Loading...
PZC Minutes 040792• .W. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 The regular meeting of the Planning and 'Zoning Commission was held on April 7, 1992, at 7:35 PM in the Town Council Chambers, Avc,n Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Rd., Avon, Colorado. Th-- meeting hameeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins. Members Present: John Perkins, Buz Reynolds, Clayton McRory, Patti Dixon, Sue Railton, Henry Vest, Jack Hunn Staff Present: Jim Curnutte, Town Planner; Rick Pylman, Director of Community Development; Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary Chairman Perkins stated that all members were present. Lot 42, Block 4. Wildrdge Subdi_v_i_sion,__Conceptual Review of Material Samples Jim Curnutte stated that Doug DeChant, representing J.D. McKean, is here to present some materials they are proposing to use for windows on the proposed residence, in response to comments made by the Commission at conceptual review on March 17, 1992. Mr. DeChant provided samples to be used on the windows. Discussion followed on the samples, i.e. the shape, color, construction, and cost. The general concensus of the Commission was that this material/system would be satisfactory. As this was a conceptual review, no formal action was taken at this time. Lot 101. Block 1..Wildridae $ubdiv_isio Ski Vista Townhomes, Root Material Chance Jim Curnutte stated that this request was discussed at the last PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 2 of 14 Lot 101, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Ski Vista T_ownhomes Root Material Change. (cont) meeting and the Commission denied the request for asphalt shingles on the Ski Vista Townhomes, with the suggestion that the applicant consider a higher quality roofing product, because the Commission did not feel that the proposed Tamko product provided sufficient weight and texture compatible with the architec-ure of the buildings. The applicant is now proposing to use the Timberline Ultra in a weather wood. Previous information was that this product was 420 lbs per square, however information has also been received that indicates that it may be only about 360 lbs per square. Randy Johnson provided samples of the proposed product. Clayton McRory stated that he had no problem with this product; Henry Vest stated that this product was good; Jack Hunn stated that his objection to this proposal had nothing to do with the texture or relief. He stated that there was a comm-�tment made when original approval was received, which was for a fractionalized project, as well as design review, and essentially he feels like the applicant got a special privilege to develop two additional units, based upon the strength of their proposal which included, high quality materials, good landscaping plan, good architecture. He sees this as an attempt to undo the commitment made when originally approved. He asked if the Commission goes along with this, would the applicant La back in a month from now to take some trees out of the landscaping, and maybe two months from that to not pave the driveway? Randy Johnson replied that Mr. Hunn is entitled to his opinion of this being a poorer quality material, however, he did not agree with that idea. Jack Hunn stated that another of his concerns is compatibility with surrounding properties. He stated that none of the buildings around this site has asphalt roofs. Sue Railton stated that she has no problem with the proposed roofing material; Buz Reynolds stated he had no problem with it; Patti Dixon stated that since it would have more texture than the previously proposed asphalt shingle, it would be tine; John Perkins stated that he agreed with Mr. Hunn's comments about the compatibility, and he would encourage the applicant to stay with the cedar shakes. Clayton McRory moved to approve the roofing material change for Lot 101, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, as submitted. Sue Railton seconded and the motion passed with Jack Hunn and John Perkins voting nay. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 3 of 14 Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek_ Subdiv_ision,__Sunridge Phase I. Request For Release from Previous Planning and Zoning Commission Condition of Approval, Jim Curnutte stated that Tom Casteel, of Vail Management Company, is present on behalf of Sunridge at Avon Phase I. They are asking for release from a previous condition of approval. Curnutte stated that in June, 1991, Sunridge was in the process of painting when staff noticed that they were painting. If the color of a building is to be changed, a Planning and Zoning Commission approval is required. On June 18, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval for restaining the buildings with a solid body stain. It was a semi -transparent oxford brown stein and the new stain was a solid body buckskin color. A condition of this approval was that the breezeways also be stained the same color as the building. Curnutte stated that Sunridge had not anticipated staining the breezeways and this was not included in the contract with the painters. The staining of the buildings was completed last summer, however none of the breezeways were stained. Staff has been in contact with Mr. Casteel regarding the timetable for staining the breezeways. The end result, at this time, is that they really do not have the funds to do the breezeways and are requesting a release from the Commission of that condition. Tom Casteel stated that