Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20100615City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -June 15, 2010 Comments Minutes Conflicts of Interest 69 Shady Lane, Saecial Review Code Amendments 2 2 2 2 City Plannine & Zonine Meetine -Minutes -June 15 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting of June 15, 2010 in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at 4:30pm. Commissioners present were Jasmine Tygre, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer, Brian Speck and Stan Gibbs. Mike Wampler and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Chris Bendon, Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments None stated. Minutes MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes from May 18 and June 01, 2010; seconded by.lasmine Tygre. All in favor, Approved. Conflicts of Interest None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 69 Shady Lane, Special Review Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 69 Shady Lane. Gibbs asked for proof of notice. Chris Bendon stated that the applicant has submitted affidavits of public notice indicating publication, posting and mailing and meets the requirements of the land use code. Bendon explained that this public hearing was noticed for Mayl8th and continued to today. This property is owned by 4 individuals Jack Rowland, Fleeta Baldwin, Jill Boyd and Roine St. Andre; the title describes them as tenants in common and has been submitted by 3 of those parties, Jack Rowland, Fleeta Baldwin and Jill Boyd. Bendon said there are a series of terms floodway, floodplane, high water line and the top of slope. Bendon said that about 10 years ago the city determined the top of slope and was very conservative. Cliff Weiss asked what that means, conservative. Bendon said the top of slope along the river toward the Rio Grande the top of slope goes right through the parking garage. Bendon said there may be a change in the top of slope at that point where the bank breaks and differentiates the bench from the surrounding bank of the river. Bendon stated that in many cases staff still needs to define the property top of slope so the mapping for this area excludes entirely this parcel from the area that is above top of slope; according to the map the whole area is below the top of slope. Bendon utilized maps A and B that shows the property and the island because the Roaring Fork River splits the property and on the other side of the property is Hunter Creek which goes into the 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -June 15, 2010 Roaring Fork. Bendon said because of the water courses going through the property the area of the property that is below the high water line and is top of slope; they couldn't answer the question what can I do with this property; how much floor area can be built. Bendon said the applicant was not interested in immediate redevelopment of the property, staff suggested going through this process so they could define to a potential purchaser what they could do with the island and how much floor area they have. Bendon said the floodway affects a large amount of the property and is more restrictive than just a floodplane; it affects the entire island and about one third of the main property. The City Engineer regulates the floodplane area. Bendon explained the dark green area was the 15 foot setback from top of slope and lighter green was the top of slope. Community Development came up with the development boundary that takes into account both of those boundaries, the floodway and top of slope; map B shows what that looks like. Bendon distributed a revised resolution with a new section 2 and describes the high water area and a portion of the land that staff expected to be affected by a prescriptive easement. According to the R-30 Zone District the total allowable FAR for a single family residence is 7,553.72 square feet and a duplex is 8,450.59 square feet that was a suggested revision. Staff has recommended approval. Cliff Weiss asked how much of this property was underwater now. Bendon responded that the most southern extreme of the island and pockets within the island that are wet (6-12 inches of water) and there were parts that were dry. Weiss asked if the 87,686.3 square feet was within the red lined area of the map. Bendon replied no; it is the area that is entirely above the high water line and not affected by steep slopes. Weiss asked if it was customary to have the high water line and determine their FAR on the high water line and not top of slope. Bendon answered it's not customary to have it in the resolution but typically the case that it is very easy to figure out. Weiss asked the setback requirements for the house and asked if that was the variance that we were looking for. Bendon answered it wasn't a variance; the existing house would remain until the redevelopment that is pursuant to the resolution and the area of the property that could be redeveloped would be within the red line. Bert Myrin asked if the development should be setback at least 15 feet from the top of slope and was any different from that redline. Mitch Haas responded that the entire development boundary is at least 15 feet from the top of slope and in most 3 City Planning & Zonine Meetine -Minutes -June 15 2010 places more than that. Myrin asked if two was really necessary for setting a development boundary. Bendon replied captured in number 2 is the discussion of the progressive height limit and the top of slope that is necessary for those areas that are within 30 feet of the top of slope. Myrin asked if P&Z was determining the high water level. Bendon answered that it was fairly easy to determine the high water mark that was accurate. Myrin asked if the idea of vesting lot area calculations for 3 years was something that any applicant could come forward and ask. Bendon replied that any action that P&Z takes on a development application that will have all of those calculations embedded somewhere and the application was part of your review and would be doing that for this property at least in the application. Bendon said it was better service when someone calls and then staff has to dig around and this was right in the