Loading...
PZC Minutes 080310Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes for August 3, 2010 VON Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street C O L O R A D O I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendment to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the July 20, 2010 Meeting Minutes Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the July 20, 2010 meeting minutes, with modifications from Commissioners incorporated. Commissioner Patterson seconded the motion and the motion passed 6-0, with Commissioner Anderson abstaining due to his absence from the July 20, 2010 meeting. VI. Final Design Review Wolff Residence Property Location: Lot 114, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2080 Beaver Creek Point Applicant: Fred Wilson, Morgante Wilson Architect / Owner.- Ted & Anne Wolff Description: A Final Design review for a single-family residence on Beaver Creek Point. The residence utilizes stucco, drystacked Colorado moss stone, cedar trim, and asphalt shingles for a roofing material. The Sketch Design review for this project took place at the March 2, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Discussion: Jared Barnes highlighted the distinctive features of the property. He explained that the lot has a unique height requirement, and is measured 18' from the centerline of road. There is also a platted building envelope, and all improvements required to be located within the envelope are done so. There is one staff recommended condition that site plans be revised to ensure that snow storage is removed from the Town's snow storage easement - Specifically Sheets C1 and C2 are to be revised. Commissioner Anderson questioned where the snow would be stored if it were removed from the Town's easement. Jared responded that there is an area on the North side of the driveway. Commissioner Roubos asked how big and exactly where the retaining walls would be located. Staff responded that all of the walls are to the south and west side of the structure and less than 4 feet. - 1 - Commissioner Struve questioned if the storage requirement should still be in place if there is a note concerning the use of snowmelt system. Staff overlooked the snow melt note, however, areas for snow removal should still be provided per code. Commissioner Goulding asked for Jared to clarify what types of improvements are permitted outside of the building envelope. Jared explained that this property was one of only a few with this type of building envelope, the others being Lots 113 and Lot 114 on the neighboring properties. Lot 113, for example, only has an at grade patio outside of the platted envelope and this proposal is consistent with neighboring approvals. Commissioner Green questioned if Staff had spoken to the applicant with regards to the implications if the building were over height at framing. Jared responded that the roof would need to be modified to conform to the height requirement. Fred Wilson, applicant and architect, addressed the Commission's comments. He clarified the walkout boulder walkway specs. He explained how the drainage worked around the patio area, and handed out the color/material board for Commission review. Commissioner Struve commented on Sheet L1, and was trying to understand where the air compressors were located due to a discrepancy between the Landscaping and Site Plans. Fred responded that they are on the North side of the storage area near the garage. It was pointed out that on landscape plan they are not present. Commissioner Struve voiced concern that the compressors were to be located on neighbor's side and it would be nice if there were plantings to screen the units from view. Commissioner Struve also noted that on the Landscape Plan there was a note that all disturbed areas were to be revegetated all with native grasses and wildflowers. He would like to see sage plugs added to the note for a more natural look. Commissioner Struve referenced Sheet A4.1, specifically on the West elevation, and questioned if the light fixture on front door was different than the one near the garage. He wanted to make sure it is full cutoff and Night sky compliant. Jared responded that Exhibit C shows all of the proposed light fixtures. Commissioner Roubos questioned if the wall fixture was o.k. with the light ordinance. Jared explained that it was indeed compliant and did not necessarily have to be "Full cutoff' by definition to comply with the Ordinance and that the bulb was fully recessed. Commissioner Struve asked if there would truly not be any sod. Fred confirmed that there would be no sod. Commissioner Struve asked the outdoor space was a grill area or an outdoor kitchen. The applicant responded that it is a grill and not an outdoor kitchen. Commissioner Green asked for explanation of the metal C channels details shown on Sheet A4.2 (east elevation). Fred stated that the C channels would be painted to match the medium bronze. Commissioner Green asked for clarification on the boulder retaining walls on the same plan sheet. After referencing back to the landscape plans, Commissioner Green pointed out that there was a possible discrepancy and was trying to figure out what is happening in that area. Fred stated that these were to be natural boulders. Commissioner Green asked if the applicant were staying with asphalt shingles. He stated that if there is a change in material to standing seam metal it would need to come back for Commission review. Following up on Commissioner Struve's comment, Commissioner Green commented on the hard edge on limits of disturbance. He requested that the edges be feathered. Fred responded that the client wanted it to look like the natural landscape. Commissioner Green felt that it was good architecture and a good addition to the neighborhood. He also reiterated his concern with the structure being '/2 inch below the height requirement. Commissioner Patterson commented on the snow storage and asked if it was ok with the applicant. Fred stated that with the combination of snowmelt they will be fine. -2- In reference to Sheet