Loading...
PZC Minutes 020492RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 1992 The reg.ilar meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on February 4, 1992, 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 John Perkins. Members Present: John Perkins, Derek Pysher, Clayton McRory, Patti Dixon, Sue Railton, He:ry Vest, Buz Reynolds. Staff Present: Jim Curnutte, Town Planner; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Chairman Perkins stated that all members were present. The Chairman also urged the Commission members to make a concerted attempt to attend the scheduled site visits. of Lot 2. Nottingham Stati�n_Subd_ivision, Diamond ial Review Use, Public Hearing_ Mi nor_ Subdi_v_ision, Final Design_rev_iew__and_S-j..gn_Variance Chairman Perkins stated that these items are still lacking in some information and will need to be tabled again. Clayton McRory moved to table these items until the next meeting. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 45, Block 4. Wildridae_Subd.ivision.___Ecker_ Residence_ Front -- Yard Setback Variance Request, Public Hearin_g�_._ Revised Final Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that the applicants received a rinal design review approval prior to this, in September, 1991. He stated that the applicants have decided that they would like to propose a different positioning for the garage. It is the garage that will be involved with regard to the setback variance request. The applicants would like to place the garage in such a position that it would encroach into the required 25' front yard setback by 15'. PLANNING AND February 4, Page 2 of 9 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 1992 Lot 45, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision_,_ Ecker Res_idence_,___Front Yard Setback Variance Request, PublicHearing: Revised Final Design Review, cont The applicants feel that the construction of Longsun Lane has caused the grades immediately adjacent to the front property line to be so steep that they would be required to raise the grade abnormally to reach proper driveway percentages. With this new scenario it is at the recommended 10%. Curnutte reviewed the criteria for considering a variance. He also reminded the Commission that they need to state the findings if they approve the variance. He stated that Staff recommends approval of Resolution 92-1, granting the approval for the front yard setback variance, and listing the findings. Staff feels that the lot has a relatively steep grade, especially right off the road and construction in conformance with the rules would result in an undue hardship and unnecessary site dist.,r-oance. Staff recommends that the variance be subject to any further conditions imposed as a result of the design review. Jim Curnutte rf.viewed the final design review request stating that the applicants have changed the exterior appearance of the building by moving the garage. The materials to be used will remain the same as the previous approval. He reviewed the criteria for considering a final design review. Staff recommendation is for approval with the approval of the variance and with the same conditions attached to its original approval which were: 1. approval of the grading and drainage plan by the Town Engineer; and 2. The applicant paint the exposed metal chimney flues. Sam Ecker stated that he felt that Jim had covered ,lust about everything. The materials are the same as the previous approval. The reason for moving the garage is to resolve the problem of the driveway exceeding the 10% grade. Chairman Perkins opened the public ',Paring and asked for any citizen input. He asked if there were any letters, etc. The recording secretary stated that two concerned citizens had looked at the plans and had no problems with them. The Chairman then closed the public hearing. Discussion followed on the possibility of moving the whole project back 15'. It was determined that this was not a viable solution, because of the driveway grade it would cause and the need for about twice as much fill. Buz Reynolds moved to approve Resolution 92-1, granting a variance from front yard building setback requirements as stipulated in PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 1992 Page 3 of 9 Residence, ._Front Revised Final Design Review, (cont) Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 45, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, stating the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special priviilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; and 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons a. The strict literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of that regulation; b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The variance granted is for a variance of 15', reducing front yard building setback from 25' to 10', for the proposed single family residence on Lot 45, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, generally conforming with schematic drawing submitted with application; and the variance shall be subject to any further limitations which may be imposed as a result of the required design review process. Clayton Mcpory seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the design review. Henry Vest asked about the circular window in the front of the house. Mr. Ecker stated that it is a window in the shower. Discusssion followed on some of the other window placements. Discussion followed on the materials to be used. The colors will be the same as approved Previously. The applicant was instructed to contact Staff with any design changes to the windows, if he decides to change them. Patti Dixon moved to grant final design review approval with the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 1992 Page 4 of 9 Lot 45, Block 4. Wildridqe Subdivision, Ecker Residence. Front Yard Setback Variance Req_uest�Public_ Hearing.Revised Final Design Revies,,cont following conditions: 1. The grading and drainage plan be approved by the down Engineer; 2. The applicant paint the exposed metal chimney flues. 3. The applicant consider the window fenestration alignment. 