Loading...
PZC Minutes 050592Ao�% ", RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commiss,on was held on MLy 5, 1992, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Rd., Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins. Members Present: John Perkins, Buz Reynolds, Patti Dixon, Sue Railton, Henry Vest, Jack Huhn Rhoda Schneiderman Stuff Present: Jim Curnutte, Town Planner; Rick Pylman, Director of Community Development; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Chairman Perkins stated that all members were present, except for Patti Dixon. Ms. Dixon arrived shortly after. Town Clerk Patty Neyhart swore in John Perkins and Sue Railton, recently reappointed as Commission members and Rhoda Schneiderman a newly appointed Commission member. Election of Officers John Perkins called for nominations for Chairman. Jack Huhn nominated John Perkins for Chairman. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. With no other nominations forthcoming, Mr. Perkins closed the nominations and the Commission unanimously appointed Mr. Perkins Chairman. Chairman Perkins called for nominations for Vice -Chairman. Sue Railton nominated Jack Huhn and Henry Vest seconded. With no other nominations made, the Commission unanimously appointed Mr. Huhn Vice -Chairman. Chairman Perkins called for nominations for Secretary. Sue Railton nominated Patti Dixon, Jack Huhn seconded. With no other r___ PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 2 of 17 Election of Officers tcont nominations made, the Commission appointed Patti Dixon Secretary. Tract B, _Filing 2 EagIebend _ Subdi_yision� The_Alpines__at Eaa lebend,_ PUD_ Amendment, Publis _H__earinq Rick Pylman reviewed the history of the Eaglebend area. He stated that when the Town adopted the new zon4ng code in 1991, there was a clause that stated that all SPA/PUD properties needed to come through a development plan approval process prior to any construction happening. This zoning plat is still in ford, but there is a further requirement for a development plan. There are two actions the Planning Commission needs to take tonight. That is an amendment to the existing zoning plat, and approval of a specific development plan. The existing zoning plat for the piece of property to be discussed woo originally called Lot 1, Block I, of Filing 2 and listed as the allowed uses multi -family dwellings, condominiums, apartments and townhouses. The developer would like to build single family homes, therefore the zoning plat needs to be amended to allow single family homes. There are two existing single family homes on the property and the developer would like to build nineteen more. The minimum lot size is 5000 square feet. One concern is the amount of road cuts with small lots. One strength of this plan is the shared driveways. The way the development will work is that there are four buildings that are proposed, which the Commission looked at in a conceptual review at the last meeting. The applicant will be submitting final design al. the next meeting. There will be four house plans and probably four color schemes. The lot lines will be set as each unit is built. This will give them flexibility in creating the lots around the building. Pylman stated that in going through the PUC development plan process there are eleven criteria that a development plan must meet. He stated that before he reviews these criteria he would like the Commission to review the PUD guides for this project. He then reviewed the guidelines: Allowed Uses - single family dwellings; accessory buildings; one rental apartment within the main dwelling unit, if the parking works; home occupation, i.e. office, artwork, craft work, etc. Special Review Uses - utility installations and churches. Development standards - minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet; maximum building height consistent with town regulations of 35'; minimum setbacks will be 25' in front, 10 feet from the back, and 7 feet from the sides; site coverage is at 25% and the total habitable area of the building shall not exceed 40% of the a ,--� "N PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 3 of 17 Tract _B, Filing 2. Eaalebend._ Subdivision The Alpines at Eaalebend. PUD Amendment. Public hearing cont area of the lot; minimum landscape area at 10%. Pylman explained that the applicant meant that this would be trees and flowers. He stated that anything that was planted would be counted. The applicant agreed to change that to thirty to forty percent; maximum density will be one dwelling with an apartment and one outbuilding per lot; the requirement that each house has a two car garage and two parking spaces in front of the garage and all parking in driveways within the subdivision must be paved. Pylman stated that there are a couple other comments that Staff had that they feel should be added to this list and they are: there should be a maximum of nine road cuts for lots 3-21; and the concern of the staff is getting into the small lot subdivision the compatibility of the architecture and the best way to control that is to have the developer control all building on site. Staff would like to restrict the sale of unimproved property. No lots should be conveyed unless we