PZC Minutes 040291r-�-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
APRIL 2, 1991
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was
held on April 2, 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;
Charlette Pascuzzi,
Recording Secretary
Chairman Doll stated that all members were present.
Lot 63 Block 3. Wildridge, Kelly_Residence_,___Rev_ised Final
Design Review
Chairman stated that at a earlier date a log house was
approved on this site. The applicant is now proposing some
changes.
Rick Pylman stated that the date of the first approval was
May, 1990. Pylman stated that the driveway has been
shortened quite a bit and the house has been moved up on the
site, about 10 feet in elevation. The driveway grade is not
so severe, the length is not quite as long. He described the
pre%ious driveway. Regarding the architecural changes, they
are basically a roof form, and window and door placement
changes. There was a simpler gable roof on before. There is
a little more interesting roof line now.
Pylman then reviewed the criteria for approving a design
review.
Pylman stated that there is no landscape plan with this
application. The applicant wishes to use the previously
approved plan.
n
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 2, 1991
Page 2 of 12
Lot 63, Block 3, Wildrid_qe,__ Kel_y.__Residen.ce_,__ Re_vised___Final
Design Review (con -6
Pylman stated that staff recommendation is for approval with
the same conditijns as the previous approval:
1. The driveway entrance must comply with the
applicable requirements for the Town of Avon.
2. A more detailed drainage plan must be submitted
for Staff review at the time of building permit application.
Brace Kelly described the reasons for the revisions to this
project. Mr. Kelly asked for the individual Commission
members' opinions on metal roofs and why they are not allowed
in Wildridge. The Commission members stated that the
dissimilarity and the sheen from this type root are the
reasons. Chairman Doll stated that the applicant has the
option to appeal to the Town Council regarding the matter of
the roof, if he so desires. John Perkins stated that he
felt that a metal roof would be a disaster on this house
because of the drip line.
Discussion followed on the changes made to the project.
Discussion followed on what changes would be made to the
landscape plan. Discussion followed on the windowless north
elevation. It was suggested that the landscaping on that
side be beefed up. Retainage for the uphill side of the
driveway was discussed.
Clayton McRory moved to grant final design review approval
for Lot 63, Block 3, Wiildridge, with the conditions that the
applicant meet staff conditions: 1. The driveway entrance
must comply with the applicable requirements for the Town of
Avon; 2. A more detailed drainage plan must be submitted
for staff review at the time of building permit application;
and 3. A new landscape drawing be submir.ted to staff
showing additional landscaping on the north side of the
building.
Patti Dixon seconded.
Tne motion was amended to include a 4th condition that the
gable end of the north elevation is to be stucco with
cross -hatch legs. Also amended was Condition 3. to state the
landscaping plan be brought back to the Commission rather
than the Staff.
The motion carried with John Perkins and Jack Hunn voting
nay.
118�1 .-.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 1991
Page 3 of 12
Lot 8, Block 2, Filing 1,_EaglebendSubdivision, _Tony _Seibert
Duplex Final Design Rev iew
Rick Pylman stated that the Commission has seen this before.
A single family house with a caretaker unit has be.:n approved
for this site. The applicant now wishes to build a duplex
structure . The driveway location and the road cut will be
the same as the previous approval. There is a shared
driN,eway with Lot 7. The purpose of this is that there is an
easement that allowes Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation access to
the drainage diversion to Metcalf Ditch. Pylman stated that
it is a 16,000 square foot lot. The building coverage is
about 2600 square feet. About 25% of the lot area is covered
with impervious materials. The building does meet building
height, by averaging around the building. The building is a
3 story wood frame building with a gable roof. Building
materials include 1" x 8" V -groove cedar siding with a stucco
accent element and cedar shake roof.
Pylman then reviewed the criteria. He stated that the south
end of this site is not detailed at all, although it was on a
previous drawing for the lot. He stated that this
information should be submitted prior to building permit
is�-:ance. He stated that the type and quality of both
building and landscaping are suitable with Town guidelines
and are consistent with the remainder of the Eaglebend
Subdivision. He stated that the siting and landscaping is
sympathetic to the adjacent residential property. All
grading will be contained within lot lines. He described the
siting of the building on the plans. The property dips down
towards the river about 7%. The design incorporates a walk
out basement that seems to work well with this site.
