Loading...
PZC Minutes 051794RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY IT 1994 The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Jack Hunn at 7 30 PM, May 17, 1994 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. All members were present Members Present: lack Hunn, Bill Sargis, Patti Dixon, Sue Railton Rhoda Schneiderman, Buz Reynolds, Henry Vest Staff Present: Norman Wood, Town Engineer Mary Holden, Town Planner, Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Lot 13. Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision, Schneider Residence, Final Desien Review Mary Holden stated this will contain two levels and stand approximately 30 feet in height. Plant and building materials are called out in the staff report She stated that the applicant has not addressed the 8% cross slope and related site plan items. The driveway and radius needs to be moved back from the shoulder in order to make the turn into the driveway. A setback variance will be required for the retaining walls located in the setbacks. The elevations indicate spot lights as building lighting. This application is not in conformance with the design review criteria, however staff would recommend approval with the following conditions 1. A revised grading and drainage plan addressing the site plan concerns, specifically the 8% cross slope on the driveway. 2 A variance be applied for and approval given for the setback encroachment 3. Meters placed on the building 4. Flues, flashings and vents have a finished material 5 A construction/erosion control fence be placed on the site prior to site disturbance. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 2 Lot 13. Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Schneider Residence Final Design Review, (cont) Michael Schneider asked where the encroachment on the setbacks were located. Mary Holden pointed out where they were located in the side yard ietbacks. The applicant stated that he would correct that situation. Discussion followed on the turnaround area in front of the garage. Mary Holden stated that the backup space needs to be a minimum of 24 feet. Chairman Hurn asked if some of the concerns voiced at conceptual design review had not been addressed. Mary Holden stated they had not. Chairman Hunn asked the applicant to address those items that are listed in the staff report, starting with the window trim. The applicant stated that he didn't really know what they wanted on the window trim. The applicant stated that the windows will butt into the stucco Discussion followed on what trim would be on the building. Hunn asked if the applicant had addressed the turnaround area The applicant stated that John Perkins had stated that this would be no problem because it was a three car garage and there would be plenty of room, therefor he did not address the matter again. Patti Dixon stated that she remembers him saying that. The applicant stated that the plexiglass rails have been changed to stucco. He stated that he had added more landscaping closer to the house and added more shrubbery as asked and he has corrected the west side elevation with the existing and proposed grade and type of treatment. Buz Reynolds stated that this is a very steep site and it is very challenging to build on. Reynolds asked if there were colors. Mary Holden provided the color rendering Reynolds asked about the roofing material. The applicant stated it was a fiberglass shake with a big shadow line. Patti Dixon and Henry Vest stated that they had no comments Bill Sargis stated that he does not have a problem with the elimination of the window trim He asked about the retaining wall height. The applicant's reply is not clear. Further discussion followed on the window finish. Rhoda Schneiderman asked what the stone trim would be. The applicant stated it would be river rock. Schneiderman stated that the pines need to be in feet not in caliper and be a minimum of six feet. Sue Railton stated she had no comments, Jack Hunn stated that he is concerned about the proposed spotlighting. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design review with the following conditions 1 A revised grading and drainage plan be submitted and approved by Town Staff prior to 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 3 Lot 13. Block 4. Wildridee Suhdivision. Schneider Residence. Final Design Review. (cont the application for a building permit, which addresses the concerns of 8% cross slope on the driveway, limits site disturbance, all utility connections, the construction/erosion control fence, correct setbacks, turnaround in front of the garage, and additional shrubbery. 2. A variance be applied for and approval granted for the retaining wall encroachments into the setbacks. 3. Meters be placed on the building. 4. Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface that matches the building color scheme. 5. A construction/erosion control fence be placed on site prior to any disturbance. 6. No spotlights be placed on the house, alternative lighting be found and be presented) to Staff for approval. Patti Dixon seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 90, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Duplex, Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this would be two levels and stand about 28 feet in height. Plant and building materials are included in the Staff Report She stated that building lighting is not addressed. From the grading plan there appears to be a 13% plus grade in front of the south garage entrance. There are some 1:1 slopes which are not allowed and retaining walls will be required. The deck may not encroach into the setback This request is not in conformance with the design review criteria due to the 13% grade and the deck encroachment, however, Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. 1. The meters be placed on the building. 2. Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface. 3. R.evegetation include native bushes. 4. A revised grading plan with a gentler grade and no encroachments, brought back to the St,Lff prior t:) building permit application. r.1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 4 Lot 90, Block I. Wildridee Subdivision_ Duplex, Final Design Review_ (cont) 5. Building lighting be approved by Staff. Roger Mitchell stated that he has tried to address the issues brought up at conceptual design review, primarily the roof line variety He had on the west side a gabled roof and there were some questions about that so they changed that to a hip roof The applicant stated that the drawing shown still shows the gable roof. Mary Holden stated that those were the drawings submitted. The applicant stated that also they redrew the plans so that the 13% grade is corrected and the plans do not show that. Discussion followed on this, but it was done away from the microphone, so it is not clear what was said Chairman Hunn asked how Staff would like to proceed. He asked if there was enough information to give it a final review at this time. Mary Holden stated that it would be how the Commission wants to proceed. She stated that one half the elevation is correct and the other half is not. Holden stated that they could condition any approval with the condition that correct elevations be resubmitted to Staff which include the correct roof line The applicant stated that another issue was the garage door facade. He stated that he thinks that there was confusion as to the material used and on the color drawing you can tell that they are just going to go with the siding and stain it to match the rest of the building The applicant stated that on the rear elevation they did originally have two bay windows on the center small first floor window, which is the kitchen. There seemed to be some problem with them so they went ahead and removed them. The windows were discussed, but a train was going by and the discussion is not clear The applicant stated that another issue was the front decks were pretty much identical in size and they have shortened on the front elevation the right hand side one and lengthened it on the side elevation Chairman Hunn asked how they would resolve the 13% drive He asked if by lowering the house would it get within regulation The applicant replied yes, one toot It is 40iu coming off the road and 101o coming up to the-3rages Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks the roof lines are an improvement She likes the side elevations but she still thinks the rear elevation is still too alike, especially where those four windows meet in the center connection She, thinks that they need to break up in windw,v styles and!or placement She thinks the change in the deck makes a big difference Henry Vest stated that he thinks the project looks pretty good Patti Dixon stated that she thinks it is an improvement Buz Reynolds stated that he personally likes to see the windows broken up. He stated that he has no problems with the colors • • • a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 5 Lot 90, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review, (cont) Jack Hunn asked what the width of the driveway as it goes from the main parking area down to the street. The applicant stated it was ten. Hunn asked what the Town required. Norm Wood stated that he believed they scaled it out at 12 and that would be minimum width. He stated that he would like to see it a little wider. Hunn stated that one of the concerns is that snow is stored off the side and it will continue to get narrower. Hunn asked if the applicant would be willing to make it 14 feet. The applicant stated he would if it doesn't encroach into the setback. Mary Holden stated that it would be OK as long as you did not extend more than 10 feet, or don't get closer than 10 feet to the front property line. Hunn asked about the exterior lighting. The applicant stated that he would like to go with minimum lighting. The rest of his comments were drowned out with the rattling of plans in front of the microphones. Sue Railton stated that she would like to see more trees planted around the entry part that leads up from the driveway to the front door. She asked if that would be sod in there. The applicant stated it would be and mountain mahogany and serviceberry bushes. Railton asked what about a clump of aspen or something and not in front of the deck but near the entrance. The applicant agreed. She suggested a planter between the garages, anything to break up the front line. Hunn asked if the garage doors and the fascia were all that would be painted the trim color. The applicant stated it was. Discussion followed on the colors. The applicant stated that it is not a pure white, but it is not far from it. Henry Vest moved to approve final design review with the following conditions: 1. Meters be placed on the building. 2. Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface to match the building color scheme. 3. Revegetation must include native bushes A revised grading plan, approved by Staff, prior to a building permit application, be submitted indicating a gentler grade in front of the south unit and no encroachment in the setbacks. 5 Building lighting be approved by Town Staff prior to placement a 00 PLANNING AND ZONING COMWSSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 6 Lot 90, Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision. Duplex, Final Design Review, (cont) 6. Additional landscaping to be approved by Staff. 7. Driveway width be a minimum of fourteen feet wide. Bill Sargis seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 97. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this would be three levels and stand 35 ft in height. Plant and building materials are listed in the Staff Report. Holden stated that there is a retaining wall in the front yard setback and will require a variance, and the site plan is not complete with all the information asked for at conceptual design review. However, Staff would recommend approval with the condition that meters be placed on the building, flues flashings and vents have a finished surface, slopes not to exceed 2:1, a front yard variance be applied for and approval granted, a revised site plan with the required information be provided, which includes certified by a land surveyor and retaining walls over four feet in height must be designed by an engineer. Holden stated that the applicant will be presenting the material samples. This does include a metal roof. Lynn Fritzlen, representing Peter Romanelli, stated that Jim Stovall, Mr- Romanelli's attorney was also present. Ms. Fritzlen stated that they would like to go with the metal roof. They had originally chosen the ochre color, but they have stepped back to a more neutral gray. She provided a sample and a picture of another house that was kind of the inspiration for this ont. She stated that the applicant is proposing to use a sprayed concrete over a steel frame. Ms. Fritzlen stated that they can pull the retaining walls out of the setback. Buz Reynolds stated he likes the house and he thinks it will fit in Wildridge, but this lot is in the bottom of the subdivision and if a metal roof is put on this house, like it shows in the picture, it will shine on every single home in the subdivision. He stated that he could not vote for the ;netal roof at the bottcm of the subdivision. Chairman Hunn stated he thought a lot of the Commission shares the same concerns and he suggested discussing this later in the review. Patti Dixon stated that it was a great house. She likes the design. Henry Vest asked if there % ere any trees being proposed The applicant stated that the applicant wanted to pretty much keep the character of the existing vegatation. r-� 001 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MIMJTES May 17, 1994 Page 7 Lot 97 Block 1, Wildridl;e Subdivision. duplex. Final Design Review. (cont) Vest stated that he would like to see some kind of landscaping. You have a long driveway and if it was just left in a natural state it would deter from the beauty of the house and he would think that they would want to add maybe some clusters of aspens, etc, Vest asked about the west elevation that has two windows that are right next to each other and then a fairly long facade with out windows and why was it done that way? Fritzlen stated that this is what the client wanted. He is very energy conscious. Vest stated that he thinks it is a good looking house. Bill Sargis stated that he thinks it is a spectacular house. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she likes the house, but she would not be able to approve the landscaping plan as presented. There are a lot of different types of trees and bushes that are native and southwestern that would add immeasurably to the house itself. Sue Railton stated that her comments are the same as Rhoda's about the landscaping. Chairman Hunn asked about the material facing the retaining wall Ms. Fritzlen stated that it would be field stone. Discussion followed on the how the detail on the parapet wall would be accomplished. Hunn stated that he thinks it is an excellent home and the only significant issue is the roof. He then read the criteria established for approval of metal roofs as follows. Subtle, low gloss colors are used; seam spacing is a minimum of 18 inches (He stated that he thinks that they were trying to say a maximum); the roof material be no lighter than 24 e gauge; a large sample be supplied; integrated trim pieces be utilized, and the metal roof must bcompatible with the architectural design. Hunn asked what the gauge of the proposed metal roof Ms. Fritzlen stated that she thinks it is 24 gauge Hunn asked is the spacing would be 18 inches or less. Ms Fritzlen stated that it would be and it world give a little bit of shadowing. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if there was not one mere criteria Hunn stated that the other criteria is that they would consider on a site by site basis the reflective glare and visibility of that glare as seen from other adjacent properties. He stated that he thinks that will be the significant concern here, the amount of glare that might be visible throughout the subdivision. Ms Fritzlen asked if it would be better if they went to a forest green. Buz Reynolds stated that on Avon Auto Body there is a forest green roof installed there and at twelve o'clock noon you can't even look down Metcalf Road from Charlie Boone's house for the glare Sue Railton stated that the only roof that she has seen around that doesn't seem to have a glare is that Vail Bible Church. Buz Reynolds asked if the applicant has thought of any other applications for roofs on this thing Ms. Fritzlen stated that having a true southwest territorial building like this there is only clay tile, which just 7-1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 8 Lot 97 Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review, (cont) simply doesn't hold up in this climate, and you are left with a concrete tile, but it doesn't have the nice clean look of a metal roof, but it is an option. then of course there are quite a few synthetics that come in a number of colors that are similar to the clay tile. She stated that she thinks Mr Romanelli thinks the metal roof is the truest of form and most practical and will last longer and has the best fascia and trim details that come with it. Chairman Hunn thinks it is appropriate for the style of architecture and it meets all of the criteria and his concern as one Commission member is the reflectivity and know it is going to be impacting other properties. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that one of the problems is that there is roof space in all four directions, so it is not just when the south sun hits one side, you've got the east sun and west sun, north and south. She stated that she thinks it si totally appropriate for the architecture and if the house were at the top or middle of Wildridge without a lot of access to other properties, she would say fine, but she does not think it is appropriate down in that area. Sue Railton stated that she thinks that it is about time that they approve metal roofs up there because she thinks that in the neve few years be a lot more, and there is a lot more talk about better roofing systems, with fire rating and insurance. She stated that she thinks a lighter roof is less reflective than the dark Buz Reynolds stated that he thinks both of them shine on a sunny day no matter what you do and this is a very very visible, to two thirds (if the subdivision, .. Sue Railton stated the sun is changing all the time. It is only for a few minutes even. Buz Reynolds asked what happens if there is five or six more of these and every five minutes one of these is shining into somebodys face. He stated that they have to set a criteria here that is going to dedicate what happens in the bottom of the subdivision here and if all of a sudden we have a bunch of metal roofs come in and they all start shining it is going to look hideous. Sue Railton stated that there are other countries in the world where the only thing they use is metal roofs and she has never heard anybody pass any comment about them being reflective. Jack Hunn stated that what they have to work with is the criteria and if the Commission can determine that this house meets this criteria with this material on it, then they can approve it Buz Reynolds stated that they also have to consider the one that isn't listed. Hunn stated that they have to consider the reflectiveness. Sue Railton stated that windows can be as reflective. Henry Vest stated that he agrees with Buz Reynolds and the locaeion is the only reason why he would not be able to support this roof Sue Railton asked if the people in Wildridge get blinded by all the metal roofs in the Town of Avon Buz Reynolds stated that they cannot see the Town of Avon. 1A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 9 Lot 97, Block i_ Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review. (cont) Jim Stovall asked if there was a particular criteria that the Commission uses for Wildridge. Chairman Hunn replied yes. Stovall asked what the basis for it was. Hunn stated that up until December I st, 1992 they had not approved metal roofs in Wildridge Subdivision because of the reflectivity issue. They had an application similar to this, southwest territorial style home, the one that you photographed and brought in, suggesting that that roofing product was appropriate for their style of architecture and because of their location on the fringes of the subdivision and quite high in the subdivision, few or no adjacent properties would be effected by the glare, and so the Commission considered it in a worksession or two and came up with criteria by which they could consider metal roofs in Wildridge. Stovall asked if there had been any complaints regarding this application The Commission responded that property owners are not individually notified on final design reviews, except by the posting of the agenda around the Town. Stovall stated that he thinks what he is hearing is that the roof itself seems to be OK but the location of the house is the problem. Hunn stated that it is a perception that even though it is a low reflectivity product there will stili be glare in the location that would effect the adjacent properties. Rhoda Schneiderman stated not even adjacent, less probably adjacent than people who are higher up, maybe ten lots away and above. Stovall stated that fie understands the concept, but he does not understand the objective criteria. He stated that he fails to see that there is an objective criteria as to the amount of reflectivity that seems to be allowed by the DRB How much light reflection is allowed and how much is not. Hunn stated that he does not think that the criteria n that regard is objective, it is more subjective. It is the perception of most of the majority of this Commission is that this roof in this location would create glare within the subdivision. Stovall stated that there is a house in Singletree near his house that has a metal roof and he has yet to see the sun reflected off it. He stated that he thinks that what the Commission is saying is that this is a subjective criteria, which he guesses the question becomes is how is an applicant to comply any entirely subjective criteria. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that is the whole point of P & Z though. Nobody will ever necessarily satisfy every member on this board Otherwise there would be no need for the Commission Stovall stated that he remembers when she built her house and it was not allowed by the covenants or zoning, but he does not think it has destroyed the Wildridge Subdivision. Schneiderman stated that she rezoned it, which the Town Council approved and as far as the actual building, they did allow log homes up there- Hunn stated that this discussion is not really pertinent. Stovall stated he was just asking because he is just not seeing an objective criteria which he finds somewhat unfair to the applicant. He just wanted to make sure that he understands that there really isn't an objective criteria Lynn Fritzlen asked something about other options the client might have, but she is not near a microphone and hor comments are not clear. Chairman Hunn replied that she should propose one that would be acceptable fly PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 10 Lot 97. Block 1, Wildridee Subdivision Duplex Final Design Review. (cont) to her cl;cm and would be consistent with that architectural style. Fritzlen stated that at this point he is not really open to other suggestions. She thinks it would be appropriate for the DRB to outline some options for the applicant to consider. He is not going in the direction you are going. Chairman stated he thinks concrete tile is something that could be considered and used on that style of architecture. Fritzlen asked about asphalt or fiberglass. Buz Reynolds stated that anything that is 300 lbs plus and has a shadow line would work. Rhoda Schneiderman stated she thinks Eagle/Vail has some excellent examples of architectural type fiberglass shingles that have a huge relief line and look very much like a slate roof or tile roof that might be appropriate. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design approval with the following conditions: I . A revised roof choice be brought in. 2 A revised landscape plan be brought back, with the addition of trees and bushes throughout the property. 