Loading...
PZC Minutes 041895RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 18, 1995 The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jack Hunn at 7:30 PM, April 18, 1995 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. All members present except for Sue Railton, Bill Sargis, and Buz Reynolds. Members Present: Jack Hunn, Patti Dixon, Henry Vest, Rhoda Schneiderman Staff Present: Mike Matzko, Director of Community Development, Sheila Kremski, Recording Secretary CONSENT AGENDA The following item was scheduled on the Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of April 04, 1995, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. Mike Matzko described the Consent Agenda. Henry Vest moved to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Rhoda Schneiderman and the motion unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Variance. Mike Matzko stated the applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance due to the extreme topography of his lot. The applicant is requesting a setback variance of 11 feet, resulting in the structure being constructed 14 feet from the front lot line. Staff has two main concerns being the two driveways on one site and in close proximity is not a desirable access design and the "hammerhead" turnaround on the west driveway is within the slope maintenance and snow storage easement, rendering it unreliable for use in the winter. Staff recommends that the applicant revisit the access design, with the goal of eliminating one curb cut. Garrance Smith was the applicant present. Garrance had no comment. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 1995 Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Variance (Con.'t) Chairperson Hunn opened the public hearing. No comment. Public hearing closed. The Commission noted the steepness of the lot supporting the setback variance, noting only the garage would be in the setback and the living space was within the setback. Henry Vest moved to approve Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Front Yard Set- back Variance with the following findings: FINDINGS: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties of improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. 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; 2. 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; 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Seconded by Rhoda Schneiderman. Motion unanimously carries. FINAL DESIGN REVIEW Lot 73, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Klein Duplex Mike Matzko stated the comments of the staff report written by Mary Holden. The applicants submitted plans for final design review of a single family residence with an accessory unit. The residence will have three levels and stand approximately 37' high. Staff recommends denial based on non-compliance with the maximum building height. The applicant Paul Klein was present. The lowest portion of the lot from where the measurement was calculated was 37' and the overall slope of the lot was 20%. The reasoning for the placement of the home was generally based on the view corridors. Paul would like some input on options to lower the home. Paul was questioning what may be considered a steep slope. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 April 18, 1995 Lot 73, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Klein Duplex Con 't) Chairperson Hunn explained the steep slope in the guidelines would be considered if the slope were excess of 20%. Chairperson Hunn stated the applicant was on the boarder line of this percentage. The applicant wants to make the project work and is willing to do what is necessary. The driveway slope is at the 10% maximum. Exterior lighting would be as low impact as possible but enough to be safe. Driveway will be a concrete finish. All landscaping will be irrigated with a drip system. The caretaker apartment is about 40% of the basement with own entrance and garage access with 1 space in garage dedicated to the caretaker unit. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned if there was living space above the garage and the stucco finish. Applicant replied no. All the space is open. The stucco finish will be a rough sand called a worm finish. Chairperson Hunn finds project attractive and only with a concern about the height of the building. Chairperson Hunn requested staff check height calculation and see if there is a way to interpret within the 35' maximum by calling it a steep slope if it is on the borderline. If a variance is required it must go through the proper process but keep in mind only one height variance has been granted in Wildridge. Applicant should work with staff on a solution. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 73, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. A revised site plan be submitted to staff to show the revised building height not to exceed 35' if cannot conform be brought back for the variance process, 2. The lighting plan be approved by staff, 3. Landscape material be of town standards with a drip system be installed for all vegetation. Seconded by Patti Dixon. Motion unanimously carries. Lot 70, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Deck Modification Mike Matzko stated this is an expansion of a deck on an existing residential duplex. The current deck is approximately 100 sq. ft. in area, and the proposed deck is approximately 400 sq. ft. The old deck will be removed, and the new deck constructed of redwood. The elevation was not provided to show the impact of changes on the site. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 1995 Lot 70, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Deck Modification, (Con.-:!) The applicant Arthur Myers was present. He described the project as a simple deck addition wrapping around the home to connect the decks. Deck is elevated, 17' to 18' high. Matching the new deck to the existing deck. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned staff if the town would require building plans for this project. Mike Matzko said yes as to detailed plans. Rhoda Schneiderman was unclear on how the patio would meet the deck and it looks as if there is some sort of walk. The applicant explained the transition would be flat using redwood. Mr. Myers commented he did not know how complicated the process was to just build a deck in the town. Patti Dixon moved to approve Lot 70, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Deck Modification subject to staff review of final drawings. Seconded by Rhoda Schneiderman. Motion unanimously carries. Lot 41, Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision Schurensteat Duplex Mike Matzko stated the applicant was present for Final Design Review of project. Staff recommends the Commission carefully consider the impact of reducing the 25 foot setback along Bear Trap Road. At a minimum, the site plan and landscape plan should be revised to reflect the concerns in the staff report and submit for the next meeting. Chairperson Hunn clarified the lot is surrounded by three sides and the applicant is requesting that the Commission consider determining that there is a rear yard setback of 10' as opposed to 25'. The applicant Rex Schurensteat was present. Rex spoke with Mary Holden and she suggested asking the Commission for the setback. The only thing that will fall into the original 25' setback would be the deck of the second level. The actual building will still remain in the original 25' setback. Rex did not redesign allowing him to keep the building at a certain mass and to leave the lot undisturbed. Chairperson Hunn noted that it appears the asphalt is quite a distance from the property line. So the real distance from the deck if it were permitted to encroach to the edge of the asphalt is pretty significant. So there is some distance between the road and the deck. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 1995 Lot 41, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Schurensteat Duplex Con 't) Chairperson Hunn stated that procedurally this approach has not been done. Typically a variance is requested for decks to encroach on setbacks and there is a precedence for this. If it is determined that this is a 10' setback, years from now someone could propose building mass in that area. The applicant would prefer not to ask for a variance. Chairperson Hunn noted that the lot does have a unique circumstance that it is fronted by two roads. But the area does have other properties with this situation and may see other requests for the same interpretation, which creates an opportunity. Chairperson Hunn asked about the grade and width of the driveway. Rex responded with a total grade of 5% and a width of 12' but would change to the 14' recommended by the town. Chairperson Hunn felt uncomfortable interpreting the setback at less than 25', due to the precedent that might be set. It looks like a mirrored image duplex which is well disguised in the front and not at all in the back. If the design responded to the constraints of the site, and respected the 25' setback, it would lead to a solution away from a mirror image. He suggested shifting the building, for instance the west unit further south which may allow for more privacy for a deck and less of a mirror image of a project. Chairperson Hunn was also concerned with the east elevation and its fairly visible blank walls that are visible from the road. Rex described the main body of the project as an oyster white with a darker tan colored stucco. The roof is a wood shake. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table Lot 41, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, FDR. Seconded by Patti Dixon. Motion unanimously carried. Lot 4, Nottingham Station, Buildings B C and D FDR Mike Matzko addressed the staff report created by Mary Holden which stated the applicant is requesting Final Design Approval for Buildings B,C and D. Each building contains 8 units for a total of 24 units. At the April 4, 1995 Commission meeting, this project was conceptually reviewed. The main comments included the massing of the buildings and mirror image. Staff recommends to table until a phasing and lighting plan are submitted. 