Loading...
PZC Minutes 041696Record of Proceedings Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Regular Meeting The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jack Hunn at 7:30 p.m., April 16, 1996, in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. All members were present except Commissioner Stanley and Commissioner Schneiderman. Members Present: Jack Hunn Sue Railton Buz Reynolds, Jr. Henry Vest Staff Present: Jacquie Halburnt, Recording Secretary George Harrison, Assistant Planner Steve Hodges, Community Service Officer Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Mr. Harrison stated he wanted to move item VI. E., the church sign, from Final Design Review to the Consent Agenda. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Reynolds stated that he would participate in the discussion for the Mollica Residence, but would abstain from voting. Chairperson Hunn stated that he wanted to disclose that he owned property across the street from one of the agenda items, Lot 25, Block 4, Wildridge subdivision. George Harrison asked Chairperson Hunn if Commissioner Reynolds abstained from a vote, would there still be a quorum. Chairperson Hunn stated that they needed a quorum of four to begin the meeting, and if anyone on the Commission abstained, they could still take action. Consent Agenda The following items were scheduled on the Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the April 2, 1996, Meeting Minutes Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 B. Lot 24, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision - Avon Plaza; Streetscape & Landscape Plans Project Type: Commercial, Office & Retail Center Owner: Tim Garton & Kim Peterson Applicant: Mike Cuthberson, Colorado First Construction Consultant: Jerry Dokken, Dokken Architects Address: 0182 E. Beaver Creek Blvd. C. Tract Q, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision - The Benchmark Building Project Type: Roof Material Modification Owner: Vail Avon Commercial Partners Applicant: Rippy Contractors, Inc. Address: 0082 E. Beaver Creek Blvd. D. Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision - City Market Project Type: Temporary Structure for Bedding Plants Owner: City Market Corp. Applicant: Romona Wickeller, City Market Corp. Address: 0260 Beaver Creek Place E. Lot 52, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision - Patriacca Duplex Project Type: Final Design Modification Owner/Applicant: Rick Patriacca Address: 2640 Beartrap Road F. Lot 45, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision - Anointed Christian Fellowship Church Project Type: Sign Design Review Owner: Anointed Christian Fellowship Church Applicant: Richard Vandusen Property Address: 0480 Nottingham Road George Harrison explained the Consent Agenda as outlined in the Staff reports. Regarding item C, Chairperson Hunn asked if the shiny finish for the roof sample would be consistent throughout or if it was just the sample. The contractor, Mr. Mike Rippy, stated the tiles would not be a shiny surface that the sun would bounce off when one drove by and they would not have to reseal them after cutting. He stated the tiles were a cement/fiber combination, came in random (5, 7, 12) weights, would have slight color variations, and the tiles would move and warp as they weathered. Mr. Harrison gave the Commission stucco and trim color samples for Lot 52, Block 2, Wildridge and stated the roof color was weathered wood. Commissioner Vest clarified Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 that Staff approved of the roof line on the east elevation, but not the south elevation. Mr. Harrison stated Staff thought the south elevation was a mirror image. Commissioner Vest said the change was made to meet egress requirements. Mr. Harrison said there were also going to be some fenestration changes on the front of the building and the windows were changed to meet UBC code requirements for egress. He stated the fenestration changes were approved at Staff level. Commissioner Reynolds stated he did see the mirror image problem. The applicant, Mr. Rick Patriacca, pointed out that the roof lines were still completely different. He said the dormer that he added was not the same as the gable end on unit A. He said they had a height problem and lowered the upstairs walls to 8 foot walls. He said that he thought a dormer added more character than a hipped ceiling. Commissioner Vest stated he had a problem because the dormers were the exact same height. He also said that if Commission approved the mirror image, other builders would reference it when they wanted to build a mirror image. Commissioner Reynolds suggesting tabling the item and discussing it later in the meeting. Regarding the sign for Lot 45, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Chairperson Hunn asked if the sign had to be lit all night and suggested it be on a timer that went off at a reasonable hour each night. He also recommended using some boulders and shrubs at the base of the sign for landscaping. Motion Commissioner Railton made a motion to approve items A, B, C, and D on the Consent Agenda, table item E, and approve the sign for Lot 45, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek with the conditions that the sign be on a timing devise and there