Loading...
PZC Minutes 031991RECORD OF PROCEED -NGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MARCH 19, 1911 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on March 19, 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: Rick Pylman, Director of Community Development; Jim Curnutte, Planner; -harlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Chairman Doll stated that all members were present. leFami_ly Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence on Lot 23. The Commission has looked at this project at conceptual design review stage. The lot is about 3/4 of an acre or 37,000 square feet , the building is slightly over 2,000 square feet in size for a building area ratio of about 6%. Maximum building height is about 34 feet from finished grade to the highest point. A landscape plan nas been provided. The applicant is proposing hand irrigation to all plant materials. The building is a two story, with basement, wood frame building with a gable roof. Exterior building materials are 8" shiplap cedar siding and cedar shake shingles. There is some exposed foundation that will be painted to match the siding color. The driveway, as shown, is not per Town standards, but the applicant is aware that they will have to meet Town standards and will be amending the driveway. The driveway will be covered with a 3" topping of asphalt, however the applicant would like to hold off on the paving for a period of one year to allow for compaction. Color samples wi,l be provided. ^\1 R l PLANNING AIJD ZONING March 19, 1991 Page 2 of 12 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES S i n_g_l e._ F am i_ I y Curnutte reviewed the concerns that the Commission had at conceptual review, those being adding a retaining wall to the east side of the driveway and house in order to reduce the amount of grading shown on the site plan, and the applicant should add interest to the windows, especially the east elevation. Curnutte then reviewed the criteria for considering design revie•, stating that this proposal is in conformance with the Town Zoning Code with the exception of the driveway, which will be corrected; The type and quality of building and landscaping materials are suitable with Town guidelines, the siting and landscaping of the building is sympathetic to the adjacent residential property. All grading will be contained within lot lines, however, it appears that some regrading and boulder retaining wall will be within the 100' Holy Cross Electric Association easement. A letter of review and approval of this encroachment must be provided from Holy Cross prior to issuance of a building permit. Curnutte stated the property slopes toward the west at approximately 20% and the house has been designed to step down in the direction of the lot's natural slope. The garage has been incorporated into the lowest level of the house. Boulder retaining walls are proposed along the east side of the house and driveway in order to reduce overlot grading. The appearance of this residence from neighboring properties and public ways seems acceptable. The addition of some evergreen trees on the lot would improve its appearance. Staff recommendation is for approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant provide written authorization for improvements within the Holy Cross easement. 2. Final engineer's review and approval of driveway/road intersection design prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Final engineer's review and approval of grading/drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit. Mike Warmenhoven thanked the Commission for their advice given at conceptual review. It helped considerably. Discussion followed on the retaining wall. The matter of bringing it out further toward the entrance was suggested. Discussion on adequate maneuvering room at the garage PLANNING AND ZONING March 19, 1991 Page 3 of 12 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES __.Single__ Family followed. Discussion followed on the landscaping plan. It was suggested that there be more variety included, especially with shrubbry. Jack Hunn moved to grant approval to Lot 23, Block 2, Wildridge, as presented, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant provide written authorization for the improvements within the Holy Cross Electric Association easement. 2. The final engineer's review and approval of the driveway/road intersection prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The final engineer's review and approval of the grading and drainage plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The exposed foundation be given a finish treatment to within 12" of finished grade. 5. The extent fo the retaining wall be reconsidered and resubmitted to staff. Also included are the following recommendations: A wider driveway, recommend 16' width; reconsider the maneuvering space; and reconsider the landscape plan with respect to the variety of plant materials used. Sue Railton seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 70 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver_ Creek _Sub division, Mark Donaldson for Marino Construction,___14__Un0t Pes_idential. Proiect. Fractionalization of __Development _Riihts� Public Hearins Chairman Doll stated that at the last meeting the Commission considered this project, which had been scaled down to 14 units. The Commission voted on the fractionalization and approved it. However, fractionalization must be approved in conjunction with the design review, which is being presented this evening. He then opened the public hearing for this matter. With no comments from the public forthcoming, he then closed the public hearing and called for a motion. John Perkins moved to grant approval of the fractionalization of development rights as revised and presented, with the condition of receipt and