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 6 April 18, 1995 Lot 4 Nottingham Station Buildings B C and D FDR (Con 't) Ed Smith and Gordon Pierce were present on behalf of the applicant, Shapiro Development. A paving proposal was not submitted but there was a proposal within the PUD submittal which was approved. That proposal basically said it would start with Building B and build the next phase adjacent to that building. The lighting is shown on the landscape plan but not well marked and easily overlooked. The applicant took the comments made by the Commission at the previous meeting to improve upon this submittal. One suggestion was to increase the offset between the buildings, look at the eve or a -lines and try to cut the apparent height of the dormers on the south side of the building, add variation to the riverside decks, lowering the eve lines to show how it would effect the elevations, and lastly to restudy the color palate for the buildings (adding color, changing color, intensifying color, ect.). Ed Smith explained the packet to show how they mixed and added variety to the project both in terms of changing materials. Lighting at the building site is either low or with concealed sources and asking it as a condition to work with the lighting contractors to present the best lighting plan. Gordon Pierce explained the colors chosen for the building. Presented were three distinct palates. The B Building is the center palate with a richness to the red and a stronger depth of color, the seconded building with a gray palate, and the third building with a warmer palate. Plan on painting the base of all the buildings a stone color, up to the first floor. Ed Smith discussed the subdivision improvements which will be negotiated with the Town Council and Town Staff in the next two weeks. The infrastructure will be almost all built with the first phase of the project, concurrent with the first building. Continue Hurd Lane through Eaglebend Drive, continue the bike path through, landscaping through the bike path and the right-of-way, the street lighting, bus stop and benches. Parking and driveway will be completed with each group of buildings. Rhoda Schneiderman requested if any changes were made to the west and elevation to building D. Rhoda complemented the projects choice of colors. Although the changes were not substantial. The applicant explained the only changes made to the end elevations was building C to increase the offset. Chairperson Hunn felt the applicant has put in a lot of effort and has responded to the Commission comments from the last meeting. Although the mass of the buildings could step back a bit more from the river. The changes have added a lot of variety and changed the perception of how this buildings will be viewed. Chairperson Hunn requested the landscape material proposed. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 1995 Lot 4, Nottingham Station, Buildings B C and D FDR, (Con.'t) Steve Machino was present to discuss the landscape details. A 3" caliber tree was studied. It was discovered that a 3" caliber cottonwood is not normally grown and hard to transplant at that size. More damage will be done to the existing vegetation than to plant a 2" and do much less damage. The cottonwoods are shown at a 5 year growth period. Chairperson Hunn asked how the trash will be handled for Phase I. The applicant replied dumpsters will be attached to the garages at the parking lot level with a full enclosure and roof. Chairperson Hunn inquired about the number of parking spaces. The applicant answered more than required for Phase I. Henry Vest moved to approve Lot 4, Nottingham Station, Buildings B,C, and D, Final Design Approval, with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. Infrastructure improvements which include but are not limited to sidewalk, street improvements, landscaping, parking, drainage, grading, and utilities connections be brought back to staff. 2. Project lighting plan be brought back for Commission review. Chris Eckrem of 4130 Eaglebend Drive, Avon, has been watching this project carefully and had some questions. How close the buildings are along the east -west staging. The applicant replied with a minimum of 15' between buildings. Chris Eckrem wanted to know who was responsible for construction of Hurd Lane and when Hurd Lane will be constructed. Chairperson Hunn responded his understanding would be that the developer would construct the road to town standards and would complete it with the delivery of Phase I before the units would be occupied. The applicant said that the developer, Shapiro Development, would be responsible for the subdivision improvements. Chris Eckrem was concerned about the speed of the construction vehicles and also the destruction of the road. It was communicated to her by Town Council that the road would be resurfaced. Can there be a speed and weight limit for that road (Eaglebend Drive). Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 8 April 18, 1995 Lot 4, Nottingham Station, Buildings B C, and D FDR Con.'t) Chairperson Hunn responded that the Wildridge Subdivision has the same problem. Some of the residents of Wildridge have approached the Town Council with there concerns and intend to get a petition circulated to get some action to resolve the problem. Hunn felt this matter could be taken up as a police matter rather than a Design Review issue. Seconded by Patti Dixon. Motion carries. Rhoda Schneiderman opposed. Lot 3, Nottingham Station, Final Design Review Mike Matzko stated the applicant has submitted the final design approval. The project appears to conform with the preliminary design submitted for the PUD approval process, and in general to the Town Subarea Design Recommendations specific to Subarea 