Loading...
PZC Minutes 081595RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 15, 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, August 15, 1995 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. All members present except for Henry Vest. Members Present: Jack Hunn, Beth Stanley, Rhoda Schneiderman, Sue Railton, Bill Sargis, Buz Reynolds Staff Present: Mike Matzko, Director of Community Development, Karen Griffith, Town Planner, Sheila Kremski, Recording Secretary CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (6:00nm worksessionl 1) Work Session with Town Council a. Avon Village PUD Regulations 2) Conceptual Review a. Lot 3, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Fourplex CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Buz Reynolds had a conflict of interest with Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision. CONSENT AGENDA The following items were scheduled on the Amended Consent Agenda: 1. Lot 47, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Bellino Fence 2. Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Ambrosio, Modification 3. Lot 49, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Koenke, Deck Addition 4. Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Modification, Chimney added, siding change, minor window modification Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 15, 1995 Consent Agenda Con.'t) 5. Lot 40, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Landscape Modification and revised grading plan 6. Lot 18, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision, Expansion of Driveway 7. Lot 1, Riverside Subdivision, Eaglebend III, Modification, Colors 8. Approval of the August 1, 1995 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes. Karen Griffith described the Consent Agenda. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the consent agenda with the removal of item #7, Lot 1, Riverside Subdivision, Eaglebend III, to better discuss later in the meeting and Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, stucco approved but the color to be approved by staff. Seconded by Sue Railton and the motion carried. Buz Reynolds abstained from the vote due to a conflict of interest. PUBLIC HEARINGS Avon Village Staff stated on July 18, 1995 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the Avon Village Annexation public hearing and continued it to the August 1, 1995 meeting. On August 1, the application was tabled. The applicants have since submitted proposed zoning regulations for the project. Peter Jamar, representing the applicant was present for comment. Peter noted that their traffic engineer consultant is in the process of discussing traffic issues and projection with the Town of Avon's traffic consultants. Wildlife and most specifically the deer migration corridor discussion at the last meeting caused a meeting to transpire with Peter and Bill Andree, District Wildlife Manager. Chairperson Hunn opened the public hearing, continuing the August 15, 1995 Avon Village Public Hearing. Michael Hazard was present. At the first public input session Michael asked Peter what kind of physical relationship will be established between the existing town and the purposed Avon Village and his response was that there were several things that would be looked at a later date. Michael is curious in terns of the process if in fact it goes to a vote and the PUD and Annexation happen this November with the plan that has been proposed what kind of flexibility is there for that at a future date. The access is shown going around the north side of City Market and when you stand across the street and look east you see City Market and the annex and if nothing does change what position does the town have after the fact to ask the developers to do something different. If nothing is done then Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 15, 1995 Avon Village Annexation (Con.'t) 19 what ever is developed on the other side of Avon Village would back up to City Market and the Annex. If you look at this there is not connection or continuity and it seems wrong. Also, what is the rush with the Council and Planning and Zoning trying to process all of this information which should have more time devoted to the process. Avon has an opportunity to stand out as being very forward minded in terms of striving for a great development. Peter replied that the developer does not control the buildings or the property. Peter sees a very strong connection between the Town and the Annexation. Peter has communicated very openly that they would be interested in providing for a pedestrian and/or vehicular connections to hook up to the adjacent properties to the developers but they cannot control those. There are many steps yet to take place with the Town and the public. Peter understands that Michael is wanting to see where the buildings go but that comes later in the process. Rye Suthord, a business owner in Avon, was present for comment. Rye asked what the current number of residents in the Town of Avon. C.C. Nottingham replied 3,670 residents. Residential units not including time shares and the mobile home park is 1900. Rye asked for a definition of a PUD ordinance and what does it mean. The staff replied that the ordinance would establish the zoning for the property. Chairperson Hunn closed the public hearing. Buz Reynolds moved to continue the Avon Village Annexation Public Hearing to the September 5, 1995 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting. Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Vedder, Variance Staff stated the variance request is to allow a retaining wall to encroach into the side yard setback. On April 19, 1994 a variance was granted for a 2.5 foot encroachment of the retaining wall into the side yard and front yard setback. The project then received final design approval on May 2, 1995 with a condition that the retaining wall be no taller than 8 feet in height. On June 20, 1995 the Planning & Zoning Commission approved a modification that included an 8 foot encroachment of the retaining wall into the side yard setback. However, it was not clear from the information presented at that meeting that the previous variance granted on April 19, 1994 had approved only a 2.5 foot encroachment into the setback. Therefore, the applicant is now requesting a variance that matches the modified site plan approved at the June 20, 1995 meeting. Thus, this variance request would not allow for the retaining wall to encroach 8 feet into the side yard Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 4 August 15, 1995 Lot 20, Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Variance(Con.'t) setback. The applicant states that this design helps to lengthen the driveway and therefore provide a gentler grade on the driveway. Staff recommends denial of the variance based on the finding that it would impact the adjacent property during construction of the retaining wall. Brian Vedder was the applicant present. The only property the variance would have impact upon would be Lot 9. Chairperson Hunn asked Brian if he had contacted the owner of Lot 99 Brian stated that Oscar Tang owned the lot. Brian made it clear that he was not going to disturb his property. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned why Brian needed a variance. Brian replied he would get another 20 feet of driveway. Chairperson Hunn stated that in order to find the justification to grant a variance the Commission needed to look at the approval criteria and site these findings. What hardship does the applicant have that the Commission can base their findings on. Brian replied that it would be to try and squeeze as much driveway onto the property as possible. Brian sees he is only modifying a variance. Chairperson Hunn opened the public hearing. No comments. The public hearing was closed. Buz Reynolds suggested putting a fence on the property line. Brian would not be opposed to marking the property line. Chairperson Hunn questioned how the footings relate to the walls. Will the footings encroach further? Brian replied they are much farther underneath the fill and the worst case scenario the engineer gave was one feet four beyond the face of the wall. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Variance with the following findings and conditions: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 15, 1995 Lot 20 Block 3_ Wildridae Subdivision Variance Con.') 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 of welfare, or materially injurious to properties of improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: 1. 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. CONDITIONS: 1. A construction fence running the length of the encroachment be installed prior to any construction; 2. No disturbance to adjacent properties; 3. Any unnecessary disturbance will be rectified within 30 days of completion of the wall; 4. If any disturbance is anticipated before construction signed permission will be obtained from the adjacent property owner to proceed. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion carries. Chairperson Hunn nay. Lot 79, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Variance Staff stated the variance request is to allow a garage to encroach into the 25 foot front yard setback. The proposed project design is comprised of a duplex with the two units attached at a shared porch. The applicants are requesting the variance for the location of the garage of one of the units to minimize site disturbance. The garage would be an earth sheltered garage designed to receive drainage and snow from the road above. The slopes in the area of the front yard setback in which the proposed garage would be located to exceed 50 percent. The slopes in the rear of the lot are 22 percent and less. Excavation would be required of the steep slope in the 25 foot front yard setback where slopes exceed 50 percent. Staff does not support the proposed variance. Michael Sanner was the applicant present. Michael presented his model. The applicant was untranscribable. Chairperson Hunn commented that there were two issues including setbacks and snow storage maintenance easement. Chairperson Hunn opened the public hearing. No comments. The public hearing was closed. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 15, 1995 Lot 79, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Variance (Con.'t) Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to approve Lot 79, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Variance with the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: A. 