resolution; it's clearer of the entitlement in the resolution. Myrin said if the code changes they are still vested, which seems a little different then when an application is actually filed for development. Bendon responded that any action that P&Z takes is a vested entitlement. Myrin asked if asking for an FAR calculation is something that people would come before P&Z. Bendon replied that they wouldn't do that independent of some other action. LJ Erspamer said that a site visit would have been helpful and in the future we should look into it. Bendon stated that he visited the site with Mitch Haas, Trish Aragon and April Baker. Erspamer asked if P&Z was the final review. Bendon replied yes. Erspamer asked if asking for fisherman's easements were common. Bendon replied that they were going through a process now of what our referral agencies can and can't ask and find upon occasion referral agencies treat the application as a Christmas gift and get everything they wanted but it doesn't necessarily mean it relates to the development that is being proposed. Bendon said this was a good example, the Parks Department is not in a position to require a fisherman's easement by virtue of this application; they are in a position that they can request one. Erspamer asked where the fishing easement would be put. Bendon answered Parks was interested in the most southern area where the Roaring Fork splits. Mitch Haas said that his client doesn't own that portion of the river. Bendon said a fisherman's easement usually is on the bank area. Haas said they usually ask for the first 5 feet. Erspamer asked if there would be an administrative review on some of these issues that they were discussing. Bendon replied it would basically be a building permit review so if the application for a building permit comes in within that period of vested rights or if the code has changed then they would review it. Jasmine Tygre said there were a lot of references to recordation that means recorded with the clerk and recorder so these would come up with any type of title 4 Citv Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -June 15, 2010 search. Tygre asked who actually does that. Bendon replied when the resolution is in final format it is given to the chairman and then the Clerk's Department goes over to the County Clerk and Recorder on a regular basis. Tygre said Community Development checks to make sure all the conditions of approval are in fact on the document. Bert Myrin said if below grade restrictions change would that impact this property at all. Bendon responded that it would be exempt from changes below grade; you are defining a lot area and floor area however only areas that are outside of floodplane can have below grade space. Haas said they were not vesting the how you calculate counts as floor area just what the number that is allowed; whatever counts as basement counts as basement regardless if you change the definition. Myrin asked if something were to be built on this it would likely be all above grade. Haas replied yes it was a pretty big area. Stan Gibbs asked where the flood plane was on it. Haas replied there was a tighter one and was the line of the floodway. Myrin said that where the green line was not within you could have sub-grade. Haas replied no; only in the defined development area, which is all outside of the floodway. Bendon said the floodplane and floodway were administered by the City Engineer. Haas said that they were confusing elevations underground and above ground. Weiss asked what the R-30 hard cap for a house was. Bendon answered he didn't think there was one; a progressive scale. Stan Gibbs said that the City Engineer does the floodway and the floodplane; what statutes or federal regulations do they use to make that determination clearly. Bendon replied that he believed it was through the City Charter; he thought every community with a river is expected to have a floodplane administrator. Brian Speck asked if the Army Corp of Engineers had to be involved with rivers. Jim True asked Stan if he was asking where the engineer derives her power or what regulations she follows. Gibbs replied what reference the administrator determines. Bendon replied that it was a document issued by FEMA. Myrin asked if this property had no development rights if P&Z doesn't approve the top of slope changes. Bendon replied that could be a question that is answered by a different body; if you say that the top of slope is such that this property cannot be developed, it would be decided by the courts as a takings. Myrin asked if there were any communities where it was inappropriate to have something developed on a property that is currently developed and then changed to below top of slope and below waterline. Bendon responded that was a rather broad question. Myrin asked 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -June 15 2010 if this was something that P&Z has to approve or if we didn't approve this it sounds like it would end up in court as a takings. Bendon said that it comes down to is it a significant hazard that the community should prohibit development and purchase the property. Bendon said that was not happening here there was a sufficient amount of the property that is outside the floodway and sufficiently above top of slope and all the hazard areas such that development can happen. Gibbs asked where the top of slope that was totally outside of the property was located. Bendon said that they came up with the idea of instead of going and looking at top of slope for each individual property when they come in for development; they did the whole town at once and they contracted with an engineer who took very generalized slope information and ran through a computer but unfortunately in more than half of the cases he's seen doesn't make sense. Bendon said for this property the top of slope wasn't on their property, it was up by Lone Pine. Mitch Haas, planner for the applicant, said the determination of a lot area as defined by the code, Section 26.575 they followed it to the letter. Haas said that you start by eliminating all land below a high water line and determined the high water line, mapping and calculating the high water line and then you take all