Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20130305 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 05, 2013 Comments 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Obermeyer Place - 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 2 Other Business — Code Amendments 8 1 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 05, 2013 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for March 05, 2013 in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Keith Goode was not present. Commissioners present were Bert Myrin, Ryan Walterscheid, Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, Jim DeFrancia and LJ Erspamer. Cliff Weiss arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were Jim True, City Attorney; Sara Nadolny and Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin thanked Community Development for the update and it gives the big picture of what is going on down the road. Bert asked if staff has set up any special meetings and future meetings for what Council handed them to do. Jessica Garrow said she was to go over the long range agenda; Community Development is booked with a lot of Growth Management applications. Jessica said if they were special meetings and staff could not attend those meetings. Jasmine suggested the 4th Tuesday in March which is the 26th for a P&Z meeting without staff so it will be a work session. Conflicts of Interest None stated. Public Hearing: Obermeyer Place - 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for Obermeyer Place PU Amendment. Sara Nadolny submitted the proof of notice and the postings as Exhibit F. Sara said there were 4 letters from the surrounding area of Obermeyer Place submitted and were all favorable. Sara introduced Scott Lindenau representing the Clancy's in this matter. Sara said the applicant from Founders Place Unit 202 was requesting an amendment to the Obermeyer Place PUD to permit a section of privacy screen on the unit's patio. The unit was located on the second floor; you had seen this before in May of 2012 for a similar request where the applicant had requested a 30 inch privacy screen to be erected on the patio and staff requested the screen to the west. The screen was built through some miscommunication of approval and built the length of the unit's patio. Sara said this time the applicants are requesting an amendment to the Obermeyer PUD to bring the now approved patio into compliance. Staff is not in agreement with this request; the request was made for privacy and makes sense on the western side where it was originally approved. The patio on the north and eastern sides are raised up at a second story level approximately 13 feet before the privacy screen from finished grade so we feel that 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 05, 2013 the applicants already enjoy a reasonable degree of privacy from their second story patio. Sara said the materials used for the fence were quality materials and there was no other place in Obermeyer where these materials are used. Sara said the 30 inch screen adds height to an already tall area that is along the pedestrian walkway. Staff is recommending that P&Z deny the request the applicant's request for the PUD amendment and require the removal of all sections of the screen that was not approved by Resolution 10 of 2012 within a period of 30 days. Jim DeFrancia asked if your objections are simply as stated, simply your subjective view of creating an appearance of height. Sara replied the height, bulk and the need to be considered private when it's narratives need to be experiencing a further degree of privacy and there are a lot of patios in this area but they don't have more than just a safety railing; they thought that would set a precedent in an overall change in the PUD. Jessica said that it was inconsistent with the existing PUD. LJ asked the definition of a screen. Sara replied there was not a formal working definition of a screen in our code. LJ asked what would you describe that on the upper left. Sara replied a barrier or shield. Jessica stated that it would fall under a fence when we are looking at that balcony. Cliff stated that it was opaque and not transparent which makes it a screen. Burt asked about the Resolution on page 16 the and fourth WHEREAS mentions a fence so was that the determination. Sara said that was from Resolution 10, 2012 that mentions the privacy fence as well as the one between the property (Obermeyer Place) from the parking lot. Jim said that a wind screen can be transparent; would it be different in your view if it was less solid, if it was a railing or a screen but if it was less solid. Jessica said that staff's main issue is that this was inconsistent with anything else in Obermeyer even if it was more transparent; it was not part of what was originally approved. Jessica said this does represent a change to the overall PUD and if the HOA wanted to come in that would be fine but doing this on a piecemeal basis doesn't make sense and it adds a lot of bulk and mass. Scott Lindenau, Studio B, asked Sara to go back to the plan on the power point; this was an inadvertent error on several behalf's so we did not try to do this intentionally. Cliff asked do what intentionally. Scott replied right now we are approved to do this and we wrapped the fence further and so these 2 portions we are hoping to go the five feet. Scott said this was still inconsistent with materials 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 05, 2013 and one thing that we could do to the whole thing is paint it