No preview available
PZC Minutes 020591I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1991 STATEMENT FROM CHAIRMAN DOLL The purpose of this worksession is for this Commission to decide on a responsible recommendation to the Town Council concerning landscaping and the use of water to sustain same in a reasonable manner within the Town of Avon. The authority for such action is contained in Chapter 2.16.010, Paragraph 4, "To ensure that plans for the landscaping of property and open space conform with the rules and regulations as published by the Town and by this Chapter". Section 6.23 of the Plariing and Zoning Regulations, Landscaping, provides guidance and direction in the area. Par A 4 states that plant materials should be adaptable to the area. Par B 2 states that an automatic irrigation system is recommended to reduce losses and for ease of maintenance. We should take note of the word recommended as opposed to required. The purpose of the Planning and Zoning Commission, with the additional duty of acting as the design review board, is to ensure that the application of existing Town Regulations are followed in the case of each applicant who may appear before it. The Commission is not charged with and does not have the authority to manufacture regulations not already in existance. Therefore, any decision reached in a session such as this may be forwarded to the Town Council through the Department of Community Development with a recommendation that it's findings be adopted with the applicable code. This Commission can require an applicant who seeks to build in Avon that he or she follow all of the regulations adopted by the Town. Denial of an application when the applicant is within all of the regulatory statutes is not sustainable and can be appealed to the Town Council. Failure by the Council to uphold existing regulations may result in a lawsuit against the Town. This Commission is allowed some leeway in it's requirements of an applicant because of the design review process even though regulations may not support such action. An applicant could be required to perform regulatory requirements in instances where it would be in the best interests of the surrounding properties to maintain a higher scale of development. In the matter before us this evening, I recommend to this Commission that we listen carefully to those persons who will speak to us concerning amounts of developable land and water available, plant growth sustainable in the Avon area and types of plants used for landscaping purposes that need minimal amounts of water. Following that, each of you will be given an opportunity to state your opinions. Our goal will be to provide the basis for a recommendation PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1991 Page 2 concerning landscaping and irrigation to be forwarded to the Town Council and subsequently become part of the Town regulations. Rick Pylman stated that according to the statement provided by Norm Wood, Administrator for the Avon Metropolitan District, the District's Water Augmentation Plan provides water rights for projected development of all areas within the incorporated boundaries of the Town. This plan includes lawn and landscape irrigation associated with projected development. The District's water rights are more than adequate to meet the projected demand of anticipated development within the Town and District. Mr. Pylman stated that one of the questions is landscaping and irrigation systems vs. hand watering. He stated that Glenn Ellison is present to respond to questions regarding landscaping. Pylman reviewed the regulations, stating that the Commission can recommend that irrigation systems be installed. Ellison reviewed some of the natural vegetation that exists in the Wildridge area. He suggested that plants be used that have cold hardiness and also that have the ability to withstand a drought condition. Altitude also is a factor. Considerable discussion followed on when the possible need for actually requiring irrigation systems might arise, i.e. when considerable landscaping is to be done or even if natural landscaping is to be done. Discussion followed on the various types of landscaping and irrigation systems, i.e. zero-scaping. Discussion followed on watering schedules and the results of watering for a long or short length of time. Discussion followed on drip and spray watering. Discussion followed on the various types of grasses which are adaptable to the area. The general consensus was that the Commission 6hould give applicants recommendations and options to consider, f they are set against irrigation systems. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 PM. Respectfully submi d, ��� � Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on February 5, 1991, 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, Sue Railton, Jack Hunn, John Perkins, Pat Dixon, Clayton McRory, Buz Reynolds Staff Present: Rici• Pylman, Director of Community Development; Jim Curnutte, Planner; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Chairman Doll stated that all members were present. Lot 53 Block 3. Wildridae Subdivision1_Hans_Ob_e_r_1_ohr Duplex Residence Design Revision Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant had received final design approval November 7, 1990. The discussion at this meeting is regarding flue chase enclosures. As a result of changing from a woodburning fireplace to a gas burning appliance and the addition of a gas boiler, Mr. Oberlohr has dispensed with the flue chase enclosures and would like to just leave the flue treatment as it is and paint them the color of the trim. Hans Oberlohr stated that the reason he changed from a wood burning fireplace is that at the time the plans were designed they did not know that there would be gas available. He stated that he feels that the color of the fascia would be a good color for the flues. Discussion followed on the railing and the need to stain it. Oberiohor stated he would when it is warmer. IL PLANNING AND February 5, Page 2 of 14 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 