the directors never intended to stain the breezeways, because the breezeways are more protected from the elements and do not suffer the damages that the rest of the buildings do. The total cost for staining the project was about $65,000.00. The cost of doing the breezeways would be about another $35,000.00. The Board was careful to choose a color that they felt was complementary to the color of the oreezeways. Sunridge, being an aging project, is faced with numerous expenses and they are prepared to work within the parameters of anticipated expenditures within the next five years, i.e. resurfacing the parking lot will cost $65,000.00; new roofs will cost about $150,000.00; restaining in the next three to four years will be another $65,000.00; and maintenance on the sprinkler system will probably be about $10,000.00. In the next five years they are looking at probably a quarter of a million dollars in expenses. They have reserved prudently for these expenses, but to throw in an extra $35,000.00 that they don't feel is necessary, Just seems to be that, unnecessary. This is why they are requesting release from the condition imposed by the Commission. Patti Dixon stated that the matter of not painting the breezeways should have been discussed in considering the exterior color. She feels the two colors are not compatible. She feels the breezeways should be painted; Buz Reynolds stated that when approval way given, it was understood that the breezeways would be painted. He P1 ID PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 4 of 14 Lot 9 Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision_,_ Sunridge Phase I. Request For Release From Previous Plannin_q_ and -Zoning Commission Condition of ADDroval__(cont) feels the applicant just sort of blew it off, like they were not going to do it. He feels that there must be a way that the applicant can maybe phase in the painting of the breezeways, if they cannot do it all at once. He does not like the way it looks at this time; Sue Railton stated that she agrees with Mr. Reynolds and feels that there should be some way of handling it; John Perkins stated that one of the problems is that they started painting before they came to the Board. He stated that the semi -transparent stain and the opaque stain are not compatible and neither are the two colors. He stated that the Commission and Staff would like to work with the applicant to figure out some way to get them ste4ned; Jack Hunn stated that although he was not present when this came through, but he did see it during the site visit and share some of the same concerns as the other Commissioners. Mr. Hunn asked how many owners live in that portion of the complex? Mr. Casteel stated that there were 165 units. Mr. Hunn stated that the $35,000.00 would mean $212.00 per unit. Mr. Casteel stated that the $35,000.00 would take away from the funding for other things which seems to be more important, i.e. resurfacing the parking lot, or redoing the roofs. Mr. Hunn asked if the applicant would recommend to the Board that a portion of the parking lot be resurfaced, or only a portion of the roofs be done? He stated that he thinks the applicant can see the point he is making regarding partially completed improvement projects. He stated that he also would like to work on some kind of extended schedule where the improvement might be made within the next twelve months, etc; Clayton McRory stated that the project looks incomplete. He would like to see it painted as soon as possible; Henry Vest stated that at the previous design review, he was one of the people that didn't care whether the breezeways were done or not. He does feel that the applicant has ignored the wishes of the Commission. John Perkins reiterated that the Commission would like to work out some way to stain the breezeways, and the question is what kind of schedule can be agreed upon. Clayton McRory moved to deny the request for release of the condition of painting the breezeways, with the condition that the breezways be painted to match the existing color on the building and the project be completed no later than October 1, 1992. Jack Hunn seconded, and the motion carried with Henry Vest voting nay. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 5 of 14 Lot 8, Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdvision,_Eagle_Rlver Condos, Design Revisions Jim Curnutte stated that Tony Seibert is requesting approval of some revisions of a previously approved project. In December, 1991, the Commission granted final design approval to the Eagle River Condominiums (three six-plexes and a proposed future tri-plex on Lot 8,) It alsn had a parking garage along the northern property line. At the time of approval each of the six-plex units contained 840 square foot units. There were 32 covered parking spaces and 26 uncovered parking spaces. The approved site plan also had two access drives onto West Beaver Creek Blvd. In granting the approval there were 13 conditions of approval. Curnutte stated that the Staff Report lists all thirteen conditions for the Commission's review. A couple weeks ago the applicant applied for a building permit to start on this project. Actually the application was for only one of the six-plex units. It is the applicant's intention to phase this project, but that concept was not discussed originally. During the review of the building permit drawings, it became clear that there were a number of changes made to the architecture of the building, the site planning, the garage