have issued a building permit and the house is under construction. The exact wording of this guideline will have to be worked out. Pylman stated that the Commission might want to set a standard for minimum length of street frontage for each lot. Pylman briefly reviewed the criteria for an amendment to a PUD. Regarding the conformity with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, this is probably the best opportunity for entry level single family homes that would exist in the valley. The single family homes along that piece of property are a much more appropriate development than what the zoning would allow. It represents a substantial down zoning by going to single family lots. He stated that the density and scale of this project are in conformance with the Town's design guidelines. In looking at the density, the scale, the type of unit, the single family is by far a better type of development to have across from the duplexes on the river. Pylman stated that Staff didn't see any problems with the design criteria. Staff recommendation is for approval for the amendment to the zoning plat to add single famiiy and also for the development plan, with the following conditions: 1. There will be a maximum of nine road cuts serving lots 3-21; and 2. The phasing of the project, ensuring that there are no individual lot sales. r.. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 4 of 17 Tract B, __Ell 2, Eaalebend_Subd_iy,ision,__The_ Al_p�.nes__at Eaglebend, PUD Amendment, Public_ Hearing_ cont) The applicant stated that they basically made their presentation at the conceptual review and would just like to field questions from the Commission at this time. Chairman Perkins then opened the Public Hearing. Chris Ekrem, a resident of Eaglebend Subdivision, stated that she feels that the down zoning was wonderful and encourages approval of the new zoning. She stated that, regarding the compatibility with the immediate environment neighborhood and adjacent properties and the specific architecture of the units being reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, she stated that she would like the neighbors to have input regarding the designs and colors. She stated that so far, on the south amide of Eaglebend Drive, when someone is getting ready to build, they go to the neighbors and explaining what they are planning to do. She suggested that the neighbors have some iliput on the four models and colors. She feels that the two units that are already there could have been more aesthetically done. (In response to this suggestion of neighborhood input, John Perkins suggested that she attend the final design review meeting, probably the nineteenth). Ms. Ekrem stated, regarding the site plan, building design, etc., and the nine road cuts, all the properties on Eaglebend Drive have a real problem with off street parking. There is no parking on Eaglebend Drive. She is concerned with the parking in the driveways on these shared driveways. There really is no way that any parking can be handled. There will be more and more problems as more things get built. She suggested some sort of trade out with McGrady Acres for parking. She stated that, regarding the roads being adequate, she was made to repair the road when her house was being built because of some damage that Larry Brooks claimed that she had caused. She feels that the damage caused to the road with the building of the bridge and the Eaglebend Affordable Housing should be repaired also. She would like this addressed in the near future. (John Perkins stated that this would probably be a Council concern). Ms. Ekrem stated that the street lighting needs to be addressed. (John Perkins stated that this is also a matter for the Council). Ms. Ekrem stated that she was not in favor of the allowable apartment, as this would further cause parking problems. With no further public comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Discussion followed on the width of the proposed driveways. Jeff PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 5 of 17 Tract 8 Filir. 2, Eaglebend Subdi_visi_on. The_ A,l�nes at Eaglebend PUD Amendment Public Hearing, (cont. Spanel stated that, concerning the parking, they would be willing to put in the PUD that 3 spaces will be provided per unit. and concerning the mother-in-law apartment, that is a special review use and they would have to come in and demonstrate parking if any units got that. There is at least one plan that an apartment wouldn't work in anyway. Discussion followed on the matter of no two identical buildings being side by side and no two identical colors will be side by side. Spanel stated that the colors may be if they are two different buildings. Discussion followed on the possibility of mirror images. Spanel stated that if any mirror images did happen, the colors, or something would be changed, i.e. the siding. Discussion followed on the matter of creating the lot• lines as they go to make sure things fit. Considerable discussion followed on the lack of parking on Eaglebend Drive. There is no shoulder room to park off the pavement. Sue Railton stated that she saw no problem with the scheme, but feels that it shouldn't be any more than 19 houses. Jack Hunn stated that he