1991 Lot 53, Block 3.Wi_ldriage Subdl-vis_ion ,_Hans ^terlohr Duplex Residence Design Revisions (cont.. John Perkins moved to direct Hans Oberlohr to paint the tour metal flues to match the fascia colors and to sta4n any wood railing materials left exposed to match the trim colors. Patti Dixon seconded. The motion carried unanimously abdivision. David Marshall for the -- 1__Complex_,,_Desi_gn Revisions Jim Curnutte stated that he has provided the originally approved plans, with the revisions highlighted in yellow. He stated that the landscaping and signage has riot yet been approved. He stated that as a result of refining the drawings and in consideration of the desires of potential buyers, the applicant wishes to make certain design changes to the buildings. This does not, effect the site plan. David Marshall reviewed all the proposed changes to each unit. Discussion followed on Building A changes which are: Change direction of siding from vertical to horizontal, change rear deck door from triple pane to double pane, upper level rear window horizontal instead of vertical and slightly smaller, combined two basement level windows on left elevation, small window on left elevation changed from trapezoid to octagon. Discussion followed on the loss of variety in changing ail units to horizontal siding. The Commission felt the octagon windcw did not fit the design as well as the trapezoid window. It was suggested that they should consider either letting it go or putting a circular window there. It was suggested that possibly diagonal siding could be used on the chimeny to break up the use of all horizontal siding. Clayton McRory moved to approve the revisions on Building A as submitted with no conditions. Patti Dixon seconded. The motion carried with Jack Hunn voti.ig nay. Jim Curnutte stated that the only difference between Buildings B and C and what has been discussed are the fact that these building sidings always have been horizontal and there has been a louver added. PLANNING AND February E, Page 3 of 14 (cont.) "1 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 1991 ision_,_Dayid,.,Marshallfor the. Com�nlex.___Deo- Revisions, Clayton McRory moved to approve the revisions on Buildings B and C as submitted with no conditions. Sue Railton seconded. The motion carried unanimously Discussion followed on the changes to Buildings D and F, which include the changing of gable roofs to hip roofs, Change rear deck door from double pane to triple pane and remove window, reduce size of two upper level windows on right elevation, and removed window on -eft elevation. Clayton Mcrory moved to grant approval for the revisions on Buildings D and F with no conditions. Patti Dixon seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion then followed on the changes for Building E, which include the changing of the roof form from hip to gable, the change of the siding from vertical to horizontal, change of rear deck door from double pane to triple pane and remove window, reduce size of two upper level windows on right elevation, and remove windows on left. elevation. Clayton McRory moved to approve the changes for Building E as submitted with no conditions. Sue Railton seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Jim Curnutte stated that Lot 5 originally received final design approval on December 18, 1990, and in the design review approval was the condition that the caliper and height of the proposed landscaping be increased by one foot. These changes were not shown on the building permit plans. Steve Riden stated that due to more accurate land form information the "stepping" of the main level below the entry is less severe, allowing the entry garage form to be lower than that of the main fora,. Orignally there was a step down to the main level from the garage level. Now, basically, the main level form has been raised. This looks much more appealing. It also helps maintain the driveway levels to the street. PLANNING AND February 5, Page 4 of 14 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 1991 Lot 5 Wildridge Acres,Steve_Riden for Bob KedrowskiDubois Single Family Res_dence, Design Revisi_ons,__ cont.)_ Chairman Doll questioned the statement made regarding "due to more accurate land form information". He asked why this was not taken care of before the design review. Riden stated that as an architect he had to work with wha+ he had and costs had to be kept to a minimum to keep the ,project in the affordable area. Doll asked if this was going to happen on every house in the project. Riden stated "not necessarily". He stated that these three projects represent the most difficult portion of the site. Tie remainder of the lots seem very close to what was originally proposed. It is like any experiement, you should be allowed to analyze that experiment. They are not varying from the concept, they are just making improvements. Further discussion followed on the changes. The applicant was directed to go through channels to make any changes in the future, by contacting Staff before the changes are made. Discussion followed on the grading concerns. The applicant stated that there is considerable grading to be done. All fill will be used to correct the grading behind Lots 7 and 8. Clayton McRory moved to approve the revisions for Lot 5, with no conditions. Sue Railton seconded. The motion carried unanimously. __Bob Kedrowskis Jim Curnutte stated this application received final design approval on September 18, 1990. Four conditions were attached to the approval. On November 8, 1990 a building permit was issued for the Pfneisl residemce. The building application construction drawings did match the approved design review drawings. In mid-January, Mr. Kedrowski requested a final certificate of occupancy inspection for the building. During the inspection it was discovered that several field changes were made to the design of the building wi-Lhout design review approval. Steve Riden stated that due to naccuracy of topographic survey, the stepping down of the form was deemed inappropriate. By altering the elevation of