No preview available
PZC Minutes 100389RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on October 3, 1989, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was walled to order by Chairman Frank Dol'. Members Present: Frank Doll, John Perkins, Jack Hunn, Buz Reynolds, Clayton McRory, Denise Hill, Terri Jeppson Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Community Development; Jim Lamont, Acting Planner; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Lot 6 Filing 1. Eaglebend Subdivision South Harbor Development Duplex Residences Design Review Jim Lamont stated that the applicant, So. Harbor Development Company, wishes to construct on Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision a duplex residential structure. He stated that this lot has special circumstances in that forty percent of the site is located within the 30 foot high water setback. It includes the water course of the Eagle River. He stated that special provisions should be considered which prevents the removal of native riparian vegetation on this site. Lamont stated that according to the information provided, the proposed structure has a building footprint of 2160 square feet, contained in a wood framed structure. Height estimate from building elevation appears to be within limitations of 35 feet, the average looks to be around 30 feet. Insufficient information and dimensions are provided to calculate building area ratio and to verify statists^al and use information. He stated that zoning and home occupations prohibit real estate offices and tourist homes. He stated that the reason that this is included is that he is not sure what uses are proposed for the property. The site plan indicates that cisturbed area:of land will be revegetated with sod and native grasses. Th. structure has Planning and Zoning October 3, 1989 Page 2 of 1' Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 6 Filing 1, Easlebend _ Suodivision, SOu_th____HarbOr Development Company Duplex Residences Design Review �con� board and batton siding with river rock stone veneer foundation. Roof pitch is 8/12, cedar shake, however, color scheme has not been indicated. Lamont stated that approximately 64% of the entire site will be disturbed. Type and location of existing vegetation is not indicated in sufficient detail. Approximately 400 square feet on the south side of high water setoack will be excavated 5 feet below grade. The usable open space area is not indicated on site plan. Main drainage channel for the site is located in the driveway and driveway grade is not shown. Lamont then reviewed the criteria for considering the design of a proposed project, stating: That the project appears to meet applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon, however, unusual conditions occur on the site. The location of the structure appears that it will kill several mature willow trees. Rear setbacks are recommended to be calculated from 30 foot high water setback. He stated that the type and quality of materials are compatible with existing structures in the vicinity. Regarding site impacts to adjacent properties, he stated that the maximized building footprint will cause damage to riparian habitat. Drainage from parking lot should not be allowed to enter riparian habit unfiltered. Regarding the compatibility with site topograp,y, the alteration of topography and removal of vegetation is excessive and disturbed areas should be reduced and not permitted south of high water setback. He stated that the visual appearance does not appear to pose deleterious effects from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. Excavation of stream bank is inappropriate. Color scheme is not available. Lamont stated that the improvement is residential in nature and dissimilar to others in the vicinity. Monetary and aesthetic values may be impaired. Excessive disturbance and use of the riparian habitat will cause long term irreparable damage. Fig Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 3, 1989 Page 3 of 13 Lot 6. Filing 1 Eaglebend Subdivisions South Harbor Development Company, Duplex Residences. Desi n Review. (cont) Lamont stated that the proposal is in general conformance with adopted Goals, Policies and Procrams for the Town of Avon, except for the proper use and protection of the riparian habitat of the Eagle River. The effect of improper treatment of the riparian habitat will increase stream bank erosion and contribute to a diminished water quality standards. Lamont stated that the applicable goals are to encourage design standards which protect structures against damage from natural hazards, the policies are to provide for adequate snow removal and storage facilities, as well as the retention and removal of pollutants from surface runoff, discourage the construction upon, or removal of, native vegetation from steep slope areas in order to prevent erosion, landslides and unsightly scarring, and protect the Eagle River and its streambanks as well as other significant water courses from non-essential filling and dredging, removal of trees and other established vegetation, confinement of its floodplain, and the incursion of pollutants. Lamont stated that insufficient dimensions and information are available to determine or verify statistical data and uses presented on submittal. Application should be continued until adequate information is available. Recommendation is that an appropriately sized culvert be located in drainage channel at the beginning of the driveway, structure and site grading