9. Staff has several concerns listed in the staff report. Mark Donaldson was present on behalf of applicant, Wintergreen Homes. All four buildings are being represented for Final Design Approval for this meeting with a total of 69 units. Two different color schemes for all buildings. The materials are the Owens/Corning fiberglass oakridge roof. Wood is broken up in vertical and horizontal with different tones in each of those. The common colors throughout are the dark wood for the soffits, facias, all the balcony railings and the projecting wood treatments from all the framing. The wood siding, with the vertical and the horizontal different tones to break the massing. This project has stayed well on track since the beginning of the PUD process. Steve Machino was present on behalf of the applicant. The cottonwoods will be left as is. More native shrubs will be brought in. A large green belt may be encouraged as a playing field for the children. Shrubs along split rail fence to tie in with Lot 4, Nottingham Station. Chairperson Hunn asked if the landscape was irrigated with an automatic system. Applicant replied yes, it is an irrigated automatic system. Chairperson Hunn questioned the proposal with regard to the fence along railroad right- of-way. Mark answered that they would be open to any discussion. The wall would have to be safe as well as a sound barrier. But would like to stay with a wood fence. Chairperson Hunn inquired about the weight of the asphalt roofing product proposed. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 1995 Lot 3, Nottingham Station, FDR, (Con.'t) Mark explained that the manufacturer does not put the weight in their literature anymore. It is an oakridge with the layered, 3 -tab style. Rhoda Schneiderman requested a sample of the driftwood color. The color on the model was very pink and would like to see an actual sample. The south facade looks fine and. with the changes in setback along Hurd Lane and it curving around you do not see it as a straight shot of the same buildings. Hopefully low lighting will be applied within safety concerns Henry Vest questioned how high the fence by the railroad and trash collection. Mark thought the railroad commission requires a 6' to 8' but he will check on that. It will be the minimum height but no taller. Trash collection will be individualized curb service. Chairperson Hunn inquired about meeting the towns parking requirements including the guest parking spaces and has an area been designated for a park or open space activity area. Mark replied that this has been done. The areas were indicated to the Commission physically on the site plan as to the location of the activity area. The Commission questioned if the applicant would consider using a synthetic stucco instead of the panelized stucco product proposed. Mark felt that it sounds like the Commission would prefer the synthetic product but the cost effectiveness would justify the choice. Mark commented the fireplaces would be gas. Henry Vest moved to approve Lot 3, Nottingham Station, Final Design Approval, with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. Fencing, lighting, and signage be brought back to Commission for approval. 2. Roof material for buildings 1 and 3 be brown wood; 3. A curb and cutter be installed_ 4. Stucco be used on the chimney stack and sides vs. the hardy plank; Seconded by Patti Dixon. Motion carried. Rhoda Schneiderman nay. Tract P, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Mike Matzko stated the applicant, Upper Eagle Valley Regional Water Authority, submitted to upgrade its water treatment facility. The existing building is approximately Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes to April 18, 1995 Tract P, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision (Con.'t) 135,000 square feet, and will be expanded by approximately 7,200 s. f. on the south side, and 1700 s.f on the west side. Also included in the project is a raw water intake and pump station, including a 730 s.f and an intake structure in the river. The pump station is located about 1000 feet to the south and east of the water treatment facility. Staff recommends approval with the additional application elements listed under Staff comments. The applicant had no comments. Chairperson Hunn asked where does the pump station physically relate to the plant. This part of the tape was untranscribable due to the applicant not speaking into the microphone. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Tract P, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Approval with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. Building colors brought back to the Commission; 2. Exterior building lighting plan brought back to the Commission; 3. Final placement of the fence to be approved by Staff. Seconded by Henry Vest. Motion unanimously carried. Lot 47, Block 3, WildridQe Subdivision Mike Matzko stated the project is a single family home, on three levels, totaling 3,324 s.f. Exterior is stucco, with metal -clad windows and asphalt shingle roof. Accompanying this application is a request for a front yard setback variance. Staff recommends that the access issues be addressed prior to final approval. The applicant Garrance Smith was present. No comments. The Commission questioned materials of landscape plan. It looks as if the landscaping is concentrated on the front of the house and nothing on the sides. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Approval with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. A landscape plan brought back to the Commission with a total 360 degree plan; 2. Color samples brought back with a recommendation that one or two of the elevations be colored in with the correct colors; The culvert be extended from edge driveway to edge of driveway; Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 11 April 18, 1995 Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision (Con.'t) 4. Meters be placed on the buildings; 5. All flues, flashings and vents be painted to match the building and or roof. Seconded by Patti Dixon. Motion unanimously carried. OTHER BUSINESS 1) Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Ambrosio Residence Both Tommy Ambrosio and Bruce Canton were present. Tommy explained that both of them had communicated in the past before any construction had begun. Tommy has picked up his building permit and has begun to move some ground around and has realized that the two houses would be much to close. Rather than coming towards the road and putting it close to the road and also keeping the houses fairly close together at that point Tommy has decided instead to go to the north of Bruce's house and that put Tommy further away from the road. Tommy revised the site plan and turned them into Staff. Basically the footprint of the building and the elevations are staying the same except for a longer driveway and Tommy will be further away from the road. The floor elevations were raised slightly to accommodate the longer distance that the sewer has to travel. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned if the building height changed. Tommy replied that the overall height from grade had not. Chairperson Hunn inquired about the grade of the driveway. Tommy answered it was 2%. Chairperson Hunn was concern that there may not be enough asphalt paving outside of the garage doors to maneuver a car to turn around in that vacinity to avoid having them back up all the way up that driveway to the road, enter the road, and curve. Tommy explained he has left it the same as when it was approved for the final design review. Chairperson Hunn gave Tommy suggestions for better maneuvering in order not to back out the driveway. Maybe modifying the boulder wall to create a hammerhead. Tommy told the Commission that he has revised the site plan many time with Norm Wood to work with him. Eventually Norm came up with a retaining concrete wall. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 12 April 18, 1995 Lot 30, Block 2, Wilridge Subdivision, Ambrosio Residence (Con.'t) The Commission preferred a step of retaining wall of 6 feet rather than one wall of 13 feet. Bruce Canton explained that he was very pleased with Tommy's decision to move the home. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Ambrosio, a revised site plan with the following recommendations: 1. Staff review the site plan, 2. Line demarcation showing areas of disturbance be added; 3. Strongly advise an enlarged turnaround area in the driveway to backing out; 4. Advise the 13 foot concrete retaining wall be split and stepped back to allow for landscape materials to be included. Seconded by Patti Dixon. Motion unanimously carried. 2) Chairperson Hunn thanked Patti Dixon for her serving on the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission. 3) Beth Stanley has been appointed by the Avon Town Council as the new memeber of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission. 4) Mike Matzko had some suggestions for process that might take some load off of Staff. Having the applicant reduce the site plans and provide extra copies was one suggestion. Commission preferrs smaller site plans prior to the meeting and eliminates the larger sets being flipped through during the meeting which does cause a disturbance. Mike suggested a two week submittal for conceptual review. Commission agreed. Mike asked the Commission about context. How can Staff better provide context to the Commission. Chairperson suggested photographs if no site visit is done. Rhoda Schneiderman felt that on the site plan showing the adjacent structures on adjacent properties. Maybe the Tommy Ambrosio and Bruce Canton's conflict could have been avoided if this was provided from the very begining. Chairperson Hunn preferred photographs to Rhoda's suggestion because of the cost to the applicant. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 13 April 18, 1995 4) Mike's suggestions (Con.'t) Mike suggested that two photographs be taken from different angles and then have the applicant indicate with an X on the site plan where the photos are taken from. Commission agreed. Mike in the future would like the applicant to take the town's base map and incorporate it into their topography and provide it to the applicant at a reduced cost. The Commission would encourage in some way the applicant be more informed of the process to better prepare them for the meetings. For instance, drawings, color samples, everything needed for a final design review. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Sheila Kremski Recording Secretary Commission Approval B. Sargis S. Railton Date