structure, layout of parking, circulation patterns, etc. Staff felt that these changes should be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Curnutte then reviewed the phasing concept of this project, stating that the applicant would like to proceed prudently, financially, and start with one building and if sales are good, then move on the the second and then move on to the third. However, if there are any problems in sales then the project could be stopped after any one given building. Staff agrees that phasing does make good financial sense, however the concern is how would the project be completed if only one building were completed? Where would the trash dumpster be located, what kind of landscaping would be finished up on the back side of it? The southern most driveway has been deleted, however, Staff would prefer that the driveway be left for ease of access and better circulation on the property. The applicant has indicated that there would be i significant cost savings it it is closed. The fire department is a little concerned about it. They didn't say no, but thcy would also prefer that it stay open for better circulation in emergency situations. The buildings have been moved apart a little more than previously shown and they do go into the parking area, so some parking has been eliminated, or relocated. The applicant has removed the parking spaces that were within the 10 ft. lot line, as requested by the Commission. Some landscape islands have been removed. The PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISAION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 6 of 14 Lot 8. Block 3. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision,_ Eagle_R._i_ver Condos, Design Revisions (cont) applicant has indicated that this is for ease of snow plowing. On the old plans the trash dumpster location was one of the garage spaces. There is now a trash dumpster and enclosure, however, no details have been provided at this point. The applicant has indicated that it will match the architecture of the building and materials. The parapet wall/roof form on the garage fronts, shown on the approved plans, have been removed. The changes in the architecture of the buildings show some siding has been replaced with stucco, there are roof form changes, the chimneys have been removed since they are gas fireplaces, there have been some window changes, certain fenestration changes on all elevations of the buildings, and changes in unit size. Curnutte stated that in addition to discussing these changes, Staff would also recommend the Commission discuss the following: The Avon Metropolitan District recommends a 20' wide water and sewer easement be recorded prior to the start of construction. This is shown on the plans; The applicant's water plan drawing dated 3/23/92 needs to reflect some of the comments by Norm Wood, the District Engineer, and the fire hydrant locations must be changed as specified by the Avon Fire Department; The grading and drainage plan needs to reflect the Town Engineer's comments; The site plan, landscape plan and grading and drainage plans should be amended to show the same improvements on each, i.e. the railroad tie retaining walls between the buildings shown on the landscape plan but not on the site or drainage plans, the concrete walkway ieading to the road right-of-way is not reflected on the grading and drainage plan, the grading and drainage plan does not accurately reflect the actual parking lot layout proposed for construction, the new landscape plan should be amended to remove gravel shown between the buildings and better define the proposed "shrubbery" as required by condition #7 of the previous approval, and discussion of proposed time frame for constuuction of the improvements on Tract L. Staff recommends that the above changes and issues be discussed and resolved to the satisfaction of the Commission. If the discussion involves changes or additions to those issues presented in this repDrt, those changes or additions, along with those suggested by Staff, must be reflected in all drawings presented for building permit applization review. Tony Seibert stated that the project had been originally designed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 7 of 14 Lot 8, Block 3. Benchmark_ at Beaver Creek Subdivision, _Eagle_ Ri_v_e_r Condos, Design Revisions (cont -I back in 1989 as "affordable housing". They bid the project every year since 1989 in the hopes of building it, and every year they haw­,.ttot been able to make budget. The figures have been so high that they have not been able to balance the numbers so that they could afford to rent it as affordable housing. Therefore, everything that Jim Curnutte has pointed out is an attempt this year to bring the project into budget. Most of the architecture changes have been dictated by budget. Specifically, they went from a free framed roof to a trussed roof system, and a sissors roofed system and this dictated a reduction in the height of the cathedral ceilings in the third floor units. Hence the windows squeezed down on those third floor units. They went from a 7/12 pitch to a 6/12 pitch on the roof, to reduce the amount of roof area. They went from semi -round windows to trapezoidal windows on the third floor, because they are half the price of semi -round windows. The chimneys are not needed with the gas fireplaces. They pushed the buildings from 8 feet apart to 10 feet apart, thus eliminating the need for installing some one-hour walls. This caused the loss of a