Loading...
PZC MInutes 062095RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 20, 1995 The Regular Meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jack Hunn at 7:30 PM, June 20, 1995 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. Members absent were Sue Railton and Beth Stanley. Members Present: Jack Hunn, Rhoda Schneiderman, Bill Sargis, Henry Vest, Buz Reynolds Staff Present: Mike Matzo, Director of Community Development, Sheila Kremski, Recording Secretary CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (6:15 pm worksession) Lot 1 Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision Fourplex Lot 38 Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Lot 18/19 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Butler Lot 71 Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Wildridge Subdivision, Kelsall Lot 10 Block 4, Wildridge, McDonald Lot 19 Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Lot 49 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Duplex CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Henry Vest announced a conflict of interest with a consent agenda item Lot 8, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Deck Addition. Bill Sargis formally moved this conceptual item. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 CONSENT AGENDA The following items were scheduled on the Amended Consent Agenda: 1. Lot 79, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Landscape, Cohen 2. Lot 8, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Deck Addition, Vest Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Modification, Ambrosio Res. 4. Approval of the June 6, 1995 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes Rhoda Schneiderman move.i to approved the consent agenda as amended. Lot 30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, '_Modification, was added to the agenda. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion carries unanimously. Henry Vest did not vote due to a conflict of interest. FINAL DESIGN REVIEW Lot 49 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Final Design Review Duplex This item was removed from conceptual review to final design review. Mike Matzko stated the site is a .57 acre, south facing lot on Longsun Lane. The project is 4607 s.f. duplex, 2252 s.f on the south unit, and 2355 on the north unit. Each unit has a two car garage. There are two additional exterior parking spaces adjacent to the south unit garage. The building follows the site contours. Materials include cedar T&G siding, stucco siding, redwood siding and cedar shake roofing. Todd Morrison was present representing MDM Developers. The applicant has meet with the town on many occasions to properly comply with the design review process. Henry Vest was concerned with the drainage. Todd replied that Norm Wood gave suggestions for positive drainage. The result was varying the garages slightly. Positive drainage was created by taking the northside duplex and increasing its slab elevation and running that down keeping it away plus creating a percent that will be away from the house. Keeping the flow heading down toward the northend of the south unit. 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Lot 49 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Final Design Review Duplex(Con.'t) Chairperson Hunn questioned the turning radius on the drivewway. As one would come in the driveway off the street and initiate a turn to go to the western unit, does that radius work? Todd replied yes. Chairperson Hunn noted that the driveway grades looked to be within the towns guidelines. Cedar shake for the roofing material, warm colors are consistent with the natural colors except for the colder gray color. The landscape plan shows a lot of blue grass seed, does the applicant plan to move that? Todd replied that he was not sure. Todd would like to leave that initial downslope of the street into the lot and leave that as much natural scape as possible. In back it is a little more bluegrass than just natural scape. Chairperson Hunn stated that bluegrass seed suggests useable lawn and goes property line to property line with no transition back to the natural vegetation. Chairperson Hunn suggested investing in sod or seed in that area, otherwise try to revegetate naturally. Todd would like to minimize this. Chairperson Hunn questioned the grouping of trees at the bottom of the site. Is the sewer tap in that area? Todd replied yes. They are sitting looking at a water filtration house and there is a tract of land that is basically open space which creates a corridor for views. The Applicant would be willing to move those trees toward the house. Chairperson Hunn now supports the idea understanding the applicants intent. Rhoda Schneiderman question how the lot would be watered? Todd replied some bubblers and sprinkler heads would be installed. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned the elevation change from one garage to another? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Lot 49 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Final Design Review Duplex(Con.'t) Todd answered a total of 2 1/2 feet. The applicant requested a final approval from the Commission due to the cancellation of the July 4th, 1995 Meeting. Chairperson Hunn asked staff if this approval was possible procedurally. Mike Matzko discussed it with the town attorney and his opinion was that technically it is probably OK but the perception is that it did not appear on the agenda as final design review so anyone wanting to attend the final design review would not have the opportunity. Mike stated it was the boards call. Chairperson Hunn asked the Commissions feeling about granting final design approval. Buzz Reynolds stated that it has been done in the past. Rhoda Schneiderman stated it has not been done for 2 years. Buzz Reynolds noted that the applicant has come to the conceptual review with more than what most applicants do. Buz felt since the July 4th meeting was canceled and it is building season it would be unfair to hold up this project. Rhoda Schneiderman agreed the packet was complete enough for a final design review. Rhoda does not feel comfortable voting for the project due to the elevation. Rhoda explained that the applicant can have all the good intentions in the world but if the applicant changes a thing they will have to come back anyway for a resubmittal. Rhoda also felt that it is the end of June and if the applicant was concerned about time the project they should have been here in April. Bill Sargis did not have a problem with giving the project a final design approval. Chairperson Hunn noted that staff wanted to moved toward giving clean approvals and since the color of the stucco should come back, the rear elevations come back, and suggestions on the landscape plan were not complete this would therefore not be a clean approval. E Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Lot 49 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Final Design Review Duplex(Con.'t) Mike Matzko wanted to clarify in making that comment he was focusing on a specific architectural element and in the case of the rear elevation this is true. But with landscaping and colors it may comeback due to its timing in the construction process. Chairperson Hunn explained that procedurally if an applicant is prepared for final it helps future agendas as well as the applicant. If we set this precedence the Commission should make sure they are comfortable with this decision. Mike Matzko suggested in the future the agenda should be amended to reflect the change. Putting the project on both the conceptual and final review agendas. Buz wanted to clarify for the record the only reason he brought this up is because there is only one Planning and Zoning Meeting in July. Bill Sarais motioned to remove Lot 49, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the conceptual review agenda and put on the final design review agenda to approve with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. the applicant bring back a revised landscape plan; 2. the applicant comes back with a revised color; 3. the applicant satisfies the height elevation with staff approval. Henry Vest questioned if Rhoda's concern on the rear elevation was the stacking of the three windows. Maybe losing the two middle windows on the bottom floor. The applicant replied OK. Chairperson Hunn noted to staff that one of the elevations measures over 35 feet. The applicant was aware of that and they changed that to a 7-12 pitch and it comes in below 35 feet. Seconded by Buz Reynolds. Motion carries. Rhoda Schneiderman nay. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Lot 20 Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Modification Duplex Mike Matzko stated this is a design identification for a residential duplex. The modifications to the building include a new roofline and sod roofing. Modifications to the site include new retaining walls along the driveway. Brian Vedder was present as the applicant. Brian explained that he broke the massing to fit the site better which accomplished making the building easier to build. Starting over from scratch took some of the architectural noise out the design and now the applicant is back to the slopping roof elements and flat roofs with a vegetated edge. Chairperson Hunn noted that in the application there were some site modifications. Driveway position was amended on the site. Brian replied that on the eastern boundary is was not intended as a driveway. In the future the applicant hopes to own a ski -boat and store it in the garage but once you pull the car and boat into the garage there is not a way to get the car out. Brian planned on pulling it completely through probably only 5 times a year. The area would be landscaped since its use is minimal. Chairperson Hunn explained that from the staffs report they are concern about the driveway encroaching into the utility easement in two locations. Brian stated that since Mike Matzko has come into the project mid -way there were some things he may not have been aware of, for instance, that the site plan and the shape of the driveway was approved a year ago May. Chairperson Hunn asked the applicant if this driveway configuration was consistent with the previous approval? Brian replied yes. Mike Matzko was referring to the plans stamped on May 16, 1995. Chairperson Hunn stated that there was a prior approval that approved the driveway only. Chairperson Hunn asked staff that procedurally to have approved something like these encroachments, would a variance be required or permission from utilities companies be required had we gone through proper procedure even though it was a. year ago? 31 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Lot 20 Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Modification Duplex (Con.'t) Brian replied a variance was applied for and granted. Buz Reynolds questioned how much sod was added to the building. Brian did not know. Rhoda Schneiderman replied 100% since there was not any sod proposed on the previous building. Chairperson Hunn stated that staff has record of the front -yard setback variance request that was approved by the Commission on May 2, 1994. It does not say specifically what was allowed to encroach into those setbacks but it does grant a variance. Mike Matzko stated that as being a new staff member he would have to rely on the standard definitions of setbacks as they are defined in most zoning ordinances and variances. Typically you get an exhibit with a variance showing specifically what the variance is being granted for. Buz Reynolds asked the pitch of the driveway? Brian replied he could bring the turns in between 8% and 9% and the straight-aways will be between 10% and 11%. Overall length of the driveway is 650 feet and the rise is 60 feet. Chairperson Hunn questioned what the fire department thought about the driveway? Brian replied he did not know. Mike Matzko stated that the fire department said the site would not be accessible by fire truck. The length of the driveway in more densely developed projects would require a turnaround for a fire truck. From a design review stand point it should not influence that. Henry Vest questioned where a particular long shed on the top level dropped into. Brian explained that it was a stair access from the stairwell to the master suite. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Lot 20 Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Modification Duplex (Con -'t) Chairperson Hunn noted that he did not support it before but the modifications makes it better. Bill Sargis moved to approve Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Modifications. Seconded by Rhoda Schneiderman. Motion unanimously carries. Lot 85 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Final Design Review Meyerstein Mike Matzko stated the Commission reviewed this project on June 6, 1995 and tabled it in anticipation of revised landscape plan, paint colors and front entry design. Michael Schneiderman was present on behalf of the applicant to explain the revisions made to the project. The dry stack stone retaining wall at south edge of driveway was discussed. This revision can be seen on the revised site plan. Also the grades around this area have been revised. This was a safety issue and made a lot of sense and it also carries the same feeling of the wall at the driveway side on the north side of the house. Landscaping has be relocated around the entire perimeter of the house and not in just one area. The quantities remain relatively the same only tree size and type are recommended in the DRB planning guidelines and no where are quantities of landscaping addressed. The entry front door has been redesigned at the DRB's request to be more appealing. Recessed entry was recommended and designed and the changes can be seen on the revised floor plans and elevations. The exterior elevations have been recolored a more taupe/beige color. The site plan has been revised to reflect a request to move the house again four more feet to the west. At the conceptual meeting it was requested to move four feet than after the last meeting it was requested to move an additional four feet. The owners still would like the metal roof. The roof would be 24 inch gauge, 12-16 inch spacing on the standing seam, and a low gloss finish. The letter from the manufacturer was noted again indicating the roofs low gloss. Chairperson Hunn wanted to clarify if the drawings in the Commission packets do reflect the drawings that the applicant is referring with the latest changes? Michael Schneider replied yes. Chairperson Hunn recalled that the home was originally 21 feet of pavement from the garage door to edge of driveway. That was than improved to 26 feet in the last meeting. Now it was just mentioned by Michael Schneider in his presentation that it was moved another 4 feet. Chairperson Hunn would expect to see a 30 foot section of asphalt and the drawings indicate 26 feet. Do we know? Mike Matzko replied no. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Lot 85 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Final Design Review Me erstein Con.'t) Chairperson Hunn mentioned some of his original concerns were the crowding of the home toward the east and some of the difficulty that created with the driveway in terms of maneuvering, safety, and grade that is pushed against the property line. The applicant begun to resolve that with a retaining wall instead of a 1:1 slope on south edge of the driveway but on the east edge of the driveway Chairperson Hunn believes that boulder wall needs to turn the corner and continue which would require some approval since it would be in the utility easement. Chairperson Hunn is reading that grade to be in excess of a 2:1 and also presenting a safety hazard. Other concerns were landscaping and the entry image in the terms of its form. The form has not changed but the treatment of the door has changed and Chairperson Hunn continues to be concerned about that element on the building. The rest of the building seems to fit into the neighborhood quite well. The final concern has to do with the metal roof. The Commission has to make a