Loading...
PZC Minutes 071800Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting July 18, 2000 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Fehlner. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Final Design Review Item A, Lot 9, Block 3, Wildridge was moved to the Consent Agenda. III. Conflicts of Interest None V. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the June 20, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes B. Final Design Review Lot 9, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: Duplex Applicant: Patrick Hubbell, Summit Studio Owner: George Plavec Address: 5010 Wildridge Road E. Commissioner Karow moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items A & B, Commissioner Klein seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Sipes abstaining on Item A, approval of the Meeting Minutes, due to the fact that he was absent at the June 2 0th meeting. VI. Final Design Review A. Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Project Type: Minor Project — Wind Screen Applicant: Vista Brasserie Owner: Gary Borris Address: 48 East Beaver Creek Boulevard Staff presentation was given by Planner, Tambi Katieb. He stated this is a minor project to construct a windbreak shelter attached to the outside of the restaurant, on the southwest side adjacent to the small patio seating area between the restaurant and the parking lot. The proposed windbreak will be constructed of plexi -glass and wood framing approximately 9' high and 15' long, stabilized by concrete support posts installed 3' -4' into the ground. The windbreak will have additional metal supports at grade. Staff recommendation is for denial based upon the aesthetics and the design. Applicant, Gary Borris, stated twith the landscaping that would be accompanying the windscreen structure may allow the windbreak to be removed in two to three years. The windbreak is proposed to match the existing structure in color and materials. He didn't know where they missed what was esthetically acceptable for this project. This patio would add something nice to the Town for guests to have dinner outside. It would enable us to serve outside on a full time basis even when the wind kicks up. Commissioner Karow commented the recommended motion for denial is based on Design Criteria numbers 6, 7 and 8. He did not feel the application meets those criteria. If you wanted to add 7' -15' evergreen trees as a natural windbreak, he would be in favor of that. The proposed structure is not appropriate for the location. Commissioner Head agreed the evergreen trees would work well and is not in favor of a structure. Commissioner Macik agreed. He stated there are temporary windbreaks that may be used during the dining hours; but he prefers landscaping. Commissioner Sipes commented he was not in favor of a temporary type windscreen as a solution. This does not meet criteria 3, 6, 7 and 8. He is especially concerned with the plexi -glass construction. Landscaping is the best solution that has been discussed so far. However, he is in favor of outdoor space for dining in mid -town. He will support Staffs recommendation for denial. Commissioner Klein stated that the weathering of the plexi -glass and wear on it would be a problem. He prefers a natural windscreen of trees. Minutes of P &Z Meeting July 18, 2000 Chairman Evans commented that plexi -glass is not the quality of material we are looking for. It will weather and scratch. He is in favor of a natural windbreak, landscaping solution. Evergreen trees would provide an adequate windbreak for diners. Mr. Borris responded that he knows the plexi -glass will wear and is being proposed because of monetary constraints. It would be replaced with tempered glass when the money becomes available. The landscaping would also be a part of the solution. The plexi -glass would be replaced within two years, or less. Commissioner Sipes responded that the windbreak is a protrusion that is out of context. We need to set a precedent for the Town of Avon. Commissioner Macik moved to recommend denial of the windbreak shelter at the Vista Brasserie, Lot 20, Benchmark Plaza. Commissioner Sipes seconded the motion. Commissioner Macik amended the motion to state that denial is based upon Design Review Criteria 3, 6, 7 and 8. Commissioner Sipes seconded the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously. VII. Fence Applications A. Lot 22, Block 4, Wildridge Project Type: Split Rail Fence Address: 5588 Coyote Ridge Owner: Ruth Gosiewski Lot 22, Block 2, Wildridge should read Lot 22, Block 4 and has been changed accordingly. Staff presentation was made by Ruth Borne, Assistant Director Community Development. In response to P and Z's request on June 20, Staff has outlined the background on fences in