couple parking spaces. The staff had asked that Some parking spaces be deleted at the previous review, so that was accomplished. Mr. Seibert stated that the differences in the plans will be rectified. Henry Vest asked how the development phasing would work? Mr. Seibert stated that the reason for the phasing was that in the 70's and 80' he was a reasonably large developer on the front range. In 1988 he filed for bankruptcy, 68 million dollars. He learned a lesson and is now trying to phase this project, so he can build one building at a time and make sure that that building can be sold out or rented at the level that they are trying to achieve. As soon as both sides of the Lot 8 duplex in Eaglebend is sold, they can immediately go to the second building. The concept is to do all the site work and put all three foundations in initially, including all water line, all drainage and approximately a third of the parking, Then do the framing and completion of building one and upon satisfactory sales of that building, go on to the framing of building two. Henry Vest stated he felt the second driveway would be better left in. Clayton McRory asked how the landscaping would be handled with the phasing. Seibert stated that the two foundations would be backfilled. They would topsoil and irrigate the entire first building, but it would not be cost effective to try to irrigate or landscape the next building areas. Jack Hunn asked if all the conditions of the previous approval are included in the current plan? Mr. Seibert stated that most are, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 8 of 14 however, he still does not have written approval from the owner of Tract L, but only because he has not pursued it recently. He had verbal approval in 1989. Hunn asked if the materials or colors have changed. Seibert stated that they had not. Hunn asked about the extent of curb or gutters around the perimeter. Seibert stated that they have purposely eliminated them for snow removal purposes. Discussion followed on the matter of wheel stops at the landscape areas. Seibert stated he would rather replace sod than wheel stops, if the snow removal caused damage. Hunn stated he had some concerns about the deletion of the second access. Hunn asked if the driveway could be widened. Discussion followed on the location of the dumpster. Sue Railton stated that she would prefer to see the single driveway entrance wider rather than have the other driveway. She asked about the entry doors at the stairwells. Seibert stated that there are no entry doors other than the unit doors. It is not a heated stairwell entry. Buz Reynolds was concerned about the phasing of the project. He asked if the applicant would commit to completing the entire portion of each phase, once a phase is started. The applicant stated that Phase I would be completed, and then if he sells the two duplex units in Eaglebend, he would go on to the second building. Reynolds stated that his concern was regarding the foundations that would sit dormant. He wants to be assured that they will be secured with a fence, etc. Mr. Seibert stated that they would be. Patti Dixon questioned the matter of the location of the trash dumpster. She would like it to be in the garage, as originally planned. Mr. Seibert stated that since they had lost several parking spaces, they needed the garage space. Reynolds asked when the Tract L improvements would be done? Mr. Seibert stated that these improvements are included in the excavation bid and will be done with Phase I. John Perkins stated that he thinks the project still works and it's location on the river is it's strength. He is not too concerned with the phasing, because the other foundations will be behind the first building. He did urge the applicant to take every safety precaution with the foundations. He liked the two driveway setup, but if it is not possible then he suggests screening the cars with landscaping. He would like to see the ornamentation on the garage building to break up the long garage building. PLANNING AND April 7, 1992 Page 9 of 14 aAli ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES visions R_i_ver Sue Railtion moved to grant Lot 8, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Eagle River Condominiums, approval of the design revisions requested, with the condition that the nine Staff comments are addressed to Staff satisfaction. Clayton McRory seconded. Jack Hunn suggested that the screening and protection of the future foundations be added. Also suggested was the widening of the driveway, to Staff's approval. Sue Railton so amended her motion. Clayton McRory seconded the amendment, and '.he motion carried unanimously. Lot 46, Block 2, Wildridge subdi_vision. Wildridge Townho_mes_,_Final Design Review Jim Curnutte stated that the applicants are proposing a four-plex on Lot 46. The lot slopes toward the southeast at an average slope of 25%. The four-plex would house four four-bedroom units. One unit is about 1640 square feet and the other units are about 1610 square feet. Each unit will have a two car garage and a gas fireplace. The building height is within the Town standards. Exterior building materials are rustic channel cedar siding painted grey, rough sawn cedar trim, aluminum windows, 6 panel doors, redwood deck rails, building fascia and garage doors will be stained a pewter color. The windows and trim are to be painted white. The applicant is proposing to use the Presidential Celotex asphalt shingle in the weather wood color. All driveway