Loading...
PZC Minutes 041597Memorandum Date: May 6, 1997 To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council From: Linda Donnellon, Recording Secretary Re: Synopsis of the April 15, 1997 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Regular Meeting The Regular Meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jack Hunn at 5:49 p.m., April 15, 1997 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, CO 81620 Members Present Jack Hunn Chris Evans Anne Fehlner Andrew Karow Sue Railton Michael Schneider Beth Stanley Agenda Call to Order Roll Call Staff Present Linda Donnellon, Recording Secretary Karen Griffith, Town Planner George Harrison, Planner Mike Matzko, Community Development Director All members present with Commissioner Karow as acting Vice Chairperson. Chairperson Hunn arrived at 6:28 p.m. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Karen Griffith requested to add Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision to the Consent Agenda. Ms. Griffith requested that Item A, (April 1, 1997 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes), of the Consent Agenda be tabled to the May 6, 1997 meeting. Ms. Griffith requested that Item C, (Lot 7, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision), of the Consent Agenda be moved as the first item for Final Design Review. Ms. Griffith requested that Item C, (Lot A, Block 2, Avon Center at Beaver Creek), of the Final Design Review be tabled to a later date. Ms. Griffith announced a correction for Item B, (Lot 80, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision), of the Final Design Review. She stated the address was 2465 Draw Spur, not Old Trail Road. j: \p&z\minutes\1997\041597a. doc Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Schneider stated he had a Conflict of Interest for Lot 13, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision of the Consent Agenda. Vice Chairperson Karow stated he had a Conflict of Interest for Item E of the Final Design Review and Item A of the Public Hearing. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the April 1, 1997, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes B. Lot 1, Brookside Park, Modification Project Type: Modification of parking lot, breezeway connection and approval of plant locations Property Owner: Riverview Park Associates Address: 37333 Highways 6 and 24 C. Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: Stone addition to the building Property Owner: Michael J. Schneider Applicant: Michael J. Schneider Address: 5690 Wildridge Road, East Motion Commissioner Railton moved to approve of the Consent Agenda with the requested additions and amendments to the Agenda. Commissioner Evans seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Schneider abstaining and Chairperson Hunn absent. Final Design Review A. Lot 7, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Landscape Plan Modification Project Type: Landscape Plan Modification Property Owner: Kim Vulpe and Dianna Vanderveld Applicant: Kim Vulpe and Dianna Vanderveld Address: 5762 Wildridge Road Karen Griffith made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Griffith used the site plan to describe the proposed landscape plan modifications to the Commission. Mr. Reid Vulpe applicant, said there was a slight misunderstanding from the April 1, 1997 meeting and wanted to clarify this before going back to Michigan. Mr. Vulpe asked staff if the site plan used at the meeting was the same site plan submitted two weeks ago. Ms. Griffith said "yes" that she has not received the revised site plan at this time. 2 Mr. Vulpe discussed the following: deciduous shrubs instead of deciduous trees, suggestions made by his landscape architect regarding the size and caliper of the trees, concerns regarding agreement and discussion from the Commission and staff regarding the shrubs and trees. He asked the Commission for direction. Commissioner Railton suggested that the height for the trees could be staggered, six (6) feet, eight (8) feet and 10 feet. Mr. Vulpe was concerned that this discussion did not take place during the April 1, 1997 meeting regarding the different height of the trees. Commissioner Railton stated that she remembered this discussion from April 1, 1997 meeting but did not remember the discussion regarding the four (4) foot minimum tree size. Mr. Vuple stated that his landscape architect recommended the different height for the trees, up to 10 feet tall. Ms. Griffith stated that staff had listened to the tape which indicated that the motion approval contained the recommended staff conditions and the amended condition adding deciduous shrubs. Mr. Vulpe asked Commission to accept his proposal approving the original site plan presented to the board at the April 1, 1997 meeting with the addition of the deciduous shrubs. Mike Matzko mentioned that this discussion was not based upon the four (4) trees themselves, but the minimum height requirements shall meet the planing height of six (6) feet or greater. Commissioner Schneider said he agreed with the staff recommendations. Commissioner Stanley said that she recalled the motion from the April 1, 1997 meeting stating that the minimum height for the trees were to be six (6) feet in height and that the applicant