Loading...
PZC Minutes 030497Record of Proceedings Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 4, 1997 Regular Meeting The Regular Meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jack Hurn at 5:45 p.m., March 4, 1997, in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, CO 81620, Colorado. Members Present Jack Hunn Chris Evans Anne Fehlner Andrew Karow Sue Railton Michael Schneider Beth Stanley Agenda Call to Order Roll Call All members present. Staff Present Linda Donnellon, Recording Secretary Karen Griffith, Town Planner George Harrison, Planner Mike Matzko, Community Development Director Steve Hodges, Community Service Officer Additions and Amendments to the Agenda George Harrison requested to add Item A, Lot 35, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision -Avon Storage Center freestanding business identification sign to the Consent Agenda. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Fehlner stated a conflict of interest regarding Lot 1, Englewood Subdivision - Brookside Park. j : \p &z\minutes\ 1997\030497. d o c Consent Agenda A. Approval of the February 4, 1997 and the February 18, 1997 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes B. Lot 1, Wildwood Resorts PUD - Colorado Alpine, Inc. Project Type: Temporary Storage of Above Ground Fuel Tank Property Owner: Oscar Tang, Tanavon Corp. Applicant: Marty Jones, Colorado Alpine, Inc. Address: 0100 Buckcreek Road C. Lot A, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision - The Lodge at Avon Center Project Type: Master Sign Program Amendment Property Owner: Rex Grambrell, Century 21 Vail Valley, Inc. (Property Manager) Applicant: Larry Ast, Hightech Signs Address: 0100 West Beaver Creek Boulevard Motion Commissioner Railton moved to approve items B and C of the Consent Agenda with items A, February 4, 1997 and February 18, 1997, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes moved for further discussion. Commissioner Schneider seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Final Design Review A. Lot 35, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek - Avon Storage Center Freestanding Business Identification Sign Project Type: Freestanding business identification sign Property Owner\Applicant: Doyle Warehouse/Avon Storage Center Consultant: Kirk Van Hee Address: 0090 Metcalf Road George Harrison made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. He reminded the Commission that this item was tabled from the last meeting due to the Commissions concerns. The applicant complied to the following items suggested by the Commission: redesign the shape and the text of the sign and change the proposed colors to match the building. Chairperson Hunn stated that the applicant was moving in the right direction and asked if the sign would be lit. Mr. Harrision stated that it was the applicants intentions of lighting the sign, but has not provided a cut sheet at this time. Staff added condition number 3 (three) to the recommendations. 2 Commissioner Evans reminded staff about the single light bulb exposed at the pump station, and suggested an enclosed box to help eliminate the glare for the on coming cars. Mr. Harrison said that staff would recommend that the light focused only onto the sign. Mr. Harrison stated that the applicant could not make tonight's meeting. Chairperson Hunn asked if there were any questions for the staff on behalf of the applicant. No response was made. Chairperson Hunn stated the sign was appropriate because it dramatically changed the message from the last presentation. The sign specified a phone number and not promotional sales. Motion Commissioner Railton moved to approve Lot 35, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek -Avon Storage freestanding business identification sign as presented in the application dated February 5, 1997 with the following conditions: 1. The sign's height will be limited to the 8 feet. 2. The inclusion of landscaping a minimum of five lineal feet out from and around the perimeter of the sign to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping to be approved by staff. 3. Lighting sources be approved by staff to ensure they are not directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and are not concealed in such a manner that direct light shines in a disturbing manner. Commissioner Stanley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Lot 11, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision - Vista View Townhomes Project Type: Site Modification Property OwnerWpplicant: Fred Hiller, Monument Realty, Inc. Consultant: Joseph P. Martino, Engineering Designworks, Inc. Address: 3078 Wildridge Road Karen Griffith made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. The applicant was requesting to construct a play ground located in the backside of the lot. Ms. Griffith used a site plan to describe the proposed play area (highlighted in pink) and the grade modifications (highlighted in orange). The dimensions for the play area was 50 x 120, including the grading, the proposed size would change the dimensions to 92 x 170 feet. The orange dotted lines outlined the area of the site that would be disturbed under the current approved plan with a 30% steep slope. Staff was concerned about the following issues regarding the application: 1. Application does not meet the Design Guide Lines regulations, which requires that "no slope exceed 2 to I". The upper area for the play ground would require a 1 to 1 slope, with a drop of 12 feet with the proposed cut. 2. Impacts from the neighboring properties, given the size of the lot, would be visible form a very large portion of the neighborhood. 