Staff recommendation is for approval with the condition that
the site plan receive a little more work before a building
permit is issued.
Tony stated that, in order to keep this project from being
almost identical to the others in the area, he has asked the
architect to change the roof line completely and put in a hip
roof and gable roof, add more stucco and from the river side
they have changed the window arrangement. They have
attempted to make each side of the duplex different also.
They have changed the entry columns and the walkout basement
glass is also different. He stated that the colors will be a
white stucco, a forest green accent and an oak tan color for
the body of the building. Seibert stated that he has
received approval from the water district to deck the top of
the concrete with a wooden deck so long as it is removable.
He will provide drawings showing a palletized system where a
PLANNING AND
April 2, 1991
Page 4 of 12
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Seibert
section of the deck can be removed for service.
Discussion followed on the landscaping. Discussion followed
on the west elevation foundation and the need for a Nigher
level of finish or perhaps a retaining wall and bring grade
up to avoid exposing that much foundation. Discussion
followed on the snow and water shed on the entries and garage
doors. Seibert stated that he would prefer to stay away from
any kind of guttering system. Discussion followed on the
fireplaces. All the homes will have gas-fired only,
therefore the flues can be either vertical or almost
horizontal. Discussion followed on the possibility of the
walkout basement becoming another unit. Seibert stated that
what they typically do is not finish off the basement. They
install rough plumbing and rough walls only and let the buyer
decide what they want to do with it. Discussion followed on
the parking required. Pylman stated that they had adequate
parking for the duplex.
John Perkins moved to grant final design review approval with
the condition that the applicant return with the color scheme
and the landscape plan.
Patti Dixon seconded.
The motion carried unanimously.
Jim Curnutte stated that Lot 49 is .55 of an acre in size and
the building coverage is approximately 1,000 square feet for
a building area ratio of 4%.. The floor area of the building
is approximately 2200 square feet for a ratio of 9%. The
maximum building height is 31 feet from finished grade to the
highest ridgeline. He stated that the landscape plan
proposes a drip irrigation system to the large plant
materials. The building is a two story wood frame building
with a walkout basement and two car garage. The house has a
basic gable roof form and a prow facing the street. The
building materials are masonite siding and woodruff shingles.
A 1 x 4 trim will be used on doors and windows. The
applicant will provide colors tonight.
Curnutte then reviewed the approval criteria, stating that
the siding should be given some review for appearance and
integrity. The lowr-•r level as currently shown does not
provide a treatment for the exposed concrete. The landscape
materials appear tc be rather small and sparsely distributed.
r-,
PLANNING AND 'ZONING
April 2, 1991
Page 5 of 12
COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Lot 49 Block 1, _Wildridgey.Denn_is_Cor_w_in and__KarenBrowi1
Single Family Residence, Final Desi_gn_Review _(c_ont-)
The siting and landscaping of the building is sympathetic to
the adjacent residential property. All grading will be
contained within lot lines. The driveway is relatively steep
at 10% and will be required to meet Town standards. The
property is relatively steep at about 25% on the average.
The house is basically a set of plans designed by a
commercial vendor and was not specifically designed for this
particular site. Staff has a concern regarding the
northwest elevation and how the lower level materials will be
expressed. The visual appearance of the site from
neighboring properties seems acceptable. The siding material
should be reviewed and more information provided regarding
the elevations and grading. Staff sees no conflict regarding
dissimilarity.
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1.
The driveway meet Town design standards; 2. Material and
color samples be discussed and approved; and 3. The
driveway should be designed to allow vehicles to turn around
without backing out the entire distance on to the road.
Joe Guertin, representing the applicants, stated that the
treatment of the lower part of the northwest elevation will
be wood frame and include the same type of masonite siding.
He described the siding material, stating it is a baked on
primer. The Commission asked if he could provide a picture
of what this product looks like when applied to a building.
The applicant stated that he could not. Discussion followed
on how it is applied. He stated that it will be an eight
inch lap -siding so the exposed surface will be approximately
7 inches. He stated that the colors well be a dark grey trim
on a light grey main body and a dark green accent color. He
stated that Inter -Mountain Engineering did the original
drawings and the driveway is designed accord4ng to Town
requirements. The entry has been changed to 16'. Regarding
the turn around and parking area in front of the garage, he
believes there is plenty of room to take care of several cars
and be able to turn around and drive out. The snow storage
area could be changed to additional driveway if required.
