HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19881115
A
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 15. 1988
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 5:00pm.
Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton,
Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Michael Herron
was excused and Jim Colombo arrived at 5:05 pm.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Roger: Apparently County Commissioners on first reading have
passed a tariff on vans and taxis out at the airport. This
includes lodge vans. I think they call it a "Medallion Fee".
For lodge vans it is $300.00. For taxis it is $100.00. All I
can say is that in their interest to maximize the profits of the
airport I am afraid we are losing sight of the system and what
that is tending to do as far as an auto disincentive is
concerned. That works contrary to an auto disincentive.
I would like to get word to the City Council and to the Board of
County Commissioners that they should take another look at that
before passing such a heavy tariff on lodge vans.
MOTION
Roger: I make a motion to direct the Planning Department to
write a resolution to City Council requesting that the Board of
County Commissioners take at least a second look at this tariff
on lodge vans for use of the airport and that basically we feel
that it would be counter productive as an auto disincentive.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor except Graeme.
Graeme: The reason is I just don't understand what our role is
in advising them.
Then in reading the paper last week I saw Bill Dunaway's
editorial about the resolution we passed on to City Council about
employee housing. And he was mentioning that he thought the
guidelines--rents basically would be so high that they wouldn I t
have much of an effect because they were geared to the middle
income rather than the lower income thing. I was wondering if
anybody else thought he had a good point or not.
Mari: I thought there were no guidelines as far as rent. I read
it and did not know what he meant.
Welton: The RMF are the only ones that are going to have any
guidelines put on.
,."".
PZMll.15.88
GORDON/CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL
CONTINUED HEARING
Cindy: Lot 2A of the initial proposal--the main word is that
there be a smaller footprint for a house on that site. The
Commission mentioned that they would like to see 2A moved over.
They would like to see the open space meadow area that I
recommended be open space--stay one large parcel. Other members
mentioned that they would like to see Lot 2A become open space
and then have some of the meadow area remain as open space.
Sunny: Lot 9 had the right to develop. Lot 2 had a density
after slope reduction and land under water, etc. of a little over
4 units. The applicant had 2 development rights. One which was
attributed to Lot 2 to start with. And one which he purchased
which was one of the Lipkin development rights. But he couldn't
build on Lot 2 without subdividing the property. So instead of
just coming in for a subdivision lot 2, it seemed to make more
sense to re-orient Lot 9 at the same time.
So Lot 9--the development right on that is the right that has
always been attributable to it from the Callahan subdivision.
Lot 2A has the right which was attributed to Lot 2 to start with
and Lot 2B is the developed right associated with the Lipkin
transferable develop right.
There are no lots created beyond those 3 rights.
potential for additional density on the property.
units and that area has been retained and could be
subsequent growth management application if we
receive a growth management allotment.
But there is
In this case 2
the topic of a
were able to
To answer Jasmine's question what we have done is pull back off
of this piece that was of concern, add that portion to Lot 9 and
pull the envelope back here. At this point there are only 3 lots
whereas there were 2 lots to start with. There has always been 3
development rights but only 2 lots. So what we have done is
create a 3rd parcel for the 3rd development right and to re-
orient the whole thing to come up with what we believe is a
better site plan.
There will absolutely
grading of the bank.
topography.
be no removal of mature vegetation, no re-
he buildings will be built on the existing
Trail easement: This is the so called trail on the back side of
the 1010 ute. The condition that is on the 1010 ute plat is
that this can't be used until access from ute Avenue is
available to Hwy. 82.
2
PZMll.15.88
Welton: Are the FARs different from last week?
Sunny: When I first wrote the application it had been our intent
to restrict the FAR slightly. The P&Z has adopted the resolution
over the moratorium that may, if the Council adopts it, affect
these lots. They will be vacant lots which, unless they contain
a caretaker unit, will be subject to the 25% FAR penalty.
Rather than voluntarily restricting that FAR below the 4,700 at
the moment, I would prefer to defer that to the next stage of
review when we see what Council is going to do with your
recommendation. If we are to include a caretaker unit, we would
like to have sufficient FAR to make it work on the site. We
haven't designed any of the houses. I would like to leave the
FAR as that which would be allowed under the existing zoning at
this point and if it looks like we can agree to restrict it below
that somewhat, we would do so at the next stage of review.
Jasmine: I think that part of the PUD process is the planning of
the open space, where it is going to go and how much of it there
is going to be. That is one of the things about the application
that bothered me from the very beginning. Especially because
there is so much question as to what is going to happen with the
land that is not at this moment under discussion. I think we
would be very remiss in not indicating somewhere that there is a
preferred location for open space, a certain amount that you are
committing to and where it will be.
That is what PUD is all about--to preserve open space as
development occurs. I feel that when you have a PUD you should
have more of an indication of what is happening on the entire
PUD--not just the one that you have developed specific lots for.
