buildt,.gs will sit. Considerable discussion followed on whether the trees ought to be tagged and also what the applicant needs to bring back at the next meeting r PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 15 Mary Holden stated that they would schedule a site visit prior to the next meeting. Lot 1. Eaelewood Subdivision Brookside 96 Unit Complex. Fieal Design Review, (cont) She stated that they will need all the information, such as the drainage report, etc., a week from today to get on the next meeting The Recording Secretary reminded the Chairman that there was a motion on the floor with no second. Chairman Hunn called for a second of the motion. Henry Vest seconded and the motion to table carried unanimously. Lot I. Block 2. Wildridge Four-plex Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that the building will be three levels and stand approximately 32 feet in height. The building and plant materials are called out in the staff report She stated that there is grading taking plat*, in the 10' slope maintenance, snow storage and utility easement, which may jeopardize the integrity of the road. The landscaping must meet the minimum Town of Avon requirements. The c, iteria is listed out in the staff report Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the report. John Perkins, representing the applicants, stated that he thinks he has addressed the concerns that were voiced at the schematic review. The are presenting two color schemes to try to add some variety to the buildings and they will move the stucco surfaces and wood surfaces around Perkins stated that he was not aware that they could not grade within that 10' foot setback. Norm Wood stated the concern is the stability of the road. Perkins stated that he would work with Norm Wood to resolve this concern Sue Railton had concerns regarding the diagonal rough sawn siding shown on the north elevation in the middle She feels that is a little bit out of context with the rest of the building Rhoda Schneiderman asked about the landscape plan Perkins stated that the applicant feels strongly about the landscaping being as natural as possible on that site He described what will be done with the grading Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she does not think it is a very_ good solution From the rear there is no landscaping, it is very regular, there is no variety She would like to see the landscape plan come back She would like to see some added to the back, more bushes, more variety heightwise as well as materials Discussion followed on where the stucco and siding would be on each unit The colors to be used were also discussed .-y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 16 Lot 1. Block 2. WildridFe Subdivision Four-Plex Final Design Review, (cont) Sc'-teiderman was not satisfied with the proposed differences in the units. Bill Sargis stated that he feels that there is some merit in having the sameness in a multi -unit building. if every one was different it would look tacky He thinks overall it is fine Henry Vest stated that he agrees that the landscape plan needs to come back. He thinks it is a nice site and he thinks the buildings are fine. Patti Dixon was confused about where the stucco and wood siding would be on the buildings The applicant explained how it would be. Buz Reynolds stated, just to get the colors straight in his mind, the alternating colors will be the first unit and the third unit will be the lighter colors and the second and fourth one will be the darker colors Also you have changed the window treatment and the siding will be horizontal and it changes at the recess of the utility room. Reynolds asked if the roof colors will all be the same The applicant stated they would be Reynolds stated that he actually likes this concept of breaking up the units. Jack Hunn stated that he likes the site strategy and lie understands that they want to differentiate the units, but personally he is concerned with the use of two different color schemes. He thinks it will look busy Reynolds stated that he thinks they have turned the units enough to give individuality to each unit Hunn stated that he thinks this could be more successful if there was not so much contrast between one color scheme and the other He thinks the stucco works. He stated that he thinks four-plex development really is most successful when the massing is essentially the same and you are differentiating the units with fenestration, detailing and use of materials He thinks these could be made more interesting by getting more variety in the placement of your materials For example, on the south elevation, rather than use a stucco base on all four, you could let the stucco come up higher on several of the buildings and create some interest. On the north elevation, he does not quite understand the intent, but he thinks that they are going to create essentially two different facades id repeat each one twice and he thinks that in itself is repetitious Just some subtle difference from one unit to the next would do more to differentiate and create the single family appearance, than it would to radically change the color scheme from one building to the next He thinks it is a good project, but he would like them to consider other ways to differentiate the buildings He stated that he thinks the landscaping could be enhanced with the introduction of a few trees in the back and the spaces in between the sodded areas and quite a bit of shrubbery would be effective in front L�] 'zl PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 17 Lot 1. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Four-plex. Final Design Review. (cont) Discussion followed on the pros and cons of offsetting the units. Also discussed was the addition of more landscaping. Rhoda Schneiderman suggested a flow of colors. Considerable discussion followed on this concept. Sue Railton suggested that the applicant take a look at the Bent Grass project for an idea of how units can be done with varying shades of a color and using the same fascia color, etc. Buz Reynolds moved to grant approval, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant bring back color renderings showing the color differences 2. The applicant bring back a revised landscape plan. 3. The applicant address all Engineering concerns prior to the application for a building permit. 4. The flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 5. The building lighting be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Meters be placed on the building. 7. Prior to any site disturbance, a construction/erosion fence be placed on site. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried with Rhoda Schneiderman voting nay. Lot 37, Block 1. Wildridpe. Shearwood Duplex. Final Desmon Review Chairman Hunn stated that this item has also been withdrawn from the agenda. MINUTES Reading and Approval of the July 5. 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the July 5, 1994 minutes as submitted. Bill Sargis seconded and the motion carried unanimously. f` 000M� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 1994 Page 18 • OTHER BUSINESS Jack Hunn stated that he would like to schedule additional time to discuss the need to create an ordinance to add some of the new rules. Mary Holden stated that she believes Bill James would like for another worksession to be set for two weeks Holden asked how early people could come, because there is going to be a large agenda and a long site visit in addition to the worksession. The site visit will start at five or five thirty. With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM Respectfully submitted, X�j Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Commission Appre-al E.3 Date -2 / fr AX I iA PLANNING AND . July 19, 1994 Lot 3, Block 5, Wild Big Sky Townhome: Condition of Appro PROJECT TYPE: 5 ZONING: PUD, Five INTRODUCTION: Big Sky Townhomes being addressed by th 1. Revised site plan; 2. A roofing material 3. A revised landscal They are changing braces. STAFF COMMEN1 The changes propose, STAFF RECOMMI Staff recommends apl 1. Grading be revises RECOMMENDED I. Introduce Applice 2. Applicant Present 3. Commission Revi, 4. Commission Acti( Respectfully Submitte 4111 Mary Holden Town Planner