4. The applicant use cedar trim instead of pine. Derek Pysher seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 44. Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision Reynolds Residence, Final Design Review Commissioners Buz Reynolds and Clayton McRory stepped down as voting members of the Commission due to conflicts of interest. Jim Curnutte stated that Buz and Monica Reynolds are requesting final design review of a new home that they are proposing to construct on Lot 44, Block 3, Wildridge. The plans show a secondary unit, however, the applicant states that that unit will not be constructed. This will be a single family home of approximately 7,000 square feet. Included in this 7,000 square feet is a 1,200 square foot garage. The maximum building height is about 33 feet above finished grade. A gas fireplace is proposed. Exterior building materials are predominately stucco, 1 x 6 tounge & groove cedar siding, wood windows and doors, river rock around the chimneys and the applicant has not indicated at this time what the roofing material will be. The application states that it will be asphalt after March 1st. This date reflects the conclusion of the moritorium on asphalt shingles. The applicant will present materials and colors at this meeting. A grading and drainage plan and a landscape plan has been provided. All disturbed areas will be revegetated a combination of grass seed/wildtlower mix. Various bushes and trees are provided throughout the property. No irrigation plan has been provided at this time. A boulder retaining wall is provided along the south side of the driveway. Curnutte then reviewed the criteria for considering a final design review. Staff recommends approval of this design review with the following conditions: 1. Discussion and approval of a roofing material for the bailding. 2. Final Engineer's review and approval of the grading and d-ainage plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 1992 Page 5 of 9 Lot 44, Block 3, Wildridge_Subdivi_s_1_on,_Reynolds Residence._ _Final Design Review, (cont) 3. The large garage/storage area may not be used for business purposes. Buz Reynolds stated that the windows will be a clad window, in a tan color that will match the fascia color. The cedar siding will be a natural clear stain, and the fascia will be an opaque stain. He provided a sample of the stucco color. The applicant stated that he would not be running a business out of his home. Considerable discussion followed on the materials, colors, and style of the proposed residence. Discussion followed on the definition of a home occupation and the possibility of the applicant using the garage as a business. Curnutte stated that a person could apply for a special use permit if they wish to run a business from the home as long as the business does not change the character of the home as a dwelling unit; there are no employees on the site; and no customers come to the site. Further discussion followed on the colors to be used and the Placement of the trim. Discussion followed on the issue of the roofing material. Sue Railton moved to grant final design review approval to Lot 44, Block 3, Wildridge, with the following conditions: 1. Discussion and approval of a roofing material for T,he building, requiring the applicant to return to the Commission for a final approval of the chosen roofing material 2. Final Engineer's review and approval of the grading and drainage plan; 3. The large garage/storage area may not be used for business purposes. Derek Pysher seconded. Jim Curnutte stated that an approved roofing material is needed before a building permit can be issued. He suggested that a roofing material be designated at this time and then the applicant can come back to the Commission when or if asphalt roofing materials are allowed. The applicant then designated a #2 cedar shake roofing material. Sue Railton so amended her motion to include a #2 cedar shake roofing material. Derek Pysher seconded the amendment and the motion carried unanimously. Commissioners Reynolds and McRory returned as voting members of the Commission. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 1992 Page 6 of 9 Lot 109, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision L Snerman. Peters. _and _Lane Duplex, Final Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that David Peel, representing Charlie Sherman, Peggy Peters, and Larry Lane is requesting final design review approval of a duplex on Lot 109, Block 1, Wildridge. The lot is about 3/4 of an acre in size. The lot slopes about 50% over the back half of the lot and the front half is more like 65%. This is pretty much a result of Wildridge Road construction. On December 3, 1991, the Commission grantea a setback variance of 15' to the applicants to allow the building to go to within 10' of the front property line. Curnutte stated that this is a two story building which includes a two car garage and 2,200 square feet on the average in each unit. Maximum building is about 34 feet from finished grade. Fireplaces are shown on the floor plans, although chimneys are not indicated on the elevation drawings. Exterior building materials are stucco siding, cedar shake shingles, stone facing on building support columns and foundation walls, wood windows and doors (cedar siding on the garage doors. It is not clear whether the extra parking space retaining walls will receive a stucco finish or simply be painted the same color as the builaing stucco. A color rendering has been provided. There is a grading and drainage plan and a landscape plan. Two different types of grass seed mix is shown, with assorted trees throughout the property. It does not appear that there are any shrubs or smaller vegetation, except for a raised planter at the entry way, nor has the proposed method of irrigation been designated. He stated that the site plan shows a potential parking space in the right-of-way and he wants the ariplicants to be aware that parking in the right-of-way is not a;lowed in the Town of Avon. Curnutte then reviewed the criteria for considering a final design review. He stated that Staff recommendation is for approval with the following conditions: 1. Final review and approval of grading and drainage plan by Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Discussion and approval of proposed parking space retaining wall treatment and chimneys. 