review of the final access agreement PLANNING AND ZONING March 19, 1991 Page 4 of 12 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Lot 70 Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creok Subdivision,_ M_a__rk Donaldson for Marino Construction. _14 Unit Residential_ Pro.iect. Fractionalization of Development _Rights1__ Public between Beacon Hill Homeowners Association and the new property owners. Clayton McRory seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 70 Block 1. Benchmark_at Beaver Creek,_ Mark Donaldson fnr Marino Construction, Inc., 14 Unit Residential Proj_ect� Jim Curnutte stated that some of the design concerns the Commission had at the last meeting were: Widening the wingwalls; entry planters should be raised to protect the plants; dripline protection along the north side of the building; consider other alternatives to the solid body stain; the new buildings should match the existing buildings; consider alternate access to the west; consider including in the protective covenants some kind of requirement that basically requires the future owners of the units to use the garages for parking vehicles and not simply for storage; and relocate the landscaping out of Lot 70-A access easement. Curnutte stated that the applicant has essentially taken care of all of those. The reduction in density from 16 to 14 units has opened up some of the land for additional parking, which helps circulation on the property. There is a difference of 9 parking spaces over what was presented originally. The entry planters are now 6 x 6 treated timbers. Written documentation regarding the regrading on Town property, taking responsibility for damage, etc. has been received. Wing walls have been widened. Curnutte stated staff is recommending approval of this design review application, with the conditions that: 1. No building permit be issued until the access Agreement between Marino Construction and Beacon Hill Homeowners Association has been finalized and a copy provided for review. 2. Building permit construction drawings address the previously mentioned Town Engineer's concerns. 3. No building permit be issued until the applicant has received review and written authorization from all utility companies regarding the regrading to the north of the project. PLANNING AND ZONING March 19, 1991 Page 5 of 12 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Lot 70 Block 1y $enchmarK at beaver UreeK, mars uv, ci Final Desiar Review. (cont) Ron Preston, of Mark Donaldson's office asked if the Commission had any questions. Curnutte reviewed a letter received from Mark Donaldson stating that the previous concerns have been addressed. After some discussion by the Commission members of some of the design concerns, Clayton McRory moved to grant final des'gn review approval to Lot 70, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with the following conditions: 1. No building permit will be issued until the access agreement between Marino Construction and the Beacon Hill Homeowners Association has been submitted to the Town. 2. The building permit construction drawings must address the proviously mentioned Town Engineer's concerns. 3. No building permit will be issued until the applicant has received review and written authorization from all utility companies regarding the proposed regrading within the northern utility easement. Buz Reynolds seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Doll reviewed the history of this project. Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant is now proposing a four-plex building on this four-plex lot. He stated that the result of scaling down this project has significantly reduced the building coverage and impervious coverage. Each of the new units are slighi.ly larger than what was previously seen, in light of the fact that they have enclosed the previous patios and decks with greenhouse. Each of these four-plex units is now about 900 square feet. The residential portion of the building is on the second and third floors. The ir-st floor is taken up by garages and some storage. The building contains a common meeting room on the second floor and a common mechanical room on the third floor. A landscape plan has been provided. The irrigation system is underground and automatic. Project signing is located on the east elevation of the building and is 2' x 9'. No color, materials or lighting had been received regarding this sign at the time of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 19, 1991 Page 6 of 12 this report. A letter has been provided stating that the sign will be molded plastic individual letters, which will be externally lit from 100 watt canned fixtures to be located in the soffet overhangs of the roof. The building is a three story, wood frame building with a gable roof. Exterior materials include 1 x 6 T & G smooth cedar siding, cedar shingles, clad windows, and round metal deck railings. Twelve parking spaces are provided on the lot (10 are required), there are 5 individua! parking garages and the remainder are located outside of the building. The parking will be covered with asphalt. Curnutte stated that the development is nearly identical to the previous plans. The differences are the reduction in density and the associated grading, landscaping, etc; an increase in floor area; and the new plans show that windows have been deleted from the third story mechanical room. Curnutte stated that the proposal is in conformance with the zoning code. The type and quality of the building materials and landscaping materials are consistent with Town standards. The addition of landscaping along the north property line would help and the applicant has agreed to add two groups of landscaping along the north edge of the driveway and will include 2- 10 to 12 ft. quaking aspen and 4 5 gallon table top junipers in