Patti Dixon asked if the snow storage is the same as the turn
around or are they two separate areas? Guertin stated that
the snow storage is right next to the turnaround. The snow
area would not be paved. John Perkins asked that the
applicant show, on the site plan, where the turn around is
shown. Further discussion followed. Frank Doll stated that
the Commission prefers to see the type of drawings as
provided by the previous Eaglebend project, rather than these
presented for this project. These do not show much detail
PLANNING AND
April 2, 1991
Page 6 of 12
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
win and
and it is very difficult for the Commission to look
drawings provided and tell what the project will be.
Brown,
at the
John Perkins asked what kind of windows are proposed. The
applicant stated that they are weather shield wood windows,
thermal pane. Perkins asked about the window trim. Guertin
stated that it will be the standard type of trim that comes
with all wood windows. They are a brick moulding. The
Commission further studied some of the plans. Further
discussion followed on the masonite siding.
Buz Reynolds stated that he did not care for the masonite
product and he would like to see more detail in the drawings.
Jack Hunn stated he had a lot of concerns about the project
and a few questions. He does not feel the submittal is at
the level of detail that the Commission would normally see
for a final approval. This is the type of thing that they
would normally see for a conceptual. The driveway is steep.
He assumes that since it was designed by an engineer it meets
the Town's requirements, with the exception of the width. He
feels the maneuvering space needs to be paved in order to be
realistically available in the winter to turn a car around.
He stated that there are significant retaining walls required
to provide access to the project and according to his
calculations the highest retaining condition is about 18'.
It is indicated as boulders and it is indicated to be
terraced, however the horizontal distance provided on the
drawing and the size of the boulders and the batter that you
lay them back with would pretty much give you a continuous
vertical run of 18' of boulders. He feels that this is too
harsh and should be broken up into several terraces of
significant horizontal distances that could be landscaped to
mitigate the retaining walls. He asked if the driveway was
proposed to be paved. The applicant replied that it was.
Hunn stated that the landscaping plan is very conceptual and
pretty sparse and because of the retaining walls and the
predominent image of those, some consideration should be
given to planting some material to hide those. Material
sizes are called out as 6' aspen, which would be about a 3/4"
caliper. Usually the Commission looks at about an inch and a
half caliper or a mixture of sizes so as to provide a
variety. Some shrubbery to add detail would also be
appropriate. He stated that he is uncomfortable with the
masonite siding and he would point out that it is not
permitted by the covenants which run with the land in
--1% r-*,
PLAN14ING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 1991
Page 7 of 12
n and Karen Brown
Wildridge. The Town ordinances do not specifically address
it. He feels it is an i;,appropriate pr,)duct for use up there
and recommends that the applicant consider a real wood
siding. He thinks the house would be more interesting and
more functional if there were two materials rather than all
one material as proposed and recommends a durable second
material be placed at the base of the building to take some
of the abuse that normally is found around garage doors and
against thq building where it meets grade., perhaps stucco
would be appropriate. He does not feel the housing design is
sensitive to the topography. It is sort of a transplanted
design and it functions but isn't really designed specific to
the site conditions. Hunn stated that he is a little bit
concerned with a package home. He is concerned that the home
is not designed for wind load and snow load, etc. Guertin
stated that this design will meet all requirements. Guertin
stated that masonite is a very durable product and in his
opinion would be more durable than using wood at the lower
portion and any other product mixed with the masonite would
be inappropriate. Further discussion followed on snow loads
etc. Hunn stated that he did not believe that this approach
of development in Wildridge is consistent with the protective
covanents or the goals of the Town of Avon. He feels the
design is incompatible with the existing properties in
Wildridge. The applicant asked if he would feel better if
they had kiln dried cedar siding on it. Hunn stated not
really, It is more the form of the house, the way it
addresses the site, the style of the house witn the prow end
suggests a cottage on a lake in the mid -west and not
necessarily a mountain alpine setting. Hunn stated that he
appreciated what their goals might be, but he has to call
them like he sees them. He could not support this as
presented.