should be setback 10 feet from high water setback in order to protect root systems of trees located in riparian habitat. Heavy icing of driveway could result from using the driveway as a primary drainage channel. The applicant has not submitted materials or exterior color samples for review. The applicant has not indicated method of irrigation, and suitability of vegetation material for local climate cannot be determined. Revegetation material for disturbed areas having steep slopes cannot be determined. Method of maintaining revegetated areas is not indicated. Accuracy of statistical information and dimensions cannot be verified from exhibits provided for review. Lamont stated that trash storage has not been snown and he assumes that that will be in the building. Locat'-)n of existing vegetation and rock outcroppings are not shown. Drainage is not shown in sufficient detail to determine if prior treatment or erosion control methods are necessary before allowing runoff to exit upon steep portion of ;�,, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 3, 1989 Page 4 of 13 Lot 6 Filing 1 Eaglebend Subdivision. South riverbank. Ramp grades not shown. Existing plant materials to be removed and retained, specific locations and species not shown. Lamont stated that parking appears to be in excess of permitted uses fc- the site. He suggested that one parking space be deleted so that building can be moved 9 feet to the north, reducing the need to cut into existing stream bank. Lamont recommended a site visit by the Planning Commission prior to making final design review decision on this application. Tony Seibert, representing South Harbor Development, stated that this is their second proposal on this lot. They have completely redesigned this building. He stated that what they have is a duplex, which, according to the mandate from the Planning Commission, is not a mirror image. Basically it is a primary, secondary home. A primary home with a secondary rental apartment unit over the garage. He stated that South Harbor either owns or controls all of the remaining lots along the river bank, from Lot 2 to Lot 15. He stated that they have already built two mirror image duplexes and one single family residence in Eaglebend. What they have attempted to do with this building is create a totally different building. Seibert then reviewed the changes in the building, i. e. the roof pitch, the vertical siding, and the use of rock veneer. The base color will be a chocolate brown with a darker brown trim. He provided color charts showing the colors. These colors are totally different from the existing buildings, which are grey blues, grey greens, white and darker trims. The garage faces sideways on the lot as opposed to facing the road. They have taken this design and moved it further back from the stream, per the request of the review planner in his previous review. They have reduced the footprint of the building from the original submission, from 2530 square feet to 2160 square feet. Regarding the previous request to reduce the parking by one space, they have turned the building into a right angle and reduced the overall dimension from the south end of the building to the road by approximately 8 feet. Seibert stated that the channel is located in the driveway. This is what they have installed in the prior three homes and what has been previously approved. The prior three homes also do not have a culvert, because the slope drops from the road down toward the river, so a culvert accomplishes Planning and Zoning October 3, 1989 Page 5 of 13 Commission Meeting Minutes Lot 6 Filing 1. Eaglebend_Subdivision,_ South _Harbor Development Compan DUplex Resid_ences,_Design__Review,_ nothing, there is no drainage ditch there. Regarding the comment about existing vegetation, the only existing vegetation where the house witl sit is basically weeds. There are several large cottonwoods coming from the base of the bank. They have chosen these lots specifically for: a. the river; b. the cottonwoods; and c. the southern exposure, and they will do nothing to violate those trees. Smaller brush they will eliminate, but the small aspens will be moved if they infringe on the concrete foundation. The building will be the most expensive home that they have built. They are concerned with increasing the value of what they have already started to create. He stated that they feel they have demonstrated that they vastly exceed the imposed requirements of the Town when they did the landscaping on Lot 12. They try to maintain the natural character of the environment. They are concerned in getting the right aesthetics in that area. The trash storage will be trash cans that will be kept in the garage. lie stated that he believed that the drawings are to scale, and if some detail needs to be determined, it can be scaled off. He provided color charts for the Commission to review. the colors will be Devoe Paint, Wonder Wocdtones Mission Brown #SH 80 as the base color and Tobacco #SH 78 as the trim color. Doll asked about the foundation on Lot 7. Seibert stated that this was approved as a duplex. They are having some troubles selling the west side of the units. Everybody wants the east side. Therefore, they will be coming in with a new design for that lot, even though they have a foundation, with a primary, secondary residence, where we have a mayor house built on the foundation and basically a two bedroom apartment in the walk -out basement part. He stated that they will probably be back in to ask to take two duplex lots and subdivide that into three single family lots, so that the units can be design so that the porches and entries all face the east. Doll stated that when this foundation was put in the cottonwoods were not damaged. Planning and Commission Meeting Minutes October 3, 1989 Page 6 of 13 Development Company Duplex Residences uesisn nCv,rsw. .