that green color to marry it more with the architecture and color. Scott said that he realized that the Exhibit A to Resolution 10, 2012 was not in color but more importantly some of the images that you show are from below looking up and the client's concern was that from Main Street you are higher and you look right into the living room and the terrace. Scott said that there were letters from Joe Vernier, Michael Sailor, Steve Seyffert and Steve and Clare Wilson who were all local and have been here for a long time and they are immediate neighbors. Jim asked if he had any images of the fence that you should have built and where. Scott replied if the fence stopped here it would be all the neighbors looking down and this is probably the most looked into apartment. Jim asked if that portion of the fence exists legitimately as approved. Sara replied on the west side in red is legitimate. Cliff asked who built the fence. Scott replied Craig Woods. Cliff asked if he was given a set of plans from you. Scott replied yes. Cliff asked if Scott was here in 2012 to present this to us when it was originally approved. Scott said that he was. Cliff said he didn't understand where the confusion was; he was handed a set of plans and Cliff was trying to ascertain how he got a set of plans than what were approved. Scott replied that they were in black and white and it could have been his error that he didn't realize that it didn't stop at that peak. Cliff asked if he had nothing to do with supervising him while he was installing this. Scott replied that he did but he went on vacation and maybe he didn't check on it close enough. Sara said that when she initially sent over the plans and the resolution it was a black and white copy but she also forwarded by email a color copy and the resolution said red equals this and yellow equals this. Cliff asked even if it were in black and white does the dotted line show anything different. Sara said it does not and she did send the color one. Cliff said if you only had the black and white one could you make this mistake. Sara responded that would be hard to do because. U asked if they were happy with the fence that was approved. Sara replied yes, there was a legitimate reason. U said you are just asking to remove the new part that wasn't approved and in order for the applicant to apply for something like that they have to apply for a PUD amendment. Sara replied they have to go through a PUD amendment. Ryan looked at what was approved last year and they extended the fence considerably down the sidewalk but there must have been some compromise, did 4 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 05, 2013 he miss it. Sara responded that what they presented and there wasn't a big discussion and it wasn't debated. Bert said the criteria that we are supposed to decide is located from page 19 on. No public comments. Commissioner Comments: Jim said he really didn't have any objection to this; the neighbors have indicated that they don't have any objection to this. Jim agreed that it might be painted a more subdued color but that is just a matter of taste; he didn't see that it had any impact on the public interest. Bert said he usually agreed with staff on these; it is a significant height increase in terms of a blank wall; it adds bulk to the building and on page 25 he agreed with everything; it was not compatible to the surrounding buildings, there is no other place that this is used. Jasmine said that Bert has covered most of what she had to say but more importantly because it is a PUD even though we may not think that this is the most breathtaking architecture it does have a very mute pallet color. Jasmine urged the applicant to change that color because when you walk down Main Street it looks like a crate stuck on that kind of wood. Jasmine said in a PUD there should be a style unless the PUD is going to change and everyone wanted these beige things on their balconies then we could consider it as an amendment to the entire PUD. Cliff said that his biggest concern was how innocent a mistake was this; they came to us, we approved something specifically and then they built something entirely different; that is the precedent that he is truly upset by. Cliff said that he couldn't believe that this wasn't deliberate; that's not what got built. Ryan said that he had no problem with this; it is an extension of a fence that they added 10 more feet to. Ryan said if the Homeowners complained then it would be different and he doesn't see it as an extension of a 15 foot concrete wall. Stan said he has a hard time since it is a PUD and we had approval for one but then is applicable to all of the other units. Stan said that he didn't know the other balconies very well but I think that they are open railings, is that right. So if someone wanted to put a screen up there they could point to this and say they got to do it, the PUD has been modified. Stan said they don't even have to ask 5 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 05, 2013 permission; he understood the justification for the other approval, it was very well defined with a walkway right outside their balcony. Stan said that staff can tell me if there is another place where there is a walkway right outside somebody's balcony; being the case it was clear that you can walk right there and look into their balcony. Stan said the rest of it is beyond what we approved and my understanding is why should we approve all the rest of the units. Jim said that he followed Stan's reasoning but it speaks to me personally; there