could use deciduous shrubs instead of trees. Mr. Vuple said the cost of trees were rising 80% and this was becoming a hardship for him. He asked the Commission for a Variance regarding policy for the minimum tree height requirements. Ms. Griffith used a site plan to describe the location of the trees on the property. She said there were three (3) pinions, two (2) juniper trees that did not met the six (6) foot planting height requirements. Commissioner Evans said that he would support the present landscaping plan as presented at the meeting. Commissioner Fehlner asked staff about the minimum amount of trees required for the landscape plan. Ms. Griffith said that this was verbally discussed during the pre -application time with the applicant. Commissioner Fehlner said she agreed that there was a misunderstanding between Commission, staff and the applicant. She said that she agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Evans. Mr. Vulpe expressed his concerns regarding the staff memo and staff recommended motion. He expressed his concerns regarding the motion made by the Commission during the April 1, 1997 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Railton suggested keeping the four (4) trees instead of eliminating five (5) trees. 3 Mr. Matzko summarized the pre -application review that took place between staff and the applicant. He said he understood the conversation that the four (4) foot trees were to be increased to a minimum of six (6) foot trees. It was staffs intent to eliminate the four (4) trees. Vice Chairperson Karow said that according to the draft April 1, 1997 minutes, the Commission made a motion approving the staff recommendations with the addition of deciduous shrubs. Ms. Griffith asked the Commission to review this application as a landscape modification not as a new landscape plan. The applicant disagreed with staff recommendations regarding the 6 (six) foot trees. He suggested that the 6 (six) foot trees should be reduced to 4 (four) foot trees. Dennis Vanderveld, adjacent property owner, expressed his concerns regarding the cost of the trees. He said that the Commission was "enforcing" the amount of money and landscaping cost to the property owners. Vice Chairperson Karow said that Commission was evaluating the landscape plan as submitted. Commissioner Stanley asked staff if this project should be denied and asked if the applicant should work with staff regarding the landscape plan. Ms. Griffith said she did not want to prolong this project by having this application denied. Ms. Griffith stated that there was a misunderstanding between staff and the applicants regarding the recommended motion. Commissioner Fehlner disagreed with the comments made by Mr. Vuple stating there was not an objection made regarding staff recommended motion. Motion Commissioner Schneider moved to approve Lot 7, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Landscape Plan modification as depicted on plan sets dated received 4-9-97 with the following conditions: 1. All evergreen trees proposed on the revised landscape plan shall met the standard Planning and Zoning Commission policy for minimum planting heights of 6 (six) feet. 2. The 5 (five) gallon Rocky Mountain Junipers will be considered as shrubs. Commissioner Stanley seconded the motion. The motion passed with Commissioner Evans opposing and Chairperson Hunn absent. B. Lot 77, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Cuny\Shelde Duplex Project Type: Residential Duplex Property Owner/Applicant: Rick Cuny Consultant: Peter May, Habitat Post & Beam Address: 5685 E. Wildridge Road George Harrison made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. He presented a revised "recommended motion" with conditions to the Commission. The motion was updated to reflect the new conditions. Commissioner Karow asked about condition number 6 of the recommended motion. Mr. Harrison said this was a new condition, added as the request from the Community Service Officer to help enforce the provisions in keeping the roads cleaned during the construction process. Commissioner Railton said the applicants has met all the required changes and made no further comments. Commissioner Karow said this project has met all the Town's Criteria's. Commissioner Schneider said if the disturbed areas would be naturally seeded. Mr. Cuny said "yes". Commissioner Stanley asked the applicant if he agreed with staff recommendations. Mr. Cuny said "yes". Commissioner Evans said this project met all the Town's Criteria's. Commissioner Fehlner said she agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Evans. Chairperson Hunn commented on the spotlight on the east and west elevations of the duplex. Mr. Cuny said they were going to use a "canister spots" as a lighting fixture which shots the light up and down instead of outward. Chairperson Hunn commended the applicant for all the changes that were made and stated he was comfortable with the project. Motion Commissioner Karow moved to approve Lot 77, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision as presented on the plans dated received April 9, 1997 with the following conditions: 1. All flues, flashing and galvanized metal will be painted to match surrounding materials. 