3. Site topography, Section 6.22 600-1500. Ms Griffith read this section to the Commission. 4. Performance with the adopted goals, policies and programs, and the comprehensive plan policy F 1.2. Staffs opinion specified that this proposed modification would be a visual degradation of the site in the subdivision. Staffs opinion stated that the site modification would significantly alter the natural topography. Commissioner Schneider asked if a four plex was under construction at this site. Ms. Griffith stated that on site grading work has been done at this time. Fred Hiller, property owner and applicant, made a brief presentation regarding the size of the play ground to the Commission. He stated that the size of the lot was 2.36 acres which contained a large hole. He said at least 40 yards of back fill would be needed in order to fill in the hole so that the children could play football or soccer. He proposed to remove all the sage brush and revegetate it with a very thick grass. He stated that the lower slope was 2 to 1, which would be replanted with sage brush and the upper slope was 1 to 1, which would be planted with natural grass, very little, if any, irrigation would be needed. Mr. Hiller stated that this proposal has been received with a positive response from the adjacent owners and that Mr. DeClavor has proposed to pay for the excavation and supervised the project. Mr. Hiller said he respectfully disagreed with staffs comments regarding the visual impacts and felt the views from below the lot would not change, however, there would be an impact of the views from lots 33, 34 and 35. Mr. Hiller stated that in his own opinion, the requested site modification would not be a determent to the neighborhood. He used a site plan to show the location of the 3 (three) lots to the Commission. Commissioner Railton asked how much of the top soil would be removed. Mr. Hiller replied that at least 12 feet of soil would be needed to back fill the hole and that the lot was cleared to make room for the foundation. She stated that she was not in favor of the project because of the excavation into the side of the lot and the steep grades. Commissioner Railton suggested that the applicant incorporate the play area into an area that has been striped of its natural growth. She was concerned that 50% of the property would be regraded. Mr. Hiller stated that the lot would be regraded for the play and recreational area, and that the site would be revegetated if approved. Commissioner Karow stated that he agreed with the staff report and understood the retaining issues in compliance with the 2 to 1 grade. He specified his concerns with Design Review criteria number 2 (two) and number 4 (four). He recommended that irrigation be added and steps be installed to access the field because to the steep grades. Mr. Hiller said that a stoned path would be installed. Commissioner Karow asked about mowing operations for the grass. Mr. Hiller said the field would be natural grass, which would not require to be mowed except once or twice a year. Commissioner Schneider stated that he agreed with comments made by Commissioner Karow. Commissioner Fehlner reiterated that this project would work against the Steep Slope Guidelines. (Tape inaudible, speaking to softly). 11 Commissioner Evans was concern about the impact to the site and agreed with the staff report and comments made by other Commissioners. Mr. Hiller stated that the neighbors and children would be allowed to use the park. Commissioner Stanley stated that this park would be a great amenity but was concerned with the following issues: the site disturbance being to excessive and the steep slope guide lines. She said that she agreed with staffs report and recommendations Chairperson Hunn stated that he agreed with the staff report and recommendation. Commissioner Railton stated that Lot 77, Block 1, Wildridge would be an ideal place for a pocket park. Mr. Harrison said that Lot 77, Block 1, Wildridge had been approved for a building permit. Commissioner Karow stated that the "Orchard" project was to be built there. Chairperson Hunn stated that this type of amenity for the neighbor would be considered a "town project", responsibility and maintenance of the town. Joseph Martino, Engineering Designworks, Inc., was concerned about the children playing "in or around" Wildridge Road and asked the Commission to approve this project. Chairperson Hunn stated that there was a public park located by the Wildridge fire department with a basketball court for the children to play at, within a reasonable walking distance. The Town of Avon has a master plan for additional parks including a huge play area for the children. Ms. Griffith stated that Tract D was accessible from this site and was proposed as a neighborhood park. Construction date has not been set at this time. Motion Commissioner Stanley moved to deny the proposed grading change to Lot 11, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, as depicted on plan sets dated January 23, 1997 and the staffs recommendations. Commissioner Evans seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Lot 55, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision - Red & White, Inc. Duplex Project Type: Residential Duplex Property Owner\Applicant: Dave Lach Consultant: Stephen Richards, Rich Architectural Designs Address: 2281 Old Trail Road George Harrison made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report and present a color board to the Commission. Staff finds that this project meets all the criteria, the design review guidelines, rules and regulations for the Town of Avon. Staff received the cut sheet for the light fixtures from the applicants depicting the can light fixtures that would help control the "off site glare". Staff stated that they would like to withdrawal its recommended condition for the exterior light fixtures, summarizing that this was a good solution. Chairperson Hunn asked staff if the grading plans have been approved. Mr. Harrison stated that the grading plan for the driveway has been approved by the town engineer and staff. 5 Dave Lach, property owner and applicant, made a brief presentation and presented a color board to the Commission. Mr. Lach described the lot as being relatively flat with a hillside. Commissioner Stanley was concerned about the drip lines on the north east elevations of the property. Commissioner Evans stated that he did not have any comments at this time. Commissioner Fehlner stated that she did not have any comments at this time. Commissioner Schneider stated that the did not have any comments at this time. Commissioner Karow asked about the belly band on the south east elevation. Mr. Lach used a site plan to show the location of the belly bands and facia on the deck. Commissioner Karow asked about the integration between the roof and the windows. Skip Organ, Red & White, Inc., responded with..(tape inaudible, talking away from the microphone). Mr. Organ used a site plan the explain the roof line and windows to Commissioner Karow. Commissioner Schneider asked if the floor was recessed. Mr. Lach said "no", (tape inaudible, voice was muffled). Commissioner Schneider asked about the snow protection on the northeast elevation. Mr. Lach stated that the roof above the deck was for snow protection and preferred dripping. Commissioner Railton stated that she did not have any comments at this time. Chairperson Hunn stated that the driveway grades were fine, and asked if the landscaping would be irrigated with an automatic system. Mr. Lach said yes it would an underground system. Chairperson Hunn discussed the landscape solution and suggested that addition landscaping be added around the structure. Mr. Lach expressed his concerns regarding the price of the landscape plan, and stated that this would not be affordable to the new owners. He suggested that the new owners absorb the cost of a landscape plan which intern would keep the price of the duplex down in the low 200k or 230k. Mr. Lach mentioned the sales price for other duplex was 240k, upper 250k, to 375k. Chairperson Hunn commended the applicants for this strategy, and recommended that the site be landscaped, not only for the new owners but for consideration to the adjacent property owners The landscape would help with the impact of the duplex. Mr. Lach said he would work with staff regarding the request for additional landscaping. Chairperson Hunn suggested the following solutions to the applicants: lower the dormer and install a drip line along the north facing entry, extend the overhang to protect the door and entry way on the west side, add some type of splash guard around the house to protect the wood siding. Mr. Lach appreciated the comments and solutions made by the Commission. He said that he would add stones around the duplex to protect the wood siding. Motion Commissioner Railton moved to approve final design for Lot 55, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision on the plans dated February 18, 1997 with the following condition: Al 1. A complete landscaping plan with additional landscaping added around south elevation of the duplex to be approved by staff. Commissioner Stanley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Tract A, Community Shopping Center Subdivision - Chapel Square Project Type: Development Sign Variance Property Owner: Leo Palmos, Palmos Development, Inc. Consultant: Larry Ast, Hightech Signs Address: 3078 Wildridge Road George Harrison made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. He said the Chapel Square sign would be located near the Wal-Mart sign behind the trees. Staff recommended approval of the development sign variance. Staff suggested that the sign be moved toward the back side where construction will start instead of the front entrance. This suggestion would help to clarify the information on the sign for the public. (Tape inaudible, Mr. Harrison was speaking to softly). Chairperson Hunn asked staff what the duration of the sign would be. Mr. Harrison stated that at the present time, the sign would be located by the Wal-Mart sign for the duration of the construction. Chairperson Hunn was concerned about the site location and duration of the sign because this was a sign variance. Commissioner Railton if the sign was located by the bus stop. Mr. Harrison stated that the sign was located by the Wal-Mart sign. Commissioner Stanley asked staff how tall the post would be for the sign. Mr. Harrision answered 8 (eight) feet tall. Mr. Harrison further discussed the location of the sign. (Tape inaudible, Mr. Harrison was speaking to softly). Commissioner Stanley discussed