Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19871020 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING OCTOBER 20. 1987 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Welton Anderson, Jasmine Tygre, David White, Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, Ramona Markalunas and Michael Herron. Jim Colombo arrived shortly after roll call. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger: Ramona and I would like to have P&Z sponsor a resolution concerning the implementation of a parking plan. There is a group chaired by Ron Mitchel requesting $50,000 for basically financial planning for the implementation of the plan--specif- ically the Rio Grande property is primarily the one we talked about. And then we find out also that Jay has put into his budget request somewhere in the vicinity of $300,000 partially including the financial aspect of it but primarily just the initial design of the parking structure itself. In Jay's plan limiting it to a structure he did not include anything for access so the overlap in his plan could easily be used for access like for Spring Street. I think the important thing at this point is to get city Council on the wagon so that we are looking at turning dirt the earliest at this point is 1989 assuming that Ron Mitchel's gets budgeted and Jay Hammond's gets budgeted. I think it is incumbent on the City to get moving on this parking issue and I think the Council needs help in focusing on that and budgeting the necessary money at this point to get it going. I would like Tom from the Planning Department to draft a reso- lution indicating our request that City Council basically budget the money to implement the plan. Council will be meeting next Wednesday and Thursday on this and I would like to have it available for them before that time. MOTION Roger: I move to have the Planning Department draft a resolution concerning implementation of a parking plan. Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 29. 1987 Roger: I move to adopt the minutes of September 29, 1987. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. GOODMAN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW steve: This is a stream margin review for a condominium and a PD amendment because the Callahan subdivision is also PUD. The unit is in green and the flood plain is shown here. The bike trail is a pretty good indication to give a sense of where it is. his is the second bridge that comes across the river and comes behind. Roger: What is the effect on the total FAR of the project? steve: We didn't do an actual takeoff. I don't believe there is any problem. And this is 150sqft of additional space. The PUD agreement did not set a specific FAR for the entire project. Ramona: So how is the FAR controlled on this project? steve: With the R-15 zoning. Roger: So they are substantially below that to the point where this has no effect on it is what you are stating? steve: That's what I believe. Roger: I am leery of these because by chips and swirls you can end up with a building that is over the FAR limit. Steve: One aspect of history on this proj ect is that about 5 units or 6 units have added bedrooms and did not require going through a PUD amendment because it is not increasing site coverage. At that time we worked with the applicant with the Building Department that they were able to add the bedrooms. It was ascertained that that was OK. So I didn't really flag that FAR would be an issue at this point and haven't reviewed that in detail. Welton: Why don't you make a condition that the Building Department verify the FAR. Steve: In the memo we pointed out that the only stream margin criteria that seems to be effected are the trees that are nearby and they would not seem to be needed. It would not seem nec- essary to review any of them and we simply wanted them on the plat to identify those trees and state that they would be protected. The Planning Department's have been specified by the Engineering Department and in our condition #2 of the recom- mendation it is basically saying that they should follow the comments of the Engineering Department. We are recommending approval. Mari: Maybe it wouldn't bring the project over the FAR threshold for anyone year but it seems to me that what would happen if suppose they ran out of FAR after say 10 units in this project did this type of thing and then the other units wanted to do the same thing? Welton: Then they would have to amend the whole PUD plat. Otherwise they are out of luck. Mari: It just seems to me like the any extra FAR that is left over to be used should be apportioned. Welton: I would say that is up to the association rather than to us to apportion. Mari: But then when they strollers and say "Everybody get it. We are only going to come with their kids and their else got it now how come we can't do the same thing that they did". Jasmine: I agree with MarL I think this came up at the Clarindon. We had a situation again with a PUD amendment because of an addition. At the time it seems to me that what was talked about in terms of amending the plat had to do with general policies as far as PUD. In other words it was up to the applicant to determine that this was necessary because of a change J.n conditions. They weren't just allowed to expand because they wanted to expand because they were a PUD which is not quite the same thing as a project which is not a PUD. And that certain floor area was not the only determinate because PUDs are supposed to allow for clustering and more imaginative concepts. Therefore the configuration of the building as it was