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 the following reason: 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. CONDITIONS: 1. The encroachment be not more than 19 feet and based on the site plan which was submitted if any changes to the site plan the variance would have to be amended if any more of the buildings encroach into the setback that are noted on the site plan. This applies to the retaining wall encroachment as well as garage. Seconded by Sue Railton. Motion unanimously carried. FINAL DESIGN REVIEW Lot 81, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Staff stated the building site is a narrow, east -facing lot of .586 acres that slopes down from Wildridge Road. The existing slopes range from 33 percent to 66 percent adjacent to the road. The project is a duplex unit to be served by two driveways. The eastern driveway would receive access from lot 80, rather than the adjacent road. On July 18, 1995 the applicant presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission a concept review. The comments were generally favorable on the building design. However, the application was presented with a metal roof and the majority of the Commission members expressed concerns regarding this roof material. In response to these concerns, the applicant is now proposing an asphalt composition shingle roof. Additionally, the applicant was requested to bring in a sketch of the adjacent property indicating how the driveway across lot 80 could serve both lots. A draft easement agreement has been presented that would be granted if the two lots are ever sold separately. 0 Ray Neilson was present as the applicant. The elevations indicated on the garage level are the wrong elevations. The correct numbers were sited by applicant. Rhoda Schneiderman commented that she only felt comfortable with the driveway if the lot line was vacated. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 15, 1995 Lot 81. Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision,(Con.'t) Chairperson Hunn noted that the town requires the driveway to be either concrete or asphalt. Sue Railton motioned to approve Lot 81, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. Driveway paved; 2. If Lot 80 is sold than an easement will be granted for the common driveway to access Lot 80 and Lot 81 3. Staff conditioned a summary chart be provided on the landscape plan and a note be provided indicating the landscaping will be irrigated; 4. Staff conditioned the height of all boulder walls be labeled on the plans. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion carries. Rhoda Schneiderman nay. Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Staff stated on June 20, 1995 the Commission reviewed this project and granted final design approval with conditions. On July 18, 1995 the applicant returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a new grading plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission found the number of walls, site modification proposed, and slopes unacceptable and tabled the application. The applicant has now revised the grading plan and re -oriented the garage by moving the entrance to face the house. The number of rock walls have been reduced to two adjacent to the garage and two below the home. The drystack boulder walls will be a maximum of four feet tall. John Heinly was present as the applicant. He stated that he was present to receive the final passage of this project. Buz Reynolds asked if there was a retaining wall on the north side of driveway. The applicant replied no. Buz Reynolds noted a minimal amount of trees on the east side. The applicant noted that the landscape plan was approved but the numbers and quantities have not changed. Rhoda Schneiderman asked the maximum amount of tiers on one section of wall. The applicant replied none higher than 4 feet in the retaining walls. A maximum of 2 tiers. Chairperson Hunn commented on the dry stack of the walls at a steep angle. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 15, 1995 Lot 85, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision (Con 't) Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to approve Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. All aspen trees be a minimum of 2 inch caliber and be amended on the landscape plan; 2. A window be added to the upper level of the south garage wall and be approved by staff, 3. A PE stamp be provided on the retaining wall design; 4. The drainage plan receive staff approval prior to issuance of building permit. Bill Sargis seconded. Motion unanimously carries. Lot 71, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Staff stated the site is a west facing 3.46 acre lot, with slopes ranging from 36 to 44 percent. The lot is shaped long and narrow. The project is a 2,736 square foot single family home with a walk out second floor. Building materials include stucco siding with wood accents and asphalt/fiberglass shingles. Matt Kelsall was the applicant present. The applicant added landscaping. Chairperson Hunn noted the light fixture chosen is designed to reflect much light away into adjacent homes and the lighting standards look for fixtures that disguise the source of the light. The applicant would be willing to change to the lighting standards. Staff commented that the grades met code on the driveway. Bill Sargis motioned to approve Lot 71, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. The landscape plan be revised to indicate an irrigation system will be provided and the spruce trees will meet the six foot minimum planting sizes, 2. Show driveway culvert on the final plan; 3. That the curbcut be moved further south to minimize the cut and fill necessary to achieve driveway grades; 4. The exterior lights be changed subject to staff approval. Beth Stanley seconded. Motion unanimously carried. Buz Reynolds abstained from the vote. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 15, 1995 Lot 11, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Staff stated the project is a fourplex on a west-southwest facing 2.36 acre site on the east side of Wildridge Road. The site slopes up from the road. Access is via a single driveway, with covered and surface parking available for residents and guests. Materials include fiberglass roof shingles, redwood and stucco siding. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the final design at their June 20, 1995 meeting and tabled the request with a recommendation that the applicant refine the building design and driveway grades and bring the plan back to a future meeting. The applicant has added a hipped roof, a stucco accent band, and windows on the west and east elevations. The north and south elevations have not been changed. The grading plan has a 4 percent and a 6 percent grade in the transition zone and driveway respectively. The site grading has been modified from 1:1 slope to a 1:5:1 slope north of the buildings. Two 13 foot rock retaining wall have been added north of the driveway, with landscape planters to screen part of the wall. The applicant has submitted a soils report indicating that due to shallow bedrock beneath the soil surface, a 1:1 slope is acceptable. Fred Hiller was the applicant present. Fred noted that the site was very difficult to work with. The timber wall was put in the rear with extensive landscaping. Chairperson Hunn noted that it was a very difficult site and with the suggested dumpster enclosure which would indicate a large trash removal vehicle would try to negotiate this driveway. Chairperson Hunn does not see any way for this vehicle to turn around. Fred suggested it would back up the driveway. Chairperson Hunn replied that in the winter time it would be very difficult. Has the applicant considered moving the dumpster. Fred would take suggestions. Rhoda Schneiderman noted a problem with the parking. Maneuvering will be difficult. Bill Sargis motioned to approve Lot 11, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant provide to staff a site for individual dumpsters closer to the street; 2. To expand the east end of the parking area to provide more access for additional parking and/or turn around maneuvering area approved by staff, 3. Applicant will provide an irrigation system; 4. Staff condition to approve the site plan based on the very difficult topography. Beth Stanley seconded. Motion carries. Rhoda Schneiderman and Jack Hunt, nay. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 15, 1995 Lot 1. Avon Town Square 10 Staff stated the request is for a variance to allow a sign using reflective material. Section 15.28.060 F of the Avon Municipal Code states that reflective surfaces are not allowed. The proposed sign is a gold brushed aluminum that would be 5 feet tall and illuminated. It is that company's Golden Beaver logo. The proposed location of the sign is on the northwest elevation of the Slifer Building. Only a logo, with no lettering is proposed. The variance application is accompanied by a request for an amendment to master sign plan to allow for the new sign. The applicant was not present. Bill Sargis motioned to approve Lot 1, Avon Town Square, Golden Beaver Sign. Seconded by Sue Railton. Motion carries. Jack Hunn nay. Lot 1, Riverside Subdivision, Eaglebend III, Colors Staff stated that the colors approved were dark brown and light brown and green trim on doors. There was not a request for a color change but a site visit by staff suggested these may not be the colors approved. Staff wanted to seek the opinion of the Commission for approval. Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to approve color change for Lot 1, Riverside Subdivision, base on staff approval and that they come as close as possible to model presented. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion unanimously carries. Other Business 1) Chairperson Hunn re -requested the vicinity maps in the packets. 2) Chairperson Hunn commented on the fence at the CME van parking site has been put up but is not complete. Steve Hodges replied they have been requested to finished fence. 3) Chairperson Hunn noted Rich's Auto Body was excavating and trying to expand there parking area, was that approved. Steve Hodges was checking into. 4) Chairperson Hunn asked if the Commission would be allowed to review the annexation agreement. Planning & Zoninu Commission Meeting, Minutes August 15, 1995 Other Business (Con.'t) Staff replied probably not. But will hand out the public information to the Commission. 5) Rhoda Schneiderman questioned the traffic study accuracy. Staff will check into. 6) Staff wanted to inform the Commission on Marve Simon's home in Wi!dridge has all white stucco but that is not the final color. 7) Staff would like to have a work session on landscaping and other important items. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 AM. Respectfully submitted, Sheila Kremski Recording Secretary Commission Approval Date S 915- B. Sar -is