supports the singlefamily development scheme, but has a concern about the way the PUD is written. The allowance for rental apartments and home occupancy offices and retail sales as an allowed use rather than a special review use is a concern. He feels that this would cause a considerable parking challenge and suggested that integrating any rental apartments into those small houses would be inappropriate and as a special review use only would he be comfortable with home occupancy offices, etc. Discussion followed on the side setbacks shown at 7 ft. Spanel stated that they would keep a minimum of 15' between houses. They will be increasing the landscaping to 25%. Further discussion followed on how the mirror images can be changed. Discussion followed on the accessory buildings. It was felt that the units that want an accessory building should fence the yard so that they cannot be seen. A question was asked on how the three houses sharing a singly driveway would work. Spanel stated that they will work out that situation when they get to that lot. It may be that they will have to do away with one unit. It was suggested that some sort of alley situation might work for parking. Spanel stated that there was not enough room to do that and also that would cut down the lot sizes. Discussion followed on making sure that the driveways will function with one car parked in front of the garage. Further discussion followed on introducing rental units and it was the general consensus of the Commission that this should not be allowed in these small units. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 6 of 17 Tract B Filing 2, Ea�lebend_Subdivi_sion_,___The Alpines at Eaglebend PUD Amendment, Public Hearing,i cont Jack Hunn moved to grant approval to amend the existing SPA zoning of Tract B, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision to allow single family residences and further to grant approval of the PUD as proposed, with the following conditions; PUD Item A2 - Accessory uses allowed only if fenced. PUD Item A3 - be deleted - Rental apartments not be allowed. PUD Item A4 - be deleted - Home occupation not be allowed. PUD Item C5 - be increased to 25% instead of 10%. A minimum 14 foot driveway width is required. No identical floor plans be side by side. Mirror image be permitted only with architectural differentiation. There be a maximum of nine road cuts serving lots 3-21. Individual lots will not be created nor conveyed until a building permit is issued for the construction of one of the approved house plans. Patti Dixon seconded. After further discussion, Mr Hunn amended his motion to allow A4, Home occupation as a special review use only. He also amended his motion to include a revision to C6 which references one apartment along with one dwelling and one accessory building, to exclude one apartment. Patti Dixon seconded the amendments and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 45, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek_ Subdiv_i,sion-Fa ith John Perkins stepped down as a voting member of the Commission, due to a conflict of interest. Vice -Chairman Jack Hunn presided. Jim Curnutte stated that the Faith Christian Fellowship Church is requesting a special review use permit to place a new church on Lot 45, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, north of Nottingham Road. A site plan and conceptual floor plan of the building has been provided. The only item to be discussed is the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 7 of 17 Faith tearina.. special review use for a church on this property. the property is zoned Residential Low Density, and at 7-1/2 units per acre, it would allow for four dwelling units to be placed on this property. A church is listed as a special review use. The reason for a special review use is to allow the Commission to evaluate a given request for its peculiar conditions, so that conditions may be attached if necessary. The proposal, at this stage, is a 12,600 square foot building, 3 levels, with the lower level mostly underground. The building has been situated along the northern property line and the southern 2/3rds is comprised of the parking and the circulation associated with it, as well as the retaining walls. It is a very steep site. Thirty five parking spaces are required to service this proposal. The first level include a fellowship hall, classrooms, a two car garage. The second floor has the offices as well as a sanctuary and a guest apartment. The third floor will be a six -bedroom parsonage. Curnutte then reviewed the criteria for considering a special review use, stating that this proposal does comply with the Avon Zoning Code; is in general conformance with the Avon Comprehensive Plan. This property is in Subarea 12 the "Nottingham Road Residential District" which suggests that development in this area be limited to three stories and provide a good landscape buffer adjacent to Nottingham Road and I-70. Some of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan in general that relate to this proposal are: ensuring that all land uses are in appropriate locations with appropriate controls; to make the most efficient use of the land; to ensure that all land uses work together