Loading...
PZC MInutes 050295RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 2, 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, May 02, 1995 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. All members present. Members Present: Jack Hunn, Beth Stanley, Henry Vest, Rhoda Schneiderman, Bill Sargis, Buz Reynolds, Sue Railton Staff Present: Mike Matzko, Director of Community Development, Sheila Kremski, Recording Secretary INSTALLATION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER Beth Stanley was sworn in as the new Planning and Zoning Commission Member. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Sue Railton expressed a conflict of interest with Lot 70, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. CONSENT AGENDA The following items were scheduled on the Amended Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of April 18, 1995, Revised Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. 2. Lot 73, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Approval, Height. Lot 41, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Approval. Mike Matzko described the Consent Agenda. Henry Vest moved to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Bill Sargis and the motion unanimously carried. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 1995 FINAL DESIGN REVIEW Lot 24, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Modifications Mike Matzko stated this is a minor architectural design revision to a project approved by the Commission on June 21, 1994. The overall square footage of the project has decreased from 19,529 s.f. to 19,445 s.f. The overall height and bulk of the buildings is nearly identical, but some modifications have been made to roof lines as well as window and door openings. Staff recommends approval with staff recommendations. Jerry Dokken was present on behalf of the applicant. When the project was first approved there were three office areas on the second floor. The architectural interest was still kept. The driveway change was part of the approval. Parking was the same with one space lost but still within the requirements. The island was changed due to the configuration of the rearrangement of the entrance. The blue areas on the drawings indicate where the snow storage was. Sue Railton was concerned with the snow storage spilling into the parking area causing cars no to park into the slots properly. She suggested removing the snow from the property. Jerry reassured that they were satisfying the regulations. Sue was worried about the snow stacked on top of the landscaping. Staff replied that the guidelines do permit stacking in landscaped areas. Jerry told the Commission that the landscape plan has yet to be finalized which was a part of the original approval. His concern was that they are up to construction drawings and are in a bidding process and want to make sure the process will not be held up. Rhoda Schneiderman asked staff if there was anything in the regulations concerning snow storage that could enable to put any limitations on where snow is stored on a lot. Staff replied to the extent that it is a site specific approval of a landscaping plan, yes. The Ordinance is permissive. It allows the snow to be placed but if it is not appropriate the Commission would be on solid ground stipulating that. The applicant stated that what was required for his project is 5300 s.f of snow storage and the project has 5700 s.f. Henry Vest moved to approve Lot 24, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Modifications with the following conditions: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 1995 Lot 24, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Modifications (Con.'!) CONDITIONS.- 1. ONDITIONS: 1. The landscape plant material and lighting meet the minimum Town of Avon standards. 2. The meters be placed on the buildings. 3. Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface to match the color scheme of the building. 4. The sidewalk be a minimum of 6' in width. 5. The landscape plan be brought back when the road access is established. 6. The drainage on the property be cleared up prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. The streetscape improvement plan be brought back for Commission review. Bill Sargis seconded. The motion carried. Buz Reynolds nay. Lot 70, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Tedeschi Duplex Sue Railton stepped down from the Commission due to a conflict of interest. Mike Matzko stated the project is a new 5051 s.f. duplex, 2525 s.f per side, not including garages. The proposed siding materials include channel cedar, applied both horizontally and vertically, with stucco accents on retaining walls. Roofing is architectural fiberglass shingles. Flues and flashings are painted galvanized metal. Staff recommends approval. John Railton represented the applicant. The project is a duplex for Sharon Tedeschi and Dean Kraft. At last review the project was explained in great detail and at this review would only like to comment on a few things that were changed. The drainage was changed on the site plan which is now spilling off at the end of the site which has improved the snow storage area. The building elevations have been slightly changed with added stucco, lowered the profile of the roof, and added a definitive color scheme. Henry Vest disliked the vents and the windows. Chairperson Hurn asked about the driveway grade since it was a concern at the conceptual stage. John Railton did not think it was a concern at the conceptual meeting, instead John thought the concern was the fact that the driveway grade was going to a centered catch basin. The driveway grade is 4% for the first 20 feet and 10% in the flat area where the cars park and go into the garages. Chairperson Hunn questioned if the hammerhead works for people exiting the site without backing into the street. Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 4 May 2, 1995 Lot 70, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Tedeschi Duplex (Con 't) John Railton thought it worked. Chairperson Hunn still remains concern with the architecture being more contemporary than alpine. The roof forms really do not take advantage of the views. A gable form of roof responds better to an alpine setting and the proposed building form seems to be foreign to Wildridge. The colors for the stucco are unusual for a stucco finish which typically should be more of an earth tone, the green tones call to much attention to the site rather than blend in. John Railtons purpose was to relate the color of the stucco to the trim. The same green was tried for the trim bends that go across the windows and John felt it did not look right. A sage green was chosen because it fits the natural growth in that area. Chairperson Hunn was troubled with this architectural solution for Wildridge. It does respond well to the site. John Railton agreed it was a contemporary house but Wildridge does have other contemporary homes. There is a budget that is driving the form of the house. Buz Reynolds commented he had some of the same concerns that Chairperson Hunn had but at the same time he picked up some of the concerns John Railton had just explained. Buz felt the building will blend itself into the site since it is on a hill. Rhoda Schneiderman felt the colors will blend well with the site. John Perkins, partial owner of Lot 71, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, was present for comment as a concerned homeowner. Mr. Perkins was disappointed in the project. Pekins shares the property line with this project. When the lot was purchased by Perkins it was understood that someone would eventually build in front and hoped for the best. Perkins felt this projects lack of budget and the economies are so apparent in the design that Perkins felt more work in the design could improve the project. More breakup of the building and stucco rather than wood are examples. Perkins feels it is not one of John Railton's better efforts. Madeline Seniseros, partial owner of Lot 71, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, presented her view as a Wildridge resident and owner. She felt that "living in a community one has a responsibility to uphold certain aesthetics which will preserve its value." She is worried this house does not offer any aesthetics, beauty, attractive colors, or architectural beauty. Some slight changes could make it more appropriate. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 1995 Lot 70, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Tedeschi Duplex (Con 't) John Railton appreciates what John Perkins has said but finds the timing to be difficult. This project was brought before the Commission a few weeks ago and the impute from that meeting was positive without a need to substantially redesign the building. Chairperson Hunn feels their is some objective criteria that the Commission needs to consider that is listed on the first page of the staff memo. Rhoda Scneiderman does not subscribe to the notion that Wildridge is an "alpine inspired architectural fantasy." There is every kind of architectural style in Wildridge which enhances the community. Three of the major criteria mentioned have been adhered to; building to the site, keeping the property low, and a variety of materials that will translate better in reality then on paper. The key was that the adjacent lot home owners knew someone was going to build in front of them and no one will ever be completely satisfied. Rhoda enjoys the variety. Henry Vest thought it was good a resident has come forward to express views but it is unfortunate it was at the final stage rather than the conceptual. John Railton expressed that the building height is a story less that the requirements allow. Chairperson Hunn commented on the projects landscaping. There are some significant fill sections behind the home, a 5 foot fill in one location and forming being built up around the lowest level. No limit of construction shown on the site plan. Chairperson Hunn questioned staff on a 12 foot width on the driveway proposed, in the past there has been a 14 foot width particularly on longer driveways for fire access. And is this 12 feet of asphalt and 1 foot of shoulder on each side or 14 feet of asphalt. Staff replied to their knowledge there is not a strict rule which is fortunate to allow for flexibility. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 70, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Tedeschi Duplex with the following conditions: 1. Strong recommendation that an automatic sprinkler or drip system be installed; 2. Flues, flashings, and vents have a finished surface to match surroundings; 3. Meters be placed on the building; 4. Retaining walls over 4 feet high must be designed by an engineer, 5. A construction fence be placed around area of disturbance; 6. Revegetation include native plant material. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 6 May 2, 199.5 Lot 70, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Tedeschi Duplex (Con 't) Bill Sargis seconded. Motion carries. Buz Reynolds and Jack Hunn nay. Sue Railton abstained from the vote. Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Sunridge Phase I Modification Mike Matzko stated this project involves the removal of the existing wood shake roof and replacement with an architectural fiberglass shingle. Staff recommends approval. The applicant, Patrick Campbell, was present. The building needs a new roof and would like to remove the old shakes and put a better system on. Buz Reynolds asked the possibility of Phase II replacing their roof. Mr. Campbell responded that he did not know since they are two completely separate properties. Chairperson Hunn asked how close Phase I and Phase II are to each other. Mr. Campbell replied just across the street from each other. Not painted the same color. Chairperson Hunn asked the applicant if they would consider an asphalt product in a color that would simulate a weathered wood shake. Mr. Campbell said they would consider that. The present color was selected by the Board of Directors of Sunridge. The color was a rustic slate. Sue Railton moved to approve Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Sunridge Phase I, with the following condition that all of the roofing be completed by the end of June 1996. Seconded by Rhoda Schneiderman. Motion carried. Jack Hunn nay. Lot 87 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Kluver Duplex Mike Matzko stated this project is a new 3107 s.f. duplex, 1553 s.f per side, not including garages. The proposed siding materials include wood shingles on the upper level, Masonite on the main level and stucco on the lower level. Roofing is architectural fiberglass shingles. Flues and flashing are painted galvanized metal. Staff recommends approval. Craig Conner was one of the applicants present. They felt they have taken every opportunity to meet the suggestions and comments of the Commission from the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 7 May 2, 1995 Lot 87, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Kluver Duplex (Con 't) conceptual review. Concerns about masonite siding in the middle section of the house and have decided to change to a 1 by 8 channel rustic cedar. Buz Reynolds questioned if the landscaping will go back to native. Mr. Conner replied that along Draw Spur and Old Trail Road will go back to native vegetation and below will be lawn in front and lawn in back. The height of the building is 34 feet 8 inches. Rhoda Schneiderman suggested spickets on all sides of the house to permanently run hoses at the very least. Sue Railton moved to approve Lot 87, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Kluver Duplex with a strong recommendation of a drip system for the landscape. Seconded by Rhoda Schneiderman. Motion unanimously carries. Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Mike Matzko stated this project was presented to the Commission for conceptual review on April 4, 1995. Concerns expressed at that meeting included driveway grades in excess of 10% and extensive site disturbance. Staff met with the applicant following the April 4, 1995 meeting to attempt to resolve these issues. The applicant indicated that the site disturbance is not as dramatic as originally invisioned, and that because this a a difficult site, the ability to modify the driveway with the house in its present location is extremely limited. Staff does not recommend approval. Brian Vedder was the applicant present. At the last meeting with staff Brian departed with the impression that they had a meeting of the minds on radii and Brian incorporated this information that was given to him on a standard performance sheet from the town and it was not until the day of this meeting that he learned he was in error of the assumption of having a radius problem. Now Brian has put larger radii in the project. That explains why there was such a late revision. The radius was brought from 10 to 15 feet but that moves the retaining wall another 10 feet into the hill side which increases the retaining wall by 2 feet in height. Brian assumed this was the only sticky point of the project. Also a revision on the topographical lines. Brian distributed the rendering to the Commission. Buz Reynolds asked the grade of the driveway. Brian replied he is at 10.25%. Through the turns he is less than 10%. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 1995 Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex Con.'t) Brian explained it has been a year since everyone has gone through the original procedure and Brian did not discover it until he went through his files. A letter was found which this Commission granted permission for Brian to move his driveway and retaining wall into the side yard setbacks causing Brian to get some linear footage back and now doing well on the pitch. The letter was dated May 2, 1994 with Charlotte's signature saying the Commission granted front yard and side yard setbacks variances. Chairperson Hunn recalled at the conceptual review pointing out to the applicant the steep slope guidelines and in those guidelines sets some standards for driveways. The first 20 feet not exceeding 4% of the balance not exceeding 10%. Driveways which require switchbacks shall have a minimum center line radius of 25 feet and the area of the switchback shall not exceed a grade of 6%. The Commission has not had to apply those to very many sites. Brian's driveway is a significant driveway that the Commission has not seen for a while. How