Wildridge. Attached to the Staff memo are the covenants and existing guidelines which govern fences. It recommends wood fences be functional or decorative and integral to a building. Information provided by the Division of Wildlife requires split rail fences not exceed 42" in height and have an opening in the lower half of at least 16 ". Also outlined are the Design Criteria for fence applications. Staff has a concern that the fence proposed for Lot 22, Block 4, Wildridge does not begin or end anywhere. It is primarily designed to delineate a property boundary and ends in Forest Service property. The adjacent owner is here to express his concerns. Applicant was not in attendance. Neighbor, Mr. Konr Beetch, from the adjacent lot passed out a copy of a letter to the Commissioners and Staff outlining his concerns with the application. The letter was signed by himself and Suzanne NaDal. He also showed several photos he had taken of Lot 22, Block 4. Minutes of P &Z Meeting July 18, 2000 Chairman Evans commented on the letter's content saying that wildlife effects are a concern. The access easement agreement would be between you and your neighbor and not something the Commission would enforce. He would also like to ask the applicant, why the fence is necessary. Commissioner Karow stated he supports Staff recommendation for denial based upon the requirement that fences or walls may be approved as an integral part of a building design. This application does not meet those criteria. He will vote to deny this. Commissioner Klein agreed. Commissioner Sipes agreed that he saw no reason for the fence. Chairman Evans said he saw no reason for the fence either. He commented that a split rail fence should either blend into a landscaping plan or is integral to a building. This application does neither. Commissioner Sipes commented that the fence seems to be reinforcing the property boundary and the idea in Wildridge is the opposite — you should not be able to discern where property boundaries exist. This application runs counter to that concept. Commissioner Klein moved to deny the fence application for Lot 22, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision. Commissioner Sipes seconded it. There was no discussion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Lot 46A, Block 1, Wildridge Project Type: Split Rail and Privacy Fence Address: 2410 Saddleridge Loop Owner: Gil Fancher The applicant was not present. Commissioner Karow stated this application fails to meet Planning and Zoning Commission Procedures Rules and Regulations on page 7, Fences and Signs, Item 1: Fences, walls, or similar type barriers shall have separate approval of the Commission, except that functional or decorative fences or walls may be approved as an integral part of a building design; which this is not. Commissioner Sipes saw no reason to approve this fence in this location given the numerous fences already in the immediate vicinity. This would just exacerbate the situation. Commissioner Macik said he is not in favor of the back privacy fence. He would be in favor of a limited split rail fence, but not the one shown. Chairman Evans agreed with Commissioner Macik. Something more limited along the side and back yard might be acceptable, but not of the scope that is being proposed. A privacy fence along the back property line is not supported by the design criteria. 4 Minutes of PU Meeting July 18, 2000 Commissioner Sipes said that since this is part of the record, he would add that should a split rail fence be used, with respect to the wildlife recommendations, the area below 16" from the ground cannot be restricted. Ruth Borne asked for clarification. Should the applicant resubmit? Chairman Evans said the applicant may revise the application and resubmit. Commissioner Karow moved to deny the fence application for Lot 46A, Block 1, Wildridge. Commissioner Macik seconded it. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously. VIII. Other Business A. Staff Approvals: There were no questions from the Commission. 1. Lot 10A, Block 2, BMBC 0610 W. Beaver Creek Blvd. — West Unit Increasing deck dimensions with trellis detail 2. Lot 17, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision 2909 June Creek Trail — Unit #1 Adding new windows and replacing exterior door 3. Lot 74, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 5491 Wildridge Road East Brill Residence Exterior color change IX. Adjourn Commissioner Sipes made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Macik and unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 6:30PM. Respectfully submitted, Cecelia Fenton Recording Secretary 5 Minutes of P &Z Meeting July 18, 2000 APPROVED: Augu,St 15, 2000 Chris Evans�� Chairman Andrew Karow Secretary Minutes of P &Z Meeting July 18, 2000