2. All meters will be placed upon the building and painted to match surrounding materials. 3. Automatic irrigation system will be installed. 4. Final details of the site grading plan be approved by Town staff. 5. During construction the first 20 feet of the drive will have at least 2 inches of 3/4" rock.. Commissioner Schneider seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Lot 80, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Elk Run Townhomes Project Type: Residential -four plex Property Owner: Dave Lach/AG Development Applicant: Dave Lach Architect: Ray Story Address: 2465 Draw Spur Karen Griffith made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. She discussed the (4) four recommended conditions. Ray Story, Architect, made a brief presentation regarding the project sign and landscaping plan to the Commission. He asked the Commission for direction. Ray Story presented a color board to the Commission. Commissioner Fehlner said the project met all the Design Review Criterias and that the mirror image concerns have been mitigated. She was concerned about the snow storage area and suggested a gutter system about the garage doors on the south side elevation. Commissioner Evans asked about the retaining area on the north west driveway. He suggested additional landscaping for this area to help screen the driveway. Commissioner Stanley was concerned about the 4 (four) dormers on the east elevation roof line. Discussion followed between the applicant and Commissioner Stanley (tape inaudible). Commissioner Schneider said the project met all the Design Review Criterias. He asked the applicant to explain "stucco siding". Mr. Story said this product was an exterior form insulation, installed in panels. Commissioner Schneider asked staff about the measurements and the proposed grading. Ms. Griffith clarified the first floor elevation was below the ridgeline height from the roof. The height of the building from grade was 34 feet. Commissioner Karow said the project met all the Design Review Criterias. He asked Mr. Story if he agreed with staff recommendations regarding the landscape plan. He said "yes" that he would work with staff. Ms. Griffith said the east corner of the sign encroached into the easement. Mr. Story said he would move the sign. Ms. Griffith said this could be taken care of during the building permit application. Commissioner Railton said the project met all the Design Review Criterias and suggested additional landscaping along the north side of the driveway. Mr. Story said the driveway was asphalt lined with a rock border so that the asphalt would not deteriorate. Chairperson Hunn said the project met all the Design Review Criterias and discussed the following items; trash removal strategy, the garage sizes, lighting for the entry sign, driveway grades, landscape plan with 5 gallon shrubbery's, 2 inch or grater calipers for the trees and a drip system. Mr. Story said that wildflowers would be planted around the banks of the property. He mentioned the utility easements would be planted with natural grasses and shrubs. Chairperson Hunn said to the applicant he would asked the Commission to vote on whether they wanted the elements to become more repetitive. All Commission voted "yes". Commissioner Evans stated for the recorder "that it was not so much that repetitions was encouraged, however, the small changes do make a minute difference between units which makes them stand out more as a gratuitous variations" and recommended that the units were kept similar to each other. Motion Commissioner Karow moved to approve final design of residential four plex and project identification sign proposed on Lot 80, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision as described on plan sets dated 4-7-97 with the following conditions: 1. Several trees be re -located northwest of the parking area to screen the driveway and parking area and additional shrubs be added to the area. 2. Documentation be provided on the plans submitted for Building Permit that the structure does not exceed 35 feet in height. 3. An improvement location survey will be required at the time of completion of the framing to document the structure does not exceed 35 feet in height. 4. The sign be moved outside the 10' easement and sign setback and a landscape planter be added around the base of the sign. 5. During construction the first 20 feet of the drive will have at least 2 inches of 3/4" rock. 191 Commissioner Railton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Lot A, Block 2, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Project Type: Removal of stairways Property Owner: Avon Center at Beaver Creek I Homeowners Association Applicant: Town of Avon Address: 0100 West Beaver Creek Boulevard Karen Griffith stated that the applicant requested that have this application tabled for a later date. E. Lot 32, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision - Sunrise Sunset Duplex Project Type: Residential Duplex Property Owner: John Dunham Applicant: John Perkins, AIA Property Address: 2180 Long Spur Address: 0288 West Beaver Creek Boulevard Mike Matzko made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff memorandum, dated April 1, 1997. He updated the Commission regarding the history and the revised