Loading...
PZC Minutes 061891RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING JUNE 18, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on June 18, 1991, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex, 400 Be.ichmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins. Members Present: Sue Railton, John Perkins, Henry vest, Derek Pysher, Patti Dixon, Buz Reynolds Staff Present: Rick Pylman, Director of Community Development; Jim Curnutte, Planner; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Chairman Perkins stated all members were present except Clayton McRory. Jim Curnutte stated that since the applicant for the first item, Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, was not present at this time, he would review the second item. Lot 72, Block 2, Benchmark at Be_avp- _Creek Subdivision, _.BG, -,k Creek Plaza, Proposed Buildi_ng__Color_Change Jim Curnutte stated that Louie and Cynthia Jordan of Buck Creek Plaza Condominium Association are proposing to change the color of the Buck Creek Plaza building. He stated that the existing siding on the building consists of a mixture of 8" cedar siding (stained brown) and stucco (tan). The windows are dark anodized clad and the roof is metal (brick colored). The building's scuppers are painted to match the roof color and the sway braces match the brown siding. The applicant's are proposing to repaint only the wood siding. The roof and stucco colors will not change. The siding will be painted a mixture of Hamilton Blue and Border Green. A somewhat lighter shade of the siding will be used on the building's trim. During discussion by the Commission members, it was suggested that a darker accent be used, rather than a lighter accent. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 18, 1991 Page 2 of 9 Lot 72_.B1_ock 2y_Benchmark_at_BeaverCreek_ Subdivision, Buck Creek Plaza.__Prsed_ bui ld_in_g_Color_ Change,__(_cont)_ The consensus was that the staff could approve the accent color. Buz Reynolds moved to approve the color as submitted with the recommendation that a darker accent color be used. Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 9. Block 3. Benchmark at__ Beaver__ Creek _ Subdiv_ision, Avon _ Sunridge at Avo, Phase I,_ Proposed_BuildiC _ng olor Change Jim Curnutte stated that Tom Casteel of the Vail Management Company is asking for approval to change the color of the Sunridge Phase I buildings. The existing siding is an oxford brown (semi -transparent stain). The applicant would like to retain i.he building with a Buckskin colored solid body stain. The buildings' trim and doors will remain oxford brown. Curnutte stated that, because the applicant was unaware of Avon's design review procedures regarding peoposed building color changes, a few of the buildings have already been restained. During discussion of the color change, it was suggested that the breezeways also be painted instead of leaving the the brown. Sue Railton moved to approve the color change for Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Sunridge at Avon, Phase I, with the condition that the breezeways be painted the same as the exterior. Derek Pysher seconded, and the motion carried with Henry Vest voting nay. ,Front Lot 5. Fi1ing 1. Eag1ebend_Subdivisi_on._Railton Duplex, _Fina.l Design Review Sue Railton stepped down as a voting member of the Commission due to a conflict of interest. Jim Curnutte reviewed the request for the variance, stating that the request is to allow a 9-1/2' building encroachment into the twenty-five foot front yard setback. In addition to the building encroachment, the application includes a request to allow for a parking space to be located within 10' of the front property line. He then reviewed the lot size, stating PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 18, 1991 Page 3 of 9 Lot 5, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision.Rai.._1_ton_Dupl_ex3_Front Yard Setback Variance, Public Hearing,__(­ccnt)_ Lot 5, Filing 1,_Eaglebend Subdivision,__Rai lton_Duplex, _Fina I Design Review, (cont) that slightly less than half of the lot is located beyond the top of the bank of the Eagle River. The proposed building encroachment only involves the west building (the east and west side of the duplex have been detached and separated). During conceptual design review Staff pointed out that the project does not conform to Avon's zoning code in three ways: 1. The definition of a duplex; 2. The building encroachment into the setback; 3. The parking within 10' of the front lot line. Curnutte reviewed the approval criteria, stating that althDugh the river embankment does restrict the buildable are of the lot, it would appear that there is still sufficient buildable area on the lot to accommodate any number of building designs that would fit within the constraints that exist on that. lot. He stated that the detaching of the buildings seems to be causing the need for the variance. He stated that the degree to which relief is necessary seems to be driven more by the architectural program than by the lot itself. Curnutte stated that the property next door did receive a setback variance. Staff at that time did recommend approval. Again, this was a design issue. If the unit had been set within the setbacks it would have caused considerable destruction to the Eagle River natural area and the Staff had a problem with that. Curnutte then reviewed the findings required. Curnutte stated that Staff recommendation is for denial of the variance request. Staff feels that granting the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistant with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district, and that the strict, literal interpretation of the 25' regulation would not cause a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistant with the zoning code, and there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this lot that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity. Finally, the strict interpretation of the rules would not deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the area. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 18; 1991 Page 4 of 9 Lot 5. Filing 1. Ea9lebend Subdiv_i_sion,_Rail ton D �lex�.Froni. Yard Setback Variance, Public_Hearing,__(cont,Z Lot 5. Filing 1, Ea9lebend_Subdivision_,__Railton_Dup_ler __Final Design Review, (cont) Chairman Perkins opened the public hearing, asking if there had been any response regarding this matter. Curnutte stated that a letter had been received from Mr. Zimmerman (Lot 4) stating that he had no probelm with the variance request. John Railton stated that he had received a letter from Jeff Spanel, Inter -Mountain Engineering, (Lot 6) stating that he had no problem with the variance request. Chairman Perkins then closed the public hearing. Curnutte then reviewed the final design review request. The two units will be detached with a minimum 6' separation between the buildings. He reviewed the sizes of the units. He stated that a landscape plan has ben provided, but no reference is made regarding irrigation. He stated that no trees should be planted in the public right-of-way and although some mention is made to low shrubs and tlowerbeds in various locations, they are not shown on the landscape plan. The buildings are two story wood frame buildings with gable roofs. The siding, fascias, soffits, windows, door trim and deck railings will be cedar. Windows will be aluminum clad and doors will be metal cald. Asphalt shingles are proposed for roofing material and the driveway will be finished with either concrete or asphalt. Descriptions and samples of colors have been submitted. Curnutte reviewed the design review critl.aria, stating that the proposal is not in compliance with the zoning code as mentioned above. Staff feels that these are two buildings attached by a common walkway cover. He stated that the type and quality of the materials are acceptable. Curnutte stated that by separating the two halves of the duplex the buildings crowd the side property lines, thereby rejucing the open space. By placing the garage 9 feet closer to the front lot line the amount of bufrering between the building and the guest parking area and the roadway is reduced. Curnutte discussed the site plan and topography and the construction of a boulder retaining wall along the back. Curnutte stated that Staff recommends that a connection be made between the two buildings so that it meets the definition of a duplex. By shifting the west unit back and toward the east unit a front yard setback variance would not be necessary. Staff recommends that the landscape plan be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 18, 1991 Page 5 of 9 Lot 5 Filing 1 Eaglebend Subdivision. Railton_Duplex,_ ront Yard Setback Variance, Public Hearing cont_ Lot 5. Filing 1 Eaglebend Subdivision, Railton_ Duplex.,Final Design Review, (cont) amended as previously discussed and additional information should be provided to determine the effects of directing parking lot runoff toward the Eagle River. John Railton stated that four other variances had been approved along Eaglebend Drive. He described each one. He stated that the variance was based upon the previous support that was given to a similar proposal for the adjacent property owner, and the initial review of the project at the previous meeting. He explained the reasoning for the variance, describing the lot sizes and constraints of the Eagle River. The parking restrictions along Eaglebend Drive is the reason for the parking request. He stated that the reason for the locations of the buildings is to keep from having a mirror image effect. He feels that landscaping should be included along the public right-of-way. Regarding the irrigation system, the applicants wish to put that in at a later date. He then discussed the boulder retaining wall. After considerable discussion regarding the need for the variance, Buz Reynolds moved to approve the variance and parking request, citing the findings that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; and that t:le granting of the variance will not be detremential to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and is warranted because the strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Discusssion then followed on the design review. Considerable discussion followed on the matter of detached duplexes and the definition of duplex in the zoning code. Discussion also followed on the drainage plans. Patti Dixon moved to approve the final design review with the following conditions: 1. The landscape plan and the drainage plan come back to the Commission for approval. 2. The asphalt shingles be a minimum of 300 lbs PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 18, 1991 Page 6 of 9 Lot 5. Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision,Rai Iton, Duplex,,_ Front Yard Sett,,..:- Variance, Public Hearing, (cont -j Lot _5 Filing t_Eaglebend_ Subd_i_yi_s_ion,,Railton.Duplex,__final Design _Review _(_con&j per square foot. 3. No trees be planted in the public right-of-way. Derek Pysher seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Tract Q Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Pizza Express Patio Improvements Jim Curnutte stated that Pizza Express is requesting approval to make the following improvements to their patio area. 1. Addition of sliding glass door to better access the patio; 2. A 2-1/2' cedar lattice fence added to the tap of the existing concrete wall; 3. Low wattage patio lights added to the top of the fence posts. The lights will be either green or brown and will illuminate a white light; 4. Addition of 5 to 10 2' high potentilla shrubs around the outside of the patio areas. Curnutte stated that the eliding glass door has been administratively approved and it has been installed. Example photos of the la_tice work, etc., have been provided. Staff recommendation is for approval with the condition that the Planning and Zoning Commission retain the ability to withdraw their approval of the proposed lights if, after installed, they are found to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Jerry Maloney, of Pizza Express stated that the intention is to dress up the patio. He described the materials, lighting and shrubs to be used. It was suggested that the shrubs be placed in groups. After Commission discussion, Sue Railton moved to approve the patio improvements as submitted. Derek Pysher seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 50, Block 1 Wildridge, Schaub Duplex. -Conceptual -Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that this is a proposed duplex. He described the lot size and slope. He stated that this is a "flag" lot and the buildable portion of the lot is accessed PLANNING AND ZONING June 18, 1991 Page 7 of 9 COMMISSION MEETING Lot 50, Block 1, Wildridge, Schaub_Dupl_ex.,___Conceptual Design Review, (cont) by a 45' wide, 150' long strip of land adjacent to Saddleridge Loop. The proposed building is a two story log home with an all-weather foundation, and a two car garage is provided for each unit. The building materials are fiberglass shingles, 9" log exterior walls, Anderson wood windows, x 4" cedar trim around windows and door, 4" log rails on deck, 1" x 12" horizontal skirtboard, and metal exterior doors. The application is very conceptual and no grading and drainage or landscape plans have been provided for review. The floor plans are incomplete and do not match the elevation drawings. No information has been provided regarding driveway finish and driveway width appears to be too narrow. Curnutte stated that as this is conceptual, no staff recommendation will be presented. After considerable discussion with the applicant on all of these items, the Commission suggested that the applicant seriously consider the following: The topograph research A detailed site grading and drainage plan is needed Asphalt shingles discouraged on this project Consider a professional landscape plan The mirror image is a strong problem Consider potential driveway problems As this is conceptual, no formal action will be taken at this time. Lot 5, Block 2, Wildridge, Cooper_Residence, _ Conceptual Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that this was a conceptual review of a single family residence. He described the Lot size, stating that the actual buildable part of the lot is approximately half of the total area. The western part of the lot has a 20' knoll on it before dropping off steeply (60%) into a natural drainage. The proposed residence is one story in order to reduce the building's profile as viewed from surrounding properties. A detached garage is proposed in order to achieve the proper driveway grade. The building materials are shiplap horizontal cedar siding, wood clad insulated encasement PLANNING AND June 18, 1991 Page 8 of 9 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Lot 5, Block 2, wildridg_e__Cooper Res idenc y__Conc ptuaI Design Review windows and cedar shingles. All portions of the building siding will be treated with a semi -transparent stain and the garage will be constructed of the same materials. The applicant has not provided a proposed landscape plan or regrading plan. As this is conceptual, no recommendation is made. Jim Guida, representing the applicant, stated he would appreciate feedback from the Commission regarding the site plans and detached garage anc retaining walls, etc. Considerable discussion followed on the deuached garage matter. Discusssion followed on the location of the house on the site. It was suggested that the hip roof form be repeated on the garage. Discussion followed cn the grading. It was suggested that the f ont elevation could use better window fenestration, more windows. Topo plan and detailed drainage will be needed. Discussion followed on the possible retaining walls and materials that would be allowed. Discussion followed on leaving the drive in road base for a period of one year to allow for compaction. As this was conceptual, no formal action was taken at this time. Reading and _Approval of -__P I aonn iZoning_Commiss 1 on Meeting of June 4, 1991 Dereck Pysher moved to approve the minutes of the June 4, 1991 minutes as submitted. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Buz Reynolds asked how the matter of transfering rights got on the June 4, 1991 agenda. He thought that had been eliminated. Jim curnutte stated that the applicant had applied prior rc the elimination of density rights. Jim Curnutte stated that a copy of the new zoning code will be provided in the next meeting's packets. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING June 18, 1991 Page 9 of 9 Other Business (cont) With no other business to present, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM. Respectfully submitted, 1 Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Commissio J. Perkin S. Railto C. McRory A. Reynol P. Dixon H. Vest D. Pysher G