as a balanced system. Another criteria is compatibility with adjacent uses. Curnutte stated that to date no comments have been received from the public, either for or against the proposed special review use. Curnutte stated that the scale of this proposed building seems to be compatible with the neighborhood. The size and location of the parking area is different than a normal residential neighborhood. Staff recommendation is for approval with the approval of the special review use with the following conditions: 1. The property be limited to uses typically associated with church activities (i.e. weekend services, sunday school, weddings, etc.) Any expansion of use beyond that discussed at the meeting a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 8 of 17 Lot 45 Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek subdi_v_ision,___Faith (i.e, provision of community day care, rental of fellowship hall to other groups or organizations) must be brought back to the Commission for further review. 2. No external noise making devices will be allowed (bells, speakers, etc.) and internal noise volume (Organ music, etc.) should be kept to a level compativle with surrounding properties. John Perkins, representing the Faith Christian Church, stated he feels that Avon needs a church. He stated that the site is a bit difficult. The initial problem is accomplishing access to the site. He feels that they have solved it in the only way that it can be solved. The retaining walls system would match the Chambertin walls, at this point. He feels that there will be room to have a landscape buffer along the south property line. He stated that the parking lot cannot be seen from Nottingham Road or I-70. For the development that the congregation would like to build, this site approach is probably 95-99% the way the site will have to be developed. He urged the Commission to grant the special review use. Vice Chairman Hurn opened the public hearing at this time. Keith Taylor, owner of two cf the three units just west of the proposed church site, stated that he has a townhome building that is half the size of the proposed church and their parking is in the back, so that they are not seen from Nottingham Road. They would see 35 cars sitting in the lot, right outside, within fifty feet of his building. He feels it would impact the value of his building. He feels that there should be another site for this large of a church without it being put on a residential site. He doesn't want a church next door when the property is zoned for something different. With no other public input forthcoming, Vice Chairman Hunn closed the public hearing and opened up the discussion for Commission review. Buz Reynolds stated that he was shocked when he heard that a church was proposed for this site. He is not sure that this is the best site for a church because of the current traffic problems on Nottingham Road. He feels that this site is a hard site to work with. Sue Railton stated that she thinks that the solution to using this site is fine. She is concerned with the design of the parking ..N PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 9 of 17 Subdivis_i.on,.___raith Is_e Public _____n,g lot, so much asphalt and no landscaping relief. She feels that the tightness of this lot does not lend to an attractive entrance. Henry vest stated that he agrees that there is a tough access to the property, not just in the winter, but all year. He feels that there is a need for a church in Avon. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she uses that road every day and she is concerned with the traffic. Assuming that the church is located on this lot, and the fact that there is an open space on the east side of the lot, wouldn't it make more sense to put the driveway on the east side. Also, coulrin't the building be moved further up on the lot and park cars in �,ie back and on the sides and do some major screening with heavy duty trees on the sides to totally screen from next door properties. She is not sure that the church would be appropriate for the area. She feels there will be too much traffic. She thinks that there will be people there all the time, not just on Sunday mornings. Patti Dixon felt that this proposal was a great idea. She has no problems with the project. In response to Mr. Taylor's concerns, John Perkins stated that there is no property that is zoned for a church. It is a very difficult proposition to locate a site for a church because of the cost of land in the area. Traditionally all churches are located in residential areas. That is why it is set up as a special review use for this particular residential area. He feels that the area does work for the church because you have multi -family development along Nottingham Road, rather than small single family homes. Perkins stated that they could, to mitigate the impact to the west, is eliminate the two straight in parking spaces that are most adjacent to the Taylor property and heavily landscape that area with some major plant material. The retaining walls on that side are not as impactive as they are on the east side. He stated that the driveway is located on the west end of the property because of the drainage problem that they have on