3. The site/landscape plan should be amended to remove the parking space shown in the road right-of-way, add a note for the proposed method of irrigation, add various bushes/shrubs throughtout the property and identify those within the raised planter area. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 1992 Page 7 of 9 Lot 109, Block 1, Wildridae Subdiv_ision, _Sherman,_ Peter_s,_ and Lane Duplex, Final Design Review. (cont. David Peel stated that the building has not changed too much since approval of the variance and conceptual design review. The only change was that it is reduced in size about 400 square feet. 1"he potential extra parking space is not really required, because at conceptual review they were instructed to add two spaces. He then described how the parking space retaining wall would be constructed. Regarding the planter and some of the shrubbry, he asked the Commission to keep in mind that there is really no front yard. The planting of the planter was left up to the owner as to what they want to put in there. He described where the trees would be placed. A gas, side wall appliance will be installed on the north unit and the south unit will be a pellet, so there will be no exterior chimneys. Discussion followed on the trim for the garages. Mr. Peel provided photos showing how the doc)rs will be treated. It was suggested that the caliper of the trees be of a large size. Two seeding mixes will be used and will only require watering for at least a year. Watering will be done by hoses and sprinklers. Buz Reynolds moved to grant final design review approval to Lot 109, Block 1, Wildridge, with the following Staff recommendations: 1. Final review and approval of grading and drainage plan by Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Discussion and approval of proposed parking space retaining wall treatment and chimneys. 3. The site/landscaping plan should be amended to remove rhe parking space shown in the road right-of-way, add a note for the proposed method of irrigation, add various bushes/shrubs throughout the property and identify those within the raised planter area. Sus Railton seconded and the motion carriad unanimously. Lot 58, Block 3�Wildridge Subdivision. Bill Jones Single Family Res i dence�Conceptual Des i�{c n_ Rev_ i ew Jim Curnutte stated that Bill and Esther Jones have requested conceptual design review of a single family home on Lot 58. The applicants have received a final design review approval. However due to economic conditions at this time and the siting of the house, with regards to the cost of running the driveway that far, the applicants have opted to come back with a slightly different version of that proposal. The lot is 2.17 acres, however, about half of it is platted as non -developable. The buildable portion PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 1992 Page 8 of 9 Lot 58, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Bill and Estier Jones, Single Family Residence, Conceptual Design Review, cone of the lot is about an acre in size. The lot slopes toward the southwest at about 30-40% and on west side it is about 15-30%. This is why the applicants have opted to move the building over further to the west side. This will reduce the amount of cut and fill and the amount of driveway. The landscape plan and grading plan submitted in conjunction with this house is very conceptual in nature. The building is two stories high and includes an attached two car garage. Exterior building materials include rustic channel and board and batten cedar siding, cedar shingles and aluminum clad wood windows. As this is a conceptual design review, no formal recommendation will be made at this time. Curnutte stated that at the time of the approval there were four conditions of approval and they were: 1. The driveway entrance must conform with Town standards; 2. Provide a revised grading plan at permit application; 3. Provide a more detailed landscape plan; and 4. Provide color samples. Bill Jones stated that the project went from a three story house to a two story house. Also, it has been placed on the lot so that each room has a view. As colors, the house will be the natural tone cedar, and then a dark green on the trim. It is a 2400 square foot home. It has two decks and two gas fireplaces and the landscaping will be a seed mix on all disturbed soil. They would like to keep the natural landscaping as much as they can. In front of the big deck, they will have a manicured lawn. When they come in for final, this will be all drawn out. After considerable discussion the Commission suggested that the applicant review the detailing on the dormer, review the roof line as they connect into the garage element, and a more complete site plan and landscaping plan. As tnis was a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. Reading and Approval of Planning and.Zoning _Commission__Meeting Minutes for January 21, 1992. Sue Railton moved to approve the minutes of the January 21, 1992 meeting as submitted. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Chaiman Perkins stated that Derek Pysher has applied for one of the open Council seats and he stated that he has composed a recommendation letter from the Commission. Perkins then read the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 1992 Page 9 of 9 Other Business (cont) letter. He asked the Commission to sign it if they were so inclined. John Perkins then stated that he wouid like to commend the leadership of the Town Staff, and Council in doing an excellent job with all the various processes that are happening, i.e., the Master Plan, the rewrite of the Zoning, the Streetscape, and now the Recreation Plan. He felt that the Town Manager and The Town Council should be commended for taking the lead on these issues. The meeting was then adjourned at 9:15 PM. Respectfully, submitted. Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Commissi J. Perki S. Railt C. McRor A. Reyno P. Dixon H. Vest D. Pysher