originally approved and as the PUD was originally submitted was very important and that you needed to come on with a reason and not just take an approved PUD and start tacking bits and pieces onto it here and there depending on the wishes of the individual owner and that there was a burden on the applicant to prove that there was a certain necessity about this. I agree with Mari that changes to a PUD whether it is in the form of a PUD amendment or not should be looked at very seriously because of the nature of a PUD itself. steve: criteria 9 on page 3 of the memo does indeed have that changes to the PUD due to changes that have occurred since the final plat. The applicant did not present any kind of an elaborate demonstration that that had been the case. I think in part because Farver had just gone through before and he felt that this was very similar. Our assumption was that and therefore it would minor kind of expansion. it did not basically change the project not be a major issue. It is a fairly It doesn't have a lot of impact. Mari: Except if it is multiplied by the number of units in the PUD, it might. David: A couple of people kind of mentioned and implied that this is the Condominium Association's area. I don't know that this is really our area. I think if they get to a certain point then they have got to stop. In other words if there is so many of these that they are going to build out to FAR then they have got to stop. So it is really not something that they can come back to us and say it is our fault that we approved it. I don't know that legally we have any recourse. Mari: Except that there is criteria #9. Roger: I think that a co-sponsor of these should be the Condo- minium Association. Welton: did send they can to get a In effect the Condominium Association is because they out letters to every member of the Association. Before even come in and make an application like this they have signoff by 5/8 or 3/4 of the Association members. David: If that is the case, then that is fine as long as it doesn't exceed the total FAR. Jasmine: I just think there should be something in this that indicates that when you have a PUD and there is an addition to the PUD that the Condominium Association or the governing body should be made aware that that is in the FAR. Just so they are notified. Welton: They have been notified. They were notified at least 3 months ago. Mari: My question is were they notified that this was going to effect the-- Welton: I think that most of the Association members would not know FAR from DAR. Mari: That is what I mean. They might not be aware that they are jeopardizing their own chances. Welton: It could quite likely be a mute point in that area that's left over. Bruce, do you know how close this 150sqft addition underneath the deck is going to bring the existing FAR of the project towards the ultimate FAR allowable for the Aspen Club Condominiums. Is there a lot of extra square footage left over? Could every unit in the complex add 150sqft? Bruce: No. There is only 2 units in the whole complex that have a lower level down under the deck. There is 20 units and 18 of them it would not even work because there are crawl spaces underneath the deck. Welton: Off the top of your head you don't have what the exist in FAR is and what the allowable FAR is? Bruce: What happened was that the project just had a design and the design was in the allowable FAR. What they did they had a total project FAR and they said "That is what is approved". And that was what was built. In other words there wasn't a number. These 20 units of this size can be built there. Roger: So there is no point in having the Building Department determine this. Welton: PUD. There is no point at all because we are amending the Roger: Then it is incumbent on us with the Planning Office to keep track of these and is there an arbitrary unit--like 10% of the total FAR for the project or what is going to be the limit? There has got to be a limit as to how much they can spend. Mari: It has got to be whatever we say it is. Welton: It is. There is a 1% limit for the Planning and Building Department to sign off and never have to go to us. Steve: But no increase in the site coverage. happens it has to go back to this Commission. David: 150 ft would be in the limit you could sign off on. Every time that Steve: There is a 1% limit. Roger: OK, the problem here is that when that floor area was approved and that was a finite thing that we said "OK, you can go ahead and build that". At that time we didn't include in there any concept of expansion. Welton: That is what a PUD amendment is for--to allow for expansion. You don't fix a number engraved in stone without the possibility of making an amendment to it. Roger: OK. I understand that. But the problem is you can have all those units come in for 150sqft and end up with a project-- and someone is going to argue fairness if you say that is no longer appropriate. Here is our problem here. This one we are setting in a precedent that we are going to allow approximately 150spft per unit. Now the fact that there is site coverage or not, architects are very ingenious in figuring out how they can get 150sqft somewhere. If all of a sudden you are going to add 150sqft per unit on the entire project, we have got a project an awful lot larger than I would consider acceptable for the site. So we have to figure something here that does not give it a precedent for every unit. That we have an idea what the maximum limit of this project is. David: What is 3,000sqft on 50,000sqft? It is less than 10%. Roger: What I am worried about is saying