application and briefly summarized the staff memorandum regarding the following elements; the "introduction", the "legislative history", the "discussion", the "staff recommendations" and the "recommended motion". The following changes were noted from the last plan sets submitted; building elevation increased at the ridge by one (1) foot, building height increased 1 1/2 to 3 feet at the proposed finish grade. Staff recommended that this project be denied based upon non compatibility with the site, visual appearance, dissimilar to other buildings in the vicinity and conformity to the site topography. Commissioner Stanley asked if the driveway issues were resolved. Mr. Matzko said that the driveway does not met the adopted policy regarding the first 20 feet meeting the 4% grade. He explained that unit A (west side) had a 10% grade complying with a 5 (five) foot radius, which was considered to be a design issue not a grading issue. Roger Landing spoke on behalf for John Perkins and responded to staffs presentation. He said that the applicant would comply with the concerns made by the Commission and staff. Mr. Landing said that additional landscaping and irrigation were placed along the driveway. Mr. Landing addressed the following concerns; the building aliment parallel to the street, stating that the building was located in a culdesac and did not need to be parallel to the street. The building size was the same size as the neighboring builds and not nearly as wide. John Perkins said that it was his understanding that the Town Council recommended the applicant to return for Planning and Zoning approval, to address the technical issues that were not resolved from the last Planning and Zoning meeting. The following issues were; sub plans, driveway, landscaping and colors. The applicant felt that all the issues were addressed. The Town Engineer has signed off on the site plan regarding the landscaping. Mr. Matzko clarified that the Town Council did not remand this application for technical issues, that the Town Council remanded this application to review the revised design. 7 Chairperson Hunn pointed out, that as the overturning of the Commissions discussions stood, there were lose ends, general areas that were unresolved. He also agreed that the Town Council was very clear that the Resolution was only for the 4 (four) items discussed. The response was "no", the entire project was to be reviewed based on the revised design. He said he also agreed with staffs interpretations. Mr. Perkins said that was fine, and said that the building height was lowered by 1 (one) foot with the roof line staying the same and said those were the changes made for the project. Mr. Matzko said that the staff report and comments were prepared based upon the plan sets the Commission ruled upon, dated February 4, 1997 and the revised plan sets presented at this meeting, dated April 4, 1997. Chairperson Hunn asked staff if there was a "complete application". Mr. Matzko said "yes". He then asked if staff if they were clear on the "version of the drawings" that constitutes a "complete application". Mr. Matzko said "yes". Mr. Matzko said the application was clearly based upon the plan sets and the staff report, dated "Received April 4, 1997". Chairperson Hunn said "okay". Mr. Perkins said he agreed as well. Mr. Matzko noted that the height of the building decreased by 1 (one) foot when actually the height increased by 1 (one) foot, because from the denied plan sets dated January 21, 1997. The ridge line elevation was increased and the point of which the structure meets the grade was also increased. Chairperson Hunn said he had reviewed and compared the plans from the previous set and that his interpretations were as followed; in order for the driveway grades to comply with the Towns standards, the entire building was raised 2 (two) feet, then the height of the building was compressed by 1 (one) foot making the ridge line rise 1 (one) foot in elevation, the measured height of the building did not change because of the increase amount of regrading up to the new finished floor opening. He asked the applicant of this was a fair statement. Mr. Perkins said this was a fair statement for only 1 (one) garage bay and that the A unit did rise from grade. Chairperson Hunn said he was comparing the existing grade to the finished floor on both versions of the site plans and that this information was available from the elevations. It appeared that the entire building was raised 2 (two) feet from the floor elevations in order for the driveway grades to work. Mr. Matzko stated for the recorder that staff did not review the most recent site plan and that Commission did not have the "review" from staff regarding this plan and that the plans were never submitted or reviewed. Chairperson Hunn clarified that he was comparing the January 21, 1997 plan set to the April 4, 1997 plan set that the building was raised 2 (two) feet. He said the Commission was concerned with the relationship of the building mass and the existing topography. Mr. Perkins said he disagreed with that comment. Chairperson Hunn said the driveway grades with the current site plans do not met the Towns standards relative to the 4% grade in the first 20 feet of the driveway. The applicants proposal