Loading...
PZC Minutes 091989RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on September 19, 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 called to order by Chairman Frank Doll. Members Present: FranK Doll, John Perkins, Jack Hunn, Buz Reynolds, Clayton McRory, Denise Hill, Terri Jeppson Staff Present: Norm Wood, Director of Commui:ity Development; Jim Lamont, Acting, Planner; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Lot 25 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creep_ Mi_n_i-Warehouse Facility Landscape Design Chairman Doll stated that as Lot 24 and Lot 25, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek are identical, they will be discussed as one. However, two motions will be needed for any action taken. Jim Lamont stated that bouh applicants wish to alter the conditions of final Hesign review approval in regards to the requirement that a concrete curb and gutter be placed along entrances drives. The applicant stipulates that revisions to the drainage plan, which calls for inclusion of a 4' wide and 2" deep concrete cross pan at the eastern driveway entrance causes the location of a raised concrete curb along the entrance drives to be impractical. Lamont stated that unusual drainage conditions occur which makes the raised curb a difficult means to deal with the street drainage. He stated that there is no particular impact. Lamont stated the cross pan is a suitable curbing material to Planning and September 19, Page 2 of 9 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1989 Lot 25 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Mini -Warehouse Facility Landscape Desig.i, (cont) allow for the circulation of heavy industrial vehicles while preventing breakup and deterioration along the edge of asphaltic surfaces. The consistancy of curbing materials throughout the industrialized area should be considered. Raised curbing is often heavily damaged due to the circulation of industrial vehicles. Lamont stated that the landscape plan was not reviewed in consideration of this application. Suitable means and method of maintenance should be identified to protect landscape areas in heavy traffic circulation areas from excessive damage, mutilation or demolition. The qualitative appearance of landscaped areas in the industrialized areas is an essential design element in the enhancement of the aesthetic character of the community. Lamont stated that the above comments apply to both projects. Jeff Spanel, Intermountain Engineering, statea that when the design review approval was given the civil design was not done. He stated that the problem with curb and gutter is basically there is no storm sewer. In order to effectively use a curb and gutter you need a storm sewer. To further complicate the matter, these are two sites in the middle of the block that are developed on both sides. There is no curb and gutter existing on either end, only open ditches. It is difficult to get the water to come up out of the ditch on to a curb and run along the curb and then go back down into the ditch, without causing the edges o' the asphalt at either end to deteriorate more rapidly. Another concern is the problem of having curb and gutter in the middle of the block and it will be difficult for the snowplow operators to know where the curb starts and where it ends. The verticle curbing would also be an obstacle for the heavy truck traffic. Spanel stated that the concrete pans can handle the storm flows. Reynolds questioned the drainage direction. Spanel described the drainage as shown on the plans. Discussion followed on the catch basins and the accumulation of silt. Planning and September 19, Page 3 of 9 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1989 Lot 25 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Mini -Warehouse_ Facility. Landscape Design (cont) McRory asked about the runoff during the spring. Spanel stated that the ponds are designed to contain a ten year thunderstorm and discharge it at 1/8th of the peak discharge, which is according to the Town requirements. Further discussion followed on the drainage Wood stated that he felt that this is a better solution than trying to do curb and gutter, part'cularly next to the street, from a maintenance standpoint. Hunn stated that his original suggestion regarding curb and gutter was more of decorative than functional and primarily intended to protect the landscape elements. Hunn asked what is proposed to protect the landscape island? Mark Donaldson, also representing the owners, stated that both owners have exibited pride in their projects and will take steps to protect the landscape. Hunn asked what the depth of the cover over the culvert on the Deep Rock project is and is it adequate to support the landscape. Spanel stated that it varies from a minimum of 1 ft to a maximum of about 3 to 3-1/2 ft. so it would support the landscaping. Reynolds pointed out that on Lot 25, part of the filter gallery is within the owners property and part is on the town right-of-way. He suggested that the motion include responsibility for maintaining the gallery. Perkins moved to grant final approval to Lot 24, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Deep Rock Water Distribution Facility drainage alterations, as presented. Jeppson saconded. The motion carried unanimously. Perkins moved that Lot 25, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Mini-Wz:rehouse Facility be granted approval, with the condition that the owner will maintain the filter gallery. Reynolds seconded. Hunn asked that the motion stipulate both on and of -I site maintenance. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 4 of 9 Lot Lot 25, Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, --- Facility. Landscape Design (cont) Perkins so amended the motion. Reynolds seconded the amendment. The motion carried unanimously. Reynolds announced that he must step down as a voting member of the Commission, due to a conflict of interest. Lamont stated that the applicant wishes to construct on Lot 38, Block 2, of the Wildridge Subdivision a single family residence. He stated that the site plan indicates that the single family residence is the first phase of a detached duplex proposal. According to information contained in the application, the proposed structure is 2,434 square feet with a full basement having on -grade access. At its highest point the structure is 33 feet above grade. The exterior of the structure is mushroom colored stucco, natural color sealer cedar fascia, forest gpeen custom color clad windows, and cedar single shakes. He stated that the site plan indicates that the disturbed areas of land will be revegetated with natural grasses, specific types of grasses are not indicated. Approximately 50% of the site will be disturbed. Type of existing vegetation is native grasses, sage, and indigenous low brush. Along the southe:•n boundary of the site, extensive revegetation has been ccnducted to cover sewer line excavation. Twelve 2-1/2 gallon narrow leaf cottonwood trees are indicated on the site plan. The building, deck and driveway coverage is approximately 13.7% of the site. The usable open space area is not indicate' on site plan. Main drainage channel for the site is not indicated on the site plan. Driveway grade is 7.5% Lamont stated that there are no unusual circumstances of note. He stated that the alteration of topography and removal of vegetation may be excessive. Drainage appears to be sufficient. Disturbed areas should be reduced and fill areas consolidated. As staff recommendation, Lamont stated that an appropriately sized culvert be located in drainage channel at the beginning Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 5 of 9 Singie of the driveway. Consolidation of fill dirt areas should be considered. Consolidation will reduce the disturbed area of the site. Snow storage areas and drainage swales should be indicated on the site plan. The applicant has not submitted materials or exterior color samples for review. Setback lines should be indicated on the site plan. Dimensions indicating location of structure in relationship to north property line should be shown on the site plan. The applicant has not indicated method of irrigation. Suitability of vegetation material for local climate cannot be determined. Revegetation methods for disturbed areas having steep slopes cannot be determined. Method of maintaining revegetated areas is not indicated. Letter indicating specific means and methods of maintaining revegetation areas shoulkd be submitted. utility locations and alignments should be indicated on site plan. Exterior lighting should be located on the elevations. Compatibility of detached duplex cannot be determined at this ..ime. Rudy Fisher, of Fisher Architects, representing the applicant, stated that the project is a sort of modified southwest design. They would like synthetic stucco, which is synthetic stucco on an inch and a half of styrofoam, with forest green window frames and cedar fascia. He stated that cedar shingles will be used not cedar shakes. Doll asked if this was for final aoprove.i? Fisher stated that it was for final approval, as the applicant would like to at least begin construction on the foundation this fall. Doll asked Mr. Fisher to respond to the comments made by staff. Regarding the culvert, Mr. Fisher stated that they would Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 6 of 9 Lot 38 Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision ho7,kerman Single Family Residence Design Review, (cont) provide an 18" diameter corrogated steel culvert. Regarding the consolidation of fill dirt areas, Mr Fisher asked for clarification. Lamont stated that this means to try to reduce the disturbed areas. Mr. Fisher stated that probably more than half of the fill dirt will be used in the road grading to build up the road to keep the road slope at a minimum and the other half will be used on the west side of the house to feather out the grades. Fisher stated that it is such a sunny site that they were not really worried about the snow building up, most years. Also, the soil is very gravely and percolates well. Lamont stated that the question was, if there is a detached duplex, would