the dimensions of the sign to be 8 (eight) feet tall, 4 (four) feet wide, by 32 feet wide. She was concerned that the sign would be "wider than it is tall". Mr. Harrison stated that the dimensions of the sign was stated correctly. Larry Ast, Hightech Signs, stated that the size of the height of the sign starts from the grade and that the location of the sign was its protection. Commissioner Railton discussed the photographs regarding the sign. She was concerned that the photographs did not show the location of the sign and asked Mr. Ast why. Mr. Ast explained stated that the sign would be located directly in front of the trees, behind the sidewalk, around the curve. He stated that he did not want the sign to close to the Wal -mart sign. Mr. Ast stated that the actual sign dimensions was 8 (eight) feet tall and 4 (four) feet wide. Commissioner Railton was impressed that the sign would have a graft rendering on it. Mr. Harrision asked the Commission to review the drawings attached to the staff memo. Commissioner Stanley stated that she like the "Elk" and the "Skier" on the sign. 7 Commissioner Evans asked what the average height of a street sign would be. Mr. Ast stated that these sign were typically higher than the sign proposed for Chapel Square. Commissioner Evans stated that the height of the sign would be approximately 9 (nine) to 10 feet to the top of the post. Commissioner Railton asked what the colors were for the sign. Mr. Ast stated that the accent colors for the sign were burgundy, blue and green. Chairperson Hunn was concerned about the promotional status of the sign. Mr. Harrison stated that this was a business sign. Chairperson Hunn commented of the sign location, permit numbers and contractors names attached to the sign by the construction site. Mr. Ast said that this information was not available at this time. Chairperson Hunn asked Mr. Ast if the property owners were limited to one sign. Mr. Ast said "yes". Chairperson Hunn was concerned that the property owners might request additional signs and asked if this request would become an issue. Mr. Harrison stated that a request for addition signs would require an Variance, because of the sign codes. Chairperson Hunn was concerned about the "message" the sign was depicting regarding the condominium sales, phone numbers and Realtor listings. Mr. Ast stated that other projects in Avon, such as Avon Crossing, used this type of signage. Chairperson Hunn asked staff what the policies were for the length of time the signs could stay on site and what triggers the removal of the sign. Steve Hodges discussed the stipulations of the codes regarding the development signs and real estate signs. He stated that the time duration for the sign was 2 (two) years. Commissioner Stanley asked how long construction for this development would take. Mr. Ast said he did not know. Commissioner Karow said that Mr. Palmos stated that upon approval, "next" December construction would be completed. Commissioner Evans stated that with the construction of this size (the project), it would take about 18 to 20 month for completion. He mentioned that upon completion of the site, the sign would have to stay in place upon a final CO (certificate of occupancy), as required by the building department. Commissioner Stanley asked when the sign would be installed. Mr. Ast said the property owners would like to install the sign as soon as possible. Chairperson Hunn stated that the sign was appropriate for the town. Mr. Harrison reiterated that this application was a sign variance based upon the sign code regulations. N. Commissioner Evans was concerned that the size of the construction, disruption of the site and location of the sign would include the Wal -mart area as part of the construction phase. He suggested moving the sign towards the north east corner of the lot. He expressed his concerns regarding the proposed sign location and the potential use of a "sales approach". Mr. Harrison said the Wal -mart sign was part of the project. Commissioner Railton asked if Wal-Mart owned the lot or if the Town of Avon owned the lot. (Tape inaudible, Mr. Harrision was speaking to softly). Commissioner Railton agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Evans. Commissioner Karow was concerned about Section B, number 1 of the staff report and asked what the practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship of the proposed 16 square feet sign would create. Mr. Harrison said that the size of the sign would be used for advertisement to express the full intent of the project. Commissioner Karow asked the applicant if the message on the sign would be conveyed more effectively if less information was proposed. He suggested that the sign have 1 (one) general phone number. Mr. Ast stated that the proposed sign depicts what the new building will contain. Chairperson Hunn asked staff to read the 3 (three) choices from item B of the staff report. Mr. Harrison complied. Steve Hodges clarified to the Commission that the sign codes for "development and real estate signs" were to remain on the site until the current project was occupied. Chairperson Hunn asked if the goals for the sign variance met all the standard procedures. Mr. Hodges said "yes". Motion Commissioner Railton moved to approve the Development Sign variance for Chapel Square as presented on the application dated February 25, 1997 based upon the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; 2. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: c) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Commissioner Fehlner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. E. Lot 1, Eaglewood Subdivision - Brookside PUD Project Type: Residential Condominium and Townhouse Development Property Owner: Frank Navarro, Riverview Park Associates, Inc. Applicant: William Armstead, Resort Concepts, LLC Consultant: Tab Bonidy, Vail Architecture Group Address: 37333 Hwy. 6/24 Karen Griffith made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. She used a site plan to explain the modifications to building B and C and the landscape plan. She further noted that there were some parking spaces for building B were short of the 8 (eight) foot width requirement. 9 Staff was concerned about the snow storage area and recommended to remove the spruce trees and haul the snow off site. Staff suggested adding to the recommendations "building mounted light fixtures shall have frosted glass". Ms. Griffith mentioned that the ridgeline elevations for building B was 63.5 feet and the trail width was currently at 8 (eight) feet which needs to be changed to 10 to 12 foot width. Commissioner Stanley asked staff if they were satisfied with the 11 % grade. Ms Griffith stated that she did not receive any comments for the town engineer at this time. Commissioner Karow asked if building A was included in the snow storage plan. Ms. Griffith stated that staff would have to look at the buildings B and C separately because of the Final Design Review. Ms. Griffith stated that the snow storage area was compact at this time and that staff would have to do an analysis on this. Tab Bonidy, Vail Architecture Group, stated he was ready to answer questions from the Commission and did not make a brief presentation. Commissioner Stanley asked if additional parking lights would be added to the other buildings and if building C would have its own dumpster. Mr. Bonidy said "yes" that additional pole lighting fixtures would be installed. Commissioner Railton asked if the light pole fixtures would be located by building C and suggested eliminating the light poles in front of the townhomes. Mr. Bonidy said "yes", there would be light pole fixtures the length of the parking lot to building C. Commissioner Stanley asked staff if the parking light issue should be reviewed separate from the Final Design Review. Ms. Griffith stated that the lighting plan could be located on sheet A1.2 in the Commission packets and agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Railton regarding the light poles in front of the townhomes. Ms. Griffith stated that there were 3 (three) light poles along the parking lot located in front of building B and that staff did not review at this as being too excessive. Chairperson Hurn asked the applicant if the lights poles where removed, would the wattage for each light fixtures be increased. Mr. Bonidy said "no", that the light fixtures would be located at the base of the garage and that adequate light for the entrance for the townhomes would come from the light poles along the parking lot. Ms. Griffith discussed the parking light standards and used the site plan to describe where the parking lights were located. Chairperson Hunn stated that there was a conflict regarding snow storage. Ms. Griffith said that technique there was a conflict for storing snow. Commissioner Railton suggested that the light poles not be installed along the parking lot due to the required snow storage, because the poles could be damaged from the snow. She used Hurd Lane as an example. 10 Commissioner Stanley asked the applicant if they were comfortable removing snow from the site. The applicant said "yes", that the property owner and Brookside Association have committed for the removal of snow. Commissioner Stanley asked if the dumpsters, located at building C, would be enclosed. Mr. Bonidy said "yes" and used the site plan to described the location of the enclosed trash dumpsters. Commissioner Railton asked the applicant if they has a design for the trash enclosures. The applicant said "yes" that the design would look similar to a single car garage with a steep roof, side access gate and wood siding. Commissioner Stanley was concerned that the ridgelines was 62.5 feet. Mr. Bonidy stated that this figure was calculated from the grade. Ms. Griffith said looking from the existing grade, the ridgeline was close to the maximum height. Commissioner Evans was concerned about snow removal, the gable roof for building C 1 and the ridgeline height. The applicant said that the required snow storage was 20% of the site. Ms. Griffith stated that staff has redefined the language for the snow storage condition. Eric Johnson presented a 11 x 17 drawings to the Commission and explained the modification of the hipped roof to a gable roof on building C I. Commissioner Evans confirmed the right side of building 1 would be gabled and building 3 would be hipped gabled. The applicants stated that was their preference for the modification request. Commissioner Railton was concerned about the west elevation on building 4. Mr. Johnson stated that the floor plans were rotated 90 degrees, the garages were similar to builds 1, 2, and 3, and that there were "low and high" gables added to keep the building unique in design. Commissioner Schneider was concerned about the height of building B and if an improvement