has been a propensity for years for City Council to play architect that are not appropriate for government. Jim said because it was an existing PUD and people are there and live there and work there and use it and he doesn't see it having any impact on the public. Jim said if the owners want to see other balconies blocked in he didn't see why we should care. Stan said this would take it out of the hands of the HOA to prevent someone from fencing in their balcony; because this on the right side is all open to the public area; there is no difference between that and a balcony about the same height and if those people want to do it the HOA would have no say. Stan asked what does the code say, what is the justification for an amendment, what was the justification to keep that wall on that side of the balcony. Jim said he followed Stan but the issue of the HOA is a very valid one but the HOA has not appeared to voice any objection so he has to believe that they are not particularly concerned. Jim said so all we are talking about is this approval and if others wanted to enclose their balcony they would have to come back to P&Z to further propose. Jessica said that they would need to come to a further PUD amendment. Jasmine asked if there could be an insignificant PUD amendment that could be approved by staff. Jessica replied yes. Jasmine said an owner of another unit on a second floor could put up a fence and be considered an insignificant amendment and only go to staff. Jessica replied that she didn't think that it would be approved administratively; the last criteria in the administrative PUD review is a change which is inconsistent with the original character of the PUD and that is really how this privacy screen/fence fails and how other ones would fail at the insubstantial level as well and it is why it is coming to P&Z because it is a deviation from the original approval. 6 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 05, 2013 Ryan said that the group already allowed the majority of that fence and already set a prescient and would have already amended the PUD to some extent; the small little extension provides more continuity in his opinion. Jessica said that this first approval was a very site specific within the approval. Jim said that he shares Cliff's frustration the way this was done but he didn't think that we should punish them. Bert said he didn't see what Cliff and Jim has just raised and not basing my decision on whether it has been built or not been built; he is basing his decision on the criteria in the code. LJ asked to go back to the power point picture of the railing and the fence. Sara clarified that to the west was a different property and the middle part was unapproved and the part that has been approved is seen only if you are walking up the stairs or if you are at the neighboring property. LJ asked if you take the wood down is that fence what was approved with the original design. Sara stated that it stopped at the concrete wall cap. Scott said the first letter from Steve Seyffert who was on the HOA Board so he wrote a letter of support. Scott said the fact that you could potentially approve 3 lengths of the 5 so they would be happy to paint the color. Jennifer said Community Development does not regulate paint. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution 7 series2013 approving amendments to the Obermeyer Place SPA with the added condition that the railing in question to be painted with a subdued color for the HOA to approve; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Bert Myrin, no; Ryan Walterscheid, yes; Cliff Weiss, no; Jasmine Tygre, no, Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJErspamer, no; Stan Gibbs, no. DENIED 5-2. Discussion: Stan said the HOA should drive this PUD Amendment. LJ said that the HOA could come in. Jessica said right now is no action so P&Z should do another motion to deny. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to deny the application submitted by Scott Lindenau for 101 Founders Place Unit 202 PUD Amendment seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll call vote: Bert Myrin, yes; Ryan Walterscheid; no; Jim DeFrancia, 7 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 05, 2013 no; Stan Gibbs, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED motion to DENY 5-2. Other Business: LJ opened other business. Jessica Garrow stated this was a follow up to the February Council Work Session and also to the memo; staff has moved forward to code amendments related to SPA, PUD, ESA as well as Subdivision. Jessica said the first was to get input from key stakeholders and P&Z is one of the largest stakeholders related to these kinds of code amendments because you deal with them at every meeting essentially. Jessica said that staff has met with some architects and planners to get their feedback on some of the changes that they would like to see. Jessica said specifically for PUD and SPA these are code sections that hasn't had an overhaul in probably 20 years or longer; there is a lot of review criteria in PUD in particular and staff would like to work with the review sections of other agencies and departments to make sure the standards meet today. The Engineering standards don't always match up to what the current Engineering code says; the same thing with Parks they want to have additional concerns included here. The same with Environmentally Sensitive Areas and looking at the landscaping and architecture requirements which are pretty vague so looking to the design standards or