Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150421Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Kelly McNicholas, Brian McNellis, and Skippy Mesirow. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Chris Bendon, Hillary Seminick, and Becky Levy. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES There were no minutes for review and approval. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Walterscheid has recently switched employment. His former employer, Charles Cunniffe, is involved with the applicant for the 300 and 312 E Hyman public hearing scheduled. He had minimal involvement in this project and does not have a financial interest. He has discussed the situation with Ms. Quinn and he plans to participate in the public hearing unless the applicant or another commissioner has an objection. 69 Shady Lane – Special Review for Variances from Stream Margin Review – Continued from 4/7/2015 Ryan asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn stated notice had been provided at the April 7th hearing. Ms. Seminick, Community Development Planner Technician, opened with a review of the application which is a special review for a variances for a Stream Margin review. The property is located on the Roaring Fork River near the confluence with Hunter Creek. The property includes the mainland and an island in the river. It is unknown when the existing bridge was built and there are no known approvals to provide access from the mainland to the island. The applicant wishes to replace the bridge from the mainland to the island. The April 7th memo from Staff raised several concerns regarding the replacement so the applicant requested additional time to restudy the project. Although Staff appreciates the breakaway design offered, the project still does not meet several of the stream margin review criteria. Staff is still recommending denial at this time. Ms. Seminick reviewed the criteria for a stream margin review and the defined areas in which it applies in regards to the river, its tributary streams and flood hazard areas. She displayed a slide of the property and described the location of the development currently in progress (P&Z resolution number 13, Series 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015 2010), the bridge that exists outside the building envelope. She stated the bridge is completely within the review area. Because the bridge is not in the building envelope, the applicant is requesting a special review for the stream margin review. The nearly three acre property is zoned Low-Density Residential (R-30) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. P&Z Resolution number 13, Series 2010 established a building envelope for a single family home currently under development. A slide was presented where a green line represented the building envelope and the yellow line represents the 15 ft set back from the top of slope. The red line on the slide represented the top of slope and the location of the bridge within the top of slope area. The deck or walking surface of the bridge is within the 100 year floodplain. The bridge is supported by a steel pillar on a concrete pad with ad-hoc reinforcement of the bank on the island side. The applicant is proposing a hinged or breakaway design for the replacement bridge on the island side of the bridge. They would remove the steel pillar but keep the concrete pad to reduce the disturbance of the bank. Abutments would be placed where the current structure exists. The new bridge would also be cantilevered to allow the middle of the bridge to be above the floodplain. In order to replace the bridge, the applicant is requesting four variances from the stream margin review criteria. Criteria two requests a fisherman’s easement to be established on the property. An easement was recommended in the P&Z resolution number 13, Series 2010, but one has not been established. The applicant does not wish to pursue it. Criteria three prohibits vegetation removal or slope changes outside a building envelope. Criteria eight does not permit development other than City-approved native vegetation planting below the top of slope or within 15 ft of the top of slope. Parks does support a re-vegetation plan for below top of slope to restore the island bank. Criteria nine does not allow for development outside the 15 ft setback from the top of slope to exceed a height delineated from a line drawn at 45 degrees. This is to reduce the visual impacts of people using the river. The project would not impact the base flood elevation based on the model provided. The proposed solution is not considered to pollute or discharge a significant amount of sediment in the river and the course of the river would not be altered. Should any permitting be required by the Army Corps of Engineers, copies of the permits would be provided to the City. If P&Z would approve this application, Staff recommends requiring all the permits and fees be submitted to the City as a condition of the approval. Because four of the review criteria are not met as described earlier, Staff does not support the project and recommends denial of the request for variances. Mr. Walterscheid asked the commissioners for any questions for Staff. There were none, so Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015 Mr. John Galambos represents the owner, Mustang Holdings II. Mr. Yancy Nichols of Sopris Engineering was also present to discuss the technical work details of the project. Mr. Galambos stated it is obvious they cannot meet any of the four criteria discussed earlier. The old bridge can be repaired as a nonconformity. They wanted to make it better by building a new bridge off site, repairing the abutments, taking the pier out of the waterway, and putting a camber in over the waterway. A crane would be used to place the bridge. The new bridge would be safer. In a catastrophic event, the existing bridge would be gone and become debris down the