the main levels, it was possible to step the form from the largest mass towards the smallest (that being the garage) and maintain a level driveway from the street. Riden stated, per the owner's request, no door or window was placed in the garage, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 5, 199' Page 5 of 14 _ BobKedrowski_ and this should not be perceived in reality as a massive wall due to the proximity of the other houses and the installation of the meters. Also per the owner's request, an egress window was added to the lower level at the south elevation. Per the owner's request, as shown on the west elevation, a 5' x 5' high window with a trap above was substituted with a 7' x 5' high unit with a trap above. This allowed more light and less obstruction of view within the living area., Likewise, the trap was eliminated above the patio doors to further enhance the closure required within the dining a -ea. Due to minor plan alterations within the bedrooms, windors on the east elevation north of the garage were shifted and balanced in the wall. Chairman Doll asked the applicant why, after approval was given, were these changes made and the house built without the applicant notifying the Commission prior to building the house. Kedrowski stated that when he left the last meeting, Doll had made the comment that this is the first project of its kind in the area and he wanted Kedrowski to look good as a builder and also the Commission to look good. Kedrowski stated that he has twelve buyers/houses coming in. He thought from Chairman Doll's statement that he would have a little bit of flexibility, but it seems he overstepped his bounds. As far as the window changes, the owner does not want the window in the garage. They preferred having the window in an area where they had a view. Kedrowski stated that he would like to have someone on the Staff to come to with the changes, if any, and where he could get an answer/approval in a couple days rather than have to wait two weeks, etc. for an approval. It only takes five weeks to build one of these houses. Chairman Doll stated that what he said to him was that the Commission recommends that you use your palette of colors and the landscaping forms, to make this into an excellent project. Nothing was said about changing windows or forms. Kedrowski stated he took that out of context. Doll stated that the problem is that a house has been completed with all these changes and this is the first the Commission has heard about it. Doll asked Rick Pylman to address the matter of who can approve changes without coming to the Commission. Pylman stated that most of the changes on the house the staff could have and would have approved, had theY been notified. Regarding the window on the garage, that would have had to come before the Commission as it was a condition of the PLANNING AND February 5, Page 6 of 14 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MEETING MINUTES 1991 Steve -Bob ___Kedrowsk 1,,, ions,_ _(cont.__l approval, therefore the change would have to be approved by the Commission. Discussionfollowed on the changes. Jack Hunn stated that no trim is shown on the windows on the stucco level of the house as required by the plans. The apolicant stated that they felt that it looked better without the trim. Hunn also stated that in making this change the roof became complicated. He voiced concerns about the grade without an extensive retaining wall. He feels that they will not be able to fill the valley. He feels that this particular area needs further study and will probably lead to a different solution than what is currently approved and that solution should be brought at least to Staff before it is implemented. Hunn stated that the applicant should also consider how the meters will be screened. Sue Railton stated that she would still like to see the trim around the windows. She stated that there should be better rapport between the applicant and the building department. She stated that she did not want to see this type of thing happen again as we go through the balance of the homes. Any changes should be reported to the building department. The approved plans are a document to be followed, not to be altered at will and then come in and say I've changed all this stuff. John Perkins stated that the garage mass on this project is particularly unattractive. He feels the siding and the mass of stucco do not work in harmony and the window was important to break up that one wall. It was suggested that maybe a horizontal window, up higher could be added. Patti Dixon stated that she felt that the window on the garage is important. She stated that the front porch post needs to be surfaced in the same wood siding as the house. The lower window in the stucco area should be trimmed out in the cedar, the same as the upper portion of the house. Jack Hunn moved to approve the changes as requested on Lot 7, with the following conditions: 1. The windows in the stucco walls receive the trim as originally proposed; 2. The window in the north garage wall be installed as originally proposed; 3. The treated timber post in the vicinity of the entry be clad with some appropriate trim; and 4. The applicant submit a revised grading solution for the west of PLANNING AND February 5, Page 7 of 14 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 1991 Gwslt I,, this home, to staff prior to implementing that grading plan. Clayton McRory stated that to go ahead and make this occupant put a window in the garage at this point is unnecessary. He feels that the Board now has the applicant's attention and that from here on in any changes made will certainly go through staff. The owner of the house was present and stated that she did not want a window in the garage. She would agree to placing trees on that wall. John Perkins seconded the moti,n as stated by Jack Hunn. Reynolds stated that he does not feel that there is any reason for the applicant to go back and add the window, especially since the owner has no desire for the window. It would be done with trees. Jack Flunn stated that he would amend his motion to state that trees should be added to the north elevation in lieu of the window. The additional trees can be submitted to staff for approval. John Perkins amended his second. The motion carried unanimously. 