something more specific. Jessica said they also want to look at the documents that are required for recordation. Jessica said when you go to the PUD section it requires a utility plan, drainage and architectural character and things that could be very specific; so what they are recording doesn't necessarily match up with what was on the ground. SPA doesn't have a P&Z review it is either administrative or it goes to Council. Jessica said the most significant plan is how can we make conceptual SPA and PUD mean more right now it only allows an applicant to apply for final but you could go through a year maybe a year and half planning process; you meet with P&Z and City Council but it does not lock you into anything and that is frustrating for members of the public, for the applicant and staff. Staff would like your input on is making the conceptual review a more binding review and get the Ordinance from City Council and final just comes back to P&Z and doesn't go all the way to Council. Cliff asked why are you suggesting a two step conceptual but a one step final; why not a build the whole this into a one step conceptual/final and they are done. Jessica replied there will be times when you are going to want to have a 4 step 8 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 05, 2013 process or just with P&Z dealing with the materials on the building and do the final check. Cliff asked what is determined to go into final and what goes into conceptual; and moving a water line is one thing and adding a floor may change the height or change the building envelope. Jessica said that this has not run by Council yet; you are the first group to hear this. Final review is more about where the windows are placed and what kind of materials are being used; at final would state where the utilities are being paced and easements. Jessica said the Subdivision goes through the same process that a single family lot does that have multiple uses in them because they are mixed use building which creates a subdivision review. Stan said the multi-step applications have been to the benefit of the applicant because they can say it is kind of like this and over here; they don't have to be very detailed and what he is hearing was that wouldn't work in the newer process. Stan said that they would get a lot more information early on instead of the surprise at final. Cliff said he sees a lot of things that are worthy of debate and more discussion but one of the things that kind of jumps out at him is that when P& Z presented to Council PUD code that is needed to be amended and part of what he was trying to achieve was that PUD doesn't rely enough on a not specific enough language; he would like to be part of the discussion on PUD. Jessica said this memo just goes over what staff is thinking and the point of this meeting is to see what P&Z wants to see in this code amendment. Ryan asked what were the planners and architects comments on this PUD Code Amendment. Jessica replied they liked the idea of conceptual meaning more; they think the flexibility of the PUD is important because there are weird parcels that come up that you need to be able to vary the requirement. Jessica said that access and circulation has 6 requirements and those can be consolidated into maybe 3. Jessica said there were a lot of requirements that seem to overlap with one another; the same with phasing of development could be one review criteria instead of 3. Jim said the conceptual and final seem to go through the same process twice; they ask for an incredible amount of details at conceptual and when you come back for final they are asking for an incredible amount of details again. Jim said it would be in both parties interest if there were criteria to be defined at conceptual that would be agreed or determined like height, width, depth and mass and number of units; but nobody's gotten into the detail. Jim said when they come back for final they 9 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 05, 2013 are in conformance with what was given at conceptual; both parties have agreed and we begin to look at the detail that comes in at final. Jessica asked if P&Z thought that final should just be at P&Z or should Council have the last say as we have now. Jim said they can always call it up. Jasmine said that PUDs because of the size and importance of them should be reviewed by Council at final as well; they are the elected officials and they have the right as a matter of course on a larger project. Cliff said that when he was on the 2 COWOPs they were given a certain number of diagrams that were not boxes which begs questions of how much stone are you putting into this, is this going to be overbearing in its presence and lead him to should we recommend everything comes to us and we do everything we need to do until satisfied and ready to vote and then it goes to Council but why have a conceptual that just gives me the box. Cliff said we do get into a lot of gory details and a lot of that has to do with we are seeing too much too soon. Jim said he would view it as a conceptual that shows a building and might just say stone or frame or steel or glass. Cliff said what worries him is that a box is not a box; a 42 foot high wall with a lot of fenestration looks a lot different than a 42 foot high wall with no fenestration. Jim said there were basic elements that could be nailed down in a conceptual level. Jessica asked if Commercial Conceptual and Final Commercial Design Review is working for you now; are you getting the amount of detail that you want