the east side of the property, but it would not be impossible to change the entrance to the east. Another solution would be 'o move the building to the east, so that visually there would be more space between the existing development and the east. This building, by its very nature and its siLe, will not read as a traditional church. It will read, architecturally, more as a multi -family housing project. The entire top floor is housing. PLkNNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 10 of 17 Lot 45, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek_ Subdivision_ Faith They plan to introduce some dormer roof forms. Considerable discussion followed on the traffic problems that would be caused, and on the massive retaining walls required. Regarding the matter of growth of the congregation and the parking situation, Perkins stated that the church would go to two services. Ken Shapiro, a member of the church, urged the Commission to approve this special review use request, even if the approval has conditions. Further discussion followed on the matter of entry and exit from the property and the conjestion on Nottingham Road, especially in the winter. Sue Railton moved to grant the special review use for Lot 45, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, citing criteria A, B, and C. Patti Dixon seconded. Sue Railton amended her motion to include in her motion the two staff conditions. Patti Dixon seconded the amendment. The request for special review use was denied with Sue Railton and Patti Dixon voting aye and Rhoda Schneiderman, Henry Vest, Jack Hurn, and Buz Reynolds voting nay. John Perkins resumed his seat as a voting member of the Commission. Lot 1 Lodge of Avon Subdivision, Avon Towne Square,__Request for Extension of Design Review Approval Rick Pylman stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had tabled this item at the April 21, 1992 meeting, as the Commission had some questions regarding this project and wanted the applicant to come back to the Commission for further review. At this time the applicant is unable to attend this meeting, but would like to have the approval extended for 45 days to allow him time to prepare another presentation, without the current approval expiring on May 15, 1992. Jack Hunn moved to extend the approval for forty five days, Buz Reynolds seconded and the motion carried unanimously. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 11 of 17 Lot 28, Block 4 Wildridge Subdiv_is.iony_ Mackintosh- Final Deign Review John Perkins stepped down as a voting member of the Commission due to a conflict of interest. Buz Reynolds also stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Vice -Chairman Hunn presided. Jim Curnutte stated that the proposal is for a single family residence. The residence will be accessed by two road cuts, one of East Wildridge Road and one off of Coyote Ridge. The building is two and one half stories high, large gable roofs, maximum building height as currently drawn does exceed the allowance of 35 feet from finished grade (36 feet) or existing grade (41 feet). The area of the house is approximately 3,200 square feet of habitable area, including the basement. There is a th-ee car garage located and detached from the main residence. It has been designed to match the building architecturally. Exterior building materials are predominately stucco siding, cedar shake shingles, and clad windows. The applicant has colors to present. Concrete driveways are shown as well as paved patio areas, there is a spa on the property. There is no indication if there is a structure over the spa. A grading and drainage plan and a landscape plan has been provided. It shows large boulder retaining walls along the back side. Most of the drainage is handled by a swale, however a french drain is located along the east driveway areas. The landscape plan shows that all disturbed areas will be revegetated with transplanted/stockpiled sage and rabbit brush, native grasses and wildflower seed mix. The entire site is to be irrigated with an automatic sprinkler system. Curnutte reviewed the cr-teria and stated that the project is in conformance with the coca, with the exception of the building height. The type and quality of the materials is typical to Wildridge. The site is considered a very buildable lot. Curnutte stated that Staff recommendation is for approval with the following conditions: 1. Adjustment of maximum building height so that the 35' maximum from existing grading is not exceeded. 