3. Meters be placed on the building. 4. Slopes may not exceed 2:1. 5. A front yard setback variance be applied for and approval granted for the retaining walls. A revised site plan, on a certified topography, be submitted and approved by Staff showing utility connections, limits of site disturbance, drainage, and detail on the retaining walls. If the site plan substantially changes it will be brought back to ,Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. 7. Retaining walls over 4' must be designed by an Engineer. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously Lynn Fritzlen asked if they wanted landscaping just along the driveway or in general Rhoda Schneiderman stated her intention was to see general landscaping including the areas between the side lots, overall Hunn stated he would encourage them to try to keep the landscaping close to the home rather than spread it out on the site, but try to address all four sides of the home in the plan. 04 �J PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May ? 7, 1994 Page 1 I Lot 20. Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Pressley Duplex. Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this will stand approximately 32 feet in height. They are requesting final design review without a conceptual review first. The plant and building materials are listed in the Staff Report. Holden stated that slopes shall not exceed 2:1; grades around the structure should be revised and if possible use of stacked boulders at the edge of the front lot line setback; there is a potential for snow shedding in front of the garage area. Holden stated that this does comply with the design review criteria and Staff recommends approval with the conditions that meters be placed on the building; all flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface; revegetation include native bushes; and a revised grading plan showing the grades meeting Town standards be submitted and approved by Staff. Michael Perkin, architect for the project, stated that since this has been submitted he has seen the light and now understands about the steep slopes. This plan can be easily amended, either with the boulders or feathering the grades just a little bit more. Sue Railton stated that she likes the project. She stated that as far as she can see the quantity of landscaping seems good. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks the amount of trees is fine but she thinks they need to add some bushes around the foundation to soften things a little bit. She stated that as far as the architecture goes she thinks the north and west elevations are quite interesting. Even though the south elevation is not their view, it still creates a lot of sunlight and she is surprised that they are shy on windows on that side as compared to the other side. Also, she thinks her main problem is that long expanse of unbroken roof that especially shows up on the Past elevation. She would like to see some sort of change in elevation on that roof to break it up. It would be a much more attractive project because all the rest of the elevations don't seem to reflect that long line, except for the west and because you have so much other interest in it on either end it doesn't seem quite as long. Bill Sargis stated that he agrees about the roof line. Maybe if on the east elevation the dormers were just a little bit taller or matched the one on the left side it would break that long linear line. Other than that he thinks it is a fine house Henry Vest asked what the width was between the garage doors. He stated that it really looks thick. Perkins stated that they are probably two feet. Vest stated that the thing of, a... the front entry door that's right there.. it seems that it would, it would shed right on to that area off of that, kind of off of that dormer, and when he looked at this he liked the, he kind of liked the whole thing, he meant that he didn't really didn't mind its kind of a. its a different look, the long stretch on the east elevation.. its kind of top heavy on this side and he is trying 06 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 12 Lot 20, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Pressley Duplex Final Design Review, (cont) to think of some kind of comment he could make to do something with that, but,... he guessed its that the one.. one of those garage doors will get some shedding on it and it doesn't have any... its kind of bare... kind of just stuck in the middle of there... with the stucco above it and then the front door doesn't have such a, such a, an approach. its not as approachable as the one on the... as you look at it from the north, elevation, just, simply because it has a shed roof over it Patti Dixon stated that she liked the general architecture and she liked the colors. She stated that she liked the a -symmetrical look of that east elevation. She thinks it is nice ,:tat way. She stated that the only suggestion she would make is that it seems like the front doors need to have a little bit more interest, like a roof change or a detail or maybe the coloration of the doors, to give them a more special quality. Buz Reynolds stated that he would reiterate what Patti said He stated that putting a little dormered roof over these entry doors would seem better to him, because of the way the roof line is draining on these. On the south elevation it needs more character it is the only one of the long elevations that doesn't have that much character in it. He likes the building itself but they need to do something with the south elevation, an introduction of another window maybe in the dormer detail or something. Reynolds asked what was in that little detail. Mr. Perkin stated that it was a breakfast nook He stated it is really designed where the east and west sun comes in as opposed to the south. He stated that both the doorways are back four feet under overhangs and they are protected in that sense. Reynolds stated that someone will have to walk through a pretty good dripline. The applicant stated that they have discussed that and it will probably be taken care of with a diverter or gutter The applicant stated that they are proposing a very heavy weight shingle that should hold the snow fairly well Chairman Hunn asked about the driveway grades. The applicant stated that at one point they are right at the 10% and he thinks that both, in terms of the regrading they will meet the Town's requirements Chairman Hunn stated that there is an awful stucco on the east elevation As you move around the house, the north elevation is pretty good balance, South elevation it reads all siding and the west elevation also all siding It seems like the home would be more interesting if the two materials could be redistributed just a bit to add interest to all four sides The applicant stated that they have tried to stay away from, what he calls the West Vail approach, where you have stucco on the bottom and wood siding above, whereas using a stucco background with the wood siding elements that pop out The rear of the house is dug PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 13 Lot 20. Block 1. Wildridee Subdivision Pressley Duplex Final Design Review. (cont) into the ground and really not seen by any thing, so very frankly it is an economic consideration. Hunn stated it would be visible from several neighboring properties. Hunn stated that another suggestion is to try to relieve this long relatively flat wall plane, if from unit to unit there could be some horizontal shifts, so that there would be a break in this long roof and in the wall plane. The applicant pointed out where the snits actually break. He stated that the way that the house is sited the long wall is not parallel with the road. It falls away from the road on both planes. Hunn asked if there was an automatic irrigation system. The applicant indicated there was. Further discussion on what the Commission would like to see followed. The applicant stated that to paint the doors a different color would be easy, but he stated that he would hesitate to give them a commitment that he can go too much further with drastic changes in the roof line certainly from an economic standpoint. He stated that he would be happy to come back, but he is not quite sure what he needs to do. He stated that he could add some glass to the nook on the south elevation. Reynolds stated that those are the kind of minor changes he was speaking of and maybe they could address the issue of the drip line over the doorways. The applicant stated that the drip line will be addressed by a gutter for rainfall. He stated that he is not really concerned really about snow falling. There will probably be a combination of diverters and gutters. Bill Sargis moved to grant final design review with the staff conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 and a condition number 5 which would address the roof runoff as far as it effects the front doors, to be addressed and looked at by staff. Sue Railton seconded. Buz Reynolds asked if the motion could be amended to include that a window be installed in that nook. Sargis stated he thought it was fine the way it is. Hunn suggested that if there were landscaping on the blank wall it might soften it Hun asked about the lighting strategy. The applicant stated that he thinks the only potential location for light fixtures would be a t the front doors which would he recessed and soffit type lighting as well as over the garage doors and then on the two patio areas via sconce or can light of some kind. Hunn asked if Sargis was interested in amending the motion to include the landscaping. Sargis replied no. Chairman Hunn called the question and the motion failed with Bill Sargis, Sue Railton and Patti Dixon voting aye, Rhoda Schneiderman, lack Hunn, Henry Vest and Buz Reynolds voting against. 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 14 Lot 20, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Pressley Duplex Final Design Review. (cont) Bill Sargis moved to grant final design approval with the foilowing conditions: 1. Meters be placed on the building. 2. All flashings, flues and vents must have a finished surface to match the building. 3. Revegetation must include native bushes. 4. A revised grading plan be approved by the Town Engineer, prior to application for a building permit, which shows grades appropriate for the site improvement. 5. Staff will review water to be diverted off the entranceways. 6. Additional landscaping be added to the south elevation by the breakfast nook to be reviewed and accepted by Staff. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried with a four to three vote, Rhoda Schneiderman, Jack Hunn and Henry Vest voting nay. Lot 116. Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Wertz Single Family. Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is two levels and will stand about 24 feet in height. She stated that building materials and plant materials are listed in the packet. She provided color samples for the Commission to review. She stated that the landscape materials should meet the Town minimum standards. Holden stated that this house is in compliance with the design review critt.ria and Staff would recommend approval with the conditions that the landscape materials meet minimum Town standards; All flues flashing and vents have a finished surface, a construction/erosion fence; be placed on site prior to disturbance. The applicant has indicated on the plans that the meters will be placed on the building. Michael Sanner stated that they have made a change in the roof material from a cedar shake to a concrete tile, a Beaver Creek Blend cc!or. He stated that he has no problem with the Staff recommendations. Chairman Hunn stated that as he recalls they liked the house before and it just got better. The commission members had no further comments. Henry Vest moved to grant final design approval with the following conditions: I U PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 15 Lot 116_ Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Wertz Single Family Final Design Review_ (cont) 1. The landscape material meet the minimum Town of Avon standards, 2. All flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface. 3. The construction/erosion control fence be placed on site prior to any site disturbance. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried with Buz Reynolds abstaining. Lot 31. Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision Duplex, Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is a duplex unit which will be two levels in Unit B and Unit A will contain three levels and will stand 35 feet in height. Plants and building materials are listed in the Staff Report. Holden stated that slopes cannot exceed 2:1; water connections have to be in the form of two separate lines. Holden stated that this project does meet the design review criteria. Staff recommends approval with the conditions that meters be placed on the building; flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface; and revegetation include native bushes. Jerry Miramonti, the architect, stated that they have no problem with the first two conditions, but regarding the third one, he thought they decided at the last meeting that they could just plant sage seed. Hunn stated that this has been a standard condition and he understood that they wanted the seed mixture to include seeds that would eventually grow into native shrubs. Maybe Staff should clarify that . Mary Holden stated she is not saying restore it back to the original condition, but putting back some of tho native bushes. She stated that there has just been so many cuts that she has seen where it has just been reveged with native seed, or wildflower and grasses and that cut, she doesn't car how full that grass grows in, that cut is still visible. A prime example is the main cut up at Beaver Creek employee housing. That whole entire bank you can see where the sagebrush is just stopped from the cut. She stated that they need to throw in some native bushes. Holden stated that it is all in relation to the cut. She suggested replanting at least a fourth of what was there, scattered around. Mr. Miramonti stated that it is a considerable amount of time and effort for a client to do that Chairman stated that part of the message is to minimize site disturbance Sue Railton stated that it doesn't mean big high bushes, but when you look at those cuts where the people have revegetated and there is spindly grass sticking up, it is good to have something else. Chairman Hunn stated that he thinks it would be successful in time if sage seed, as an example, were mixed in with the grass seed and it would eventually mature into a shrub. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that they would not grow unless they are watered and unless they require an irrigation system for the whole lot as opposed to the landscaped areas PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 16 Lot 31_ Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex, Final Design Review. (cont) or the specific trees that are planted near the house, it is just tossing money out the window Sage will grow without water. Schneiderman stated that she believes that the Commission agreed upon sage seed at the conceptual review. Henry Vest asked if all the stucco would be the same color. Miramonti stated it is all the same color. Discussion followed on how the corners would be done. Discussion followed on the connecting concrete wall. Miramonti stated that the wall is what is retaining all the earth and the planters just attach to the wall. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if either fireplace was wood burning. Miramonti stated that they were all gas Sue Railton moved to grant final design apprw al with the following conditions. I Meters be placed on the building. 2 Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface tc match the building color scheme 3 Revegetation must include native bushes. Patti Dixon seconded. Henry Vest stated that the third condition should be clarified as to whether they should be bushes. The Commission stated that there should be nine native bushes per Staff item three. Chairman stated that he had a concern about the irrigation being proposed to be hand. He does not feel it will be successful. Discussion followed. Norm Wood stated that the Avon Metro District will be considering regulations that allows them to place watering restrictions if there is a shortage and these restrictions would only allow irrigation between the hours of I I PM and 6 AM Hunn stated that this would be another good reason for an irrigation system Chairman Hunn called the question and the motion carried unanimously Tract P Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Stockpile Fill on Site Mary Holden stated that Jack Berga, on behalf of the Eagle County School District, has requested permission to stockpile structural fill on site for a 6 month maximum time on Tract P Staffs main comment regards setting a precedent They have never really showed this before for the following reasons dust control, maintenance, removal, and appearance of the pile r0 am PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIOIJ MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 17 Tract P Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Stockpile Fill on Site cont Holden stated that another reason Staff has concerns with this is that the School has not received any type of approval for the plans and the site plan has not clearly indicated that fill is required. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the application. Jack Berga stated that he originally submitted the application was that he had some structural fill from another job. He stated that Tract P has a silty loam layer anywhere from two to four feet deep. The school footprint is about 58,000 square feet with slab on grade, which would necessitate taking that silty loam soil out. His main idea here was to try to save some taxpayer money. The opportunity for that fill has now gone away due to the time it has taken to get before this board. He thought he would go ahead with the application anyway and get preapproval if he located some other structural fill He stated that he can see anywhere from 5 to 6 thousand yards of structural fill needed. It will be a cut and fill situation. As far as the dust control, where he has shown the stockpile located on the site plan, the road bed is above the existing grade at the site. He thought they could lay some structural fill next to the road which wculd be out of the way of the project, and for dust control they thought a straw mulch would keep the dust down and look like a freshly landscaped mound. The mound would be about 150 feet long and 50 feet wide and three feet tall Schneiderman stated that not only would you have a problem with blowing dirt, but you would have blowing straw Unless you netted the whole thing it would not stay put. Discussion followed on costs that could be saved if the stockpiling is allowed. Hunn asked if there were a time frame on the construction of the school. Berga stated it depends on the bond issue and the State Supreme Court hearing on the Boulder County bonds that is ongoing now Berga stated that the best case scenario is they could break ground around September first The worst case is if the school district has to go back to the voters in November. Buz Reynolds stated that he stated that if they allow one dirt deal, even though it is for the school system, even though it is saving taxpayers money, they would have to allow residents to ask for the same thing He stated that he does not feel comfortable until the school is actually underway He thinks it is going to open a can of worms Patti Dixon stated that she wouldn't mind this being done, because it probably would be passed and he is just not throwing dirt out there, he is going to do something to it Henry Vest stated that he agrees with Buz Reynolds, he does not think they should pass it Bill Sargis stated that he had no problem with making an exception in this case as long as it was introduced to the site in an orderly fashion PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 18 Tract P. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Stockpile Fill On Site (cont) Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she would be willing to see this resubmitted once the bond issue gets approved and the plans for the school have been approved and at that point she would put on it would be that the berm be no higher than the road and not only mulched but completely netted so that the mulching cannot blow off. Sue Railton stated that she would not mind it being stockpiled as long as it doesn't come above the road, as long as it is watered as it is dumped, that it is mulched afterwards, and if nothing comes of the bond issue, what do they intend doing. Discussion followed on this. Chairman Hunn stated he finds it refreshing to be asked. He stated that he tends to go along with Staff recommendations 99% of the time and yet in this case he finds himself wanting to make an exception because it is the school and it is taxpayers money. His biggest concern is the dust control. The other risk is that other people seeing things being dumped here it turns into a dump. Hunn asked how they would control that. Berga stated that this is tough. Considerably more discussion followed on the pros and cons of allowing this request. The applicant asked if they could maybe work it out with Staff once all the approvals are received. The Commission felt that would be fine and Staff could report to the Commission on any action taken Norm Wood stated that it should come back to the Commission for approval. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to table this application at this time. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 78. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision. Six Units, Modifications, Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this application at the last meeting for the following reasons I Roof line as it relates to the front and back elevation needs work; and 2. Front and rear elevations need added interest by changing roof line and/or changing window fenestration from unit to unit 'The applicant has resubmitted a revised grading plan which shows a timber retaining wall in the setback which will require a variance PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May l7, 1994 Page 19 Lot 78. Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Six Units Modifications Final Design Review cont Holden stated that the conditions of approval are outlined in the Staff Report. The applicant provided a massing model for the Commission to view Ray Story stated that he had talked to Norm Wood about the retaining wall The height of the wall necessary to solve a grading problem for approximately 20 feet along the property line is a wall that is less than two feet high. He stated that Mr. Wood felt that if they were to do that adjustment in the grading and do it with boulders so that it didn't become a structure, but they would treat it as part of the landscaping then they would not have to do a timber wall and therefore not have to deal with a variance. If Staff would agree to that they could move on to other issues Mary Holden stated that would be alright as long as they submit a revised site plan indicating boulders, not timbers, Mr. Story stated that they have tried to respond to the Commission concerns regarding this application. He described how the roof lines were offset and pointed out how the massing model t.howed this. They have brought revised elevations for the east and west elevations Mr. Story reviewed the Staff conditions, stating that the meters will be on the buildings and all flues, flashings and vents will have a finished surface. Also, they will not have sign lighting, they will use the brass letters, and the sign will be located 10' from the property line He stated that the reason that they got into the timber wall business, which will become a landscape grading problem now, was to get the 24 foot clearance in the backup for the driveways. Henry Vest stated that on the elevation with the entry doors, the Commission was concerned about shedding and you have three different styles and Vest stated that it seems to him that the two outside ones would look, it would look better if the two outside ones were the same, cause you have all three different ones now Story stated that he wou!d allow the Board to debate that because there was a comment last time that there was too much similarity. It is really a matter now of reaching agreement on how it should be done. Patti Dixon stated that she feels the way it is with three different elements, goes with the architecture and that is what gives it interest. She thinks they should pass it Buz Reynolds asked about one pocket shown The applicant stated that there would be a heated gutter there 7--2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 20 Lot 78, Block 1 %ldridge Subdivision Six Units, Modifications, Final Design Review. cont Chairman Hunn stated that he thinks there is too much variety. It seems that the applicant is giving the Commission three options and they are supposed to choose one of the three or two of the three. The applicant stated that if he had his choice he would do the two end ones the same and let the middle one be a more symmetrical solution. He stated that the living room could have some variation in windows Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design approval, with the following conditions: 1. A1! meters be placed on the building 2 Flues, flashings and vents have a finished surface. 