be landscaping around the base. Seconded by Commissioner Vest and the motion carried unanimously. Final Design Review A. Lot 25, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision -Fowler Residence; Variance and Final Design Review Project Type: Single -Family Residence Owners: Jeff & Therese Fowler Applicant: Jeff Dahl, J.D. Builders, Inc. Property Address: 5571 Coyote Ridge Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 George Harrison explained the project as outlined in the Staff report. He said that the variance should be addressed first because the design depended on the variance. He stated Staff felt if the variance was granted, it would set a precedent for granting of variances for amenities, which was not a justification for granting variances. Finally, Mr. Harrison said that Staff did not take the recommendations for denial lightly. He said that Staff understood that the applicants had put a lot of time, money and efforts into the design of their house, but given the guidelines that Staff has to use to evaluate the project, Staff felt the application should be denied. Mr. Harrison also mentioned a public letter against the project that was in Commission's packets. Chairperson Hunn stated that although it was not published, after the applicant's presentation, he would open Public Hearing to see if anyone was present to comment. Mr. John Perkins, design consultant on the project, presented the project. He stated the owners, Jeff and Therese Fowler, had looked at many different design solutions over the past 5 months and they felt this was the best solution. He said the three car garage was important to the Fowlers because they had three children and saw this as their "forever" home in the valley. He said another important issue was that the three -car garage provided enough backing and maneuvering space at the lower plateau so the cars could get out and have enough room to back up and turn around in the driveway and onto the road safely. Mr. Perkins continued that the pitch was 48% in that particular corner and that did present them with a hardship. He stated he thought that if it was in the Town of Vail, they would be able to put a three -car garage in with no questions asked. He said the Town of Avon needed to realize that yes, it was the first site on Coyote that was asking for a variance, but asked what they were going to with other lots that were even more difficult than this one. Public Hearing Chairperson Hunn opened the Public Hearing and seeing no one to comment, closed the Public Hearing. He again acknowledged the fact that a letter was received by the Commission that recommended that the Commission did not support the variance. Commissioner Reynolds asked what the height of the ridge of the master closet was from the road. Mr. Perking replied 11 feet from the grade at the shoulder at the road. He said it did step up a few feet as it ran back where the master bedroom started, which he did not feel presented an adverse massing situation to the street. Commissioner Reynolds asked how tall the retaining wall was and Mr. Wibbenmeyer stated it was 6 foot tall. Commissioner Vest asked about the hammerhead in the driveway. Mr. Perkins stated that the Town Engineer wanted them to maintain a 4% grade and the idea was dropped. Commissioner Vest asked what the height was from the back of the basement to the top Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 5 of the great room. Mr. Perkins said the building was 35 foot at its highest point and Mr. Dale Wibbenmeyer stated that the finished grade was 34 to 34 1/2 foot. Commissioner Railton stated that the eastern part of the site was much flatter than the western part and wondered if any thought had gone into designing a house on the eastern half of the lot. Mr. Jeff Fowler, owner, said they initially looked to do that but they had 3 children and wanted to preserve any flat area so the children would not play in the street and it posed driveway problems because the driveway would be steep and short. He said it also elongated the house and added square footage. Commissioner Railton asked about putting the garage on the middle or top level. Mr. Fowler said they had tried that, but it caused problems with steepness of the driveway, made the garage short, and increased the mass of the house. Chairperson Hunn stated he thought it was a difficult decision. He said over the last eight years that he had been involved in the P&Z process, they had granted a number of variances and always took their responsibilities seriously and had to feel comfortable with the criteria. Mr. Perkins stated that he thought that this lot was the only one on the south side of Coyote that needed relief from the 25' setback. Commissioner Reynolds stated they had no other way to make a turnaround accessibility unless they had that much width in the driveway. Mr. Perkins agreed. Commissioner Vest pointed out a turnaround to east that could be beneficial. Commissioner Reynolds said it would increase the disturbance on the lot. Chairperson Hunn stated they could put the exact same house on the lot without the third car garage and get permission to do the expanded pavement without the necessity of a variance. Mr. Fowler stated he had come from a large family and being the youngest, had talked to his brothers and sisters whom had already built houses. He said the only thing his brothers and sisters had ever regretted was not building a 3 -car garage; therefore, in designing the house, that was the only thing wanted. Commissioner Reynolds stated if the third car garage came off, from the road, one would see a blank wall. He said he agreed with Staff, but as a practical person, he loved 3 car garages. Mr. Perkins said he looked at it as a good house and a valid design, not whether it was a 2 or 3 car garage. Chairperson Hunn stated that whoever made a motion should pay close attention to the findings and reference them per the Staff memo. Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Reynolds verified that the building would stay within the 35' limit. Mr. Harrison stated the plans, as they were drawn now, had a 35.5 foot measurement, but thought they could work to bring it into conformance. Commissioner Vest stated it was being designed for public safety, but criteria item B was tough. Mr. Perkins pointed out that the 48% grade came into play for item B. Commissioner Vest said the killer was the drop off. Chairperson Hunn pointed out a house on the west side that had similar circumstances, but had not requested a variance. He asked if they had compared site grades and characteristics. Mr. Fowler said it was because of the way the road was cut. He said it was cut away from their neighbor's lot, but then turned back toward his lot. He said if the road was cut straight, he did not think they would have had a problem with his lot. Mr. Fowler pointed out that a concern from the concept review was the height and mass of the garage. He said they lessened the impact by bringing the area adjacent to the road down 2 feet and tried to put a coat of rock and trees there. Chairperson Hunn stated they would have to get permission from the Town to plant trees in the right of way. Mr. Harrison stated that trees would have to put there at the owner's risk because snow removal could cause damage. Chairperson Hunn pointed out the areas the Commission needed to be careful with and they were that it did not constitute a special privilege or was indrurious to properties in the vicinity and they had 2 letters indicating that it might be. Commissioner Reynolds stated that the adjacent property had a much easier time getting what they needed out of their property and this lot was facing twice the battle. He stated that he did see a hardship there. Motion Commissioner Railton made a motion to grant the variance to Lot 25, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with the findings A, B, and C-3. Seconded by Commissioner Reynolds and the motion carried unanimously with Chairperson Hunn opposing. A. Lot 65, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision-Dantas Residence; Final Design Review Project Type: Single -Family Residence George Harrison explained the project as outlined in the Staff report. He said that based upon the findings in the Staff report and Staff s recommendation to deny the variance application, Staff had also recommended denial of final design review. Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 7 Commissioner Reynolds stated that they had tried to step the building down the hill as much as they could. Mr. Harrison said that Staff was mostly concerned with the south elevation that was a light colored stucco with the largest mass being visible from the rest of the community of Avon. Mr. Perkins said because it was lower on the hill and the roof material would help it blend in more than another neighboring property. Commissioner Reynolds said he thought the stucco color would look darker once it was applied and with the exception of the height issue that needed to be worked out with Staff, he thought it was a good-looking building. Commissioner Vest questioned the window heights. He said regarding the height, he liked the 8:12 pitch and asked how they proposed to bring the building height down and Mr. Dale Wibbenmeyer explained they would do it. Commissioner Reynolds stated he thought the meters should be put on the streetside and screened with landscaping. Commissioner Railton stated that three story houses that used the same color stucco really stood out and suggested making the lower level a darker color to blend in. She also suggested painting the recesses a darker color. Chairperson Hunn said he was concerned that the stone ended on an outside corner in two locations. Commissioner Railton asked about trim around the windows. Mr. Wibbenmeyer said it would be stucco up to the window. Chairperson Hunn asked how they proposed to protect vegetation prior to construction. Mr. Perkins said they would put the retaining wall in early on in the process. Chairperson Hunn suggested putting a penalty clause in the excavator's contract so they took it seriously also. He asked about lighting along the driveway. Mr. Perkins suggested they could use a new type of fixture that slowly dims out and recharges during the day. Chairperson Hunn suggested a down cylinder bracket light for the decks. Mr. Perkins said they would stain the underside of the decks. Chairperson Hunn pointed out that the two 4' pines needed to be the Town's minimum height of 6'. Commissioner Railton talked about revegetating with sage from the site and the owners indicated that was their intent. Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 8 Mr. Perkins reviewed Commission's concerns with the project as the rock wall termination, the window treatment, the color, and site disturbance. Motion Commissioner Railton made a motion to Table the Final Design Review Lot 25, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. It was seconded by Commissioner Reynolds and the motion carried unanimously. B. Lot 65, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision - Dantas Residence Project Type: Single -Family Residence Owners/Applicants: David & Michael Dantas Property Address: 4268 W. Wildridge Road George Harrison explained the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Dave Dantas presented an elevation drawing to the Commission. Mr. Mike Dantas stated the colors were not exact, but close. Commissioner Reynolds said the roof line looked like it would be flush with the road. Dave Dantas said it was 3 feet above the roof line. Commissioner Reynolds asked what was going to happen to the guard rail on the road. Dave Dantas stated it would get cut and capped. Commissioner Vest said he was out looking at the site and was concerned about having a turn around. Mr. Mike Dantas said there were 4 outside spots and one of them was a turn around. Mr. Dave Dantas said one of the staff recommendations was to put up a split -rail fence but that would make it hard to remove snow. Mr. Dave Dantas said he wanted to put in an 8"-10" asphalt curb. When asked if it would also preclude snow storage, Mr. Dave Dantas said they would be able to get snow up and over it. Chairperson Hunn said what had been observed when driveways were developed like this and when people moved in and began to use the driveways, most people retro -fitted in an edge treatment. Chairperson Hunn asked Mr. Harrison if split -rail was the most common and he said it seemed to be. Mr. Mike Dantas asked for approval for both the curb and the fence, so if the curb doesn't work, they can put in a split -rail. Chairperson Hunn asked what other questions needed to be summarized. Mr. Dave Dantas said he was concerned about the secondary unit parking. He stated that the stairs would be located in front of the garage of the main house. Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Railton said she was worried about the steepness of the slope. She stated that the lot looked a lot steeper than originally thought. She pointed out the grade to the Dantas's slope. Mr. Mike Dantas pointed out the area where the concrete wall was. Commissioner Railton also said she was worried about the disturbance. Mr. Mike Dantas pointed out the area of the easement to Commissioner Railton. Commissioner Railton also pointed out the contour lines. Commissioner Railton asked if the cream was the stucco and was told it was. She also asked if the garage caretakers unit was stucco and Mr. Mike Dantas said it was. Commissioner Railton said what disturbed her was the character of the house. She said that it was mountain -like, like the Beaver Creek type houses, with heavy timber on one side and the other side was a totally different style of architecture. Commissioner Railton said there was no trim around the windows. Mr. Dave Dantas said there were 2 different colors of stucco to contrast that came directly to the windows. Mr. Dave Dantas said that one couldn't see the rear side of the house for the style or colors. Commissioner Railton said it was important for the architecture style to resemble a similar pattern throughout. Mr. Mike Dantas said that the height was at 30' 5". He stated that when a tape measure was dropped from the dormer the height was increased to 35'. Commissioner Railton asked how it could be 35' and only two stories. Mr. Mike Dantas said it was the difference of points of measurement. Commissioner Railton discussed the dormers and the existing grade. Commissioner Railton suggested that the character of the windows be made the same on all sides. Mr. Mike Dantas said from a cost point of view, they gained nothing by it because no one would ever see it. Commissioner Railton said it was like designing only one side of your clothes because someone only sees the front. Chairperson Hunn asked how the retaining wall on the west side of the driveway would be finished. Mr. Mike Dantas said it would be stucco like the house. Chairperson Hunn asked if it would go all the way into the boulders. He also asked if the retaining wall on the north side of the house would be finished and was told by Mr. Mike Dantas it would also be stucco. Chairperson Hunn then asked how the driveway would be drained. Mr. Dave Dantas said it sloped back to a certain point and would spill over the top of the wall. Chairperson Hunn asked if there would be a scupper or some device to protect the finish on the wall. Mr. Dave Dantas said that could be done. Chairperson Hunn said there was a window well shown adjacent to the entry and if possible he recommended that it be raised like a little wall above the driveway so it had some kind of protection against drainage, dirt, or snow falling into the window well. He Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 10 said it would make a feature out of it rather than just a hole in the ground next to the