-�--1 Reynolds asked about the colors. Seibert said the light color will be the main color and the dark brown will be the trim. Reynolds also asked about the batton and board. Seibert stated it would be rough cedar wood with probably a 1 x 2 to create the batton. Reynolds asked about the staff's comment about pulling the building under the 9 feet toward the road. Seibert stated he did not feel it was necessary. They feel that they have accomplished this in the redesign. Jeppson asked about the colors of the other homes. She stated that she was uncomfortable with the drastic change in color. Seibert cited the changes in Eagle Vail since some repainting has been done and the fact that the different colors do not look offensive. Perkins asked why they didn't want to move it back enough to allow themselves an easier work space on the back. He stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation on that. Seibert stated that it has to do with view corridors. If they move this up further it will interfere with the view corridor of this site. It will be blocked by lot seven. Hill asked about the staff comment of the damage to the roots of the trees. Seibert stated that he guesses there are about seven large cottonwoods on that lot, five of them are at the base of the bank, virtually on the river, in other words, their root structure is half in the water and half out. There are only two cottonwoods halfway up the bank, and their root structure doesn't go up, it goes down. He stated that the cut will not even be close to those cottonwoods. Discussion followed on the possibility of the Commission doing a site visit before making a decision. It was the general :onsensus that this is what should be done. Discussion followed on the possibility of staking out the site. Perkins voiced several architectural concerns regarding the materials, especially how and where the various changes of material are done. He was also concerned with the darkness of the colors. He suggested that one or the other be lighter. Also, there is no floor plan of the upper rental unit. He stated that he would like to see a plan of this Planning and Zoning October 3, 1989 Page 7 of 13 Commission Meeting Minutes South -Harbor Re_v_i ew . ( con_t_I unit. Seibert stated that this is basical'y a one bedroom, one bath unit. Discussion followed on when to do the site visit. It was decided to do it next week. Seibert asked if it would be possible to get an approval of the project, subject to a site visit and any other conditions. This would permit him to get started with the construction drawings. Hunn stated that since the staff report suggests that the application is incomplete and there are a lot of issues to be resolved, it would be at his own risk if he went ahead with final design. Doll stated that he preferred not giving approval at this time. He asked the commission to meet at the site at 4 PM on October 10th. Jeppson asked if the building could be staked. Doll stated that all that needs to be staked is the south side. Jeppson moved to continue the South Harbor Development Company, Lot 6, Filing 1, Eaglebend, to October 10, 1989, the Commission to meet at the site. Reynolds seconded. Hunn stated that the entrance to the apartment is exposed, and suggested that maybe it could be enclosed. He stated that the fenestration on the north elevation of the garage seems to be awkward and out of character with the rest of the window groupings on the building. He also suggested a semi -transparent stain for the siding and a solid on the trim. He also suggested more variety in pant material. The Secretary asked for a clarification of the motion on the floor, stating that this item is continued to the 10th, and asking if the Commission will make their decision ori the 10th or continue it to the next regular meeting on October 17th? Jeppson amended her motion to state that no decision will be made on October 10th and this item will be continued until October 17th. Reynolds seconded the amendment. The motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Mir;utes October 3, 1989 Page 8 of 13 Lot 24 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Cree Dgg�!?—Rock Water_ Sian variance. Design Review Lamont stated that basically it is a request in a change in the sign program. The building frontage is approximately 89 lineal feet. the sign requested is 84.5 feet. The original sign program provided for two sign presentations on the front of the building. The original proposal was within the original intent of the sign program. In terms of staff comment, the sign is constructed of blue plexiglas, letters in channelized dark bronze and illuminated by neon light. Sign is suitable for location, however size of sign will not permit additional signs on the building. If sign were approved as a multiple business sign it would be permitted 37 square feet. Forty of the 89 lineal feet of the building front were shown to be tenant occuoied in the original sign program. He stated that the adjacent and neighboring signs conform with the concept of the sign program. Quality of adjacent and neighboring signs are consistent with intent. He stated that the plexiglas and neon lighting are