and parking areas will be finished with asphalt. A trash dumpster location is proposed to be screened on two sides by a 4' tall timber retaining wall. A grading and drainage plan and a landscape plan have been provided. The grading plan shows that some of the berms have a finished grades exceed 50%, which is the maximum allowed without retainage. The landscape plan shows a good mixture of decidious and coniferous trees and shrubs and boulders, and native grass reseeding. A bar-b-que area has been provided. Although not indicated on the plans, automatic irrigation is proposed for the landscaped areas. This project received conceptual review on January 21st, and the Commission had four suggestions which were: the parking needed to further addressed in conjunction with access so that more spaces could be located behind the garage doors; some sort of Play/picnic area should be considered; consider giving the end elevations more character; and, the landscaping be substantial, with larger materials specified to break up the massing of the building. PLANNING AND ZONING April 7, 1992 Page 10 of 14 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Curnutte then reviewed the criteria to be considered, stating that the proposal is in conformance with the zoning code in that the property is zoned for a four-plex. However,some portions of the design guidelines are not being met, i.e some finished grades exceed 50%; trash receptacles should be screened from public view and protected from disturbance; and no project identification sign has been provided for review. The type and quality of the materials and landscaping are in conformance with the town guidelines. All grading and drainage will be contained within the lot lines. The applicant has added additional architectural elements to the end elevations, as suggested at conceptual review. Staff feels that the design of the project would be more compatible if indeed it was redesigned to provide the parking spaces in front of the garage doors and lessen the overall impervious coverage on the property. All exposed foundation walls should be painted to match the building. Staff recommends approval of this application with the condition that the following issues are discussed and resolved to the satisfaction of the Commission: 1. The amount of impervious surface on this property should be reduced. 2. The landscape plan should be amended to include a reference to the proposed method of irrigation and replacement of the gravel areas with sod or other landscape materials. 3. A redesign of the trash dumpster enclosure should be considered in order to provide more effective visual screening. 4. A project identification sign must be provided which includes the project name and physical address. 5. Any exposed foundation walls should be painted to mat.:h the building. 6. No finished grades should exceed 50%. Dan Karzen stated that they have deleted two parking spaces to comply with the suggestions at conceptual regarding the exccessive impervious materials and in order to comply with the comment rega•Jing a play/picnic area replaced one of the parking spaces with a bar-b-que. Regarding the identification sign, it will be only an address sign, which will be well lit. He stated that the exposed foundations will be painted to match the building. They PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 11 of 14 Lot 46, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivision, Wildridge Townhomes,_ F final Design Review (cont) will comply with the 50% maximum grade for the berms. Mr. Karzen stated that they are not planning for a dumpster, they are planning for individual trash pickup and that area is the area which the occupants will put out their trash on the day of pickup. Discussion followed on the changes made to the elevations. Discussion followed on the location of the bar-b-que. The general consensus was that it was not in an appropriate location, with it located in the parking lot. It was suggested that it be removed, but landscaping should be left there. Some discussion followed on the rear elevations being rather bare. Discussion followed on the site lighting. The applicant stated that the identification sign and the lighting on the garage doors will be the only lighting. Discussion on the siting of the building on the property followed, regarding the views. The applicant replied that that is the reason for the staggering of the units. It was suggested that the landscaping, where the bar-b-que was to be located, be moved to one side or the other. It was suggested that some shrubbery be included on the north side of the building. Jack Hunn stated that he would prefer to see a prcject like this with a cedar shake roof. Discussion followed on the proposed roofing material. The roofing material will be a 370 lb per square material with considerable texture. Discussion followed on the irrigation of the landscaping. The applicant stated that they planned to irrigate until the plants took hold and then irrigation would be done by nature. The applicantwas cautioned that some of the proposed species would not do well without irrigation. Henry Vest moved to grant approval to Lot 46, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Wildridge Townhomes with the following conditions: 1. That the landscape plan should be amended to include reference to the proposed method of irrigation and replacement of the gravel areas with sod or other landscape material. 2. A project identification sign must be provided which included a project name and physical address. 