location certificate (ILC) would be required prior to the building permit. Ms. Griffith said the ILC could be made part of the conditions upon issuance of the building permit. Ms. Griffith clarified that building B was under the 65 foot building height limitations. Commissioner Karow asked the applicant if they agreed with the 7 (seven) conditions recommended by staff. The applicants said "yes". Commissioner Railton disagreed with the hipped roof on building 3 and asked if stone would be added with the stucco siding for building C. The applicant said there would be a stone treatment located at the center garages and the base of the columns would be stucco. Mr. Johnson replied that there would be 2 (two) colors for the windows located on building C, alternating with buildings 1 and 3 as maroon and buildings 3 and 4 as beige. Building B's ground roof will be metal and dark red in color to match building A. All of the accent metal will be the same deep red. Commissioner Railton was concerned about the window colors for building C. 11 Mr. Bonidy said the stain for the facia trim and siding will have a slight variation from the field color. (See the color board sample display). The colors for the stucco were sand and putty. The roof will be a black toned color. Commissioner Railton was concerned about the beige windows. She stating that the colors were too bland. She used Canyon Run as an example. Chairperson Hunn asked what color the windows were for building B. Mr. Bonidy said a deep red color. Chairperson Hunn was concerned about the mobility with the trash trucks and the location of the trash bins. Mr. Bonidy said the trash trucks would have to nose in first, then backup to the trash bins. The dumpsters were located between buildings 2 and 3. Ms. Griffith used a site plan to describe where the dumpsters would be located and the turning radius in the parking lot. Chairperson Hunn suggested that the trash trucks backup up to building C 1. He asked the applicant if the trash truck could make the radius to exit or would they have to backup to building B. The applicant could not stated what the radius to the curb was at building C 1. Ms. Griffith felt that the trash trucks could made the turn. The applicant stated that the trash bins were shown on the site plan at an angle in order to maximize the landscaping around 3 (three) side of the bins. Commissioner Railton was concerned that the trash truck would not put the dumpsters all the back inside the enclosures, causing the trash to collect behind the dumpsters. Chairperson Hunn stated that this would be a management solution. Chairperson Hunn suggested that the meters on be painted to match the buildings and stated the he was concerned about the curb and gutters to the south side of the road and recommended that the curb and gutter system be added to site to protect the landscaping. Chairperson Hunn stated that signage was not discussed during this meeting and asked the applicants if they were going to do a presentation on this. Coordination for the sign will take place between the applicants and Frank Navarro. There will one sign for the entire project, no further discussion has taken place at this time. Ms. Griffith recommended to the Commission that the lighting issues be added as a formal condition. Bill Armstead, Resort Concepts, LLC., announced to the Commission and staff, that due to the contract and closure of the land, Frank Navarro requested to table the second reading for the PUD. Ms. Griffith stated that she would need a letter from Mr. Navarro requesting to table the PUD. Mr. Griffith stated that the new subdivision plat has not been submitted to staff at this time. Mike Matzko asked how the PUD was reconciled with the subdivision plat. Ms. Griffith said the PUD was drafted by staff requiring that a revised subdivision plat be submitted prior to recording. 12 Mr. Armstead stated that the owner was conducting some minor modifications of the subdivision to correspond with the existing PUD. Chairperson Hunn commended the applicants for working with staff during the PUD process. Motion Commissioner Railton moved to approve final design for Lot 1, Eaglewood Subdivision - Brookside PUD, Buildings B and C, subject to the following conditions: 1. Snow storage is allowed only in areas so designated on the PUD Development Plan and Final Design Review Plan sheets ALL, A1.2 and A1.3. Excess snow shall be hauled off site in accordance with Section 17.50.100 of the Avon Municipal Code. 2. The compact parking spaces shall be revised to meet minimum dimensions of eight feet in width. 3. Roof details be full gabled for Building C1, full hipped gabled for Building C2 and Dutch hipped gabled for Building C3. 4. The trail be changed to meet Town Standards and conform to the subdivision plans. Final alignment of the trail shall be approved by staff in conjunction with the final subdivision review and building permit application. 5. Final grading and Engineering Design including the piping of the irrigation ditch and commitments for phasing of improvements be approved by staff. 6. The Final Design Review is conditioned upon a revised final plat being submitted and approved by the Town prior to issuance of building permit. 7. Ridgeline elevations be provided on plan set A1.2 to document that no building exceeds the maximum height allowed by the PUD. 8. All building mounted light fixtures shall have a frosted or seeded glass. 