I think that this is not a correct way to approach a PUD. I
really don't feel comfortable with not seeing more detail on that
regardless of growth management. I don't think we have enough
information on this particular PUD.
what you have done is great. But this PUD does not have the
potential building envelopes for the other potential envelopes--a
calculation of what the total open space is for the entire PUD
and where that open space is going to be.
Jim: It has to go through GMP application in order for those to
be allotted for anyway. So the fact that where we want it will
be decided at that point. The fact is that we are assured that
that amount will be in here somewhere. I don't think it is
important that we decide where is at this point.
3
PZMll.15.88
stan: This development impacts to a greater extent the
neighborhood more than it does the people that may eventually get
to use the trail. So all of a sudden we have a community good
vs. the neighborhood good. No one is ever going to see that
unless they trespass or ride in innertubes down the line. So I
think you guys are charged with what you do for the neighborhood.
I think that this is an appropriate place along this river
alignment and I am real sorry if some people walking along the
trail don't get to see this greenspace. But they get the effect
of it right through here.
Welton: Do you have any problem addressing Jasmine's concerns by
agreeing to condition *9--"prior to final submission, the
applicant shall show where any future lots would be located, if
the owner of Lot 2B were to ever apply for Growth Management, to
further subdivide the parcel."
I think you have done everything that was asked last week as far
as that sensitive corner on the south side of the property that
was not appropriate in all people's minds for building. I think
that doing a 2-1ot split through GMP is going to be like getting
a camel through the eye of the needle. I don't know if it is
possible to get enough points to do that.
I would like to see maybe 2 more envelopes on the other portions
of Lot 2B just to give you something that you can amend later on.
I don't think it is incumbent on us to sterilize the remainder or
a good portion of Lot 2B at this point when the possibility of it
being developed I think is marginal.
Sunny: As opposed to losing the project we are willing to talk
about some kind of envelope. My preference would be to indicate
where we could build without pinning it to a specific envelope
and to give you the size of those envelopes or a total envelope
size and the remaining open space and those restrictions that
would be placed on the open space.
Welton: It would tidy up so many loose ends and it would meet so
many criteria of PUD.
Graeme: I think the flexibility in the future might be a good
thing. We don't know where the trail is coming through and maybe
some other things about the surrounding area. If people have
review capability in the future maybe it is better that we don't
pin them down to some things before we know some of those other
things.
Jim: Also during the GMP application there is going to be a
public hearing. I would venture to say you are going to have a
lot more interest from community neighborhood surrounding on a
4
PZMll.15.88
daily basis complaining about proximity and location of the homes
than you are from the potential users of the trail on the other
side. So let's give them a little flexibility at this time.
Roger: You have done a fantastic job of redesigning those lots.
I have no problem with restricting the building envelopes by a
number. I do have a problem putting it down in place at this
time. It eliminates the flexibility that we may want in the
future when we get public input.
Cindy: I don't think that we have to say just because we have a
building envelope on a plat that we have to say that this is the
only building envelope. What I would like to get to is a
preferred area of development. I think the PUD process is a joke
if we don't rest r i ct areas that we think are sensi ti ve to no
development.
Sunny: If you want to talk about where you think is appropriate
for this development to occur we are certainly going to take
that into account. We want the flexibility to see what we can do
with removing this easement which may enable us to move stuff
around.
,
Welton: Cindy seemed to have a great concern for the area
between the ditch and the river because it was marshy, spongy and
she thought it might be inappropriate for development. Sunny
said that was just because the ditch was leaking. I can I t see
hydraulic pressure from the river pushing up 3 to 5 ft through
the ground adjoining the river. I don't think there is a spring.
I think it probably is a leaking ditch.
My concern is the vegetation along the edge of the river. I
think you have done a very nice job in preserving that and
protecting it--not impacting it. If we determine that for PUD
purposes the area along the river be it 40ft or 70ft--whatever
figure--you can write that into the agreement. That is fine with
me. And if you can write the agreement that 2 additional
building envelopes located above this magic line--above your
stone wall no larger than 6,000sqft each leaving a remainder of X
number of sqft of open space between properties--that is
acceptable to me. I don't need to see the lines drawn.
That is my suggestion for a resolution on this. All in favor?
There is an area that we all can agree is not to be built upon
and that is the area adjoining the river from your wall to the
river is the most delicate area that should not be touched. That
remaining area of 28 shall have no more than 2 building envelopes
located on it of 6,000 sqft each leaving Y number of sqft
5
PZMll.15.88
remaining in open space. The exact location of those envelopes
to be determined at GMP competition.
The straw vote was 4 to 3 approval.
Welton then read into the record a letter from Bob Murray
regarding his concerns regarding this application. (Attached in
records)
Roger: I would like to go down through the conditions.
Conditions are attached in records.
Welton: On condition *1 about the primary and secondary building
envelopes.
Sunny: That goes away. We have pulled back the building
structure below the envelope. The code says anything the grade
or something doesn't fall within that envelope. Was there any
need to retain the ability to do a patio or walk that wouldn't
count in FAR outside that envelope.