was the 4% grade in the first 10 feet of the driveway. Mr. Perkins said this was not a standard but a recommendation. Commissioner Railton was concerned about the height of the north elevation of the building. Commissioner Schneider stated that he agreed with the staff recommendations and Design Review Considerations #4, #5, #6 and #7 and was concerned about the site disturbance. Commissioner Stanley was concerned about the views from the lower elevations of the site. The project appears to conform with 3 (three) of the 7 (seven) Design Review Guidelines. She suggested that the light fixtures be change to reflect the light downward. Commissioner Evans discussed Design Review Consideration criteria #4 and #5 and stated that there was about 90% site disturbance, the building height was exaggerated due to the narrowness of the "wings" that were proposed and the driveway does not met the Town standards regarding the percentage and the grades. Commissioner Fehlner discussed Design Review Consideration #4 and stated that the property was not compatible with the site because of the 90% site disturbance and does not met the Towns recommendations. Mr. Perkins said that the site for the building was small, thus resulting to the 90% site disturbance. Commissioner Fehlner said that the applicant was within the Towns criteria for site coverage. Further discussion followed with "what constitutes the amount of site coverage and site disturbance". Mr. Perkins presented a color and material sample board to the Commission. The building material would be stucco, wood siding and natural wood. Chairperson Hunn asked the applicant to describe the landscaping materials. Mr. Perkins explained the landscaping materials the Chairperson Hunn. (Tape inaudible - Mr. Perkins was not speaking by the microphone). Chairperson Hunn summarized the following issues; raising the building 2 feet on the site, the driveway grading, the sized of the building to the size of the lot was 131.5 feet long, objective Criterias from the Design Review process. Mr. Perkins said the Town Engineer approved the site plans. Chairperson Hunn said that the Town Engineer did not have any comments and asked staff if this constituted approval for the plans. Mr. Matzko said that the Town Engineer does not approve site plans, all staff ask from the Town Engineer was to raise any important issues or problems on the plans. Mr. Perkins said there were no problems with the plans. Mr. Matzko said that was correct. He reminded the applicant that this was a design issue primarily. Commissioner Railton asked for clarification regarding the bedroom windows from north elevation. Mr. Perkins used the site plans to explain the windows to Commissioner Railton. (Tape was inaudible. Mr. Perkins was not speaking into the microphone). Motion Commissioner Schneider moved to deny Lot 32, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision based on the plans stamped April 4, 1997, based upon its failure to comply with Design Review Considerations #4, #5, #6 and #7. Commissioner Evans seconded the motion. The motion 9 passed 5 (five) votes to 1 (one) with Commissioner Railton opposing and Commissioner Karow abstaining. Public Hearing A. Lot 11, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision - Avon Auto Body Expansion Project Type: Expansion of special review use (auto body mechanical repair) Property Owner: Louis Mederios Applicant: Louis Medeiros Consultant: John Perkins Address: 451 Metcalf Road Note: the application was tabled at the April 1, 1997 meeting. Public Hearing Karen Griffith made a brief presentation as outlined in the staff report. Staff was concerned about the grading plan to the site topography. Ms. Griffith used a site plan to describe the proposed expansion of the auto repair shop. She said that the Town Engineer did not review the final grading plan and stated that any approval would be made at the staff level. Ms. Griffith presented a revised "recommended motion" with new conditions to the Commission. The motion was updated to reflect the new conditions. Chairperson Hunn asked staff what the "net effect" and "quantity" for the new addition and the current parking spaces would be. Ms. Griffith said the existing building was 6600 square feet with the required 2 (two) parking spaces per 1000, the new building was 8800 square feet with the required 2 (two) spaces per 1000 and that 16 additional parking spaces would be required for the new addition. Chairperson Hunn asked what would be required for the parking spaces, should the application be approved. Ms. Griffith said she was unable to locate the site plans from the previous approval and that from site observation, there would be a reduction in sparking spaces for that area. Chairperson Hunn discussed the snow storage area. Ms. Griffith said the applicant met the snow storage requirements for the "area" but not in the "functioning" part of said requirements. She used the site plan to described the designated snow storage area. Commissioner Railton was concerned about the snow storage area being located on top of the landscaped area located on the east side of the building.. Ms. Griffith said only a portion of the landscaped area would be used and said that north of the parking area and east of the building would be functional for snow storage. Staffs opinion was that east side of the fence would not be accessible for this use. Commissioner Schneider asked about the fence being next to the berm. Ms. Griffith said the fence should be on top of the berm and was located in the buildings 25 foot setback. and the parking lots 10 foot setback. Commissioner Stanley asked if the applicant had a Special Use Permit. Ms. Griffith said "yes". 