Loading...
PZC Minutes 061484RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 14, 1984 The regular meeting of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was held on June 14, 1984 at 6:50 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Mike Blair. Members Present: Larry Kumpost, Mark Donaldson, Tom Landauer, Mike Blair Members Absent: Jerry Davis, Pat Cuny, Bill Pierce Staff Present: Jim Lamont, Planning Director - Norm Wood, Director of Public Works Dan Fogland, Building Administrator - Maggie Lach, Recording Secty. Fractionalization Lamont introduced Judy Rothschadl of the Vail Daily representing the press. Lamont explained that he and Art Abplanalp were in the midst of drafting legislation on fractionalization. Information on this was enclosed in packets. Blair asked for a brief explanation of fractionalization. Abplanalp explained that it is to provide an incentive for developers to create a larger number of units, affordable by persons in moderate to low income brackets; this is achieved by providing an incentive where the developer can build more efficiencies, one and two bedroom units than under the current system. The formula would allow the developer to build 2 one bedroom units where he could only build 1 three bedroom unit or he could build 3 efficiencies where he could build one 3 bedroom unit. This provides some profit incentive and will create the opportunity for people to buy into, rather than rent housing in Avon. Blair clarified statements by saying it will encourage more smaller, less costly units and not necessarily larger buildings. Lamont stated that a population analysis was done and felt the population would not increase. He further explained that TDR's are privately held rights and that fractionalizing TDR's so more small units are available for every TDR will improve the marketplace for both local and visitor population by bringing the cost of the housing unit down. Traditional zoning will remain in place so it will help control any fractional formula. The Commission discussed fractionalization at length. Lot 70, Block 1, B.S. - Beacon Hill Project Identification Sian - Design Review Wood explained that applicant had requested residential project sion that would be constructed in an 8' x 12' planter box which was a part of their landscaping. The sion would be constructed of 2 layers of cedar siding and will match buildino_s at Beacon Hill. It will have black letters and low shrubs will be placed around the sides of the sign. A color rendering and sample of the siding was submitted along with literature on the letters to be used. Blair questioned where the sign would be located in relation to the street. Wood stated that it would be on the west side of the driveway to the project. Kumpost motioned to approve the Beacon Hill project identification sign on Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision as presented. Donaldson seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes June 14, 1984 Page 2 of F Lot 17, Block 1, W.R. - Castruita-Trueblood Fourplex - Design Review Wood presented the drawings and color rendering to the Commission members explained that when project was submitted previously, it was submitted as Conceptual Review primarily to get direction from the Commission members the units being connected at the corners only. The Commission would now not only the connection at the corners, but also the entire project which to meet zoning standards. He stated there were still a few problems with He regarding evaluate appeared site grading. Larry Castruita, applicant, explained they were trying to produce a courtyard effect which would be different in design from anything currently in Wildridge. Blair asked applicant what the square footage of the units would be. Castruita stated each unit would have 2 levels totalling 1,460 S.F. and all units would be identical. Commission members reviewed drawings and color renderings. Donaldson asked applicant if he felt he was creating a snow -dump area with court- yard having a north exposure. Castruita said they recognized that problem, but that in creating a different kind of project, you sacrifice something else in its place. He felt there would be no problem with keeping the driveways and walkways clear of snow. Kumpost questioned the workability of one of the driveways shown which had a grade of greater than 10'. Wood responded that was a problem area which could affect the elevation of the buildings. Castruita explained that they had considered eliminating that driveway, but felt it would add to the project. Donaldson mentioned concerns regarding the steep pedestrian entries and snow dumping from roof to walkways and decks. Kumpost felt it was the designers option to have units facing north, but felt that driveway grade was something that needed to be resolved. Lengthy discussion followed between applicants and Commission members regarding site plan and grading. Donaldson found that drawings were not correlated to the grading plan. Kumpost clarified Donaldson's remarks by saying that if you were to look at what the building was going to look like on the grading plan, there was a 7 foot drop along one wall, but no elevation showing that 7 foot drop. Further discussion continued regarding site plan and grading. Castruita offered to eliminate the driveway and work on the grading, brinoinq the discussion back to the design of the building. Wood suggested that this design review be considered as a preliminary review rather than a final review. He felt there were too many problems with the grading and that it could affect the appearance of the building Kumpost had no problem with the intention of the design of the overall building. Donaldson felt that it generally lacked appeal, continuity and was a difficult building to adapt to that site. Blair asked Donaldson for a clarification of the continuity issue. Donaldson stated that it was a general flow of the massing of the building in that there were a lot of tall wide blank walls that lacked interest. Blair suggested that this should be considered since others would also see this view from the road. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes June 14, 1984 Page 3 of 6 Lot 17, Block 1, W.R. - Castruita-Trueblood Fourplex - Design Review, Con't. Kumpost suggested that proper window placement, rather than random placement along the long wall would make it more continuous. Landauer liked the design and different approach in the way the buildings were arranced. Blair felt there were design problems that could be worked out. He mentioned that the materials to be used, as submitted, were cedar shake roof, the trim would be cedar stained with Olympic solid butternut, and the cedar siding would be stained with semi -transparent Olympic 916. The landscape plan indicated the use of crabapple, aspen and blue spruce. Wood stated that the lot would be sodded and juniper bushes were also to be provided. He also mentioned that exterior lighting was not shown. Blair felt the driveway and interior walkways should at least be lit. Wayne Trueblood, applicant, stated there would be outside lights for the garages and that exterior doors would also have lights. Blair asked Commission if this would be a final or preliminary review. Kumpost stated that he liked the design, but agreed the grading could change the elevations of the b1iildinq. Blair questioned if the motion for approval would have conditions, or if this was in fact a final approval or a preliminary approval. Donaldson motioned for preliminary design approval for Lot 17, Block 1, Wildridqe Subdivision with the conditions that the applicant consider exterior treatment of the wall planes that are large and massive, specific study of the site grading and retaining around the building and driveways, and applicant provide drawinas showing effect of the grading on these elevations along with the entire building that is going to be built, including the exposed foundation wails. Kumpost seconded. Blair and Landauer opposed. Motion died and there was further discussion. Landauer motioned to approve the final review design of lot 17, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision with the conditions that aradina of the northwest corner and drivewav have a grade which is acceptable or if it can't be worked out, the driveway be abandoned; that lights be considered at the driveway and interior walkways. Kumpost felt that window placement, size and relationship should be included to visually break-up the mass of the east facade of the building. Landauer amended motion to include that window placement, size and relationship be revised to break-up mass of the east facade of the building and ghat aspen trees on the east elevation be replaced with spruce trees at least 8 feet tall. Kumpost seconded. Kumpost asked applicant if they would show the window placement and elevation, and asked if they would return to Commission to show those modifications. Applicant answered yes. Blair stated that they could start with the site work as lonq as the grading and elevations were all worked out with the Town Engineer. Donaldso- apposed motion. Motion sed. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes June 14, 1984 Page 4 of 6 Lot 63, Block 2, B.S. - Pere�r_in_e Vi_llaoe - Roof Cesign 0o exp aine tat eregrine iia cd ome in ora re -approval of their site development plan in November, 1983 and this was approved subject to certain conditions. One condition was that a metal roof was approved and the applicant was at meeting for approval of a different kind of roof. He also stated that this was one of several Gond+tions attached to the approval, but the applicants were there only for roof approval. Rick Larson of Sea Mountain Developers represented the applicant, Peregrine Village. Also present were Gary Tricarico of Haselden-Langley, project enqineer for Peregrine, and Charles and Vance Carroll, representing Flex -Shield, manufacturers of the proposed roofing systems. Larson clarified that applicant had proposed a dark brown synthetic roof membrane at the November, 1983 meeting when project was approved. A condition was placed on the final approval that the tower roof was approved as a dark brown metal roof and subject to further approval of color and texture for alternative roofing materials. Larson stated that the applicant has no intention of changing the color, but the synthetic membrane proposed was a product called Sarnafil. They are now proposing use of a product called Flex -Shield, Mark 3 System. Larson felt this is a superior product in comparison to Sarnafil. It is a fully adhered, very flexible material. It is easy to install with little waste, and will wrap parapets. There is also a safety factor. He stated that ballast will be native stone. Larson presented pictures, drawings and a model of Peregrine which were reviewed and discussed by Commission. Larson explained that a metal roof would present leaking problems whereas a synthetic membrane can adjust to curves of roof line. Angle of roof would not allow a metal roof because it would trap water. Donaldson asked what would protect the roof from ultia-violet rays. Charles Carroll, representing the Flex -Shield product, stated that it is color -fast. Kumpost asked what the life expectancy of the membrane would be. Carroll answered that the pitched upper roof would last 20 years plus and the flat lower roof would be half that. Blair questioned if there would be a glare. Larson stated that the color would be a flat finish and that there shouldn't be any glare. Gary Tricarico, engineer for Peregrine, mentioned +here would be no seams in final application, but there would be seams in the sub -strata material. The rendering Shows that even with close proximity to the building, you can't see the roof. Blair asked for a specific identification of the material. Larson stated that material is called Flex -Shield, Mark 3 System with Flex -Shield grip -all. The color is 8682 Stow color system, dark brown, flat finish installed on isocyanurate insulation board. Donaldson motioned to approve the roofing material system change for Lot 63, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision as submitted. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes June 14, 1984 Page 5 of 6 Lot 63, Block 2, B.S. - Peregrine Village - Roof Design, Con't. Blair mentioned other items of concern included in staff report. Lamont explained that neither staff nor the applicant were prepared to take action on these items, but staff urges Commission to have applicant resolve these issues. Parking needs to be resolved for 10,000 S.F. of area and on-site landscaping is insufficient. Larson stated that applicant was under the assumption during the November, 1983 meeting that there was 20% green space on the project. Blair asked Larson if he, as representative of the owner, could be back in 30 days to have a discussion on solutions to some of these concerns. Larson answered yes. Lots 25, 26, 27, 28, & 35, Block 2, B.S. - Christie Lodge - S.R.U. - Reduction in Parkin Continued to July_ "' 1984 Regular Meeting Wood suggested that t meeting 6opened of icially as a public hearing since this was a Special Review Use. He stated that no written comment had been received. Application was for a reduction in parking and a request to lease 5 off-site spaces to Buck Creek Plaza, thus the need for a Special Review Use. He explained the reason for the continuance was due to lack of information requested to evaluate the Christie Lodge parking. Blair asked if there was any comment from the audience. There being none, the Special Review Use would be considered at the July 12, 1984 regular meeting. Lots 29 & 30, Block 2, B.S. - Flow - Continued to July 12, Wood explained that applicant some problems which they are Blair stated that Conceptual regular meeting. 7 First Bank of Avon - Conceptual Review - Traffic 1984 Regular Meeting was starting to prepare a site plan and they have trying to resolve with the parking and circulation. Review would be continued to the July 12, 1984 f uonaioson mor.ioneo to approve the minutes o changes as noted. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Page 5 of the minutes, line 15 of the Davis answered no." Page 5 of the minutes, line 14 of the Buck include "until it has weathered." Page 6 of the minutes, line 1 of the Lips, "and to present project." ar Meeting 4 84em meeting with the remodel should read "Donaldson Creek Plaza roof extention should Too! storefront remodel, delete Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes June 14, 1984 Page 6 of 6 r7 Sign Code 40 Lamont stated that he had been working on a Sign Code based on sign districts. 3 districts being considered are: 1) interstate -commercial area; 2) industrial - commercial, and 3) central business district. He explained that guidelines for each district will be different from the other due to their unique characteristics. ow He will then move on to design standards and master plan physical issues. Blair suggested that Commission continue to look for sign examples around town and elsewhere regarding construction, placement, function, and general appearance. Other Business Lamont mentioned the letters that Kumpost wrote to the Town Council at the Commission's request, regarding conflicts of interest and conceptual review fees. Lamont stated that Council is sympathetic to the Commission's concerns and that Council and staff will get back to Commission with suggestions on these points. Lamont also mentioned the discussion on Home Delivery issue and felt that more concern was placed on the box rental rate increases than with Home Del very. Clarification on portion of questionnaire dealing with those rates is needed. Lamont urged staff to monitor the Avon Center and the parking situation there. Blair presented a courtesy warning ticket given to a citizen of the Town because this ticketed person went the wrong way in the parking lot. Wood stated that he had met with Ned Gwathmey of the Avon Center and they are in the process of making modifications to the parking plan and should have con- struction started shortly. He had questioned whether or not they should come to the Commission with those modifications. Blair suggested that staff decide if that topic should come back. Colorado Ute roadcut was also mentioned. Wood stated that he attended a University of Wisconsin Planning Conference in Steamboat Springs which covered Transfer of Development Rights and touched upon fractionalization. There being no further business to discuss, Lanc.auer motioned to adjourn the meeting. Kumpost seconded. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM. Res ectfully mitted, / arg t M. L ch ; Recording Secretary COMMISSION APPROVAL: Vres _ Wm. Pier DATE; 24r (ij� _ Mike Blair_ Pat Cuny z_ry Jerry Davis T. Landauer L. Kumpost M. Donaldson