9. Windows on buildings C1, C2, C3, and C4 be maroon color. 10. Ridgeline ILC be obtained at time of construction. 11. Eliminate the pole lights west of the trash enclosures. Commissioner Schneider seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Fehlner abstaining. Public Hearing None Scheduled Other Business Karen presented some literature regarding the Rocky Mountain Land Use Conference. Beth Stanley will be going to the San Diego conference in place of Chairperson Hunn. Mike Matzko mentioned the color changes for the Greenbrier project and presented a color board to the Commission. He said the owners were requesting the change the proposed stucco color to a neutral color. Chairperson Hunn mentioned the discussion between the Town Council, requesting that the Town of Avon receives project approval from the Commission. The following projects 13 mentioned were the round abouts, subdivision reviews and Swift Gulch. Mr. Matzko said he would look into this. Chairperson Hunn also asked about the remodel of the municipal building. Mr. Matzko stated he will strongly suggest that this remodel and landscaping go before the Commission. Discussion followed regarding living in a motor home. Mr. Hodges stated that the motor home was not occupied at this time. Discussion and concerns followed regarding Lot 7, Block 4, Wildridge, propane gas and tap fees paid to the Town of Avon. Discussion following regarding parking issues on the Old Trail Road, to many vehicles are parked. Mr. Hodges said he would look into this. Mr. Hodges was asked to call Nedbo Construction regarding trash on the site. Application received today from Saddleridge Townhomes to paint the vinyl siding. Discussion following regarding the odor and heath concerns in Avon. Continuation of the Consent Agenda A. Approval of the February 4, 1997 and the February 18, 1997 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Discussion followed regarding the clarification of the February 4, 1997 and February 18, 1997 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting minutes. The following changes were requested by the Commission and were as followed: February 18, 1997 1. Other Business: page 6, number 5; change name from Commissioner Karow to Commissioner Evans. 2. Other Business: page 6, number 8; change name from Commissioner Evans to Commissioner Karow. February 4, 1997 1. Final Design Review: page 4, Lot 77, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision - The Orchard, change fire wall to egress windows. 2. Final Design Review: page 2, Lot 32, Blk 1, Wildridge Subdivision -Sunrise Sunset Duplex add and/or revise the following comments: a) Insert: the initial site of the duplex was placed in such a manner as to be in conflict with the natural topography, i.e. the two wings of the building were placed perpendicular to the grades resulting in extensive site modification. b) Insert: the revised site plan. c) Insert: the approaching 80% of the lot. d) Discussion: regarding the proposed materials and specifically the roof material, siding and stucco. Applicant stated field applied synthetic stucco, texture asphalt roof. e) Discussion: regarding the landscaping plans and the applicants willingness to add trees to mitigate impacts of grading perceived height as viewed from the downhill side of the project. 14 f) Insert: applicant expressed a willingness to revise the proposed colors. g) Insert: the model was used to explain and describe staffs 3 (three) concerns. There were as followed: (1) Caution that the revised site plan has not been approved by the town engineer. (2) Efforts made to mitigate this design choice were indicative to the initial comments made by staff, with extensive steps taken to make this project work with the site as opposed to the structure responding to the site. (3) The vantage point below this project looking up was the way this project was going to be viewed predominately, not straight on, but at an angle. h) Insert to John Dunham's discussion; applicable zoning criteria. i) Insert to Chairperson Hunn's discussion: that while the proposed project was in compliance with staffs opinion. j) Insert: Relative tot he Planning & Zoning Review criteria. k) Insert: staff reiterated their recommendation for denial. 1) Correct the first motion to include staffs conditions. The motion was as followed: Motion Commissioner Karow moved to approve the Final Design for Lot 32, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision as presented by the plans dated January 21, 1997, with the following conditions: 1. The grading plans be approved by the town engineer. 2. The grading be modified below the deck posts. 3. The landscape be added to the end of the 2 (two) units. 4. All flues, flashing, galvanized metals be painted to match the surrounding materials. Commissioner Railton seconded the motion. The motion failed with 5 (five) votes to 2 (two) votes. Motion Commissioner Fehlner moved to approve the Continuation of the Consent Agenda with the modifications as stated above for the February 4, 1997 and the February 18, 1997 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Stanley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Adjourn Chairperson Hunn made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Commissioner Karow and the meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Donnellon Recording Secretary 15 J. Hunn C. Evan: A. Fehlr i R_ Railton M Schneic B. Stanley -- 16