does staff feel about these steep slope guidelines. Are they flexible or are they ridged. Staff responded by saying given the nature of the terrain and soils he would lean toward the flexibility of the guidelines. Leaving it up to the Commission for their call. Chairperson Hunn questioned the height of the retaining walls. Brian is trying to stay as close as possible to a 2:1 slope. If bouldering can be introduced in a random pattern which he is trying to reflect in the drawings he can get the land to still be stable and steeper than 2:1 but he does not know how to approach with DRB. Chairperson Hunn requested with the drawings introduced tonight, how high is the highest retaining wall. Brian replied 10 feet. Chairperson Hunn explained that the guidelines call for a maximum height of 6 feet. We are also looking for some flexibility in terms of our maximum height that is recommended for a retaining wall of 6 feet. As we consider this we can make these distinctions and maybe discuss some special circumstances allowing us to bend our rules and not set a precedence for this project. Brian would be willing to build a lower wall if the Commission would grant "elbow room" to Brian to have a slightly steeper pitch on that hillside using bouldering, trees, ect. to stabilize. Chairperson Hunn asked how much of the site can now be preserved undisturbed. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 1995 Lot 20 Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex (Con 't) Brian plans to preserve as much sage brush as possible. Rhoda Schneiderman wants a good transition between disturbed and undisturbed because the revegetated area never blends in with the old. Chairperson Hunn questioned if they were focusing only on site issues or are also giving final review consideration to the project. Staff replied the final review of the project. Buz Reynolds asked about the driveway lighting. Brian wants to put driveway lighting in but it depends upon affordability. There are lanterns at the entryway. Sue likes the concept but does not understand the drawings but has liked what Brian has done with other homes and trusts it will be as good. Rhoda Schneiderman expressed the way the disturbed areas will be treated was going to be very important. Buz likes the project. Chairperson Hunn likes the driveway improvements. No matter where you build on the site you have a tough driveway assignment to a point. The applicant is very aggressive about putting the home as high on the site as you can for obvious reasons and to have a split level garage where you are climbing even higher to get into the highest unit. If the Commission is to approve the project at this meeting the Commission would be giving relief to the steep slope guidelines with regard to grades and switchbacks and the center line radius of the very first turn, giving relief from the maximum retaining wall height of 6 feet. The Commission needs to be clear on its motion as to why we can give that relief on this specific site. Architecturally this is a bold move and is beyond contemporary architecture. Brian expressed there are going to be some revisions that make sense once he goes to the engineer because he will have the same questions on this project the Commission has. Chairperson Hunn commented that Brian's last house was a unique blending of contemporary materials and formed into a nice composition that fit the site and fit the neighborhood well. The tower feature disturbs Chairperson Hunn, which does, as another member commented, represent a space age form on top of a very prominent ridge in the subdivision. Planning & Zoning commission Meeting Minutes 10 May 2, 1995 Lot 20, Block 3, WildridQe Subdivision Vedder Duplex (Con 't) Chairperson Hunn asked about the lighting strategy, how will the house be lite up at night. Brian's replied that he did not plan on putting any lights on the building. Chairperson Hunn felt that the applicant has enough votes for the project to pass but from Hunn's perspective it is more aggressive than it needs to be on the site and does not respect the site as well as it could. Hunn understands the applicants goals and he is achieving them but the project is really impacting the site beyond what is necessary on a very steep site. The impression Chairperson Hunn feels about the Commissions discussion of the project is that some of the Commission members do not understand the house or what it will look like and since the last project was liked by the applicant it may be taken on trust that this project, even though not completely understood, will be liked when completed. This trust speaks well of the applicants reputation but its sloppy proceduraily. Buz Reynolds replied that the massing and the form, the Commission is always looking at something that is broken up and not linear, something that blends with the hillside, and that sits itself down. Brian has thrown out the idea and the layout within the house. Buz is looking at the outside of the building, looking up at it. The only time Buz will see this house is when he makes the corner at Rhoda's house and looks up, from a distance he does not think anyone will see this, except for the glass house. Brian stated that driving west on East Wildridge Road, just before the turn to the south and the "X" intersection; that is when you will look up and see the tower. Briar: feels he has a perspective view of tha,. The whole house is on the skyline. Brian is not telling the Commission that his house is not going to stand out because it was intentionally designed so it will from that vantage point only, everywhere else that it is seen, the perspective view document this, that is why Brian likes these computer devices. Brian understood why Chairperson Hunn said about how he does not understand the building. Chairperson Hunn said he understood the building. Hunn was commenting that some of the Commission was trusting that if it is you, Brian, doing the project, they are comfortable with the project and that they do not fully understand what Brian is going to build and Hunn is troubled by that and feels the Commission should not make that statement and approve the building. Bill Sargis stated that only one Commission member made that comment. Sue Railton said she understood after Brian had explained it. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 11 May 2, 1995 Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Vedder Duplex (Con 't) Brian is talking about the design in general. He is the first one to admit that there is a lot about it that is not really all that understandable because there will be a lot of surprises when it comes time build. Brian wanted to make the philosophical point that it certainly seems to Brian that any building that the Commission can sit down with a little packet and gain an understanding within 15 minutes is not much of an understanding. Chairperson Hunn explained that the Commission has all weekend to look at the project. Brian Vedder replied "you get my point" Buz understands the project better now that Brian has explained it. Buz wants to make the comment that if the retaining wall in the entry can be kept down Brian can work with Norm as far as maybe doing stone and getting the wall down in rather than the 10 feet. Bill Sargis suggested referring it to Staff. Brian Vedder asked the Commission not to do that. He will make the wall 8 feet. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approved Lot 20, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Vedder Duplex, with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. The retaining wall in the entry from the street be no higher than 8 feet. 2. The strong recommendation that all landscaping and revegetation on disturbed areas be blended into to maximize the natural look of surrounding area. 3. The Commission is granting the amended site plan approval based on the difficult nature of the lot and the existing elements on the lot. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion carries. Jack Hunn nay. Lot 44 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Sedlak Duplex Remodel Mike Matzko stated this project is a modification of an existing duplex. The proposed additions are to the East unit (on Parcel B) only. The exterior modifications include a single -story extension (family room) and deck on the east elevation, and a single -story extension of the main entry on the south elevation. Two large fixed windows on the north elevation have also been replaced with a casement style egress window on the upper level, and a smaller fixed window on the lower level. Interior changes include a new bedroom and storage space on the upper and loft levels. All materials match the existing structure. Planning & Zonin-''ommission Meeting Minutes 12 May 2, 1995 Lot 44, Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Sedlack Duplex (Con 't) The two exterior additions total 443 s.f. The application, building and landscape materials lists and plan set are attached for your review. The applicant, George Sedlack, was present. He had no comments at that moment. Chairperson Hunn stated that by driving by and looking at the plans this was a mirrored image duplex currently and these modifications would take it away from that mirrored image. Chairperson Hunn felt it was a nice improvement. Bill Sargis moved to approve Lot 44, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Sedlack Duplex Remodel. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. Motion unanimously carried. Lot 64 Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision Mcleod Single Family_ Mike Matzko stated this is a single family residence on a site with an average slope of more than 35%. The building has a flat roof, siding is a combination of stucco on the large planes of the building with horizontal wood siding on the recessed portions. Retaining walls have been used to minimize site disturbance. Once the retaining wall design and grading plan are clarified, staff would support approval. The applicant was represented by Jack Snow, the architect. Jack felt he addressed the concerns for the conceptual review. The roof color has been toned down using a sage color. The north elevation has 4 windows added. Relief was added to the garage. The driveway area added a boulder protection area for the snow. Rhoda Schneiderman did not feel the applicant hit the sage colors recommended at conceptual review. The applicant felt it was the closest they could get to sage. Rhoda was not favorable to the colors. The colors selected will border on chartreuse in the daylight and that is a yellow -green color not found in Wildridge. She would rather see a real green or yellow. The applicant is not out to have a garish look. Chairperson Hunn reminded the Commission that before the metal roof can be approved the Commission must find it meets our four criteria including the following; rib spacing Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 13 May 2, 1995 Lot 64, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Mcleod Single