entrance. Chairperson Hunn said that Commissioner Vest pointed out that there were a couple of drip areas. One was on the stairs and would be a liability issue if one was delivering a certain amount of drainage directly onto those stairs. Chairperson Hunn said other solutions should be studied or consider an open grade stairs where water goes right through. Chairperson Hunn asked if the finish on the back side of the house was stucco all the way to grade. Mr. Dave Dantas said it was. Chairperson Hunn said the biggest concern he had with the project was the apartment and the parking. He said the parking goes hand in hand with maneuvering. He said he would like to avoid someone being forced to back up the driveway and back into the street. He said just uphill was a curb and would be a fairly dangerous situation if someone was backing into the street blindly. Chairperson Hunn asked if in the leasing of the apartment the tenant would be restricted to one car. Mr. Dave Dantas said yes. Chairperson Hunn said he was concerned of this not working if the tenant had more than one car. Chairperson Hunn said it was a good solution for a single family home and when the apartment was introduced, it was a risk element in terms of predicting a long term parking and maneuvering situation and if Commission approved something that encouraged people to back into the road, it would be a disservice to people who live here and the people in the neighborhood. Commissioner Reynolds asked about widening the area so an additional parking place could be added because then there would be plenty of room to turn around. He said this seemed like a simpler solution than trying to push the wall down the hill. Mr. Dave Dantas said they had accomplished getting the 4 spots for parking. He stated that was what the Town wanted in their guidelines for the turn -around. Chairperson Hunn said his concern was when the 5th car showed up permanently. Commissioner Vest said there was a little bit of room in front of the caretaker's unit where a car could be parked if the vehicle was the right size. Mr. Dave Dantas said he had spent a lot of time with 2 different civil engineers and this was the best solution they could come up with. Commissioner Reynolds stated this was a very difficult site. Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 11 Chairperson Hunn asked Mr. Harrison what guidance he could give them in controlling the situation in the future. Mr. Harrison said it was a difficult situation and looking beyond the established guidelines and the regulations that the Town has for how to accommodate a potential 5th car there, he didn't know how a solution could occur. Mr. Harrison said a potential solution would be a deed restriction on the amount of cars that would be allowed in the accessory or caretaker's unit and he was not sure how that would work. Chairperson Hunn asked if the apartment was being considered a 2nd dwelling unit. Mr. Harrison said yes, that in the review it was a duplex lot and it has 2 residential units in it. Chairperson Hunn asked if apartment could be sold as a separate unit and Mr. Harrison said it could not. Commissioner Reynolds stated it was a primary secondary. Chairperson Hunn asked if there would only be one meter for the whole house. Mr. Harrison stated yes and pointed out that for a duplex a party wall agreement was needed and one was not required for this. Chairperson Hunn said in terms of landscaping, there was a total of 4, 6' evergreens and a variety of sage or service berry shrubs. He said this was suggestive of coming up below the minimum that has been seen for homes in this district. Chairperson Hunn said the landscape solution did not address one side of the home at all, which he said would be viewed from an adjacent property. Chairperson Hunn said the downhill side should have revegetation or perhaps some treatment and that could be a minimal solution. He said he would encourage the applicants to reconsider the landscape plan, take the steps and comments into consideration and come up with a more suitable landscape plan for the home. Chairperson Hunn asked if an automatic irrigation system was planned. Mr. Dave Dantas said no. He said that he wanted to go with native plants on the house besides the evergreens. Chairperson Hunn said with the exposure of both sun and wind, that the evergreens would need water and most likely wouldn't be successful there without water access. He said watering them by hand would be challenging. He also said that there were water restrictions in the Town that suggested one could only water in the middle of the night. Chairperson Hunn said he strongly recommended the drip system for the new plant materials and native seed would probably be fine with an automatic system. Mr. Mike Dantas asked how staff recommendation #4 was going to be handled regarding the split -rail fencing to be provided to the departing edge. He said that a detailed drawing was submitted to the Town. Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 12 Mr. Harrison wanted to clarify a portion of the staff recommendation #4 in that the applicants were opposed to a split -rail fence going along the drive, but it was not necessarily the guard rail at the large retaining wall. Chairperson Hunn said he hadn't discussed the exterior light fixtures and on the cut sheet there was a type of fixture that could broadcast light out to a neighboring property. He asked how the driveway would be lit. Mr. Mike Dantas said the driveway would not be lit. He said he was going with staff recommendations and a special glass was installed in the lights. He said the driveway was not required to have lights. Chairperson Hunn was concerned that when people moved up there, they would try to light the driveway from the house and that would send a lot of light to an adjacent property. Mr. Dave Dantas said he had discussed with Commissioner Reynolds the roof line as opposed to the road. He said it was 3 feet above the road and the house is 20 feet tall from the caretaker's unit, so the light is almost not seen. Chairperson Hunn said there were a number of homes below and to the south. He said there was a light at the caretaker's unit that would be fairly visible from the road. Mr. Mike Dantas said something could be done about the light. Chairperson Hunn asked if they could be sensitive to the intent of the lighting regulation which is a subdued solution contained on their side. Motion Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to approve the single-family residence for Lot 65, Block 3, Wildridge with the following conditions: 1. Staff recommendations, excluding staff recommendation that a split rail fence be installed 2. Bring the light fixtures back for Staff approval 3. Bring the landscape plan back for P&Z approval Seconded by Commissioner Vest and the motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Railton opposing. C. Lot 6, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision - Mollica Residence Project Type: Single -Family Residential Owner/Applicant: Mike Mollica Consultant: Eric Johnson, Architect Property Address: 2864 Oniel Spur Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 13 Mr. George Harrison explained the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Harrison said Staff recommended approval with the following condition: that the Spruce and Aspen trees located on the south side of the driveway be relocated to the west side of the driveway so it would be in a more effective location. Mr. Mike Mollica said he would relocate the spruce and aspen trees. He said initially they were located there, but based on the initial site plan, Karen Griffith's initial recommendation was to provide adequate area for snow storage. He said there were concerns about lighting adjacent to the walkway which was NW to the residence. He said he would modify that light fixture. Mr. Mollica said the driveway was asphalt, not concrete as indicated on the drawings. Commissioner Railton asked Mr. Mollica if he really wanted a stern above his garage door because she thought it looked fake and he replied yes. Mr. Mollica said the columns were 12' logs and would be natural and hand peeled. Commissioner Railton confirmed that the house was within the height limitations. Commissioner Vest said it was a great looking house, but he was uncertain where the placement of the house was concerning the neighbor to the north. Mr. Mollica said he had not talked to the neighbor, but he tried to put a buffer in between them. He said he was not anywhere near his northern set back. Mr. Mollica pointed out approximately where the northern neighbor was located and said they would still have a view corridor. He said the stake on his lot with the pink ribbon was higher than his house would be. Commissioner Vest said Mr. Mollica was at the front of the auditorium, but he was the tallest person there. Mr. Mollica said the dormer was the highest point and everything else was significantly under the height limits. Commissioner Reynolds said it was a difficult site and did not think they would make that big of a disturbance on the lot. He asked the colors of the windows and Mr. Mollica said green. Chairperson Hunn asked Mr. Mollica to review the landscape materials. He said they were 3, 8-12 ft. blue spruce; 20, 2" aspens; 10, 5 gallon ft. tier, and 20, 5 gallon ruder, and a drip system. Chairperson Hunn said it was adequate. Chairperson Hunn said to be careful how the east deck was lit. He said the applicant had done a good job. Mr. Russ Vilken?, owner of a neighboring property, was present at the meeting to say hello to his new neighbor and to ensure the Commission did a responsible job with their review. He said he was satisfied with their review. He said his roof line was 81:51 and asked what Mr. Mollica's was. Chairperson Hunn stated it was 81:53 1/2. Chairperson Hunn said Mr. Mollica had a maximum driveway grade from which to work his house up from and thought he had done a responsible job. Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 14 Motion Commissioner Railton made a motion to approve final design of the single-family residence for Lot 6, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions: Staff recommendation #1 Seconded by Commissioner Reynolds and the motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Vest opposing and Commissioner Reynolds abstaining. D. Lot 29, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision - Plavec Duplex Project type: Residential Duplex Owner/Applicant: George Plavec Property Address: 2625 Beartrap George Harrison explained the project as outlined in the Staff Report. He said Staff recommended approval with the conditions that the 6 bushes be a minimum of 5 gallon planting size and the light fixtures would not cause offsite light pollution. Mr. George Plavec presented the project. He stated he owned Lot 28 to the south. Commissioner Railton asked if there would be trim around both garages. Mr. Plavec said there was not trim in between the two. Commissioner Railton verified the entire house was white stucco. Mr. Plavec said it was a cream color. Commissioner Railton asked what happened when the pine railing had mold and mildew. He said the last house he did was 2 years old and showed no signs of it. Commissioner Vest was concerned with the parking and asked if the hammerhead could be preserved. He said he liked the ranch design for a duplex, but he thought with the length of the building a difference in the roof heights would look good. Mr. Plavec said it would be a perceived drop because of the elevation. Commissioner Railton said she thought the windows looked too random. He said they were trying to avoid a mirror image and the windows worked from the inside. Commissioner Vest stated the underside of the deck needed to be stained. Commissioner Reynolds said he was impressed with the height of the structure. Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 15 Chairperson Hunn asked about the roofing product that was a 235 year product. Mr. Plavec stated that it should have said 25 year product. Chairperson Hunn said that 25 year products were usually under the minimum 300 lb. weight requirement for the Town of Avon. Mr. Plavec said he used the same roof at 5191 Longsun Lane and it probably didn't look good because of the way he attached it to the sample board. Chairperson Hunn asked Staff to verify the roof material per the Town's requirements. Chairperson Hunn asked how Mr. Plavec would manage the drip line. He said by making sure the drainage was away from it. He said the east -facing garage door would get a fair amount of melt and the roof was low in the area and should get good sun. Chairperson Hunn was also concerned with parking and the possibility that someone might have to back onto the road. Mr. Plavec said their problem was trying to stay out of the snow storage easement, the retaining wall, and keeping the house as low as possible. Chairperson Hunn asked if he would consider moving it a little to make it a spot for both units and he said yes. Mr. Plavec said the proposed light fixture would be used on the entire home. Chairperson Hunn suggested downlit cylinders for the back of the home. Commissioner Reynolds suggested darkening the stucco color just a little bit, but nothing drastic. Chairperson Hunn's suggested using the header treatment more frequently. He stated if the windows came back for approval, they could still proceed with their building permit. Commissioner Railton said it should be a Consent Agenda item. Mr. Harrison suggested it be addressed before building permit issuance. Commissioner Railton confirmed the meters would be landscaped and painted the same color as the building. Mr. Plavec pointed out the gas meter locations. Motion Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to approve the final design of the residential duplex for Lot 29, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Staff recommendations 1 and 2 2. The exterior stucco color be brought back for approval 3. The window detail be brought back for approval 4. The roof sample be brought back for approval 5. The deck lights will be downlight cylinders 6. The hammerhead will be preserved 7. The undersides of the decks will be stained Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 16 Seconded by Commissioner Vest and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business E. Lot 52, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision - Patriacca Duplex Project Type: Final Design Modification Owner/Applicant: Rick Patriacca Address: 2640 Beartrap Road After much discussion, Chairperson Hunn said the design change of an additional dormer was a subtle, decorative, technique that was not put there to circumvent P&Z's process and he was inclined to say build it as proposed. He stated he thought that all of the fussing would not make that big of a difference. There was some concern with the stucco color. Chairperson Hunn reviewed the modifications as the roof line, the additional dormer, four additional windows Staff approved, and the stain and stucco colors. Commissioner Railton made a motion to approve the Final Design Modification for Lot 52, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Vest and the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hunn stated that if any of the Commission members are not going to be present at the meetings, they need to let Staff know. He said the same applied if they could not attend a site visit or a concept review meeting. Adjournment Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Commissioner Vest and the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted for the last time, Jacqueline Halburnt Recording Secretary Commission Approval Date Meeting Minutes April 16, 1996 Pjanning J. Hunn S. A. Reynold A • kArO(-J R—Schneiderman B. Stanley H. Vest d Zoning Commission Meeting Page 17