river. They feel the variances would allow for a practical solution to make the bridge better. He stated the entire island is in the 100 year event area. From a kayaker’s point of view, it would be better to have the bridge further off the waterway. The main bulk of the river currently flows under the bridge. The tract going around the island nearly dries up during the summer, so people using the river typically need to go under the bridge. Mr. Galambos point out the diagram of the existing bridge on p 5 of the agenda packet which shows the supporting structures and the water level. The diagram on p 9 of the packet shows the proposed new bridge which eliminates the post in the water. The post currently is an opportunity for things to pile up against it. Mr. Nichols added they are taking measures to minimize the impact to the area by building the bridge offsite, using a crane for the installation and building the support structures by hand onsite. If allowed to install a new bridge, the maintenance would be considerably be less than maintaining the existing bridge. He feels maintenance of new bridge would be 30-40 years and the existing bridge would require maintenance every 10 years. Mr. Galambos asked the commission for any questions. Mr. Goode asked them to confirm the location of the bridge in relation to the Rio Grande trail. Mr. Galambos confirmed it is bridge you can view on the left side from the trail. Mr. Goode asked about the blockage upstream shown on the picture on p 7 of the packet. Mr. Galambos stated typically the main channel is to the right under the bridge. He is not certain of the status of the blockage shown in the picture and it may need to be dealt with. Mr. Goode asked if they would repair the existing bridge if the application was denied at which Mr. Galambos confirmed. Mr. Galambos stated there are no intentions of any improvements for the island. Mr. Goode asked Staff how long the structure could be repaired into the future. Ms. Seminick confirmed nonconformities can be repaired up to 10% of the current replacement cost over a 12 month period. Mr. Galambos stated you cannot increase a nonconformity, but you can repair it. Mr. Mesirow asked given the 15 ft setback and the inability to protrude into the sight line, then it would be impossible to build a bridge to code. Both the applicant’s representative and Staff confirmed there was no way to build a new bridge to meet the code. Mr. Bendon stated the most difficult criteria item to meet is number 2 as defined on p 16 of the packet. 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015 Mr. McNellis asked if the City has taken a position regarding removing a structure built without approval in a hazard zone. Ms. Seminick stated the Engineering department did recommend the existing bridge be removed and the banks be restored to the pre-existing condition. Mr. Galambos stated his client does not want to entertain removing the existing bridge. Mr. Bendon stated the City retains the right to cure something felt to be representing a life safety or hazard to other properties regardless of what decision P&Z makes on the hearing. Ms. McNicholas asked why the applicant does not want to provide the fisherman’s easement. Mr. Galambos stated his client is concerned about privacy issues and having people walking in right in front of their house. Mr. Walterscheid asked for any public comment. There was none appearing, so Mr. Walterscheid closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Walterscheid asked for any rebuttal from Staff of which there was none. Mr. Walterscheid then asked for commissioner’s comments. Mr. McNellis feels their hands are tied in regards to the criteria. He feels the proposed new building would be a better situation in regards to safety and maintenance. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Goode have similar feelings. Ms. McNicholas stated she has concerns regarding possible loss of use of the land for the property owners but doesn’t see how she can approve the application. For the health of the river she would prefer to see it removed. Ms. Tygre agreed with Ms. McNicholas. Mr. Walterscheid is curious if there was a way to grant the application. Mr. Bendon replied P&Z should pursue all avenues to approve the project. Mr. McNellis wondered if P&Z should champion language to modify the code to allow for a project similar to this which is addressing a hazard. Ms. McNicholas didn’t necessarily agree with Mr. McNellis. She stated anytime you purchase in a flood area, you take a risk at what you can do with the property at which Mr. McNellis agreed. Ms. Tygre motioned to make a recommendation to deny the request for variation for the special review of the stream margin review for 69 Shady Ln as set forth in resolution 007-2015, which was seconded by Mr. Goode. Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call vote. Roll call vote; Ms. McNicholas, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes. Motion passed with a total six (6) yes – zero (0) no. 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015 300 and 312 E Hyman – Subdivision Recommendation to Merge Lots – Public Hearing Mr. Walterscheid explained his change in employment to Mr. Haas and asked him if he wished for Mr. Walterscheid to recuse himself from the hearing. Mr. Haas did not see any conflict. Mr. Walterscheid asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn reviewed both affidavits of notice, one for the newspaper and one for the posting and mailing. She stated notice had been appropriately provided. Mr. Walterscheid then opened the public hearing for 300 and 312 E Hyman and turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Becky Levy, Community Development Planner, described the application following the Major Subdivision review process to merge two adjacent lots\parcels within the Crystal Palace Subdivision. One lot is approximately 6,000 sf and the other is approximately 