each group. The siting and landscaping of the building is sympathetic to the adjacent properties. The property slopes toward the southwest at about 6%. The garages have been incorporated into the lower level of the project and all grading will be contained within the lot lines. The proposed improvement does not inhibit principal views nor block the solar exposure of adjacent properties. It appears that the proposed landscaping will be acceptable. The mass of the building appears to be consistent with the two and three story structures on adjacent properties. Unit size and mix is consistent. This proposal is in general conformance with the adopted goals, policies and programs of the Town, therefore, staff is recommending approval of this project with some discussion on signage and entry lighting. Ron Preston, representing the applicant, stated that they have made the changes requested by the denial of the fractionalization, by reducing the density. He stated that this is the same building they had proposed, with the exception of the addition of the greenhouse area. ,46N PLANNING AND ZONING March 19, 1991 Page 7 of 12 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Lot 18 Block 1 Wildridge Wildflower Condominiums, Final Design Review. (cont) Buz Reynolds stated that he did not care for the sign on the side of the building. He suggested that it be a pedestal sign instead. It was felt that the greenhouse was a good aduition to the project. John PerKins stated that he has several problems as the project is presented now. He feels the massing of the building is simply two boxes that have been put together and he doesn't feel that they have worked very hard at coming up with an imaginative design for massing the project. Especially noticable is the north elevation, the three story wall all the way up on both sides. The roofs are shedding onto the garage entry way. Perkins asked why the trusses have been clipped on the ends? He feels that this is a very incompatible form with anything that is up there and he finds it very contrived. Perkins stated that he feels they have more asphalt on the site than is required. On the left hand unit, you have twenty feet behind the garage door and another full sixteen that comes all the way in and on the right hand unit it looks almost like thirty feet behind the garage doors and then another full sixteen running all the way through there. He felt that there was more paving behind the garages than there needs to be. He stated that he agrees with the comment regarding the sign. He felt that the transition from the greenhouse to the three casement window could be a little more interesting. He feels the project needs some more work. Ron Preston stated that they could change the sign to a free standing sign. Regarding the paving, he stated that they are providing parking behind the garages, so that takes up 18 to 20 feet of the paving. They feel that they need the extra room. Discussion followed on the matter of reducing the asphalt. Discussion followed on the massing design of the project. Sue Railton stated that this is a very prominent site and she did not like the massing either. There needs to be some more variation in the building. She did not like the symmetry of the greenhouses. She did not like the north elevation with all the garage doors along the bottom. She stated that the overhangs add confusion to the building. Buz Reynolds asked if there was any way that they could put some kind of shed roof detail over the garages? Discussion followed on what might be done. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 19, 1991 Page 8 of 12 Lot 18 Block 1, WildridgeWildflower.Condominiums,_ Final Design Review, (cont) Jack Hunn stated that he concurs with the comments already made. He feels that this project is a poor use of the site. He stated that it seems lii;e someone is trying to take a short cut. He stated that if the building was rotated slightly counter -clockwise, the views of all the units would be improved. If you would codnsider shifting it in the opposite direction the view of the units on the west side would be improved and get some morning sun into those units and in the process reduce some of the asphalt. There is close to two hundred feet of a straight line of asphalt that is not very sympathetic to the neighboring property. If the driveway had an undulating edge it would be more interesting. It needs a lot of landscaping on the north side of the driveway. He suggested, for a small project like this, individual trash pickup might be preferable to a dumpster. Hunn stated he would like to see a landscape plan prepared by a professional landscape architect. There is a bad situation for snow and water management to the entry and garage doors. He stated that this is not a townhome, it is a stacked condo project. The common entrance is not desireable. Hunn stated that during his tenure on the Commission, this is the most uninteresting project he has seen. He feels it is a very bad project for Wildridge. He feels that this design should be scrapped and a whole new design be considered for the site. John Perkins moved to deny final design review approval on Lot 18, Flock 1, Wildridge, Wildflower Condominiums project, citing Design Review Criteria section 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissim?lar to others in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired. Sue Railton seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 23, Block 1, Wildridr,Miller Single Fami_1_y. Conceptual Design Review Jim Curnutte Stated that this lot is slightly less than a half of an acre. The floor area is about twenty six hundred and does include a garage on the main level of the building. The maximum building height is 35 feet. The building is a two story, with basement, wood frame building with gable roofs. Building materials