there be any storage area. Mr Fisher agreed to show the storage areas on the site plans. Discussion followed on area to be used for this first house and the area to be used if the detached duplex is built at a later date. Fisher stated that the house is well within the setbacks which is 25 feet at the front and 12-1/2 feet on the sides. He stated he would show those on the site plan. Ha stated that they would provide a drip irrigation system to each group of trees. Lamont asked that t,ey pro,.ide a letter on how the applicant will maintain the revegetuted areas. Fisher stated that they would show the utility locations on the site plan. Regarding exterior lights, Mr. Fisher will provite cut sheets for the lighting. Hunn stated that the Town of Avon Municipal Coce does not allow detached duplexes. He reviewed section 17.08.250 which i, the definition of a duplex. Discussion followed. Doll stated that the applicant has to be informed that when he comes in for the other half of the duplex, that half has to meet the town requirements. Hunn stated that he would suppert the single family home on the site. He feels the landscaping plan falls short. He stated that this is a very visible site and the landscaping should be commensurate with the quality of the construction. Perkins stated that he is in favor of attached duplexes on a site. He stated that, as a detached duplex is indicated, the applicant should be aware that it may be that it has to have Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 7 of 9 Lot 38. Block 2. 'O ldridae Subdivision, Ackerman Si-ngle Family Residence Design Review, (cont), more of an attachement to this structure. Further- discussion followed on the matter of an attached or detached duplex. Fisher stated that the proposed detached duplex ma, be submitted sometime in the far future and he would be sure to clarify with his client that the Commission now feels that they have to be attached in some 'day. Hunn moved for final approval on Lot 38, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, as a single family residence, with the understanding that this Commission is not endorsing a detached duplex concept, and that if the second unit is developed in the future it will have to meet the Town's zoning ordinances. Approval is conditioned by: 1. The applicant complete the information requested by staff and resubmit. 2. The applicant submit a more detailed landscape plan to the board for their review. 3. The applicant submit cut sheets for any light fixtures, attached or detached, on the site. These conditions must be submitted prior to final certificate of occupancy. Hill seconded The ,-otion carried with McRory voting nay. Reynolds then resumed his seat as a voting member of the Commission Other Business Lamont stated that he had received a letter regarding the landscaping on the Ptach residence, stating the types of grasses to be used and the methods of irrigation to be used. He reviewed the letter and discussion followed. Wood reminded the Commission of the Planning conference on September 21 & 22 and urged any that could, to attend. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 8 of 9 Reading and Approval of Supplement to Minutes of 8/15/89 Hunn moved to approve the supplemental minutes of the 8/15/89 meeting. Jeppson seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Hunn moved to approve the minutes of the September 5, 1989 meeting. Reynolds seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Chairman Doll stated that there had been at least four more meetings regarding the railroad crossing, since the last P & Z meeting. He stated that they had determined that the present railroad crossing will be the site for the separated grade crossing. He stated that there had been some suggestions to move the railroad tracks. Doll stated that preliminary engineering design is in process. He stated that they are working on funding and hopefully they will have something within the next week. Some local funding will be necessary. He stated that they are scheduled to meet with the Highway Department the first week of October. Further discussion followed on the possible participation by the railroad, traffic counts, etc. The Commission asked if there had been any response from Terence Allen. Lamont stated that he and Norm Wood had talked to Mr Allen on a conference call and he was debating on whether to appeal or resubmit. Hunn asked about the abandoned foundation across from the fire station. Wood stated that the owner had been given notice declaring it a nusiance, and he had appealed to the Town Council and they gave him a full sixty day period to respond on future plans for the foundation. McRory stated that he had voted against the last project because it had concerned a detached duplex and he feels that it should have been denied on those grounds at this time. Further discussion followed. He feels that this matter should be settled now, not in the future. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 9 of 9 Perkins moved to adjourn Reynolds seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Comi F. T. J. J. D. C. A.