10 Commissioner Stanley asked staff if it was an option for the applicant to store the vehicles outside. Ms. Griffith said that outside parking was allowed as long as it was screened. Commissioner Railton asked if the driveway was located in the utility easement setback. Ms. Griffith said "no". However, the south side of the driveway had a "shared" access easement and does goes over the utility easement. Ms. Griffith stated that it was fairly common to have pavement on a utility easement. It would be the owners responsibility to remove the pavement, should utility work needs to be done. Chairperson Hunn asked staff if they new of any conditions that existed, regarding the original approval of this type for this site. Ms. Griffith said "no". Louis Medeiros, owner and applicant, responed to staffs comments. He said that he had 32 designated parking spaces on his lot. Chairperson Hunn said he was trying to determine who many vehicles were parked on the lot per day. Mr. Medeiros said the designated parking spaces were less now than previously approved. Mr. Medeiros addressed the following issues; snow storage, the berm, the landscaping. The applicants used Commissioner Railton's 11x17 site plan to describe the above issues. Roger Landing, Architect, presented the Mr. Medeiros and addressed the following issues; the snow storage area and landscaping. John Perkins, Consultant, addressed the following issues; parking spaces, the new building, view corridors from the road, the berm and landscaping. Ms. Griffith said she calculated the required snow storage area from the eastern property line area was 40% availability. She said the applicant was committed to hauling the snow off the site. Mr. Perkins said the applicant had over 800 square feet over the required snow storage area. He suggested lowering the berm to add additional snow storage area. Chairperson Hunn opened Public Hearing. Dave Svabik, owner of Beaver Creek Auto, addressed the following issues; shared parking lot, agreed with the new building and the 11 additional parking space, lighting and turning radius. Mr. Medeiros discussed the turning radius and 27.5 foot bobtail trailers. The joint parking lots would be a big benefit for the trailers to turn around in. Commissioner Railton asked for clarification regarding the stairways located on the east elevation of the building. Both Mr. Landing and Mr. Medeiros used the site plan to explain the stairways. Commissioner Railton suggested that the old building be painted to match the new building and that the applicant work with the customers regarding parking at the shop. Commissioner Schneider was concerned about the snow storage area. Mr. Mederios said he would have a bobcat on site at all times to remove the snow, should snow fall. Commissioner Schneider asked about the tires piled up by the berm. Mr. Mederios said the tires were stored there temporarily. Commissioner Stanley was concerned about the parking spaces for the customers. Mr. Mederios said that he does charge a storage fee for cars that have been sitting on the lot for awhile. 11 Commissioner Evans said that he agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Stanley. He suggested no overnight parking for "visiting customers". Mr. Mederios said that he agreed not to have a damaged vehicles parked for a long length of time. Commissioner Evans asked the applicant if the light fixtures will be uniformed between the existing building and the proposed building. Mr. Mederios said he would make sure that the lighting fixtures match both buildings. Commissioner Evans suggested to added addition landscaping to help block the view of the site. He suggested 8 (eight) foot tall trees would help with the screening of the site. Mr. Mederios said he would work with staff regarding this. Commissioner Evans commended David Svabik for the suggestions he made regarding the reduction of the berm on Metcalf Road. Commissioner Fehlner asked the applicant if he agreed with the recommended motion. Mr. Mederios said "yes". (No other comments were made). Chairperson Hunn said he was concerned about the parking space issues and agreed that there were 60 cars on the lot during the afternoon site tour.. Mr. Mederios responded by saying that during this time with the remodeling, additional cars (contractors, towing, ect.) were on the lot that were not normally there. Mr. Mederios said that 14 employees currently worked for the Avon Auto Body Shop, should this Special Review Use be approved, 3 (three) additional employees and 1 (one) more shift would be added to the schedule. Chairperson Hunn asked the applicant about the lighting fixtures and suggested. Mr. Mederios and Mr. Landing convened to the bench and used an 11x17 site plan to describe the concerns made by Chairperson Hunn. Chairperson Hunn briefly summarized the issues discussed at the meeting. They were; parking spaces, the berm, the landscaping, the lighting fixtures, the stairway, (which was approved by the Avon Fire Department), construction cost and time with the proposed building, snow storage area, consideration to heating a portion of the pavement (match Valley Wide's pavement). Staff noted the stairs on the east side of the building was 6 (six) feet tall. Motion Commissioner Railton moved to approve Lot 11, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision as described on the site plans dated 4-9-97 with the following conditions: 1. The plans be revised to maintain a berm on the eastern side of the property. 