are cedar siding, stucco and wood decks. Curnutte stated that the applicant has been notified of the approved roofing materials in Wildridge, however he would like the opportunity to talk about the request for a metal roof. The applicant would also like to delay the PLANNING AND ZONING March 19, 1991 Page 9 of 12 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES paving of the driveway for a year to allow for compaction. Curnutte stated that the applicant is also aware that the culvert does not meet Town standards and this will have to be corrected from a 15" to 18" culvert. As this is a conceptual review, no formal action will be taken at this time. Todd Miller stated that he would like to go with pro -panel metal roofing if at all possible. He stated that he feels that it would look good and is also economical and he cannot understand why it will not be allowed in Wildridge. Buz Reynolds stated that he has been on this commission for a long time and he has seen a lot of applicants come in with pro -panels and have never received approval. One of the biggest problems is the sheen. He stated that this project has some pretty steep roof so adjacent property owners will get the sheen off the roof. John Perkins stated that his problem with the metal roof is that it is so dissimilar to any other product used in Wildridge. Also, with a metal roof, all the snow would be falling on the deck. Another problem with the project is the massing is so dissimilar from the front to the rear. the north elevation with the one window and the other half being so steep, makes it not work as a chalet. He asked the applicant for an explanation of the siting. The applicant stated he sited the house where it is because of the views he prefers. Perkins had a problem with the driveway and the access to the front door. Considerable discussion followed on these matters. Perkins stated the two different roof pitches seem to be competing with each other. McRory stated that he feels the applicant has left himself a little bit short in a lot of areas regarding windows. He also agreed that the north elevation is very massive and very blank. Discussion followed on the roof forms. Jack Hunn stated that the biggest challange is with the site planning and the access issue. If there was a way to get the garage on the same level as the kitchen that would probably be more convenient. That might also add some interest to the massing of the house. The style of the house needs to be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTWS March 19, 1991 Page 10 of 12 Lot 23 Block 1 Wildridge Miller Single Family. Conceptual.. Design Review (cont) solidified. He has a problem with the end of the ship kind of feature on the house. Hunn asked if there was any intent to add a second unit on the site. The applicant stated that not as far as he was concerned. Considerable discussion followed on all the mentioned items. Further discussion followed on the matter of a metal roof. Reynolds stated in all his years in Wildridge there has never been a metal roof installed and Jack Hunn stated that he would like to suggest that there will never be a metal roof in Wildridge. As conceptual design, no formai action was taken at this time. The applicant was urged to apply some of the comments and return for another conceptual review. Lot 38 Block 2, Wildridge. SPA Amendme_nt1Minor Subdivision__ Public Hearing Rick Pylman reviewed the history of this lot, stating that in September 1990, Claus Ackerman reroived sketch plan approval. He has since sold the lot to the current applicant, who wishes to proceed with the suL)division into two single family lots from a duplex lot. He stated that the lot is relatively flat and has street frontage in excess of 150 feet. Pylman reviewed the criteria for evaluating a SPA Amendment, stating that Lot 38 is a large, flat lot that appears to be physically capable of accommodating two single family homes. The staff believes that there are no adverse impacts upon adjacent properties by creating two single family lots out of the existing Lot 38. He stated that the applicants have submitted a final. plat that meets minor subdivision requirements. Pylman stated that the staff recommendation is for approval of Planning and Zoning Commission Resoultion 91-2, recommending to the Town Council, approval of this application. Discussion followed on required setbacks for each new lot. Pylman stated that there is sufficient room to build within the setbacks on each lot. Discussion followed on the access to the two lots. The applicant stated that they are planning on two separate PLANNING AND ZONING March 19, 1991 Page 11 of 12 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ivision, driveways. Discussion followed on the possible need for an easement being granted from Lot 38A to Lot 38B. Chairman Doll opened the public hearing. The Secretary stated that one letter had been received opposing the subdivision. Rick Pylman read the letter into the record. The Chairman then closed the public hearing. John Perkins moved to approve Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 91-2, recommending to the Town Council approval of the SPA Amendment and minor subdivision for Lot 38, Block 2, Wildridge, with the recommendation that the applicant consider any future access requirements from Lot 38A to Lot 38B. Clayton McRory seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Reading and Approval of _Planning ___and ___Zoning. _ Commission Meeting of March 5, 1991 Sue Railton moved to approve the minutes of the March 5, 1991 meeting. Clayton McRory seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Other Business Another worksession on the zoning code revisions will be scheduled for the next meeting. Buz Reynolds moved to adjourn, John Perkins seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary 0