Loading...
PZC Minutes 062000 (2)Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting June 20, 2000 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:28 PM. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Sipes. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Item A, Lot 111 D, Block 1, Wildridge was moved to the Consent Agenda. Item C, Lot 20, Block 2, Benchmark, Vista Brasserie Wind Screen Project, the applicant is deleting the item from the agenda in order to make revisions recommended by Staff. III. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Macik disclosed a conflict of interest with Final Design Review Item B, Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge. V. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes B. Lot 1111), Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: PUD - Single Family Residence Applicant: David Burns - Gies Architects Owner: Andy Hadley Address: 2013 Beaver Creek Point Final Design approval was granted with the following conditions: 1. Revise and resubmit a landscaping plan, which shows erosion control measures and indicates sprinkling on the property. 2. Submit address sign detail. 3. Submit revised grading plan with building permit plans for Lot 111 D and Lot 111 E indicating elevations of culvert inlets and outlets which correspond to grading plan. Commissioner Fehlner moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items A & B, Commissioner Karow seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Klein abstaining on Item A - approval of the Meeting Minutes. VI. Final Design Review A. Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: Four-Plex Applicant: TAB Associates Owner: Andy Schifanelli Address: 5113 Longsun Lane Commissioner Macik stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Staff presentation was given by Ruth Borne, Assistant Director Community Development. The project is maximizing the property by adding retaining walls and riprap, which is proposed in the setbacks. There is some discrepancy with the height calculations. The height must be resolved with the building permit plans. The other concern Staff has is that the garage doors are white and very visible. The applicant has provided elevations that show what the view of the garage doors are from offsite and are contained in your plans. The color board was passed among the Commissioners. Todd Busey, Project Manager for Tab Associates, gave the applicant presentation. A model of the four-plex and another site elevation was shown and viewed by the Commissioners. He described the four-plex and stated they have maximized the use of the site which is narrow. He said they created a two-level dwelling with a walkout on the lower level. Mr. Busey stated they had made some minor revisions from their first submittal. They changed some of the materials by introducing more of the stucco for the center units and maintaining the siding on the exterior units. Both end units have been revised to create some variation. Chairman Evans asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Karow asked Ms. Borne if the conditions for the recommended motion came before or after the revised submittal. She stated these are based on the revised Minutes of P&Z Meeting June 20, 2000 it submittal. Commissioner Karow then asked if the revised color scheme is still a Staff concern? She said yes, part of the Staff concern was the white garage doors. Commissioner Karow stated he thinks the applicant complies with the design review considerations. Commissioner Head stated he would like to see a revision in the landscape plan, which addresses all four sides of the house and includes some evergreen trees. He encouraged the applicant to add some plantings to soften up the mirror images along Longsun Lane. Commissioner Klein said he also would like to see more year-round green, like spruces, to break up the mirror image, addressing some of the neighbor's concerns. He said he liked the change in the elevations with the addition of the decks and the color scheme. Commissioner Fehlner said her concern was of the mirror image. Chairman Evans commented that the mirror image concern was with duplexes but not for three or four plexes. Commissioner Fehlner then stated she thinks the massing works well and meets the Design Criteria. Regarding the white garage doors, the neighbor is concerned about those. Chairman Evans said he agrees with most of the comments that have been made, he does not have a problem with the color scheme that would require it to be revised. He does understand Staffs concern but it meets our criteria. Criteria 3, 4 and 5 need to be addressed. He agreed the project should have landscaping as an equal -sided treatment with a mix of evergreens to provide year-round color and screening for the east and west sides for the neighboring properties. He asked for a revised landscape plan for Staff approval. As for the garage doors, the burming helps and the elevation helps in regards to what would be seen from across the street. Commissioner Karow commented he thought instead of leaving the landscaping revision up to Staff, a number for coniferous trees should be defined and leave the placement up to Staff. Some of the Commissioners disagreed with Commissioner Karow. They then decided the applicant should make the revision and submit it for Staff approval. Ms. Borne stated that if Staff is not comfortable with the submittal, they can bring it to P and Z. Commissioner Karow made a motion for Final Design approval with conditions 3, 4 and 5 as outlined in the Staff Report and adding number 6: a revised landscaping plan that includes a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees. Commissioner Klein seconded the motion. Commissioner Fehlner asked if they wanted to add the condition that the landscape plans have equal treatment on all four sides. Commissioner Karow amended the motion to add that all four sides would be treated equally. Commissioner Klein seconded the amended the motion. The motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Macik abstaining. Minutes of P&Z Meeting June 20, 2000 Conditions are as follows: 1. Reduce the encroachment of the retaining walls into the drainage easement on the east side of the property; 2. Submit accurate height calculations with the building permit plans; 3. Submit engineered details of retaining walls that exceed 4'0" in height; 4. Submit a revised landscaping plan for Staff approval that includes a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees with equal treatment on all four sides of the project. Commissioner Macik returned to the bench. 