when it gets up to more on the Hopkins street Condominium. -"' steve: That was done. We wrote a memo to the Building Depart- ment informing them of your motion and I have also talked to the owner of the building and to the architect and they have not yet decided whether they would bring into compliance or come back with a amendment. So we are still waiting on it. Cindy Houben: The location of the stream margin review is Lot 15 in the Black Birch Subdivision. The request is to enclose and expand a deck area. It is a second floor deck. At first we were concerned that maybe one of the pillars that needs to be extended out towards the river would be a problem and be in the floodway. But it is right on the edge of the floodway boundary. Therefore the Engineering Department doesn't have a concern with it. It is an expansion of 169sqft and that does not put the applicant over FAR in the R-15 zone district. It meets all the criteria. The only concern that we really have is with a prior approval that was done last year when we allowed the elevated pool in the area that was approved in the stream margin review process. And the problem that we have is that since it is an elevated pool and the intention was to elevate it so that the stream could flow under it if there was any flooding. What has happened is they have made a real nice landscaping berm around the outside and so the stream could not flow through because of the berm. What we are stating here is that more of an enforcement situation on our past approval that what we would like to do is have this stream margin review approved with a condition that prior to the issuance if the building permit for this expansion that we require that the berming be taken out. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Smith stream Margin Review with the following conditions: Those are the Planning Office conditions 1 through 3 of the Planning Office memo dated " ,:J~ >~ <"~ . ~ Ie,> I I i '- therefore, this criteria does not apply. 9. Criteria: ,Changes to PUD plats shall be made only if they are shown to be required by changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in community policy. Any changes approved in the final plan shall be recorded as amendments to the final plan in accordance with the proce- dures established for the filing of the initial approved plan documents. Response: This review has been requested by the applicant in order to create a minor increase in square footage for his unit. There appears to be no negative effect on the PUD plan as long as nearby vegetation is not disturbed. The amended plat should be amended according to the standards of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code and following the comments of the Engineering 'Department. Additionally, the applicant is encouraged to amend the condominium plat reflecting changes through this stream margin review and the Farvor Stream Margin Review recently approved. If the applicant wishes to amend the condominium plat, he should request this at your meeting. PLANNING OFFICE RECOHMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Goodman Stream Margin Review and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the subdivision exception request for a PUD plat amendment (and condominium plat amendment) subject to the following conditions: 1. Excavation and construction techniques shall be specified in the Building Permit application to ensure to the satisfaction of the Building Department that no excavation material will be deposited in the River and no unnecessary disturbance of the hillside or nearby vegetation will be caused by the project. 2. An amended PUD plat shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Building Permit according to the standards of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code, following the comments of the Engineering Department, and containing a note regarding the existing grove of aspens s.tating "Existing trees to be protected and saved." sb.goodman .~ /]CY ..ad'~ ~ I -"'~~'.''''''''''''------."~.-. ----.--.-- " '<' r ,00 o <' :;>> / / / { l I / r { relocated, the applicant and applicant's heirs, successors and assJ.gns shall provide maintenance to assure that the flood carrying capacity is not dimin- ished. RESPONSE: This criteria does not apply. (8) Copies shall be submitted of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred year floodplain. RESPONSE: All necessary permits shall be submitted and will be a condition, of approval. SUMMARY: The increase in square footage is allowable under the FAR regulations for the R-15 Zone District. In general, the project is of an insignificant nature. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Smith Stream Margin Review with the following conditions: (1) On August 5, 1986 P&Z approved an application for Stream Margin Review for this same residence. When this site was inspected, it was observed that a berm had been placed, subsequent to that observed that a berm had been placed, subsequent that approval, at the north side of the addition approved by that review. Because this berm has the potential for obstructing debris in the flood waters within the 100 year flood plain; this berm shall be removed prior to receiving a building permit for the deck. (2) Construction procedure shall be submitted that demons- trates there will be no increase of pollution in the river and no destruction of the river bank caused by this development. (3) Copies of all necessary Federal and State permits shall be ,submitted to the Planning Office prior to issuance of a building permit. Stream. margin t;d~~fj&u~/ '/