HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1998
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pro-Tem Bill Hanson called the meeting to order at 3:36 p.m.
Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present
Ed McCrone Kim Walker Dave Skelton Nick Zelver
Henry Sorenson Jan Sadlowski Aida Murga
Walt Willet John Baker
Mara-Gai Katz
Bill Hanson
Roger Cruwys
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22 1998
Chairperson Hansen asked to review the minutes for any corrections. Mr. Willet moved to
approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. McCrone seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.
ITEM 3 DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Zelver Fence COA/Dev#Z-98155 - (Skelton)
131-B Alderson Street
- Further discussion and comment of Certificate of Appropriateness
Application with a Deviation to allow the construction of a 6 foot high wood
fence and amend a previously approved PUD to allow fences.
Planner Dave Skelton clarified last week's discussion since some members were absent. He
continued, Mr. Nick Zelver applied for a COA with but that application was revoked as it needed
a deviation.
Mr. Zelver explained the main intent of the fence is a privacy issue. Mr. Zelver noted that people
have trespassed into his yard because the walking path is so close. Mr. Zelver noted they have a
pond and a fence would be a safety factor to keep intruders from getting into the pond. Mr.
Zelver stated he realized there would be walking traffic and a fence would result in a mutual
privacy benefit.
Mr. Zelver commented he appreciated the need for riparian areas and his concern for wildlife thus
he redesigned in the deviation area. Mr. Zelver explained his new design would not be 6 feet in
height the whole length but at intervals would lower the height to 5 feet, then 4 feet, and then
open up every other fence slat starting at the five foot interval, so the path walkers would not
have an obstructed view. Mr. Zelver stated the fence would be painted grey to match the nearby
aspen grove.
Mr. Zelver commented that he really cared about the area by maintaining the path and
surrounding area.
Mr. Willet inquired if the drops in the fence coincided with the changes in direction of the fence.
Mr. Zelver responded yes it does.
Mr. Henry Sorenson, Jr. noted his concern about the fence from the last discussion that a closed
fence would hide the pond and possibly some young child's safety if he fell in and couldn't be
seen. Mr Sorenson stated that with the new fence design it would alleviate his concern. Mr.
Sorenson and Mr. Willet stated their support for the new design on the fence and deviation.
Mr. Roger Cruwys asked why they couldn't change the fence's location. A discussion ensued on
why it would not be feasible to move the fence.
Ms. Mara-Gai Katz stated her support for the new fence design.
Chairperson Pro-tern Hanson noted he was not at last weeks discussion but did walk the path and
is in support of the deviation. Mr. Hanson noted that the fencing concept was approved in the
last meeting but the alignment and deviation on the 25 feet setback deviation was not.
Planner Skelton noted the Zelvers were trying to respond to the issues and concerns the DRB had
last meeting by redesigning the fence. He continued that DRB cannot make another formal
recommendation because a public meeting was held and public comment
was received at that time.
Chairperson Pro-tem Hanson asked the members for their views on the new design.
Mr. Sorenson stated he is favor but would recommend to continue the fence for a complete cutoff
at the utility pole for a visual barrier.
Mr. Willet stated there was some concern that a fence might get built on the other side of the trail
and it would result in a corridor.
Chairperson Pro-tem Hanson asked what the four conditions were the Planning staff
recommended. Planner Skelton explained they were construction of fence with in 6 months of
receiving COA from City Commission, no modifications be made unless they request from
Planning Office, and met approval of the Homeowners Association.
A discussion ensued on the elevation of the fence.
Planner Skelton commented that it is important they agree the fence maintains the residential
character of the neighborhood development.
Item 4. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:34 p.m.
1
Bill Hansen, Chairperson Pro-Tem, Design Review Board