2. Final Staff review and approval of grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 12 of 17 Lot 3. Discusssion and approval of the proposed parking pad columns and light fixtures. Jim Mackintosh stated that the topo was done when there was two feet of snow on the ground and Johnson and Kunkel may have been off a bit. He stated that he has left a message for the owner on the garage side to contact him as he would like to berm and plant along that side. He stated that this is not a garage, basically it is a shed for storage. He provided samples of the colors of the stucco and trim. Discussion followed on the lighting of the driveway. Discussion followed on the garages side and the lack of landscaping and what he plans to do if he gets permission from the adjacent owner to berm that side. Considerable discussion followed on possibilities of moving the location of the house or garage slightly or the possibility of a setback variance, to allow for some landscaping on the garage side. Discussion followed on the matter of the excessive building height and how it could be corrected. Henry Vest moved to grant final design review approval for Lot 28, Block 4, Wildridge, Mackintosh residence, with the three staff conditions and also the condition that the applicant provide written permission from the adjacent owner to berm and plant on the garage side. Patti Dixon seconded. Henry Vest amended his motion to inclide staff approval on staff condition number 3, and if the permission is not given to berm the east side, the applicant must come back to the Commission with his solution to the problem. Patti Dixon seconded the amendment. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Buz Reynolds left the meeting at this time, due to not feeling well. Lot 17, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision _Fireridge __Townhomes, Conceptual Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that Lot 17 is a corner lot and is zoned for 4 units. The applicant will access the lot from Saddleridge Loop. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 13 of 17 1� Lot 17 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Fireridge___Townhomes_ • Conceptual Design Review, (cont) They have been able to provide two parking spaces in front of the _ garages, which they were not able to do on the previous four-plex. There is a total of 18 parking spaces. Materials being proposed are cedar siding, rough sawn cedar trim, aluminum windows, redwood deck rails, and asphalt shingles. The same product was approved on the Wildridge Townhomes. Instead of a dumpster there is an area provided where the owners will put their trash out once a week for pickup. Since this is a conceptual review the staff will not discuss criteria, however staff would comment that the entry sign is curently shown in the setback area and that will have to be moved. Final design review drawings should iiclude elevation drawings of that sign. Dan Karzen stated that there would be no problem regarding the sign. Mr. Karzen provided samples of the colors to be used which were a beige grey for the siding, cocoa for the fascia and deck rails and garage docr, and a bark brown for the asphalt roof. He described the slope of the lot. He stated that they have tried to provide interest on all sides of the building. In addition, a good deal of landscapi.ig has been provided because of it being corner lot. Patti Dixon stated that when they walked the site, the Commission had some concerns regarding the window fenestration and detail on the back side and that it wasn't very interesting. She felt that more detail needs to be given to all four sides of the building, but especially on the Old Trail Rd. side. The commission feit that if the building was turned a bit it would give a better view of the building and also the view from the building would be better between the fire station and the other lot. Karzen stated that the current orientation would provide the best view between the fire station and the other lot. Discussion followed on this matter. Discussion folowed on grading problems there would be if they changed the location of the building. Henry Vest asked if a sprinkler system would be installed. Skip Organ stated that the soils reports specifically suggests that they do not install a sprinkler system. He feels that as long as there is plenty of parking and plenty of landscaping, it will be fine. John Perkins has a problem with the similarity with the one recently approved. This site will be very visible from every area, therefore, he encourages the applicant to work at getting the rear elevation as interesting and nice as they can. Maybe consider a little stucco on the building. The regularity of the stepping is very dull. PLANNING AND May 5, 1992 Page 14 of 17 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Jack Hunn stated that he feels that the building could be rotated to capitalize on some views. It would also minimize the exposure to the north and maximize some of the views to the west. He thinks that there is too much pavement. When he looks at the floor plan, the product tends to maximize sleeping capacity and minimize living space. With the number of bedrooms in the unit, it will generate a lot of parking. He is concerned with the architecture. It is a transplantation of the previously approved plans for another site and doesn't necessarily fit the site. He agrees a second material like stucco would make it more interesting. He thinks that stooping the units from unit to unit vertically would help and the topography seems to lend itself to that. He thinks that rotating the building counter -clock wise would get the garages oriented toward one of the two roads which might be more acceptable to the property that would develop next to it. The proposed materials, the asphalt roof, is being proposed in an area where existing buildings with cedar shake roofs and he feels it is incompatible with those buildings. He feels