Loading...
PZC Minutes 081892RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 18, 1992 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on August 18, 1992, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Rd., Avon, Colorado. in the absence of John Perkins, Chairman and Jack Hunn Vice President the meeting was called to order by Secretary, Patti Dixon. Members Present: Patti Dixon, Buz Reynolds, Sue Railton, Henry Vest, Rhoda Schneiderman Staff Present: Jim Curnutte, Town Planner; Rick Pylman, Director of Community Development; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary All members were present except Jack Hunn, John Perkins and Henry Vest. Mr. Vest arrived at 7:45 PM. Lot 43 Block 2, Wil drid_ge Sub.divisioy__ Canyon Oaks #i4, Material/Color Change Request Jim Curnutte stated that Mr. and Mrs. Andy Wallace, residents of Unit #4, are requesting this change. Curnutte then gave a brief history of the Canyon Oaks subdivision. He stated that the approved plans show that all four buildings would have white trim and would be painted either grey or brown. The plans show that this included the painting of the scallops. Units one and two have the painted scallops. Unit 3 does not nave scallops. The applicant has left theirs natural and have applied a sealer. The request is to allow for dark green trim accents and to leave the scallops unpainted. Andy Wallace stated that it probably wouldn't make any sense putting the scallops up there if they were to be painted, because you really can't see them once they are painted, and the same with the trim work. ^ P01 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINuTES August 18, 1992 Page 2 of 8 lot 43 Block 2-_ Wildridge Subdi_vision,_____Canyon__Oaks ___44, Mate ria!-/ Color Chance Request cont)_ Discussion followed on how the deck area would be finished off. The applicant is leaving the lattice natur-il to match the natural scallops. The railings and trim will be in the white and green. Sue Railton moved to approve the color change request, as submitted. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 13/1 Block 1 Fi1ing 1, Eaglebend Subdivisiony_Desi�n. -and _ rnnctrurtinn RarviCAR_ Zone Chanqe/Conceptua_1_ Des _ignRev_iew,_ Jim Curnutte stated that the zone change and conceptual design review would be revie.red at the same time, to give the Commission a better idea of whit is proposed. He stated that the applicant is proposing to amend the existing PUD for Eaglebend. He then described the existing Eaglebend PUG, stating that Lots 13/14 are located in Subarea 5, which is all duplex lots. Curnutte pointed out that all of the duplex lots on the south side or Eaglebend Drive are at least 16,000 square feet. The applicant's PUD amendment involves both the rezoning and replatting of Lots 13/14 to create 3 new lots. The new zoning on the lots would be single family, duplex, and single family. The number of units allowed has not changed, just the configuration. Curnutte then reviewed the criteria for considering a zone change, and also the applicable goals and objectives from the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that Staff does not feel that the proposed development plan for Lots 13 and 14 serves to further any of the goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the three reduced lot sizes and configuration of buildings on the three lots is very atypical of what has occurred in Filing I so far. The two buildings shown on lot B appear to be out of character with the existing development and not in conformance with the Town's definition of a duplex. Curnutte stated that Staff recommends denial of the PUD amendment zone change as submitted. Curnutte then reviewed the conceptual design review request, stating that the two buildings on Lots 14A and 14C are identical mirror images architecturally. Also the same materials and colors will be used. The buildings are two stories high with walkout basements, maximum building height scaled off right at 35' on the elevation drawings, but this cannot be verified since no grading and drainage plan has been provided. The units are about 3750 sq. ft. in size, not including the two car garages. No floor plan has WO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 18, 1992 Page 3 of 8 been provided for the basement. Each unit has two large decks and a gas fireplace. Curnutte stated that a landscape plan has been provided, but no grading and drainage plan. A good mixture of trees and shrubs is shown and an automatic underground irrigation system will be provided to all landscaped areas. The plan shows that all portions of the properties will be covered with sod. Curnutte stated that no elevation drawings have been provided for the proposed duplex lot. A site and massing model can be requested by the Commission. A complete grading and drainage plan, prepared by a professional engineer or surveyor must be provided, and must include an accurate location of the Eagle River as well as the 100 year floodplain. The decks, shown within the 7.5 ft. setback and utillity easements on the site plan, will have to be removed from those setbacks. Again, although not part of this review, Staff would point out that the proposed buildings on Lot 14B do not meet the Towns definition of a duplex. Tony Seibert stated that the easiest thing for a developer to do is build a duplex on a duplex lot. They have built seven or eight duplexes on Eaglebend Drive. They are starting to look very similar, even though they change colors, roof lines, front facades, etc. This is an attempt to get away from the standard duplex look. He stated that this is the first he has heard that the same concept that John Railton used will not comply wit' the duplex requirement. What he is trying to do is to create three single family homes with a carriage house. What he is trying to do is push the buildings towards the river and permit a single drive to service all four houses and tucking the carriage house into a part of the semi -circle of the driveway. He stated that he had originally thought about tying all fo-jr houses together with trellises, but that would mean that all four would have to be the same color. Considerable discussion followed on the designs and site locations of the buildings. Discussion followed on the lot sizes in Filing 2. Mr. Seibert stated that if he can't get four building on the site, he will have to step back and build two more conventional duplex. What he is trying to do is create something a bit different from what is existing on the other lots. Acting Chairwoman Dixon the opened the public hearing. Chris Eckrem, owner of Lot 15, stated that she has reviewed the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 18, 1992 Page 4 of 8 Design and sign Review,_ plans for this application. She stated that she did not think that the proposed buildings on lot 14B meet the requirements for a duplex. She stated that she would not have a problem in making the two lots into four lots. In doing that, there would be no need to tie the two buildings together. She thinks that this would be a most pleasant vista from the street and would accomplish less driveways, but more off street parking. She stated that she thought a massing model would be appropriate. She feels that this type of project would be better than two duplexes. With no other public input, Chairwoman Dixon closed the public hearing. Discussion followed on how the center lot would be deeded. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she would not be adverse to this being divided into four lots. She strongly suggested that there be no mirror images, all four units be totally different, but with maybe a common theme, same types of trim, etc. Henry Vest stated that he would like to see a massing model. He likes the idea of not putting two duplexes on the lots. Sue Railton stated that the proposed architecture doesn't look any different than anything else down there and she has a problem with the mirror images. Considerable discussion followed on just doing away with the lot lines (setbacks) and giving the developer more latitude in placing the units on the lot. Discussion followed on how common areas would be handled. Sue Railton moved to table this application to allow the applicant to provide a better solution for this proposal. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 56E, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision. Amadee Residence, Remodel Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that this is a remodel for half of a duplex. The remodel really invloves a new floor to the building. The applicant would like to add a lower level that includes a new master bedroom and bath, a family room and a small guest bathroom. A new redwood balcony would also be added to the south side of the building. The balcony includes three diagonal braces and stairs -,,%N r PLANNING AND ZONING August 18, 1992 Page 5 of 8 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES idence, Remodel. to grade. The plans do not show a revised grading plan and Staff has concerns regarding this. The lower level addition walls will be finished with stucco to match the existing stucco on the building. New sliding glass doors and clad windows will be added to the building's south side and one bathroom window will be added to the building's east side. The proposed addition eliminates 2-1/3 of the arches on the south side of the building. Also the two arches on the east side will be eliminated. Curnutte then reviewed the design review criteria. He stated that the new addition seems to provide a better tie-in to the land. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. If existing grades are being altered as a result of the construction of this addition, the applicant should provide a grading plan for Staff review when a building permit application is made. 2. Additional landscaping be added along the south and east sides of the builidng. Chris Montero, representing Mark Donaldson, stated that she would provide new grading plans before application for a permit. She stated that there would be no problem with providing more landscaping. Discussion followed on the massive blank wall, and what could be done to break it up. Discussion followed on whether there would be tenants in this addition. Ms. Montero stated that she did noL believe this was the purpose for this addition. Discussion followed on maybe stepping the addition down to break up the massing. Considerable discussion followed, with the Commission indicating that they did not favor this particular proposal, although they did feel that it would be good to close in the arches. Sue Railton move to table this item to allow the applicant time to address some of the Commission's concerns. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Building Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant would like to amend his project as follows: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 18, 1992 Page 6 of, 8 Lot 50, Block 1. Wildridae___Subd_iv_icion,,___Schaub. Duplex1__Bui lding and Site Plan Revisions, (cont) 1. Change the color of the stucco from the approved color of tan to the existing light grey. 2. Eliminate certain first level building trim. 3. Eliminate the boulder and timber retaining walls except those along the east side and southeast corner of the house. The applicant will regrade the property to a slope and reseed. Wally Schaub stated he would like to stay with the grey of the stucco, just from a maintenance standpoint. He also stated that he would like to add more trees along the driveway. He wants to use more drought resistant plants. Considerable discussion followed on the retaining wall on the north side and the slope of the driveway and the color of the stucco. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant approval with the following conditions: 1. The stucco be painted the original color of tan and the garage doors should be painted also. The tan picked should be a shade lighter than the wood trim. 2. Building trim will be installed on lower levei doors and windows and around the garage doors to match upper level trim, however, trim on the corners may be eliminated. 3. Additional landscape plan will be submitted to Staff, which will include drainage plan for the north side of the driveway to eliminate drainage into the adjacent property and the addition of materials throughout the property, but most importantly along the full driveway on both sides. 4. The vertical cut along the full length of the driveway on the south side will be filled and smoothed to look like a natural grade. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Wally Schaub stated that he would also like to eliminate the automatic irrigation system. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. PLANNING AND ZONING August 18, 1992 Page 7 of 8 and I COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES __Schau�__uuglexy Bul_ldi_ng. Henry Vest moved to approve the elimination of the irrigation system, Buz Reynolds seconded. The motion was denied with a vote of two for and three against, Rhoda Schneiderman, Patti Dixon and Sue Railton voting nay. Lot 17 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Cliff rose Townho_mes,. Landscape Plan Desig nn_Review Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn from the agenda at this time. Reading and Approval of the Planniny_and_Zoning_Commission Meeting Minutes for August 4, 1992 Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the minutes for the August 4, 1992 meeting as submitted. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 92-11, A Special Review Use for a Home Occupation, Lot 48, Blockl, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 92-12, A Special Review Use to Allow an Automotive Repair Shop in the Metcalf Center Building on Lot 34, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 92-13, Holy Cross Electric Special Review Amendment. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was then adjourned at 9:30 PM. Respectfully, submitted. Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary PLANNING AND ZON:NG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 18, 1992 Page 8 of 8 Commission approval J. Perki S. Railt R. Schne A. Reyno P. Dixon H. Vest J. Hunn Date_91, ILII