Family(Con.'t) that is 18 inches or less, gage that is stout so it does not oil can, non -reflective product, Commission determines that the location of metal roof will not create a glare to any other properties. The applicant replied that on the first three they selected a roof that appears to meet those criteria with an option 6/12 and 18/24 inch spacing of the ribs, higher quality with muted colors. Applicant has spoken with neighbors and the only people directly above, the Neiderhauser's, do not have a problem with the metal roof. Chairperson Hunn asked the height of the home. Staff replied it was within the limits. Chairperson Hunn questioned the lighting strategy of the home. The applicant replied a couple of ballards along the driveway and entry lighting. Chairperson Hunn asked if the irrigation plan was proposed to be an automatic irrigation system. The applicant replied that automatic has not been proposed but open to native, which is a budget concern. Chairperson Hunn explained that generally the recommendation of the Commission is an irrigated system. Chairperson Hunn also felt uncomfortable with the color palette although it may just be the light but it should be addressed in the motion. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 64, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Mcleod Single Family with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. All portions of undecked roof be a ballast system with a light colored gravel or ballast; 2. An automatic drip system for all trees and shrubs is highly recommended; 3. A metal roof is subject to approval based on a sample and color samples be brought back to the Commission for approval with the strong recommendation that a different palette of colors be chosen; 4. All landscape material per Town standards; 5. Retaining wall design and grading plan are clarified. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 14 May 2, 1995 Lot 64, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, McLeod Single Family (Con.'t) Sue Railton seconded. Motion unanimously carries. OTHER BUSINESS 1) Rick Cardel, a property owner and resident of Eagle -Vail, wanted to comment on the proposed annexation. Rick is also a member of the Eagle -Vail Design and Review Committee. Rick would strongly encourage that the Avon Planning Commission to really look hard at what impacts the annexation will have on the rest of the community. For instance, wildlife impacts, infrastructure, highway access, and impacts to the schools. Rick encouraged the Commission to attend the Eagle -Vail Homeowners Association meetings as the discussions continue on the proposed annexation and would like to request information on the worksessions in the future. 2) Buz Reynolds requested that the summer worksessions begin at 6:00pm due to a longer work schedule in the summer time months. The Commission agreed that 5:00pm was a tough time to meet. Staff agreed to work with the time change. 3) Chairperson Hunn wanted a follow-up on the deck expansion, the Ambrosio driveway with the improvement of the retaining wall, and Terry Allen's project. Staff replied that the deck expansion has been taken care of by staff, Ambrosio's driveway also has been in staff review, and Terry Allen's project is in review. 4) Sue Railton questioned the Columbine Bakery sign. Staff replied that the Code Enforcement Officer has contacted the owner and the owner has contacted Mike Matzko and asked for a copy of the sign program. A follow-up is scheduled for this week. 5) Rhoda Schneiderman informed staff that a home on Old Trail Road is painting their trim, a dumpster at Stone Ridge Condominiums and another dumpster at Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision has been placed. Please check for approval. Staff will check for approval. 5) Chairperson Hunn questioned the down lights on the emergency stairs were approved for a 40 watt maximum and look brighter than that for Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 May 2, 1995 Other Business (Con.'t) Staff will investigate. 6) Mike Matzko asked the Commission on the water plant having a darker color, any suggestions. Commission wanted the same color but darker and to match the colors of the new school. 7) Mike wanted feedback on the staff reports new format. Commission thought was fine but want the elevations, site plan, and landscape pinned up on the Council Chamber wall for review during the meeting. Better quality of drawings of was also requested. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned what happened to staff recommendations. Staff replied that if the applicant presents something that conforms with the guidelines than it is a matter of preference as far as design goes Mike will recommend it as presented. Rhoda requested a list of items for her own identification that will assure her these things are being dealt with at a planning level such as meters on the building, for instance, painted flues and flashings, than Rhoda would not have a problem not including those in any formal process. Sue Railton requested that with the proposed commercial projects coming up she would like a worksession scheduled for going over the zoning codes, especially with parking reductions. Mike suggested the Commission begin to revise these ordinances. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:15 PM. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 1995 Respectfully submitted, Sheila Kremski Recording Secretary Commission Approval B. S S. R R. S A. R B. S H. Vest -4� Date 16