3. Sign lighting has not been approved. should the applicant wish to have lighting for the sign, the lighting be approved by Staff prior to installation. 4 The location of the sign must be 10 feet from the front property line 5 A revised site plan, showing adequate back out space for the north and south garages must be approved by Town Staff, prior to the application for building permit. 6 A variance be applied for and approval given for the placement of the retaining wall in the side yard setback. Bill Sargis seconded and the motion carried with Henry Vest voting nay Lot 9. Filing I, Eaglebend Subdivision, Dwyer Residence, Modifications, Final Desitin Review Mary Hoie m stated that this application was tabled at the last meeting for the following concerns. I Landscape plan 2. Actual roof satrtpie 3 Fascia color being white PLANNING AISTP ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 21 Lot 9. Filing I. Eaglebend Subdivision, Dwyer Residence, Modifications Final Design Review. (contl 4 Possible revision of windows in addition to windoav trim. 5. Snow shedding of the garage on the driveway, and deck. 6. Recommendation for an irrigation system. 7. Sod and perhaps a more formal landscaping plan Holden stated that Staff recommends approval with the conditions shown in the Staff Report Henry Vest stated that perhaps one of the reasons why the Commission has not been able to come to a conclusion on this is the quality of the plans Vest asked if the whole house is siding The applicant, Kevin Heuring stated that he had added stucco on the lower level as requested. The applicant stated that they have also added trees and sod as requested Bill Sargis stated that he feels the applicant has done everything the Commission asked of him, and as long as he promises not to let the grass burn, he would not require a sprinkler system Rhoda Schneiderman stated that her main concern is the landscaping. The pinion pine you show as a three inch caliper and it should be by height. The applicant stated that his landscaper does it by caliper and a three inch caliper is an approximately 12 foot tree Schneiderman stated that the thing that is missing is shrubbery to soften the side elevations of the building, close to the building The applicant stated that his client is interested in satisfying the Board and putting some trees in until he moves out and are in the house where they can create Flowers and beds etc Sue Railton questioned the double sort of windows on the west elevation the applicant stated that they are casements and the upper half is going to have to be a fixed casement. The Commission had asked for a little more mass of window Railton stated the proportion of that compared with the rest of the fenestration on that and the doors is completely out of scale Railton stated that the patio doors with the windows above is not a very pleasing composition What are the railings The applicant stated that they are redwood. Chairman Hunn stated that he has a lot of the same concerns about this application that he has expressed in the past reviews One thing that has not come up tonight is the exposed Al PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 22 Lot 9. Filing 1. Eaglebend Subdivision, Dieser Residence, Modifications, Final Design Review. (cont) flue. Hunn asked what it is for. TV, applicant stated that it is for a fireplace. They will be painted out. Hunn asked if Staff was satisfied that the mature cottonwoods would be protected. Mary Holden stated thiu she has not gone out on site yet to find out if they are alive or dead. She will get out thfre this week. These are the trees that are close to the footprint of the building. Sue Rrilton asked what is happening with the landscaping up close to the street. The applicant stated that he has added approximately seven trees and an additional 2500 square feet of sod. Hunn stated that he thinks the applicant has attempted to satisfy the concerns fiom the last meeting. Buz Reynolds asked if this was an architecturally dimensioned shingle. The applicant stated that this is a 30 year 300 lbs GF product. Buz asked if the window color would match the white. The applicant stated that they would be white clad. Bill Sargis moved to grant final design approval, with Staff conditions one through seven. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded. Sue Railton stated that she would like to have the groupings of the windows in the living room looked into further. Chairman Hunn asked if Sargis was interested in amending his motion. Sargis replied no. The applicant stated that most of the houses along the river seem to have less windows than he has. Railton stated that she did not mean in quantity, but the composition of those windows She stated that if you look at windows that have been drawn by architects they have a nice composition. The applicant stated that he did not know what she is talking about in terms of composition. Railton stated she could not explain it any further. Chairman Hunn called the question. The motion failed with Bill Sargis, Rhoda Schneiderman and Buz Reynolds voting aye, Sue Railton, Jack Hunn, Henry Vest and Patti Dixon voting nay. Bill Sargis moved to grant final design approval, with the following conditions 1 Meters be placed on the building. 2. A revised grading plan be approved by Town Staff prior to application for a building permit. 3. Retaining walls over 4' in height must be designed by an Engineer. Gil A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 23 Lot 9. Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision Dwyer Residence Modifications Final Design Review.(cont 4. Revegetation must include native bushes. 5 Grading may not take place in the 30' Metcalf Ditch easement or in the 30' mean annual high water mark setback. 6 The existing cottonwoods must be fenced and protected during construction. 7. All flues, flashings and vents must have a finished surface matching the color scheme of the residence. 8. The applicant will redesign and re look at the window situation to be approved by Staff Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried with a 5 to two vote, Dixon and Hunn voting nay. Lot 56. Block 2 Benchmaik at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Vail Bank Center. Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that Dean Koll has submitted application on behalf of the Wil B-nk Center for 15,429 square feet of retail, bank, and office space in Phase I. Phase II :• not part of the design review approval, but they have submitted a site plan to show both nhy,es will work with each other Phase I containing four levels and stands approximately 43 f•et in height. This lot is located in the Town core zone district. Holden stated that the Comprehensive Plan Subarea 14 and the Design Guidelines have been included in the packet Holden stated that the applicant is requesting the Commission make a determinz:ion of the front side and rear lot lines. She stated that Section 17.08 470, B states "if a question arises as to what line shall be the front, rear or side lot line, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the necessary determination " The lot contains Metcalf Ditch and a sewer easement which needs to be shown and the treatment of these Parking is deficient one space. The southeast corner of the property shows a turnaround area that angles off with the prope7y line. If the applicant is proposing to go into State right-of-way they will need to contact CDOT Holden stated that the standard site plan comments are outlined in the Staff Report. As a conceptual review, Staff has no recommendation n A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 24 Lot 56. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Vail Bank Center. Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Dean Koll, with Zehren & Associates stated that he had a meeting about five weeks ago with Steve and Mary. He stated that the odd shape of the lot, the character of the lot, The distance between the property and the curb from their property and Avon Road mostly because of the shape of the lot at that point goes away from Avon Road and becomes wider and Hider, was discussed. They noticed that the Avon Town Square project had already used the Avon Road as a side setback They cannot enter ftom the Avon Road side of the property, they were advised that they could only come in from the Benchmark Road side of the property. After much discussion with Steve and Mary, they more or less determined that the front lot line should be the Benchmark Road side and because of the distance from Avon Road it was decided to be reasonable to assume that the Avon Road side would be looked at as a side setback. That is how they proceeded with the design. Koll then read out of Subarea 14, which they have followed. He then read from the Design Guidelines. He stated that those were the parameters used to design the project. He described Phase I which includes a 15,00 square foot building. The major access, the only access by vehicle, is off Benchmark Road. They have tried to create a strong connection between the bus stop and their property and the possibility for people to get through their property to the plaza at Lot 55 and also proceed from the plaza to the comer. In Phase I the main entry of the building would also be off Benchmark Road, so the frontage on Avon Road is basically the facade that will be see, not actually entries, etc. That also allows them to put more landscaping on that side to make it appear that it is further from the road. As far as the major pedestrian flow coming through to Phase II they are doing a bridge that is tying the t, i phases together only on the second level They also have entries off the back side of the property. Koll stated that most of Phase I will be probably the bank taking all of the first floor He described what the other floors would consist of Phase I will have on grade parking and Phase 11 will have a two story parking structure. Koll stated that there is about 24 to 25 thousand square feet in proposed Phase 11. He described the pedestrian path He described how vehicles would enter. He pointed out the various renderings as seen from the various directions. Discussion followed on the future bridge connecting the two Phases Rhoda Schneiderman asked if this was a metal roof The applicant replied it is. Schneiderman stated that the color renderings show that the clock tower roof is solid and yet on the renderings they have in the packet it creates an impression of something open The applicant explained that it has to do with the angle that is shown. Patti Dixon asked how the land will be used before Phase 11 is built The applicant stated that will be used for on grade Phase 1 parking W Al PLAN;VING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 25 Lot 56 Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Vail Bank Center. Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Sue Railton stated that she thinks it is a very good solution for that odd shaped lot She asked if the building will be basically stucco. The applicant replied it would and they will be using two or three different combinations of colors. There will probably be an accent band. The bottom three or four or five feet will be treated with a different texture and different color than the rest of the stucco. Patti Dixon asked if the roof would be a copper color. The applicant stated that the concept at this time is yes, but it might not be 100% copper. It might be copper treated with an acid treatment, etc. It might be a shingle or it might be a metal roof. He provided a sample of the pre -acid treated roof. Bill Sargis asked if the Metcalf Ditch and sewer lines give them any problems. The applicant stated that the sewer line is in a prescriptive easement, so there really isn't an easement where the lines are located. They have discussed the relocation of the sewer lines with Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District. They are going to hire someone to design a system to go around the buildings and they are incorporating Inter -Mountain Engineering to help with that. He stated that they have about three foot of fall from where the Metcalf Ditch terminates at Lot 55 to where the Ditch terminates into a culvert at the bus turnaround. He pointed out where they will be relocating it. Further discussion followed on where the sewer line will be relocated. Chairman Hunn stated that if this bank is as successful as the 1 st Bank during certain peak times there may not be enough short term parking. The applicant stated that he thinks some of the parking spaces in the lot will be used for overflow. Hunn stated his concern is after Phase 11 is built. He described how they are providing access to the parking levels in Phase 11 from Phase I, by taking the elevator down to the first packing level. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she agrees with Chairman Hunn regarding the shortage of parking. Banks have a lot of employees. Chairman Hunn stated that one of the goals tonight is to give you good accurate guidance if they have any concerns. Also, the Commission needs to review the front, side and rear setbacks. Discussion followed on this matter. The Commission had no problems with the proposed front, sides and rear setbacks. Henry Vest asked about the snow shedding on the east elevation. The applicant stated that since they were still in conceptual phases they really haven't made all the solutions. 12 A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 26 Lot 56, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creels Vail Bank Center, Conceptual Design Review, cont Vest asked where the trash enclosure would be The applicant stated that it will be located at the back of the truck dock for Phase I They will need a variance for it as they want it located in the setback- They will probably try to locate it within the setback. He stated that there is a possibility of putting the trash inside the building in Phase 11. Buz Reynolds asked about snow storage. The applicant stated that they have looked at it briefly and there are numerous places that could be storage, so he does not think there will be any problem. Bill Sardis stated that he does not have any problem with the setbacks and he does not have a problem with the apparent reduction of one space in parking for Phase I Chairman Hunn stated that it sounds like the Commission is in general in support of this project and also in the interpretation of the setbacks A representative of Shapiro Development stated that they are generally very supportive of the plan He stated that they think the applicant has done a very good job of tying into the plaza aspect They have one major concern and numerable questions that they hope will be resolved as the building gets going One is how the elevations would interface between Lot 55 and lot 56 He stated that it looks like there is about 7 feet of elevation difference and they need to work together to make that transition. Their major concern is with the setback He stated that when they came in they were subjected to a front yard setback on both sides and there was no negotiation on that point It was either that way or go through the variance process. They chose to go ahead abide by the front yard setback on both sides even though they have no vehicular access, they do not have a curb cut on either road, they had to give up a curb cut on Lot 55 and access through Avon Center's parking lot One of the reasons they decided not to go with the variance was because of that heavy landscaping in that greenbelt He thinks it would be more consistent with what this Commission has done in the past to treat this as a front yard setback also Considerable discussion followed It was discussed that the Metcalf Ditch and sewer lines may have been the determining factor for the requirement on Lot 55 Norm Wood stated that once the applicants for Lot 56 get to final design review, they too may experience some of the same problems Further discussion followed Another concern was the parking for Phase 1 while construction of Phase 11 is going on A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MR4UTES May 17, 1994 Page 27 Lot 24, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision, Ray Duplex, Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is a duplex lot with a proposal that has two detached units on the site. The connection is through a proposed stucco wall which, to the best of her ability in the elevations ties two separate walkways going to the two separate units. The two units will stand approximately 30 and 1/2 feet high. Building and plant materials are in the Staff Report. :,he stated that Staff is requesting that Planning and Zoning Commission define a strong architectural connection for the applicant and for Staff. The site plan and design comments are outlined in the report. Staff recommendation is for Planning and Zoning Commission define a strong architectural connection and whether or not this proposed two urat project meets that definition of an architectural connection. Sue Hum, representing Mike Ray and Bruce Canton stated that she would like to address the architectural element. She stated that there is unit A and unit B and as you drive up the entrance you come to a paved area. As you go to each unit they have tried to give each unit a good entry form. Unit A entry is on an upper level. Unit B entrance is on the lower level. What they have also done with the walls is try to retain yrdding that steps down the side. Unit A entrance has a gateway with an arch and two little gate doors. As you go through those doors then you would go upstairs and along there is a concrete with stucco finish wall that runs along those stairs. That wall also serves a purpose of retaining the grade alongside there. Alongside that wall would be a landscaped terrace with boulders and planting area. As you get to Unit A's entrance there is a bumpout with a dormer entry to further claim that that is the entrance to Unit A. As you look at the Plan, Unit B's driveway is adjacent to their entrance. To give it some kind of a form thing, there's where we want to enter, they continued the concrete walls because they flow together and also retains grading that comes down right in back. On top of the retaining walls, they are really a stucco wall that has a stone cap, and the stone cap will match the river rock that they are putting on the base of the deck supports. She the described the southwest elevation. She reviewed the materials. discussion followed on the elevations Buz Reynolds stated that he feels the arch is a strong architectural form. Henry Vest stated that this is about as detached as you can get. He stated that he will have to defer judgment right now on that connection. He stated that they just a worksession regarding this same situation. Jack Hunn stated that they did have a work session on this issue and they came up with a definition that will give some indication of what they will begin to accept as a connection Bill Sargis asked if this was done as an architectural detail not a site restriction. The applicant stated site restriction. Sargis asked if the site was peculiar that it requires you to P# A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 28 L9t 24, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Conceptual Design Review. (cont) separate the buildings. The applicant stated that she thinks it is the style of the building is why they were wanting to proceed with this. It is the chalet simple form etc. He stated that he agrees that the Commission needs to decide if this connection is satisfactory. Sargis stated that he agrees that they need to decide whether or not the connection is satisfactory. Buz Reynolds stated that what they are trying to say is architectural if it is done in style and it does have a form connecting the building, and he is not saying a two by four laid on its side. They have substantial landscaping that is tying the two units together, they have an archway that ties into the retaining wall which they are trying to draw into the other unit, and he feels that they've made a strive here and he feels it is great. He stated that he has always tried to think of ways to detach a unit. This same concept is already existing within the subdivision Jack Hunn stated that in pure elevation you can tell that these are separate units from all four sides. If there were an opportunity to shift the buildings closer to each other without touching so that when they are viewed in pure elevation they appear to be overlapping or connecting. Hunn stated that might help to make him more comfortable with it The applicant stated that they did attempt bringing them closer together. They felt that working with the driveway and getting up to the set elevation and then getting there and having enough spaces behind the garage doors and then extra spaces to park in that created some limitations. They are at a point where they can park two cars behind each garage door and have two extra spaces. Shifting the houses would cause parking problems Sue Railton stated that that makes for a huge area of asphalt though and not a very inviting entrance The applicant stated that they have tried to bring some planting out into that asphalt which further ties into the element. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks this is a good opportunity to put their money where their mouths are and their mouths just a couple hours ago were at the point where they said retaining walls, roof connections, stairways... the Commission was extremely flexible in the discussions and this plan, she thinks, is probably as architecturally connected as it could be, given the type of architecture it is She stated that she does not think the landscape plan is adequate. Just bushes unfortunately anymore doesn't cut it unless it is possibly a southwestern style house. She thinks this connection is perfectly suited. She doesn't have a problem with things looking separate. She thinks it enhances the feel of single family homes up in Wildridge without actually subdividing and doing two single family lots. Sue Railton stated that he problem is that you have two units that are exactly the same and she finds that terribly boring. She stated that she would rather see the buildings one higher PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 29 Lot 24, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Conceptual Design Review, (cont) than the other and then have this sort of connection. She does not like many of the elevations of these buildings unless they look better in the real drawings than on the perspectives. Jack Hunn asked if the applicant had considered raising one unit. The applicant stated that they had and then you get into the restrictions of certain levels and some slopes right at the garage doors. Bill Sargis stated that he thinks he elevations probably do not do the homes justice. He thinks the detailing and all of that is fine. He thinks that with offsets you don't have that sort of linear look in the roof. He believes the connection is fine Discussion followed on what would be seen from different directions. The applicant asked if this could be considered a final design review The Commission felt that they would have to give this more consideration. Chairman Hunn called for a straw poll on the connection. Sue Railton stated that she would like to see it stronger. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she thinks it is strong enough. Bill Sargis stated that he thinks it is strong enough. Henry Vest stated that he does not think it is strong enough Patti Dixon stated that she thinks it is enough. Buz Reynolds stated that he thinks it is enough. Chairman Hunn stated that he would like to see it stronger. Buz Reynolds stated that he feels that looking at this project from the street the buildings will actually seem, because of the offsets and because it is sitting on a hill, it vvill actually show a definition If the rear one was higher, from the street they would look like they are the same. He likes the idea of having them on the same plane. It also makes the driveway work a lot easier. Sue Hum stated that if you make one higher you start blocking views Henry Vest stated that on Unit B a Swale is shown to drain around the outside of it and it looks like you are going uphill about six feet from the point of the retaining wall all the way around Discussion followed on this matter, however, the discussion is not clear as several people are talking at once. Al A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 30 Lot 24_ Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Ray Duplex Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Sue Hum stated that, regarding the Staff comments, she does have a new grading plan that solves the issues' a survey has been given to the Town; she has a new landscape plan that adjusts all the plants to five gallon sizes. Mary Holden stated that if they have done all this they need to give it all to Staff. Lot 96. Block L Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Conceptual Design Review. Mary Holden stated that this contains three levels. the building materials and colors are called out in the Staff Report. The standard site plan and design comments are also called out in the report. Staff has no recommendation as this is a conceptual review. Kevin Cooke stated that they have reviewed the staff comments and they have no problem with any of them. He stated he would like some direction on the landscaping. Chairman Hunn asked if the driveway grades are within the Town's standards. Mr. Cooke replied yes, and stated that every staff comment will be met. Bill Sargis asked how much the width of the driveway from the entrance to where it opens up into the paved areas. Mr. Cooke replied twenty-two feet. Chairman Hunn asked if the applicant understands that they look for a 300 Ib asphalt shingle. The applicant stated that they would be a Timberline, 50 year, natural cedar. Hunn asked about the garage door finish. The applicant stated they would be cedar to match the soffits, etc. Windows will be bronze and they will do the buildup with the stucco Chairman Hunn suggested the applicant consider a second color for the base. The applicant stated that they had considered putting a four toot border of stone around the house. Hunn stated that he feels a darker color of stucco on the bottom would be more effective than a four foot border of stone. Henry Vest asked about the offset between the two garage doors, but the applicant's reply is not clear as Rhoda Schneiderman and Bill Sargis were talking at the same time. Vest asked about the vertical three windows next to the garage The applicant stated that is a stairwell. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the two windows on the right end elevation were divided light windows. The applicant replied they were. All windows will be divided lights. A r� PLANKING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 1-/, 1994 Page, 31 Lot 96. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision Duplex Conceptual Design Review, (cont) Sue Railton stated that she thinks it is a nice house. Her only comment is that the landscaping needs tripling. It needs more trees around it. Henry Vest asked if both entryways were under decks. The applicant replied they were. Vest stated that they might want to reconsider that because of the snow that accumulates and drips. The applicant stated that that would be a protected area. They may make the deck a solid deck, a fiberglass deck, etc., which would be a waterproof deck. Rhoda Schneiderman suggested an irrigation system or drip system. Lot 3. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision,Four plex. Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this four-plex will contain four levels and it exceeds the 35 foot height limit. Mary Holden stated that the steep slope guidelines will be given to the applicant for this site. Staff questions the dumpster location and how functional it is. The building height exceeds the limit and then the standard site plan and design comments are outlined in the Staff Report. As a conceptual, Staff has no recommendation Bob Kaufinann, the architect, stated that this lot has a terrific view of Bachelor Gulch/Beaver Creek/Arrowhead, and they wanted to try and capture that view for each of the four units. The slope on the lot ranges from 32% to 55%, so it is a relatively steep lot. They started off with trying to keep all four units on the same elevation and staying parallel wit the topography. When that didn't get the view they wanted, they started stepping from one unit to the next three feet down the hill, which allowed them to rotate the building as a whole, still relatively staying parallel with the grades. They are lett with about a fourteen foot retaining wall at the front of Unit 4 which is the furtherest from the street. They have parking for two cars inside and two cars in front. The concept was to create a deck off the living room which faces south, put about an 8 foot x 9 foot slider out to that deck and also introduce a deck off of the family/dining room which would face the east. The building materials being considered are asphalt shingles at this point, horizontal cedar siding, and on the lowest level going with stucco. They are trying not to disturb anything on the east and north side of the lot, because there are some fairly mature shrubs that they do not think they can duplicate. The only landscaping they would be doing would be on the south side where the entry drive is. Chairman Hunn asked if they had decided on a color scheme The applicant stated that they had not at this point. tMl ft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 32 Lot 3. Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision. Four-plex Conceptual Desig!1 Review. (cont) Buz Reynolds asked how the applicant pr. -)poses to lower this. The applicant stated that they can lower it by rotating it. When they step each unit three feet and when they do that they can rotate it off of being parallel with grade. Reynolds asked if they could make five feet of drop. The applicant stated that actually they are making nine feet of drop. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that that doesn't solve the height problem though Mary Holden stated that she and Norm Wood scaled it out some points at forty and some others at forty-three. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that each unit can't be higher than thirty-five feet. The applicant stated that he came up with thirty-three and that was from the entry drive to the parking garage to the ridgeline. He stated that given the 32 to 55% slope it can be real difficult to get a unit on here that is going to be within thirty-five feet. Mary Holden stated that they will work with the applicant on the building height and the steep slope guidelines. Chairman Hunn asked, assuming that they can work out the height problem, what other comments does the Commission have. Patti Dixon stated that they are four identical units, they have no variation, window fenestrations, garage doors, etc. She thinks variety would be necessary. The applicant stated that when there are four units all in a row he would tend to prefer to see them similar vs. having each one different. Rhoda Schneiderman stated similar is not the same. The applicant stated that there are three different units. The two center units that are identical and the two end units are different. The differences are based on taking advantage of the floor plans. Patti Dixon stated that they look the same to her. The applicant stated that he guesses it did not come across in the guidelines that multi -family units have to be individual. Chairman Hunn stated that they have recognized in the past that when a four-plex connected unit that there will be some similarities in mass, certainly in materials used and colors, but there can be some variety in window patterns and other massing. He suggested subtle decorative devices. The applicant stated that one of the reasons that the footprint is so simple is because the concrete work on this lot is going to kill them. The only way they can sell those units is if they can capture the views. The only opportunity he sees is on the front, which he thinks is the best elevation already Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she is going to be consistent they way with every project that come through that is all identical, it is not acceptable to her. They just had somebody jump through hoops to change eight units that was supposed to be affordable housing and they were able to accomplish something that, while maybe not perfect, certainly added some visual interest to the project and stay within their budget She stated that she personally would not accept anything less from you guys 04 C� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION XIFFTING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 33 Lot 3, Block2. Wildridee Subdivision, Four-plex, Conceptual Gasign Review. (cont) Sue Railton stated that maybe on the south elevation maybe a heavier trim around a couple sets of windows and maybe a diflerent window over the top of the doors, etc The north elevation, which the next door neighbor will be looking at The applicant stated that there is quite a large gully between the next lot, which he thinks is Mr Hazard's and the lot to the north is the playground The nearest neighbor is Lot 4 to the south Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she can see John Hazard's house as clear as day She stated that you would be suprised the kind of detail you can see from very far away Bill Sargis stated that any variations architecturally on multi -family attached homes makes tbcm look tacky Chairman Hurn stated that he has been and will continue to be comfortable that a project like this can have similar massing and use of materials, color and employ the techniques discussed earlier Henry Vest stated that he kind of thinks its a he kind of agrees with a that its going to be really hard to... he thinks it looks pretty clean he thinks that the grade its hard for him to envision the grade its a really steep section going down there I mean that just drops it seems to him really far down there The applicant stated that he tried to maintain about a five to seven percent slope down that drive and also a positive slope from the garage to the main drive and there will probably be some kind of railing detail at that retaining wall Vest stated that he guessed the only other thing is by being I guess by Staff saying that you're by points you're real high up there there is going to be some exposed exposed foundation walls are you just going to is there going to be stucco all the way underneath there The applicant replied it would be stucco to grade the applicant stated that there is no opportunity for a walkout at that slope It drops off so severely that it is just going to be left naturally or revegetated to match existing The only formal landscaping will be on the south and on the west elevations The applicant asked about Staffs comment regarding the finished slopes not exceeding 2 1 slope he stated that they do show a section of boulder walls that they can get a I I Mary Holden stated that I I slopes are not allowed The applicant asked even boulder walls Holden stated they are allowed The applicant proceeded to respond to the rest of the Staff comments Regarding the matter of the dumpster location, the Commission suggested individual trash pickup .