1 __Mutz Jim Curnutte stated that Lot 8 received design review approval on the same date as Lot 7. This building is now being built. There have been some design changes on this building also. Steve Riden stated that the stepping of the main level was deemed inappropriate. This allows the driveway to become less s:.eep. They are basically back to grade with the cul-de-sac. It also gave a secondary roof form in front of the house vs. the solid roof form. To enhance the roof form they have highlighted the entry with the addition of a covering over the top of the entry. The major change of this particular project was the removal of all the stucco from this house. The client requested this and basically, the reason is the cost of applying stucco to houses during the winter months. They took this opportunity to do remove stucco from this house. They also took the opportunity to remove the french balcony and substitute it with a conventional deck. Main level window and door alterations were done to correspond to availability of standard window and door products and egress requirements and also the need to define PLANNING AND February 5, Page 8 of 14 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 1991 Lot 8 Wildridge Acres. Steve Riden for—Bob __Kedrow__M _sk ,utz Single Family Residence, Design Revisions (cont. the spaces within the building as the owners needs were realized. This included shifting of windows and expanding the glazing in certain areas. Lower level door and window alterations were done to fulfill the owners request and maintain egress requirements. More comments were made regarding the grading situation. Riden stated that he believes that they are ;till maintaining the concept of the project, the concept of affordability, giving the people the best for their money. Discussion followed on the changes. Hunn stated he would prefer the stucco be kept as he does not feel that wood is an appropriate material meeting grade and also it would add the variety that the Commission was seeking. Clayton McRory moved to grant approval for the design revisions for Lot 8, with no conditions. Jack Hunn seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot _57. >.ion�_Brent _Alm f_o_r __Jan 1_Desi gn Review Jim Curnutte stated that Jan Livergood, represented by Brent Alm, is proposing to construct a single family home. The lot is slightly less than a half acre in size (about 18,000 sq. ft) the building coverage is less than ten percent, the floor area ratio about 13 percent. Nearly 20% of the lot is covered with impervious materials. The maximum building height is about 29 feet from finished grade to the peak of the ridgeline. A landscape plan has been submitted which includes a list of the proposed species and size and quantities and the irrigation system is described as an in -ground drip watering system for all trees and shrubs. The building is a two story wood frame building with gable roofs. The applicant is proposing i x 8 rot!9h sawn cedar siding, wood and metal deck railing and masonite shingles. Exposed foundation walls will be covered wi':h stucco. windows will be vinyl clad wood windows. Siding will be stained sandlewood color in opaque stain. The vertical trim pieces will be forest green. The applicant will present samples. Curnutte stated that the following items were discussed at the conceptual review: 1. Consider the addition of trim PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 5, 1991 Page 9 of 14 Brent Alm_.for.___Jan n RevJew 1_ (cont_Z around the garage door; 2. The addition of enough room to the area behind the garage doors to back and turn cars around; 3. Landscape plan include some type of irrigation system, especially for any sod areas being proposed, including a drip system for any of the trees and shrubs. Also a zone of no disturbance should be shown on the site plan. Curnutte stated that he believes that all the items have been adequately addressed. Curnutte then reviewed the criteria for considering final design review. He stated that this application is in conformance with the Town Municipal Codes in all respects. CurnL.tte stated that Staff recommends approval of tki-s design review application with the following conditions: 1. Final staff review and approval of driveway/North Point Road intersection plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. The portion of the driveway in the Town's right-of-way not exceed 4%. 2. The addition of landscaping on the west side of the building should be considered. Brent Alm stated that the driveway grade at the right-of-way will be no problem. He stated that the reason that they had not added any landscaping at the west side is that they felt with the winds, etc. nothing would grow. They would prefer to go with an asphalt roof, but will agree to the woodruff roof. Discussion followed on the use of concrete for the drive. The main consideration was the cost of asphalt. Discussion followed on the turning area for the fire department, etc. The Commission felt that the driveway should be at least 14 feet wide, not the 12 feet proposed. Discussion followed on the use of the woodruff roof vs. the asphalt roof. Discussion followed on the need for some landscaping on the west side of the house and it was suggested ',.nat they contact a professional regarding what might work on that side of the house. PLANNING AND ZONING February 5, 1991 Page 10 of 14 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Brent.Al,m_for Jan 1,n Review,�ont. Jack Hunn moved to grant final design review approval, with the following conditions: 1. Woodruff roof be used; 2. Additional landscaping be considered on the west side of the house and the revised landscape plan be submitted to Staff. 