Al, Commissioner Prince pointed out that the plant legend showed 3 spruces but the picture shows 4 spruces. Fred said the quantity should be 2 and 2 and Jared responded that it will be reflected on the plan sets. Commissioner Anderson asked if the chimneys were o.k. to exceed the platted maximum height. Jared responded that this was acceptable and permitted by Code and the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Goulding asked if the applicant could walk through the five (5) questions that came up in the March 2nd Sketch Design Staff report. The applicant proceeded to address the five items: 1) The drainage is to the West of structure, and the garage was lifted out of the ground and it is now 6" higher than the cul-de-sac elevation so that the drainage now moves around. Additionally, the low garden wall has been removed as to not impede drainage that runs North and South around the structure. 2) Concerning the linear design of the roof ridge, if you look on Sheet 2.1 (floor plan) in conjunction with front elevation, it shows how the building cascades in and out. That is how the roofline is broken up. 3) The rafter design has been further simplified, and on Sheet 4.2 they have provided a cove detail on rafters and it shows a clean simple piece. Where there are exposed rafters there is metal strapping to show clean lines. 4) Consistency has been provided for the lentil design. 5) The color scheme has been studied and after looking at other buildings nearby, espresso coloring for wood, and moss rock with a dark tone was chosen. Fred explained that the color palette is less "beigey" and that the roof shingles are slate colored and "earthy." Commissioner Goulding questioned the irrigated area and what Staff has typically seen for irrigated area requirements. Jared responded that they typically range from 10-12% and that Gandorf PUD reached a 20% threshold. Commissioner Goulding referenced Sheet C.1. and commented that they were driving the limits of disturbance far north, and asked if they could tighten those up. The applicant explained the rationale for the contours and it was to pull more even to blend in with existing grades as viewed from neighboring properties. Commissioner Anderson likes the design and landscaping around the house. Commissioner Prince felt that the design is in compliance with the Design Guidelines, and wanted to see the bear attracting trees replaced with non -bear attracting trees. Commissioner Patterson like the design and had no comments. Commissioner Roubos concurred with everybody else. She wanted to make sure that Staff gets final edits correct on the plans. Commissioner Struve stated that if the roof was changed to make sure the color is as flat as possible. He wanted to see the light at the front door addressed, as well as a more natural grill wall. Commissioner Struve wanted the AC condensers shown on the plan and screened from view. He also wanted to make sure the plan reflects a boulder wall on the lower walkout. He felt that this was the best design for a large house in a long time. Commissioner Green referenced Sheet L1, and that CB15CU was not in the submittal. There were 3 path lights and none of the numbers are in alignment with the plans. The applicant responded that these may have been left over from earlier versions of plans. He explained that path lighting is what will be used on the stairwell. Commissioner Green wanted to make it clear that the "temporary irrigation" must be removed after the one (1) year period and not simply shut off. Commissioner Green questioned if Sheet A4.2 (south elevation) correctly depicted a big piece of glass and if that was truly possible to purchase. Applicant responded affirmatively and commented that this is the largest piece the manufacturer sells. Commissioner Green commented that this was a great design. Commissioner Goulding appreciated working though the code transition with staff. He wanted to see the grading tightened up on the north side as much as possible, perhaps being coordinated with the contractor. He felt that the least impact is a better way to go. He also mimicked other Commissioners sentiments that this was a great design for large programming on the site. Action: Commissioner Struve move to Approve, with the following conditions: 1) If roof material changes it must come back for Commissioner review; 2) The light fixture at the front door must be full cutoff; 3) The grill wall will be replaced with a grill enclosure for Staff approval; 4) AC units must be adequately screened from vision and sound from the neighbors; 5) The plans be revised to reflect the boulder wall walkout design as intended by the architect; 6) Resolve the path lighting issue; and 7) After two years the native grass irrigation must be removed. Commissioner Green seconded the motion, and had questions for clarification of the motion. He wanted the landscape edge to be a feathered edge and not a hard edge. This was also reflected in the comment that sage be added with a revised landscape plan for Staff review. Commissioner Struve wanted the grill to "fit in with the natural surrounding." Commissioner Green clarified that he meant that it should be a more "organic" wall. These changes could get back to Staff for approval. It was clarified that everything but the roof condition was to be a staff level approval. Commissioner Goulding also wanted to add the condition that the landscape plans include 4 Spruce not 3 so schedule is matching. Also, the species of tree should be revised from chokecherry to a non bear -attracting species. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion carries unanimously 7-0. VII. Master Sign Program Amendment Avon Town Square Property Location: Lot 1, Avon Town Square Subdivision / 30 Benchmark Road Applicant: Monte Park, Sign on Design / Owner: Slifer Center Association Description: Review of a proposal to modify the existing sign program to allow for a permanent non -lit sign option for individual tenant spaces located on the ground level. The original program was approved in 1993 and has not been updated since original approval. Discussion: Jared highlighted Staff's report and the proposal for non -lit signs. Commissioner Goulding question Staff if the referenced 'Exhibit B', which lists all of the requirements and lists exhibits, if this was material to this amendment request. Jared explained that Exhibit B shows images of sample signage and illustrates essentially what dimensional lettering is. Commissioner Green Questioned Page 2 of Exhibit B, concerning the 1St floor tenant signage, and if it were to be green or blue in color. He wanted to know if we were amending color as part of this amendment. Jared explained that the color will have to match the building standard. Monte Park did not have anything to add. Commissioner Struve was trying to understand how 1993 changes are brought forward and exactly what was changing with this amendment as it was unclear. Commissioner Green wanted to make sure that we have the color right. Monte stated that the exhibits were from the original program and that they were probably produced before the building was even completed and therefore may not be the best representation. Monte stated that they can provide updated images for a new program for future use. Commissioners Anderson and Prince had no comments. Action: Commissioner Green motioned to table the application. This was in order to verify color of signs, and also to see a revised program, updated and revised to include images of existing signs and proposed signs, which were to be lit and unlit, as part of this application. It must be a completely revised sign program, and edited version of original program. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roubos. Commissioner Prince asked we can have the revised program as a condition of approval and staff approved. Commissioner Goulding clarified that the Tenant could still submit a sign permit application in the interim period as to non delay the process too much. Jared stated that the applicant had indeed submitted the application for their sign and that is what spurred this application. The motion to table passed 6-1, with Commissioner Anderson opposing. VIII. Minor Design Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2960 June Creek Trail Applicant: Jason Weingast of Active Energies Inc / Owner- Jeff Jacobs Description: A proposal to review a solar panel installation on the roof of a duplex residence located at the end of June Creek Trail in Wildridge. Discussion: Jared highlighted Staff's report and the recent proposed language regarding solar panels in the new Code as it relates to this application. The recommendation is to use the current draft language and drop the panels 6" from the proposed design. The applicant clarified that the roof was an East-West roof and the panels were to be mounted on the east side. He stated that the application would be ineligible for rebates if flush mounted to the roof. Also, Jason pointed out that if they were at 15 degrees, 2.6 feet off the roof is not an accurate representation of the true height off the roof. Rather, 1.9 feet is what the panels would be. Commissioner Green asked about the angular latitude? Jason explained that the optimum angle for maximum efficiency is the latitude where they are proposed to be installed. Commissioner Green asked how these panels would relate. The applicant went on to explain that you need tilt and orientation, and that 180 degrees south and 15 degree tilt is optimum for this property. Jason explained that the 2' limit was o.k. for this application but that in the future, solar thermal collectors, which typically require a larger tilt angle, would be problematic with the draft legislation. Commissioner Struve asked if the duplex mate has signed off. It was affirmed that they had signed off. Commissioner Green began a discussion in regards to the application submittal requirements for this type of application and directed staff to come back with more examples of how this would be processed in the future. Commissioner Struve suggested adding findings that this does not set a precedent for submittal requirements or design. Again, Commissioner Green directed Staff to have a more formal process for submittal of these types of applications. Commissioner Green mentioned notification requirements, concrete set of plans, roof plan, section what they look like, mounting techniques, orientation, building official review. Action: Commissioner Green motioned to approve the application with the following findings findings: 1) The uniqueness of the building has been considered, and this shall not be construed as precedent setting. 2) This body is in no way anticipating that this be a precedent setting application because the process must be defined by Staff and should not be viewed as such. -5- The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Staff recommended condition needed to be added to the motion. Commissioner Green did not feel that it was necessary. The motion carried 6-1. IX.Other Business • Solar Panels. Staff will come back with a new process. To be included will be a Site plan, roof plan, section showing angle of mounting (i.e. mounting style), photo representation that is reasonably accurate. These will be reviewed by Staff before getting to a hearing. Discussion revolved around requiring neighbor approval and notification. Staff stated they will come back with process in next couple meetings. • Town Council is stepping up frequency of meetings, starting next week. August 17`h meeting. The council meeting will start at bpm on the 17th. Commissioner Goulding asked if the Commission could start at 4pm and wrap up by 6pm. Commissioner Green mentioned he will not be present at that meeting. • Larry Brooks stated that during a discussion with the Mayor a revised meeting format for the code discussions. Instead of PZC sitting at the podium, they will be more of a staff position at the side tables. • Commissioner Struve questioned the work at the Barrancas project. X. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:25pm W. Todd Goulding Chairperson Phil Struve Secretary