�% Wo PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 34 Lot 42, Block 3. Wildridge Subdivision Duplex w/Caretakers. Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this will contain three levels and stand 30 feet in height. The building and plant materials are in the Staff Report She stated that this proposal is not in conformance with the zoning for the lot. It is a duplex zoned lot and two units are only allowed and they are proposing four units, because caretaker units are classified as a unit. The standard site plan and design comments are listed in the report. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission to direct the applicant to conform with the zoning for the lot. Jack Snow, the architect, stated that the caretaker units are not a driving issue here and there actually was only one. He stated that they will take out the kitchenette which defines it as a caretaker unit and it will remain guest quarters. He stated that since the submittal they have been working on this. They have straightened... in the site plan there is about a 22 degree bend there and that was just giving too much problem so they have straightened it out. He provided new drawings. Jack Hunn asked if the building would be all stucco The applicant stated it would, with wood highlights. Bill Saigis asked what the roofing material would be The ap-acant replied right now it is asphalt. Sue Railton stated that she did not under the big posts down the middle of the east unit east elevation. Discussion followed but some of the discussion is not clear. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that the entry elements are the only things she find awkward. She thinks it makes the building look much taller and imposing than it is Otherwise she likes the way the house matches on all the sides. Henry Vest stated that he thinks it is a pretty interesting design. It is hard to read. Patti Dixon stated that she likes the vertical posts accentuating the entry. Buz Reynolds asked some questions about the bend, but Sue Railton and Rhoda Schneiderman were talking to each other at the same time and Reynolds' and the apI Scant's commenot are not clear Chairman Hunn asked about the single garage door in the one unit He asked if that is to have a three car garage. It is for storage of a boat, etc Hunn asked if the applicant has considered using a shallow arch as the tops of the garage elements or some other heavy header detail. The garage doors seem to be pretty prominent and the rest of the house is handled very well. The applicant stated that they could take a look at it Sue Railton asked if the 8 x 8 square posts going up, is that just a roof that comes out and those are recessed back The applicant replied yes Railton stated that she thinks the proportions of that looks wacky. It doesn't relate to what you are doing anywhere else Further discussion followed on how it could be changed A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 35 Lot 1. Eaglewood Subdivision 58 Unit complex Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that this proposal consists of ten buildings standing forty feet in height. She stated that no building or plant materials were indicated. Staffs concerns are the parking is deficient due to inadequab: size of the proposed parking spaces. Driveways and parking must be located at least 10' away from the front property line, which they are not. Internal circulation is a concern for emergency vehicles, due to the turning radius within the site the applicant will want to talk with and get approval from, prior to building permit application, the Colorado Department of Transportation access into the site. This lot is shown for a recreation path along the river and public access. The standard site plan and design comments are listed in the Staff Report. As a conceptual review, Staff has no formal recommendation. Rick Pylman, representing the applicant, stated they are really here for a true conceptual site plan review and they do not need to discuss any elevations or any architectural details. He stated that they do have a 4.7 acre site that is zoned for 130 units The proposed sit plan shows 58 townhomes all approximately 17 to 18 hundred square feet. It is a big project and there is a lot of site planning and design work involved in that and they felt it was important and appropriate to get in here and have a good conceptual site plan review before they got too far down the road in a direction that wasn't in line with the Commission's thinking. He stated that this was a conceptual layout and they want to find out what the Cammission's issues are with this site There is a lot of density on this site, but the economics of that dictate that they build a certain amount of v "hey are showing under half of the allowed density that is proposed for there. He sta. t Mary touched on a couple of issues related to the site plan. The Highway Department access of course they will take care of in the site plan surveys. The recreation trails master plan for the Town of Avon does indicate that their side of the river, the south side of the river, is most appropriate for a bicycle path and they are happy to dedicate an easement for the bicycle path. He stated that he would like to talk about the public access to the river. He thinks that the intention of that was to make sure that there were opportunities along stretches of the river where you could get through properties to the river to fish or access a bike path and most of those he thinks are the bridges that cross the river or some of the park areas and given some of the site plan constraints, he would be a little concerned They are not on Hurd Lane, they are on Highway 6, so you can't park along Highway 6 and he would be concerted with trying to crease some public parking and public acces3 Gown through the property He stated that they are here to hear the Commission's concerns on how they think the site should be developed He stated that they do have some photographs of the site He provided the mounted photographs Frank Navarro poin#cd out the various areas of the site He stated that as a developer what he is interested in, there is a trade off that he has to make Whatever they do will be less that what is allowed. What he is concerned about is building enough square footage to make it work Ll r-� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 36 Lot 1. Englewood Subdivision, 58 Units Conceptual Design Review, (cont) economically. When you build a townhouse you build approximately 1800 square feet When you build condominiums you build less. In looking at the project they are presenting the townhouse project just because that was the first thing that came to their minds. That is not necessarily what they will do. They want to make the project work and preserve the site Doing that may entail stacking the units and going with denser buildings and not spreading out as much. Possibly doing a condominium site that has four levels of condominiums with a parking structure half buried, etc. In a preliminary sense, they can save many more trees that way and they could save the ditch that occurs in the middle of the site. They can make an amenity out of that. He would like to get feed back from the Commission that they agree with him that that is the way to go and that height per se just for the sake of height is not going to be something that will hold him back from preserving the site. The townhomes would be lower, but they also eat up a lot of the site and there is no way to save the majority of the trees This is also a site that is down in a hole and visually that could function for them Discussion followed on the setbacks, but several people were making comments at the same time, therefore, none of the comments are clear. The general consensus was that the condominium plan is a lot better plan than the townhouse plan. Pylman stated that the zoning on the property allows the sixty foot height Navarro described some of the amenities like barbecue areas etc that they plan. Further discussion followed on the public access issue, but with everyone talking at the same time no comments are clear. Chairman Hunn thanked the applicants for bringing in the concept and he also thanked them for their patience in waisting so long, Reading and Approval of the May 3. 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the May 3, 1994 minutes as submitted Patti Dixon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Mary Holden stated that she had some other business that came up this past week when she dealt with an applicant Exparte contact,"', She stated that she really needs the Commission's help She stated that she is aware of two Commission members who were individually approached by an applicant with a site specific plan and when she opened up the plans for the first time, he did not approach her or contact her at all She called him, gave him our concerns, told him what was going on and he shot back with "well, two Commissioners said it was fine She stated that she has a problem with this It is exparte r'l 6Ak.. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 37 Other Business, (conn contact number one When an applicant approaches a Commission member with a site specific plan, and she is talking site specific, not concept, the Commission needs to bring that forward at the meeting. The Commission member needs to say that so and so contacted them on it. She wants it made known. Holden stated that she will be getting John Dunn here so he can further clarify what exparte contact is. Holden stated that the second thing she is going to ask the Commission's help on is that when applicants approach you and totally bypass Staff and then she calls them with concerns and they come back with certain Commission members said this was fine and they blow off Staff, then there is no need for her to be here. She asked the Commission members to tell the applicants to go talk to Staff. There was no pre -application conference on this concept and there was no conversation or working together what so ever, and it makes it real tough when they have concerns that need to be addressed and the applicant shoots back with "no, Commission said I didn't have to, or I'm not going to because 1 will go to Commission directly". Buz Reynolds stated that one of the things that Mary is probably talking about is that Michael Ray came and asked him what he thought about the project He stated that he never at any time, and he has been doing it a long time, said that this is what i think you should do or this is how this would go, or go after final. He stated that all he gave was his personal opinion, and he told him that was what he would hear at the meeting and that is all that he said Rhoda Schneiderman stated that Michael Ray also approached her with what the new guidelines were for duplex connections and she gave him verbiage from the meeting Mary Holden stated that exparte contact is really sensitive and a bad perception and it' somebody finds out he contacted you two and you have another duplex pet -son that is coming in. Further discussion followed on the matter of the Commission members notifying the Commission of any contact that is made Norm Wood stated that you could actually get in a position where you would have to step down and not participate in the discussion. Mary Holden stated that she had one applicant that told her that so and so stated that he would support the variance and this was without site plan, without anything, so the Commission members have to be careful Chairman Hunn asked if that means they should avoid conversation all together Holden stated that if someone comes to you and says what is a duplex connection, but doesn't show you plans, they are asking for concept, but if they show plans, then you should say go talk to staff 0*4 a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 17, 1994 Page 38 The meeting was then adjourned at 1230 AM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Date`s