3. The driveway be installed with a minimum 14 foot width. John Perkins seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 69 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Domino's Pizza, Sian variance and Design Review Chairman Doll reviewed the history of t'nic application regarding the previous denial and appeal to the Council. Jim Curnutte reviewed the Council's recommendations as follows: 1. Steel mesh backing painted white and located in the east and/or north tower openings. 2. Blue individual letters (6" - 18"), total limitation of the size of the sign area be limited to 20 square feet. 3. The Domino's logo should be of a size compatible with the individual letters. 4. Indirect lighting of all portions of the sign(s) Jim Curnutte reviewed the approval criteria for granting the variance. He then reviewed the findings to be considered. He stated that S.aff finds that granting the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and that a variance is warranted because the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Avon Sign Code. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the variance and Staff also recommends that the Commission discuss the temporay banner, for which the time limit has PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 5, 1991 Page 11 of 14 Lot 69 Block 2. Benchmark at BeaverCreek,__Domino's Pizza,_ Sign Variance and Design Review_.,(cont�] expired, and allow Domino's to retain the banner until the sign is installed or until March 1, 1991, which ever occurs first. Curnutte stated that the Commission should also talk about the neon signs in the window. John Perkins moved to grant the variance citing the findings that approving the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in a practical difficulty or unnecesr.)ry physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Avon Sign Code. Sue Railton seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Discusssion followed on the matter of the banner and neon signs within the Town. Rick Pylman stated that Staff is in the process of doing a mass mailing to all businesses regarding the neon signs. Discussion followed on the code requirements for neon signs. Discussion followed on conditioning the approval of the banner for Domino's with the requirement of the removal of the neon signs. Jack Hunn moved to allow Domino's Pizza to continue to use the banner until March 1st, or until his permanent sign is installed with the condition that he immediately unplug and remove the neon sign and if he wants to apply for that let him bring it in for auoroval. John Perkins secondej. The motion carried unanimously. Hear_i ng Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant has requested continuation of these two items. Patti Dixon moved to continue this application to the next regular meeting of February 19, 1991. Jack Hunn seconded. The motion carried unimously. FANNING AND ZONING February 5, 1991 Page 12 of 14 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Lot 43, Block 2 Wildridae Subdivisio_ny Mark_Harrison1 4 Unit Complex Conceptual Design Review Rick Pylman stated that Lot 43, Block 2, is a four-plex lot. The slope is approximately 10% and the lot is .70 acre in size. Mr. Harrison has put four single family homes on the lot. There will be three different types, one unit will be repeated twice. Pylman stated that this project needs to be more clustered. The grading plan needs considerable work. A little rework of the site plan can minimize the grading disturbance. Pylman stated that there is a preliminary landscape plan, and an architectural plan. Mark Harrison stated they could bring some of the units in. He described the proposed architecture of the units. Building materials are wood siding, woodruff roof, clad windows. There will be two car garages. One design has a loft. Discussion followed on the appropriateness of this development for Lot 43. Pylman stated the project should be a tight clustered development, rather than the way it is currently proposed. It needs to have a strong multi -family feeling to it. Discussion followed on taking each application on a lot by lot basis in determining what is appropriate. Discussion followed on the locations of the garages and driveway. The applicant was urged to provide a professionally considered landscape plan. Harrison stated that the reason this project is proposed is that they feel it is visually more appealing than another block building with four units, etc. Discussion folluwed on the driveway access. Harrison stated that they have gotten premission from the owners of one of the adjacent lots and are trying to contact the owner of Lot 44, to allow the driveway to be along the side of the lot. It was considered that this could be very helpful with some of the site problems. Discussion followed on the matter of allowing these multi -family lots to build separate units and then requiring duplex units to be connected. Again, it comes back to considering projects on a site by site basis and what is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 5, 1991 Page 13 of 14 ark Harrison�4 Unit appropriate in the particular site. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. The Commission suggested clustering the units, fit to current topography, and pursue the common access. As this was a conceptual review no formal action was taken. Buz Reynolds moved to approve the minutes of the January 15, 1991, meeting as submitted. Pat Dixon seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Buz Reynolds reported to the Commission that he has just learned that the woodruff roof is not fire rated. Discussion followed on this and it was suggested that further investigation be made to confirm this fact. Discussion followed on processes to be followed on design revisions such as was scheduled on this agenda. The Commission has asked the Staff to try to keep a tighte, rein on projects i'i the future so that this sort of thing cannot happen. The revisions should be viewed as if the building is not built. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording secretary P"1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 5, 1991 Page 14 of 14 Comm' F. Dc Hi iJ. Pf S. R+ C. M A. R, WDM