at the Conceptual Design Review Phase because that is what we will be getting at the Conceptual PUD. Ryan said that when an architect comes in with massing and scale and come back with material instead of just boxes until they get into the fine detail of it. Bert said the conceptual issue making it a smaller step makes sense for a smaller building but there are some packets that are so large it is difficult for us to figure out all the data and what is really going on and lose track of that to make a decision based upon the code. Stan left at 6:00 pm. Bert said that subdivision occurs on a single family lot with 2 homes and subdivision occurs. Jessica said that some lots don't have to go through subdivision for 2 houses. Jessica said right now they have what is called "exempt development" that is not exempt and goes through a review process. Jessica said 10 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 05, 2013 the lots that are big enough based on underlying code and those get condoed and they have to meet Residential Design Standards. Ryan said his inclination would be to take downtown commercial buildings that are being condominized and the subdivision process more work than to just follow the underlying zoning and had to follow the Commercial Design Standards but ist seems that Stage 3 project could have been dealt with UPC and Council could have called it up if they didn't like it. Jessica said the way staff was going with condominization right now is administrative and would stay administrative. Your division of a downtown mixed use building into separate ownership interests would be administrative because it is a condominization. Jessica said a historic lot split, check in with HPC with the merits should this qualify and then goes to Council. Bert asked about the Engineering interest in Obermeyer walking around the sidewalk with lamp posts that were on Rio Grande Drive in the middle of the sidewalk and there is one in front of the Chamber on that same street. Bert asked for a standard for greenway and non-greenway but Engineering would have to make it consistent. Bert asked about a clear PUD with underlying zoning. Bert said that the roofs should be orientated for solar gain. Jessica said the code doesn't require that now. Jessica said if solar gain is important we can encourage it if it fits the site. U asked when people get their permit they get out there and excavate and nobody knows where the original grade was; where do we deal with this because there should be a record of the grade before they dig anything. Jessica said that when anyone comes in with a building permit you have to document through your survey where the existing is; every property has to have a survey. Bert said that an applicant had an elevator and whether they should do the height on the elevator or based on cost; is that something in the PUD. Jessica replied that she would be hesitant to get into costs. Jessica said that you can condition anything that the code allows; mechanical on the roof can go to 6 feet; elevators and stairs can go to 10 feet. Bert said that elevators were an issue at 10 feet above the building. Jessica said that was a separate code amendment because it was a separate section. Jim left at 6:10 pm. 11 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 05, 2013 Jessica said they don't want to do anything with view plane but will look into a way to simplify. Jessica said that they do want to make some refinements to 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin and Hallam Lake Bluff Review. Jessica said on Stream Margin the most significant change we want to make is create one line that is Stream Margin; right now there are 3 different lines and property owners have to have their property resurveyed and take the most restrictive and doesn't take the stormwater and some engineering things into consideration. Jessica said that they were working with Engineering on what is that line and it will probably go to a state standard. Jessica said the Park Department has had some issues in Hallam Lake and in Stream Margin where people are removing native vegetation and are allowed in certain circumstances the way that the code is written right now, they are removing some of our only sage areas and they would like to have that stop. Cliff said 8040 literally only covers Aspen Mountain to Shadow Mountain. Cliff is concerned with steep slope development and we have some code that addresses steep slope but it is becoming too easy to get around. Cliff said that subgrade development has gotten to the point that you can have 3 basements; that has to be addressed and debated. Cliff said Stream Margin concerns him with these non- conforming lots where there is some excuse that they can build closer to the streams. Jessica said the Parks Department thought that the creation of building envelopes might be a good thing to do. Cliff and Jasmine would support that. Jessica said the subgrade should be raised as P&Z begins to talk about the floor area and house size. Cliff said these big houses that go into the mountain and there is no code that allows all the levels below. Jessica asked if other commissioners were concerned about 8040 Greenline. Bert and Jasmine said yes. Ryan said it should be global; whatever this group decides is global. Bert wanted the single line review for the Stream Margin Review. Jessica said that she has to meet with the other group and will try to get something on the code amendments from this meeting written up. Adjourned at 6:30 pm. , deputy city clerk Yj�ie Lothia 12