3,000 sf. Ms. Levy stated this review does not consider any future development. It is strictly a lot merger as a major subdivision process as defined by the code which requires a hearing before P&Z and then a first and second reading before the City Council. She added both lots are located within the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. A historic landmark designation exists on one of the parcels. The proposed merger does meet the criteria for a major subdivision lot merger as well as the general subdivision review standards. There is no max lot size for the CC zone district, so a 9,000 sf lot is not an issue. The utilities are sufficient to serve the current uses of the building. If the uses were to change with a development, the utilities would be re-evaluated at that time. The project continues to be in line with the Townsite plat. The proposed fits with a pattern of larger neighboring parcels that are single parcels on nearby corners. The existing lots and uses of the buildings are also in accordance with the codes. For the major subdivision review criteria, the draft complies with the requirements in section 26.480.070 including optimizing the use of land and the preservation of important features and structures. Currently the historic designation is only on the 6,000 sf lot. Staff recommends as a condition of the lot merger to include the designation on the 3,000 sf lot as well so the entire merged property will designated historic. Staff finds the application for lot merger meets the criteria. Mr. Goode asked for examples of lots over 9,000 sf in size. Mr. Bendon stated the prospector lot is larger and the lot where Cache Cache exists. The Limelight and Wheeler were also noted as examples. Mr. Walterscheid asked if this application will go before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) prior to Council. Ms. Levy stated the extension of the historic landmark designation would go before HPC for a recommendation. 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015 Mr. McNellis is concerned if there is historical context with the building that does not currently hold the designation. He would prefer the application goes before HPC prior to P&Z’s recommendation. Mr. Bendon stated HPC may have similar concerns regarding the lot merger that only P&Z can recommend. Staff would prefer the designation be on the entire parcel to allow for a cleaner administration for the zones. Ms. Tygre asked if it would be better to have them not merged in regards to the historic designation. Mr. Bendon stated it is not required, but Staff is recommending the designation to simplify future administration. Ms. Quinn asked for confirmation that Section 3 of the draft resolution is not necessary to the merger recommendation. Mr. Bendon replied she was correct. Ms. Quinn informed P&Z they may decide to include or not include Section 3 of the resolution. Ms. McNicholas asked if Council will hear from both commissions. Ms. Levy stated Council will hear recommendations from both P&Z and HPC. Ms. McNicholas asked if the applicant could withdraw that application if the designation was not granted and Ms. Levy confirmed they could do so. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, is representing Mr. Mark Hunt’s 312 E Hyman LLC. Mr. Haas stated Mr. Hunt is still evaluating ideas for the property. He stated the building at 312 E Hyman would be demolished and a new development would be incorporated into the Crystal Palace property. The properties have been functionally merged for quite some time. When it is decided to do something on the property, it will be subject to a HPC review which will include the Commercial Core design standards and HPC design standards which will require the development to be broken into 30 ft segments. Mr. Haas stated the City does not typically designate buildings, they designate properties as historic. HPC is concerned with the historic piece and the relationship of the newer construction to the historic piece. Mr. Haas feels it is practical to designate the entire parcel as historic. Mr. Haas believes the application satisfies the criteria. Mr. Walterscheid asked for questions for the applicant. Mr. McNellis asked Mr. Haas why they would want the designation which may restrict future development. Mr. Haas does not feel the designation would restrict and would help clarify what can and what cannot be done. Mr. McNellis asked what the process would be moving forward. Mr. Bendon stated there would be a check-in with HPC prior to going to Council. Ms. McNicholas asked Ms. Quinn if it is customary for P&Z to make recommendations for designations. Ms. Quinn deferred to Mr. Bendon or other members of the commission. Ms. Tygre could not recall any similar situations. Mr. Haas is not aware of this done before but has seen cases where P&Z and HPC reviews overlap. Ms. Quinn spoke with Ms. Amy Simon and she wanted P&Z to be aware of the request for the designation was part of this and she is agreeable with it. Ms. Tygre asked Mr. McNellis if he would prefer to defer the decision to HPC and not even mention it in the P&Z resolution at which he confirmed. 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015 Mr. Haas stated it was his understanding if the lots were merged, then the entire property would be considered historic. Mr. Bendon stated it may be but Staff does not want to leave it for future interpretation. Mr. Walterscheid noted there were no members of the public in attendance to comment. Mr. McNellis motioned to approve resolution 8-2015 as provided by Staff in the agenda packet with the removal of section 3. The motion was seconded by Ms. McNicholas. There was no further discussion and Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call. Roll call vote; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes. Motion passed with a total six (6) yes –zero (0) no. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 7