Sue Railton agreed with the comments that. Hunn made. She
feels that it is a little bit too simplistic for the setting
and compared to the other houses around. She feels this is
like a little vacation cottage. She would like to see more
detail and more interest in design.
John Perkins stated that he tends to agree with Hunn'F
comments. He thinks the form of the house is not
appropriate when you evaluate existing structures in the
area. The siding material would be a dissimilar material of
any approved in Wildridge. He too has a problem with taking
a design out of a catalog and forcing it on to a very steep
and difficult lot. He feels the landscaping needs a lot more
work. He is concerned about the
PLANNING AND
April 2, 1991
Page 8 of 12
Single
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
retainage and large cuts. He feels that some landscaping
needs to be included nest to the house. He also would have
trouble supporting this as presented.
Patti Dixon stated that number one and foremost is the
protection of quality development in Wildridge, and a little
bit more care should be taken on the plans for this site.
She definitely proposes the redwood, rather than the
masonite. The retaining wall could be a problem.
Landscaping needs more attention.
Buz Reynolds stated that the building massing needs more
work. More room will be needed for snow and turn around.
The windows will need some work, and he has already voiced
his opposition to the siding. He does not like the fla? wall
effect. There needs to be something that will provide a
shadowed effect.
McRory had nothing else to add. Chairman summarized, stating
that from what he has heard, the Commission is not favorably
disposed to this project. It might have been better for the
applicant to have come in as a conceptual project rather than
a final design.
Jack Hunn moved, in the matter of Lot 49, Block 1, Wildridge
Subdivision that the application for final design approval be
denied, and that the criteria cited for the denial be
Criteria 6.16 - The objective that no improvement be so
similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that values,
monetary or aesthetic will be impaired.
John Perkins seconded.
Karen Brown stated that, in looking around the other homes
very close to this site, they are very similar to this house
and that is one of the reasons that the picked out this
model. They happen to be duplexes, with two peaks in the
r.�ofs instead of just one, but are similar to this design.
They want to build this single family now on this side and to
have the option to eventually build another single family on
the other side of the lot. They felt thac this design was
quite similar to the other homes in the area. The applicant
stated that if the only problem is the masonite, they would
be quite willing to use the kiln dried cedar siding. She
stated that they looked at a home in Longmont and also some
in Vail almost identical to this design. 'They felt if it was
good enough for Vail, it would certainly be good enough for
Avon.
PLANNING AND
April 2, 1991
Page 9 of 12
000%�,
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Brown
Patti Dixon stated that she did not feel that it was the
quality alone, it is the house with the topography.
Mr. Guertin stated that this house, with the walkout
basement, is designed for a sloping type of lot.
Further discussion followed on the matter of whether this
should have been a conceptual design review instead of a
final design review.
Buz Reynolds stated that he understands that the lot is a
difficult lot and he realizes that the house is the square
footage and layout that they want, but it is the external
picture they are looking at and how it feels to the other
buildings. He feels they need to work with staff to come up
with something that would be more appropriate for this lot.
Sue Railton stated that the applicant will have to provide
some proper elevations of the house showing the topography
around it. The drawings shown here tonight have nothing to
do with the site under consideration. Also, other interests
should be added to some of the elevations. Larger overhangs
were suggested, also the possibility of more dormers. Some
window trim treatment might help. Something to give it some
weight and some substance as it sits in the side of the hill.
Generally it reads as being too light and somewhat weak for
the site.
The motion carried with Buz Reynolds voting nay. Chairman
Doll urged the applicants to return again.
Lot 94 Block 1, Wildridge, Huckaby Single Fami l__Residence�
Conceptual Design Review
Jim Curnutte stated that Phil and Julie Huckaby is proposing
a single family residence on Lot 94. The lot is slightly
under a half an acra, located on Old Trail Road. The
building is about 2000 square feet on its first and second
floors and will include a garage below the first level. It
appears that no portion of the building will exceed 30' in
height. No landscape plan has been received to date. The
building is a two story, wood frame ouilding with gable
roofs. Building materials are 8" smooth lap siding (masonite
hardboard) stucco, masonite shingles and concrete porch
slabs and the driveway will be finished with asphalt.