determination that the metal roof meets our criteria one of those being that it will not create glare if it would be offensive to a neighboring property and Chairperson Hunn would not be satisfied that that would be the case on this site. Chairperson Hunn does think this site with a metal roof would create glare that would be offensive to someone across the street. Rhoda Schneiderman had a concern with the roof also. In the winter Rhoda did not think it would be as much of a problem since the sun is so low in the sky but in the summer when the sun is directly overhead there will be glare to the people above. If it was a small section of the roof it would not be so bad but since it is the whole roof it would be too much of a glare. Rhoda was not crazy about the front entryway but with the addition of the trees on the top it will not be as noticeable to the street. Bill Sargis had no comment. Henry Vest questioned if the applicant had a photograph of a similar front door. Michael Schneider explained that the owner was from Switzerland and there are a lot of metal roofs there and many houses that do not look that conventional by our standards. Henry Vest has a problem with the entry since it sits against such a uniform house. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the applicant has looked at any other roof material. Michael Schneider stated that the applicant discussed a fiberglass shake but the applicant is insisting on a metal roof. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Lot 85 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Final Design Review Meyerstein (Con.'t) Buz Reynolds was concerned with the north elevation of the building, this wall other than the entry feature, falls flat. The entry feature breaks it up but there are still two large plans on both sides that needed some character. The reflection of the roof will be down hill. Since the pitch of the roof is 27 1/2%, the summer sun will reflect. Buz can live with the entry. Chairperson Hunn questioned the small roof that has been added over the entry door. Did the applicant do that because the Commission asked the applicant to do that. Michael Schneider replied the architect added this. The applicant does not like this small roof. Chairperson Hunn asked the Commission if they liked this. Rhoda Schneiderman feels the canopy does not add anything to it. Mike Matzko mentioned the driveway grade needed to be evaluated again by staff to make sure it was in compliance. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Review Meyerstein with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant bring back an alternative roof material; 2. The front door roof element or overhang element be removed and the front door design be restored to the previous second set of plans; 3. Strongly suggest the front left tower element have added interest brought back to Planning and Zoning Commission for approval: 4. The town engineer review the driveway entrance grades and if that revision effects the design of the building or any setbacks it return to Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion carries. Henry Vest and Buz Reynolds nay. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Lot 7 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Final Design Review Mike Matzko stated the site is a narrow, southwest -facing lot of 1.46 acres that slopes up from the Wildridge Road. Existing vegetation is fairly uniform, including sagebrush and other dryland species. The proposed structure is a southwest -style duplex, 3380 s.f. on the west unit. Roofing is flat, with V ballast, exterior walls are of sand colored stucco; landscaping is primarily native vegetation. Eric Vogelman was present representing the applicant. From the conceptual meeting there were three areas of concern, the mirror image aspect, interest details on the west portion; and a breakup of the taller retaining wall. All of these items are addressed on the new submittal. The west wall had a couple of windows added and some beam extension features. A single step was added to the retaining wall. A small area of extended parking was also area to the west about 10 feet. The breakup of the mirror image had to do mostly with the bringing out one side and altering the overhang. The driveway grades are 8% maximum and maneuvering space. Snow storage goes straight off the wall. The tallest retaining wall is 6 feet and as they go uphill they diminish. Exterior lighting has lights on both sides of the garage and on exit doors with down lighting. The landscape plan involves reclaiming the area and no grass or no graveled areas, no detailed garden planning. Juniper, poplar trees and some pines. The driveway is paved asphalt. Rhoda Schneiderman felt the changes in the south elevation were subtle but effective enough to take away the mirror image problem. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 7, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Approval with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. Landscape brought back with trees substituted for bushes; 2. A drip irrigation be installed; 3. Eric Vogalman has volunteered to bring back color samples. Seconded Bill Sargis. Motion unanimously carries. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Lot 11 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Review, Hiller Mike Matzko stated the site is a step, west -facing, 2.36 acre site located on Wildridge Road adjacent to Tract L. The majority of the lot slopes approximately 30 to 35% . Adjacent to the road, particularly a the north end, the slope increases in excess of 50%. The amount of excavation needed to access the lot is significant. The design is basically a repetition of a single unit. Mike Matzko asked to represent the applicant. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table Lot 11, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Review, Hiller. Bill Sargis Seconded. Motion carries. Buz Reynolds abstains. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Chairperson Hunn wanted to mention certain events at the June 6, 1995 Planning and Zoning Meeting. At this meeting some unfortunate things happened. In part of the dialogue it was suggested to an applicant that we may be acting in an arbitrary manner. In Chairperson Hunn's opinion that should be said after the meeting under the Other Business discussion. The subject was the Meyerstein Residence. If Mr. Meyerstein wanted to follow up on staffs suggestion the town could have some litigation on its hands or at least an appeal to council with some pretty good dialogue from staff supporting their case. Chairperson Hunn also wanted to discuss the current frustration with the Design Review Guidelines. The Commission has a tendency to stretch them and mold them to allow us to do a better job of improving projects for the town to create a better product within the town. Mike's motivation seemed to be that the Commission can not make of rules, and making statements like "your personal opinion", or "I just don't like it" is not going to hold up if someone presses the issue on an appeal basis. Even though we may not agree that these guidelines are the best tool, and we could probably improve them, Chairperson Hunn feels they have to be used until their is a better tool. If we can just couch our comments within the frame work of those Design Guidelines, I think we can get the job done. 12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Other Business (Con. o Mike Matzko apologized to the Commission for his behavior at the June 6, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on this topic that Chairperson Hunn has brought tip. Mike was very emotional about the subject and his comment was inappropriate. Bill Sargis mentioned that after about four or five hours this Commission starts losing its ability to perform its duties the way it is supposed to. Chairperson Hunn suggested since the items have been published on the agenda maybe the applicant would be willing to allow the Commission to continue the item at a speciai meeting to finish the agenda. 2. Rhoda Schneiderman mentioned T.J. Conner's trash enclosures and questioned if they were approved by the Town`? Mike Matzko spoke with Norm about these enclosures and said there were a number of revisions on the project and remembered that it did come through. Mike did not check the plans. Rhoda formally requested that the trash enclosures be brought back to the next meeting. Chairperson Hunn noted that stucco has been put on some of the retaining walls and the requirement was that all of them get stucco. Mike Matzko stated that T.J. Conner did make one request through an intermediary that certain areas not be stuccoed. In the loading dock area which goes down below grade the trucks would tend to bump against it and take off chunks of it. Mike thinks it is a legitimate point Bill Sargis suggested putting bumpers on those areas to protect the stucco. Buz Reynolds noted the 18 foot high retaining wall on the site. Rhoda Schneiderman reminded Mike Matzko to put the trash enclosures on the next agenda. 13 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 Other Business (Con.'t) Mike Matzko stated that the Community Development Department is less than at an optimal performance and a lot of transition is going on. This is the first meeting we are fully staffed. Mike would like to start with other big issues. Rhoda Schneiderman understands but knowing the history of this particular building and how long things take to get done Rhoda does not want this to drag out to the point where T.J. Conner gets other improvements and later comes up with this major argument that it is now a major hardship to take care of the trash enclosures. Rhoda also commented on the Commissions and Staffs treatment of the Hotel applicant at the June 6, 1995 meeting. A green light was given at the conceptual and than did a 180% turnaround without any notice. 2. Frustration with current guidelines. Must be used until we have a better tool. 3. Bill Sargis called attention to the long agenda. At what point can staff cut off the agenda. Jack Hunn suggested having a special meeting for larger agendas. 4. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned the trash enclosures for T.J. Conners site. Rhoda requested to staff to have that brought back to the next agenda for trash enclosures. Mike suggested bringing it back later. 5. Rhoda Schneiderman need a requirement as missing a meeting one need to listen to entire tape. 6. Rhoda Schneiderman was surprised by the treatment of the applicant at the hotel presentation. 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20, 1995 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Sheila Kremski Recording Secretary Commission Approval B. Sargis S. Railton R. Schnei A. Reyno B. Stanley H. Vest J. Hunn Date 15