2. The cedar fence shall be a solid 4 foot cedar fence. 3. Final grading plan is subject to staff approval. 4. The parking aisle between parking space 26 and the proposed building shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 5. The junipers shall be a minimum size of a 5 gallon container. 6. No snow accumulation shall occur outside designed snow storage areas. Any excess snow shall be hauled off-site. 7. The southern most tree shall be replaced with shrubs that will not exceed 36 inches in height to preserve a sight distance area at the driveway. 12 8. The applicant shall provide a lighting cut sheet for the 12 foot parking lot standards and bring it back for Commission approval. 9. The applicant shall finish the retaining walls with stucco to match the proposed building. 10. The southern boundary of the snow storage area on the east side of the property will be even with the southernmost parking space. 11. Upgrade lighting on existing building to eliminate off site glare. 12. Repaint existing roof vents to match roof. 13. Paint existing building to new building. 14. Add landscaping to the north east corner to provide screening. 15. Eliminate soffit lighting. 16. Retaining walls in the setbacks shall be 4 (four) feet or less. 17. Customer parking to remain as customer parking. 18. Color and materials to be brought back for Commission approval. Commissioner Stanley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Karow abstaining. Other Business Discussion of subdividing multi -family lots Mike Matzko briefly summarized "subdividing multi -family lots". The previous discussion focused on subdividing multi -family lots into single family units, in some cases. changing a four plex lot into two duplexes. The following issues and concerns were mentioned. Changing a six-plex lot into a four-plex or smaller lot, site coverage and site disturbance, number of access points from the street, affordably of the units and cost of construction. Conditions, upon reviewing the proposed changing, were as followed; reviewing the application on a case by cased bases, allowing the division of the lots and reduction in the number of units of the lot. Mr. Matzko introduced Michael Hazard as owner of Lot 111, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. He said the Mr. Hazard was contemplating approaching the Town regarding subdividing a seven unit, multi -family lot into single family lots. Discussion followed between the Commission members. (Tape inaudible, to many people were talking at the same time). Mr. Harzard said he was not ready for a formal presentation at this time. He said he would probably be ready within two to three weeks, June 3, 1997. He said the lot was zoned for seven units and that he would be working with staff regarding the subdivision map and all the necessary requirements. Chairperson Hunn said that this would be a benefit for the subdivision in creating some flexibility relative to the multi -family lots zoned into duplex lots. However, he said he does not support changing a duplex lot into single lots. He said in order to accomplish this task, he suggested a reduction in density and create a number of units appropriate to the surrounding zoning. 13 Commissioner Railton said she agreed with the comments made by Chairperson Hunn. She said that another condition to add to this discussion should be "straight frontage". The consideration regrading lot sizes should be to review the lot as a whole without the buildings touching each other. Mr. Hazard said he agreed with the comments made by Chairperson Hunn. He said the different floor plans, scale, and materials should be related, so that there would be some type of individuality between the buildings. Further discussion followed. (Tape inaudible. Mr. Harzard was not speaking clearing into the microphone). Commissioner Evans said that the comments discussed should be reviewed as a site policy and be very specific. He addressed rezoning efforts and density of the parcel. Mr. Matzko mentioned the Design Review Guideline regarding the rezoning and valuation of the parcel. Mr. Matzko announced to the Commission that he had some information regarding the APA Planning Conference and that he would discussed this during the next Planning and Zoning meeting. With out further "Other Business", Chairperson Hunn asked for a motion to adjourn. Adjourn Commissioner Fehlner made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Commissioner Schneider and the meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Li Rf J. C. A. A. S. Railton JA4�� M Schneider B. Stanley '-R4,h 2 Z�JL�aL AA 14