As a conceptual review, there will be r.o formal staff
recommendation. The proposal doos meet all applicable
guidelines and requirements, with the exception that
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 1991
Page 10 of 12
Lot 94 Block 1, Wildridge, Phil_and_Julie_Huckab��_Single
Family Residence Conceptual Design Review
improvements are shown within the utility easements and will
need review and approval from the utility companies.
Phil Huckaby stated that this is a Miles home. It is not a
pre -fab house. It is a conventionally stick built house.
The Commission members viewed the site plans provided. The
windows were discussed, the roof was discussed, the turn
around was discussed, and the landscaping was discussed.
Huckaby provided color samples for the stucco, siding and
trim. McRory stated, considering the previous project, that
this one has a lot more interest to it and has a lot more
character, works better with the site. Discussion followed
on the window fenestrations, and retaining walls. Perkins
advised getting a good landscape solution to the site.
Perkins encouraged the use of as much stucco as possible.
Hunn commented on the retaining walls and suggested a 2 to 1
slope for regrading. If the retaining walls get higher than
six feet, he should' consider terracing them. It was
suggested that some landscaping be placed between the asphalt
and the house. Hunn stated that he liked the character of
the house, the massing, and he feels that they are proposing
some materials that fit right in up there. The siding till
be cedar siding not masonite. It was suggested that they
consider semi -transparent stains for the colors.
Chairman Doll stated that this project has been presented
before for conceptual and it is now back with some changes.
Jim Curnutte stated that he has also provided the previous
plans for comparison if the Commission so wishes. CUrnitte
stated the house is a two story with loft featuring a priw
front elevation that incorporates a steep "A" frame style
roof form. At the back of the house the roof pitch flattens
out to accommodate the 3rd floor loft area. The Commission,
at the last meeting asked the applicant to consider alternate
driveway and/or house location as well as the combination of
roof forms. The siting of the house has not been cnanged,
however, the driveway access point has been shifted to allow
a shorter, flatter driveway approach. The new access point
is located directly on a curve and will be subject to review
by the Town Engineer. The roof forms have been altered
slightly by the addition of a dutch hip on the north
elevation and in addition, several window and color changes
have been incorporated into the design. Again this is a
..y
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 1591
Page 11 of 12
Lot 23Block 1 Wildridge, Miller Single_Family_Res idence,
Conceptual Design Review cont
conceptual design review, therefore there wi'l be no formal
action taken.
Chairman Doll commented that the driveway still seems very
long. Discussion ollowed on the location of the garage and
the placement of the driveway. Discussion followed on the
river rock being used. Sue Railton stated that still feels
that this is two different houses pushed together, with the
two roof styles. Discussion followed on the entry by the
garage and where the front entry would be. Perkins stated
that he still has much of the same concerns about the house.
He feels the stone is a detraction rather than an
approvement. Forms ?re st'll very awkward. Hunn stated that
he has some of the same concerns. He stated it seems that
the house plan is being forced on the site. Considerable
discussion followed on several suggestions of how it might be
corrected.
Chairman Doll summarizeu the concerns as being the two
different styles of architecture in one house. The
applicant was urged to consider all comments made at both of
these conceptual reviews and try to incorporate them in the
final design.
Authority
Mark Donaldson stated he would like to talk about the site
plans first. He described the two driveway approaches they
were considering. He stated that they were trying to
minimize the overlot grading. He described the areas that
will need revegetaticn, etc. He stated that the siting of
the buildings will give good views from the living rooms.
Each unit will have garages and guest parking.
Donaldson then provided sketches of the architectural style.
He described the roof forms. He then described the units.
Discussion followed on the need
Donaldson stated that they do not
Considerable discussion followed.
conversations being conducted at
not transcribable.
As this was a conceptual review,
at this time.
to haul dirt to the sites.
have a good building site.
Due to several individual
once, actual discussions are
no formal action was taken
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 1991
Page 12 of 12
Jack Hunn moved to approve the minutes of the March 19, 1991
meeting.
Clayton McRory seconded.
-he motion carried unanimously.
Other Business
With no other business to discuss, Jack Hunn moved to
adjourn, Clayton McRory seconded. The meeting was adjourned
at 10:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlette Pascuzzi
Recording Secretary
Commission approval
F. Doll
J, fix.
J. Perk
S. Rail
C. McRo
A. Reyn
P. Dixo
Date --- - —