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 Deleted from the agenda. VII. Other Business A. Staff Approvals: presented by Tambi Katieb 1. Lot 23, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 2185 Saddleridge Loop Exterior color change 2. Lot 38, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision 4560 Flat Point Exterior color change Replacement of roofing material 3. Lot 50A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 2450 Saddleridge Loop New window/deck extension/landscaping 4. Lot 53, Block 1, Wild ridge 2480 Saddleridge Loop Exterior color change, elevation change Minutes of P&Z Meeting June 20, 2000 Chairman Evans commented that he had noticed painting being done on Sunridge Phase II and asked when this was Staff approved. Ms. Borne said about 30 days ago. Ruth Borne said Staff had an item for discussion. We are getting a lot of requests for fences in Wildridge. Homeowners are asking for fences in setbacks and drainage easements. We don't have any restrictions that say you cannot do it in that area. Staff is looking for some direction. Commissioner Klein said you need to go by the original Wildridge Development Plan that said fences are not to be applied because of wildlife mitigations. Ms. Borne stated that the provision was in the Wildridge private covenants and the property owners association enforces private covenants not the Town. Chairman Evans asked if we had something that discourages the use of fences in Wildridge because of wildlife mitigation. He thought we have used that before. Mike Matzko, Director of Community Development, stated he was not sure of that. Chairman Evans said if the original PUD for Wildridge went through the process and said no fences to restrict wildlife movement, it becomes a condition of the PUD which should be enforced by the Town, not the covenants of Wildridge. Commissioner Klein stated the Forest Service recommendation for the whole development process was that dogs be contained and that no fences be there. He stated he does not see why we would take one development like Wildridge and disregard the Forest Service recommendation and do what we want. Chairman Evans said that if you have a fence across the back yard, it is going to impact wildlife movements. There are deer all around Wildridge. He said he would consider fences on a case by case basis as a special review. He asked how did the fence get approved on Schneider's? It goes down the back sloping lot all the way to the bottom of his property line. It really stands out. Was it approved? Ruth Borne said it was approved. Mike Matzko said we would look into who and how it was approved. Commissioner Klein said it does not meet guideline numbers 6 and 7. Commissioner Fehlner stated fences effect the esthetics in Wildridge and, therefore, do not meet our design criteria even if you don't go by the covenants. Commissioner Karow said it sounds like we are all on the same page and basically, we can say no fences because it does not meet the design review criteria and there are covenants that prohibit fences. It needs to meet the regular design review criteria and the esthetic value criteria. Ruth Borne stated Staff could review and research the Forest Service issues and recommendations. She said Staff could draft a new rule that would resolve this problem. We can research the Forest Service and wildlife concerns and come up with a recommendation on restricting fences. Commissioner Evans said that would be a good first step. He is not opposed to some fences depending on the property, the area and Minutes of P&Z Meeting June 20, 2000 the reason it is being put in. If someone wants to put in a small fence and it does not impact any wildlife movement and its visibility is extremely limited, he does not have a problem with it. He would like to see fences as a special review and not on final design plans. Mike Matzko said this would go into the P and Z Procedures Rules and Regulations and would have to be adopted and ratified by Council. Ruth Borne needs something more specific on fences. Right now it is very wide open. She is looking for more specific language so Staff has the ability to place restrictions. Commissioner Karow said it would be different for different neighborhoods with different criteria. Commissioner Fehlner said the fences should be a design review submittal, which would come before the Board, not as a Staff approval. As an additional item, Mr. Matzko advised the Commissioners there is the possibility of a joint meeting with Council around 4:00 PM before P and Z on July 18th. Chairman Evans said he might have a conflict on that date. VIII. Adjourn Commissioner Fehlner made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Karow and unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 7:12pm. Respectfully submitted, Cecelia Fenton Recording Secretary APPROVED: Jul 18, 2000 J Chris Evans / w �- Chairman Andrew Karow Secretary Minutes of P&Z Meeting June 20, 2000