3. All exposed foundation walls should be painted to match the building. 4. No finished grade should exceed a maximum of 50%. Buz Reynolds seconded. The motion was amended to add: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 12 of 14 Lot 46, Block 2. Wildridge Subdivisi_on.,_ Wi_ld.ridge_Townhomes, Final Design Review (cont) That, in condition number 1, the wording be changed to state that automatic irrigation be installed. The bar-b-que shall be removed and the landscaping of that area shall be moved tc one side or the other. That the color of the asphal`. shingles will be weathered wood. The motion carried with Jack Hunn voting nay. Lots 2-12, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision Eaglebend_Affordab__le Housing Community Center, Conceptual --- Desi_gn Review Jim Curnutte stated that Eaglebend Partnership is proposing to construct a Community Center building on Lots 2-12, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision. The 240 unit Eaglebend Apartment complex was given final design approval, fractionalization approval, and SPA amendment approval in July of 1990. The complex consisted of 20-12 unit buildings, a community center, 450 covered and uncovered parking spaces, laundry and storage facilities and various recreational and open space amenities. Since the community building had not been designed at that time the applicants are back for conceptual review on the building. The height of the building is about 35 feet high and will sit back about 30 feet from the east property line. The building will have about 5,100 square feat of habitable area and will house a day care operation, social r(,om, laundry room, and various offices for the manager and day care provider. There is also some storage space in an attic as well as an area for maintenance equipment. The day care facility will be accessed at grade on the south side of the building and the social room will be accessed on the second level. A berm will be built on that side of the building to provide access. The day care center will have an outside play area and will be surrounded with a 4 foot high cedar fence. Beyond the fence will be a 4' wide concrete walkway which will wrap around the entire south, east and half of the north elevations of the building. Exterior building materials propsed are diagonal hardboard siding (meteor color) wood doors and attic vents (norway aqua) and asphalt shingles. There will be some skylights. 0• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1990 W!M Page 13 of 14 Lots 2-12. Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision_ Eaglebend-Affordabl-e As this is a conceptual review, Staff doesn't have any recommendations, however there are some concerns to be pointed out. 1. The sidewalk, light fixtures and grading work on the far east side of the property are located in the public right-of-way. 2. The parking spaces shown on the site plan do not meet the Town's minimum standards. 3. The boiler flue should be painted to match the building. 4. No detail has been provided for the proposed light fixtures. 5. No detailed landscaping plan has been submitted for the clubhouse area. 8. The final plat for this property has never been recorded. Jeff Spanel stated that the skylights have been eliminated from the final design. He stated that the basketball court will probably be eliminated and replaced with a children's play area and some additional bar-b-que area. The landscaping will be presented with the final design request. Considerable discussion followed on the day care play area and fencing and the area of the building that will be occupied by the day care. Discussion followed on the lighting of the project. Discussion followed on the grading on the corner Ped the fencing. As this was a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. Reading and approval _of_the_Planning _and Zoning -Commission Meeting Minutes for March_17, 1992. Buz Reynolds moved to approve the minutes for the March 17, 1992 meeting. Henry Vest seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Jack Hunn moved to approve Resolution 92-3, which pertains to the front yard setback variance granted to Lot 18, Filing 1, Eaglebend Subdivision on March 17, 1992. Clayton McRory seconded and the motion carried unanimously. A ft PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 14 of 14 Other Business (cont) Patti Dixon provided a snapshot taken of the back of the Annex building showing a new satellite dish that has been installed without approval. Staff will contact the owner (Radio Shack) of the dish regarding approval. Clayton McRory stated that he has heard that the issue of the gas station is going to be brought up at the Town council meeting by the Mayor. He stated he is concerned that the decision of the Commission might be overturned and he feels that the Commission was protecting the river and the Town of Avon with their decision to deny. Rick Pylman stated that this is not a formal appeal. The Council just wants to discuss the matter for a better understanding. The time for appeal has past, and the applicant will not be present. A roofing product brochure was enclosed in the Commission packets and Staff was asked to see if samples of the materials could be obtained for study. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully, submitted. i Charlytte Pascuzzi Recording Secretpry �— Comm i ss i o n-,d()b rdv a 1 J. Perk4ns S. Rainton C. A. Reynolds P. Dixon << H. Vest oz� J. Hunn . J 'f N Date O Z