that a color that s-mulates a weathered cedar shake should be chosen, if the are going to propose this material. He does not feel the project works at all unless it has a significant landscape plan that has an automatic irrigation system. He stated that is is pretty familiar with soils conditions up there and there must be some way that could be worked out to have an automatic irrigation system. Sue Railton was concerned with the repetitious roof line. She would like to see some change in the way the gables are treated in a couple of the units and have different sorts of windows in them, etc., to add some interest to it. The four garage doors along the lot are pretty uninviting. Something needs to be done to add variety to it. John Perkins summarized the comments by the Commission as: improve window fenestrations along old Trail Road (needs more interest); review site orientation; possible material change; the repetitiousness of this plan with the recently approved one on another lot; Possibillity of vertical stepping of the massing; the asphalt shingles be a weathered wood color; and the landscaping with an automatic irrigation system. As this was a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 15 of 17 Lot 2. Block _1 Benchmark at Beaver_Creek Subdivision Mountain Comfort Furnishings Conceptual Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant notified him that he wants to do a little more work on the presentation and has requested tabling of this item. Jack Hunn moved to table this item until the applicant desires to return, Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 35, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision,__Brust__Si_ngle___Fami_Iy Residence, Conceptual Desi n Review Jim Curnutte stated that the Brust residence has frontage on both Flat Point and West Wildridge Road, but realistically the ideal access to the property is right on Flat Point. It will be accessed by a fourteen foot wide driveway. There are a couple turnaround/parking areas in front. There is a conceptual landscape plan and a grading/drainage plan. It is a two and one half story residence, about +,000 square feet, including the unfinished basement. Three car garage is also included. Maximum building height is a little over at 36-1/2 feet, so that wil"I need some work. There a couple gas fireplaces in the house. Large wrap-around decks take advantage of the nice views from this property. Exterior building materials proposed are the Timberline asphalt shingles, a wood siding, and river rock incorporated into the sidinq, metal clad windows, wood doors, and redwood decks. As this onceptual, Staff has no recommendations, however, the exce. height needs to be looked at and parking is not allowed within 10 feet of the property line which is in the setback area. Sue Railton inquired about the posts holding up the decks. She stated that she would like to see some significantly heavier looking elements holding up that deck. She stated she did not think that the stonework near the garage did not look very good. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. Also discussed was the possibility of using stucco at the bottom of the building. Discussion followed on the roof forms also. Discussion followed on the massing of the garage. An offset was suggested. A hip was suggested to help the massing of the overall building. Discussion followed on the window fenestrations. Chairman Perkins reviewed the Commission comments as being: asphalt shingles should be the heaviest texture possible with a cedar shake color; a grooved siding; heavier posts for the deck; stonework or stucco on the lower levels of the house, possibly all the way around; stone at the entry way; general study of the massing. As this was a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 5, 1992 Page 16 of 17 Reading and approval of the Planning _and _Zoni_nq.... Commi_§si.n_Meetiniq Minutes for April 21, 1992. Jack Hunn moved to approve the minutes for the April 21, 1992 meeting. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Rick Pylman asked the Commission to take their packets home as there are some things in there for their information. One is an ordinance that the Town Council adopted on first reading regarding the time allowed for an appeal to the Coun.il. He explained the reasoning behind this ordinance. Also included in the packet is a newsletter regarding the planning issue of accessory units. Also, money was put into the budget to get all Commission members into the American Planning Association, and that is being sent in. He stated that the update on the streetscape plan will be presented at the next meeting. Discussion then followed on the request from some of the homeowners in Wildridge Acres regarding the waiving of the requirement of an irrigation system in lieu of the homeowners adding more landscaping. Considerable discussion followed on the need for a drip system. The general consensus was that they should stress a drip system, but not make it a requirement. John Perkins stated that the church plans to come back with another application. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Respectfully, submitted. 2�i1� 4' Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary I =