of that out and figure out how much land area is above the high water mark and reduce all of the area that is steeper than 30% and take that number out of the land area. Haas said they were more restrictive and pulled it 15 feet off the top of slope or the floodway, whichever was more restrictive. Haas said that if you took 3 acres in the West End you would have 25,000 to 30,000 square feet easily. Haas said when you put it in perspective it is pretty reasonable consistent with the properties around this property that were in the county where much bigger homes than this. Haas said that he has had preliminary discussions with Brian Flynn and Stephen Ellsperman from the Parks Department about this island. Haas said that there were some conifer trees on the island that were 60 to 70 feet tall. Roine St. Andrea said the island has never flooded. Public Comments Roine St. Andre asked about Gerald Hines having to go through what they are going through. Haas replied that Hines would have gone through County Review, which is different but similar. St. Andre asked how the tax can be compared to these other people; who would she find out about that. Bendon answered that would have to be addressed by the County Asser's Office. 6 City Planning & ZOning Meeting -Minutes -June 15, 2010 Cliff Weiss said that there was no cap on this house because they could purchase a TDR, add affordable housing and this could be another 13,000 square foot house. Weiss said that to calculate FAR so the house isn't bigger than 7,000 or 8,000 square feet. Bendon responded that he knew what he was struggling with the zoning code as it exists. Myrin asked if we change this resolution to address some of Cliff's FAR concerns and guarantees them the top of slope. Bendon said the top of slope has been represented in the application as well as the FAR in the lot area in the center. Myrin asked why does P&Z have to grant that FAR; he asked if there was any way to separate these two. Gibbs said that if we put Section 2 in the resolution it's vested for 3 years and but if the code were to change next year it would not be impacted but without it in the resolution it seemed to him that any development application would be judged on whatever the code was at that time. Bendon said that it has been represented in the application it's probably immune to those changes. Jasmine Tygre said what Cliff and Bert would like to see is the calculation of the lot area but not the specific FAR because that may change. Myrin said that was what he would like to see and put that in the resolution. Tygre said the FAR may change but not the lot area. Bendon said if this is stricken then sometime in the future we will be having the discussion of what's best and what's not. LJ Erspamer said sometime in the future what if the FAR were increased and if we left this in the resolution then they would be stuck with this. Bendon said that it was much easier for the applicant. Haas said the beautiful thing about vested rights from a developers' standpoint is that you can't be hurt by new changes in the code but you can benefit from them; so you can take advantages of increases you just can't be hurt by decreases. Erspamer said that he would like to remove the fisherman's easement from Section 3. Weiss asked if part of stream margin review contained sensitivity of the area. Haas said the stream margins standards deal with it directly; they talk about floodplanes, they talk about hazards and avoiding those rather than just a broad brush. Bendon said it comes down to identifying the appropriate place for the top of slope. Haas said that it addresses sensitive areas in terms of the floodplane is a sensitive area and tells you to avoid wetlands, which is that type of sensitive area. Jasmine Tygre said in the revision of the AACP it was brought up to revise the Stream Margin Review and 8040 Greenline in the Code. Tygre said for the purpose of this application it would be to take out the paragraph under the total lot area, which talks about the FAR and leave the way lot area is calculated; then you say nothing 7 City Plannine & Zonine Meetine -Minutes -June 15 2010 about the FAR but you do say how the developable lot was calculated. Myrin said that adding the sentence in about what the code says and that it may change. Bendon said he didn't mind taking that Per Section 26.710.080 out and would defer to Mitch about the addition of the language. Haas replied if you take that uut you don't need to add anything else in; it is what it is. Tygre agreed. Myrin stated that it was important because we were relying on so much buried and it might come back. Haas responded that he would not stand here and consider to not having a vested right but it was okay to take the other part. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve resolution #013, series of 2010, Stream Margin Review for 69 Shady Lane with the elimination of the first section; seconded by LJErspamer. Roll call: Tygre, yes; Speck, yes; Myrin, yes; Weiss, yes; Erspamer, yes; Gibbs, yes. Approved 6-0. Withdrawn MOTION: LJErspamer moved to remove the Fishing Easement from Resolution #013-10; seconded by Brian Speck. Discussion of motion below: Myrin wanted something in the Resolution that said the FAR calculations will be at the time of the building permit. Bendon said the floor area for this parcel shall be pursuant to the zoning for this parcel and according to the land use code effective at the time of the submission of the building permit. Myrin said he would like to make that motion. Amending MOTION: Bert Myrin moved that the floor area for this parcel shall be pursuant to the zoning for this parcel and according to the land use code effective at the time of the submission of the building permit; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Approved S-1 (LJ against). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Miscellaneous Code Amendments Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for the Code Amendments. Chris Bendon stated this was a continued hearing on the section that describes how you measure all the heights, FARs, and setbacks regarding development. Bendon went through the Resolution that was changed from the last time in green and the table that they were proposing for net lot area; this takes out for slopes, areas under high water line and all of the things just talked about in the last application. Bendon said that the concern that Cliff brought up regarding note #2, which sets a basement on a property that can be reduced because of slope reduction. Bendon provided a couple of options that he reviewed with Jim True and the commission 8 Citv Planning & Zoning MeetinE -Minutes -June 15, 2010 agreed on Option B "There shall be no reduction in Floor Area attributable to steep slopes except that the total slope reduction shall not result in a property having less than one-thousand square feet of floor area." Bendon said Option B is probably more adaptable. Jasmine Tygre said that Option B provides more flexibility and if the lot was very steep it would give more control over that. Bendon said the next was measuring floor area and measuring to the exterior sheathing, vapor barrier or weather proofing excluding any exterior veneer. So the measurement is to the weather membrane not the exterior rocks. Bendon said that attic space shouldn't count if it is a traditional attic space and should count if it is going to be used like any other room in the building or can be used like any other room in the building. "Unfinished and uninhabitable space between the ceiling joists and roof rafters which is either inaccessible as only a matter of necessity is exempt from floor area calculations." Bendon said the sheds, storage units, and similar accessory structures count against floor area if they are more than thirty inches in height. Weiss said he has a Rubbermaid storage shed that he keeps his rakes, snow shovels and yard equipment and it was 6 feet high, about 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep; and this would count against his FAR. LJ Erspamer asked what were they trying to discourage and we want to enclose our trash. Erspamer said that you can't even have a shed and he doesn't have a garage. Gibbs suggested any shed under 50 square feet is exempt and more than that counts 100%. Erspamer wanted 100 square feet. Weiss said that he was okay with 50 and was curious why LJ wanted 100. Tygre and Weiss said that wasn't a shed it was a room. Bendon said that he wouldn't go beyond 50 square feet. Tygre said 4 feet by 8 feet. Bendon said the Wildlife Dumpster Enclosures in residential zone districts are exempt from floor area. Gibbs said this was a particular use and had to be wildlife resistant. Bendon said that projections into setback couldn't be closer than 5 feet from the next building. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 pm, seconded by LJ Erspamer. Approved 5-1 (Jasmine, no) 9 City PlanninE & Zoning MeetinE -Minutes -June 15 2010 Bendon said that energy systems were not appropriate in the front yard; if you can't physically put it anywhere other than the front yard it ends up on top of your building. Myrin said that he has solar panels on his roof that are on the north and east sides so they don't face the street and function until noon and didn't have to go through HPC. Bendon said the question here was did you want to prohibit by definition in the front yard. Bendon said the next one was on page 12 of the resolution with the question why do we regulate ridge height and we need know what the problem is first before we attempt to fix it. Erspamer said that he was concerned where the measurement was taken from; he asked if Chris was comfortable from measuring from the ground at each point of the building. Erspamer voiced concern when the buildings were torn down and all the soil was scraped and come back and nobody knows where the original measurements were located so they need a variance because this is what they have now. Bendon stated they measure from the lower of natural or finished grade. Erspamer asked on a variable grade lot how do you take the average. Bendon said that probably takes some discussion between the zoning officer and the developer. Erspamer stated that you have to measure before they demolish. Bendon replied yes, they wouldn't be grading because they need a development permit to do that. Bendon said the next was elevator and stair enclosures to exceed the height limit by a certain amount only if they are setback so he suggested not to extend more than 10 feet above the maximum specified height limit; if setback from the street facing fagade of the building a minimum of 15 feet. The footprint of the stair or elevator enclosure must be a minimum reasonably necessary for its function. Myrin asked if on top of that elevator was there still another 5 feet for mechanical; does that set a new height for all of that stuff. Bendon responded no, you can't take all of these things and stack them together and do something that you wouldn't otherwise be allowed to do. Weiss asked how peaked roofs work with this. Bendon replied that if the elevator has a sloped roof you would measure that point and go down. Weiss said it was a chimney. Bendon answered say the height limit is 25 feet so you have a provision for measuring steep sloped roofs; the height of the elevator enclosure could go to 35, you are measuring to the top part of that elevator enclosure. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to extend the meeting until 7:30, Cliff Weiss seconded, Approved 5-1 (Jasmine , no). 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -June 15, 2010 Brian Speck excused himself at 7:15pm. Bendon said on page 15 of the resolution is Site Coverage. Bendon stated the last one was on page 16 of the resolution Exceptions for Building Code Compliance. Bendon said the applicant needs to know what the building is all about before you begin construction so they don't end up going to Council to get a Code Amendment to deal with their particular situation. Bendon said this resolution still needs all the graphics that support and explain all the changes. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the Code Amendment, Resolution #014-10; seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll Call: Myrin, yes; Erspamer, no; Tygre, yes; Weiss, yes, Gibbs, yes. Approved 4-1. Adjpurned at 7:25pm ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11