adequate quality materials. The method of supporting the sign is appropriate. The purpose of a sign program is to maintain a visual consistency throughout the property. Lamont stated that the size of the sign is larger than other signs on adjacent or neighboring properties. The size of the sign would not be in scale with another sign on the building if the tenant space is occupied. Aesthetic value may be impaired as the size of the sign will net be consistent should another sign be requested for the structure. The type, height, size and quality appears to be in compliance with the sign code if the ipproval is given for an individual business lot sign and the present sign program is repealed. Original sign program provided for two signs, Deep Rock and another of indeterminate size. Multiple Business lot signs would be permitted to be 37 square feet and 34 square feet respectively for the two different signs. Maximum of sixty four square feet for all sign is maximum area within sign program. The sign is primarily oriented to vehicular traffic. Regarding staff recommendation, determination should be made if application voids the provisions and benefits of additional square footage as provided for the multiple business lot signs approved under a sign program. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 3, 1989 Page 9 of 13 ck Water, Also, determination should be made to classify the site as an individual business lot, not eligible for additional signage, or determination should be made, if the site is to be multiple business lot, how much additional sign area should be assigned to each tenant. Mark Donaldson, representing Deep Rock water, stated that the owner of the building had been unaware of the exact signage that was had been developed and the sign that they are now proposing is already in fabrication and is used all over the state of Colorado and throughout the mid -west. He stated that the realize that they will be consuming most, if not all, of their sign allowance for an individual lot sign, and have no problem with it as there has not been any success in leasing the other portion of the warehouse and may end up occupying the entire building themselves. They would like to relinquish the previously approved sign program and in its place, request approval of this application as submitted. Hunn asked what would happen if they did decide to lease that space. Donaldson stated that the owner was aware of the risk, and possibly they would come in with a small sign request, but there is a possibility that the space could be leased without any signage exposure. His ultimate goal, all along, has been to design the building for his own company's ultimate use. Hunn stated that the size of the sign proposed is pretty aggressive and almost feels out of scale with the elevation of the building, as it crowds the fascia and the top of the arch. It looks forced on the building. He thought that staff brought up an excellent point that if there were a tenant sign the two would be out of scale with each other and would not look like a coordinated signage program for the building. Donaldson stated that the owner has lost interest in leasing to a tenant and he doesn't see him coming back for a tenant sign. He stated that the logo, the height of the letters and spacing is standard throughout the state. Donaldson stated that the owner is absolutely insisting that he be allowed to go with this standard sign. Hunn asked staff if the one sign does comply if no other sign is added to he building. Staff replied it does. Hill asked if they have a problem if this would be classified, as per staff recommendation, as an individual business lot. That it would not be able to go for additional Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 3, 1989 Page 10 of '13 Lot 24 Block 1. Benchmark at_Beaver Creek. Deep Rock Water_,_ Sign Variance Design Review, (cont) signage. Donaldson stated that they didn't mind that, but he did not want to relinquish any possibility to come back for a variance, or give up any future rights. Discussion followed on the comparison of the first proposal and this application. Jeppson stated that she felt that the size of the sign is a bit imposing on the building, unnecessarily so. She felt that the sign colors are bright enough and it will radiate off that area anyway. Discussion followed on the size of the letters and the logo, and the square footage. Discussion followed on the possibility o:' scaling it down. Donaldson suggested maybe moving the Deep and the Rock closer together and moving the water closer to the K. The overall length is shown as 27' 4" and maybe that could be cut down by a couple of feet. Perkins moved to approve the Deep Rock Water sign, with the urging of the applicant to try to lower and space the sign so that it's proportions are better between the fascia lines and the arched window line, and that it be a single business sign and that any other other sign to be put on this building would have to come to this board for a variance. This motion died for lack of a second. Hunn suggested that in considering this request the Board shouldn't be pressured because of the economic consideration that the sign is already in fabrication, we should look at it on the merits of the design, for that reason, he moved to deny the request because the sign is too large for the building facade and is out of proportion with the architecture of the building. McRory seconded. The motion carried with Perkins voting nay. Lamont stated that the applicatrt requests an approximate 20 square foot multiple business lot sign for Re/Max Vail Valley to be located on the 51 Beaver Creek Place building. The applicant seeks to change the sign location and standard mounting technique as provided for in approved sign program. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 3, 1989 Page 11 of 13 The sign is to be constructed of 1/2" acrylic panels secured by angle iron braces in north opening of north tower of building. The sign program calls for sign to be located in east opening of north tower and to be painted steel mesh. Lamont stated that, the adjacent and neighboring signs conform with the concept of the sign program. Quality of adjacent and neighboring signs are not consistent with intent of sign program. Background of existing painted steel mesh has had to be augmented by temporary backing in order to improve visibility of signs. Solid white backing behind steel mesh is an improvement to effectives of sign program. Acrylic sign face is an adequate quality material. The method of supporting is a significant alteration to the overall concept of the sign program. The purpose of a sign program is to maintain a visual consistency throughout the property. The proposed sign can be viewed from other angles, including from behind. Special attention should be given to the visibility of the supporting structure for other public areas on the site and in the immediate vicinity. He stated that the exposed nature of the tower location will expose the rear of the sign and its supporting structure to view from adjacent and neighboring properties. Aesthetic values may be impaired as the design theme for the sign program is not being carried out. Architectural final design approval calls for painted steel mesh to be located in all tower openings. A change in location of the sign does not appear to impair either monetary or aesthetic values. The type, height, size and quality appears to be in compliance with the sign code. Exact color and size of sign cannot be determined. Lighting is indirect from below. The sign is primarily oriented to vehicular traffic. The sign program calls for the sign to be located in the east opening of the north tower. Regarding the staff recommendation, determination should be made if the painted steel mesh is a critical part of the sign program. Determination should be made that the exposure of the structural support and rear of the sign is compatible with the intent of the sign program. Determination should be made that the change in location is compatible with the intens of the sign program. Lamont noted that behind the mesh in the north tower, there is a forty-five degree angle face which can be seen from Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 3, 1989 Page 12 of 13 Lot 69. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek. 51 Beaye_r_Creek 01-.-- D./Mav Vail vallev. Sign Variance, Design Review,. Bob Lavender, representing Re/Max, stated that the steel mesh on the other signs does not look very good. They propose to put the sign on the north end of the tower and by turning it ninety degrees to the east side the mesh doesn't come into play at all. They intend to use angle irons to support the sign. He stated that if it looks bad from the east side, they will put the mesh in theta to cover the backing up. He stated that drawings show that they can put the sign in the north tower or the east tower. Discussion followed on the possibility of seeing the suoports of the sign. Perkins asked if the size conforms. Lamont stated that there was not an exact calculation but it does conform. Perkins asked Bruce Allen, the owner, if he was concerned with the red, white and blue of the sign? Mr. Allen stated that it works out fine wich him, shoe this is a national franchise and those are the colors cr their signs, he has no probiam. Discussion followed on the materials, the lighting and the supports. Perkins moved to approve the Re/Max Vail Valley sign at 51 Beaver Creek Place, with the condition that (l. The applicant explore mounting possibilities that would be the most compatible with the architecture of the building; and (2. If there are objections to visual appearance of the mounting of this sign from the east side, that mesh screening be placed in u:.i east elevation to cover it. Hunn seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Reading and Approval of P & Z Minutes of 9/19/89 Regular Meeting Hunn questioned the wording of the motion on the first item of the minutes. The Secretary stated that the minutes reflect verbatim the wording of the motion. Hill moved to approve the minutes of the September 19, 1989 meeting. Jeppson seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 3, 1989 Page 13 of 13 Other Business Chairman doll noted that there is, in the packet, a letter from Mr. David Yoder, regarding the matter of detached duplexes being allowed, and a copy of the reply from staff. we Discussion followed on the wording in the Avon Municipal code, defining duplex units. Also discussed in length was the reasoning for allowing the already approved detached duplex on Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge. Discussion followed on all the problems that seem to be arising in the Wildridge area and the fact that something needs to be resolved soon. It was suggested that this should be an item to be discussed at the joint meeting on the master plan on October 17th. Perkins moved to adjourn Hunn seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Corr F. T. J. J. D. C. A.