Cindy: John, you understand that your builders wouldn't be able
to build anything outside of the envelope. You couldn't do
landscaping or anything outside of the building envelope.
Welton: I don't have any problem with landscaping.
decks or anything like that--no.
Patios,
Sunny: So then that becomes the primary and secondary envelope
which makes it clear in the condition.
Cindy: Landscaping includes the things that the Engineering
Dept. will be interested in with regard to the Stream Margin
Review process.
Sunny: We are going to put covenants on the deeds that say "If
you buy this lot you can't regrade the bank, you can't take the
trees down". It will have to reflect the conditions that you
put on the approval.
Welton: That condition basically is not a condition because
there is no secondary building envelope.
Sunny: If you want to rewrite it to say that the envelopes that
are depicted on the site plan limit all of the development to
that envelope, that is fine.
Welton: Just eliminate *1.
6
PZMll.15.88
We can rewrite #2 to say that "Any landscaping outside of the
primary building envelope shall be subject to individual stream
Margin review or review by Engineering to the extent that it is
required".
B is struck.
#4 Sunny: That is fine, we have agreed to continue to work with
them on trying to come up with an alignment that works.
#5 Sunny: I assume what Markalunas is trying to do here is to
provide for the eventual looping of the system.
#6. Sunny: What we said is that once you approve the lots, we
would dedicate the easements as required. That is fine.
#7. Roger: We will say "The applicant shall agree never to
develop the 30ft easement for access use".
Sunny: That is OK. We are talking about our successors and
assigned hereto. If we create a lot and it is sold that would
pass on to whomever buys it. Neither will we grant approval for
anyone else. That is as much as we can tie it up.
#8. Sunny: That is no problem. We can live with that.
#9. Welton: How about "Prior to final submission, the
applicant shall indicate that no development shall occur between
the stone wall and the river and shall indicate the size of
additional building envelopes and remaining open space on Lot 2B
as part of the PUD agreement".
Sunny: Would you agree to include the following: That nothing
within that condition would preclude us from applying to amend it
as part of the GMP application.
Jasmine: I really think that we need to have some indication of
what the total maximum development on this parcel is going to be
and I don't see anything like that. There is nothing written in
here that says "Not to exceed".
Welton: We can firm up this condition to read--"prior to final
submission applicant shall indicate that no development shall
occur below the stone wall and above the river and shall indicate
no more than 2 additional building envelopes totaling no more
than 12,000sqft in aggregate on Lot 2B and indicate the remaining
open space on the PUD agreement".
Sunny: We can live with that.
7
PZMll.15.88
#10 and #11 stay as is.
Cindy: I have 2 other conditions--#12 and #13.
representations that the applicants have made and
ought to make them conditions of approval. That no
regrading of the parcel shall take place.
These are
I think we
significant
Stan: We have to do some regrading along Riverside
the road in. We have to do some driveway grading.
going to be trashing out the edge of the bank.
Sunny: We are not going to totally change the land around to
build the houses. It is not going to be another 1010.
ditch to get
We are not
Cindy: It should state that "No significant grading under the
building envelope shall take place".
Sunny: That would be acceptable.
Roger: "No significant regrading of the site with the exception
of that which is necessary for the driveway".
Cindy: #13. No significant vegetation shall be removed outside
of the building envelopes. Again my concern in making this a
condition is it was a representation of the applicant to
preserve mainly the large existing vegetation that is on a
portion of the lot.
Welton: The applicant's representation tonight for purposes
right now would be what the underlying zoning would allow, no
more. And that when it is resolved, Council will have a handle
on what they want.
Sunny: What I will do for Cindy before this goes to Council at
Conceptual is give her a revised plat and recalculate the FAR
based on what is the actual requirement under the PUD process.
Cindy: what would be helpful is that the applicant could
represent in a letter all the changes between the initial
application and what we have heard tonight.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend approval of the Gordon PUD
Subdivision conceptual plan with the following conditions.
#1. Any landscaping or development outside of the building
envelope shall be subject to individual Stream Margin Review.
8
PZMll.lS .88
#2. The location of the trail easement through the Gordon parcel
shall be determined at the final development submission stage.
#3. The applicants shall provide a water line easement from the
terminus of the proposed line, northwest across Lot 2B to an
existing main located in South Riverside Avenue.
#4. All necessary sewer line easements shall be illustrated at
final submission.
#S. The applicant shall agree to never develop the 30ft wide
easement for access purposes along the eastern edge of the
parcel. Furthermore the applicant shall not further allow the
development of that easement by the owner of the Gordon
Subdivision Lot 1 if there is a need for further approval by the
owners of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision or by owners of the
Callahan Subdivision.
#6. Prior to final plat approval the applicants shall verify the
validity of the access agreement from Highway 82 to the proposed
development.
#7. No significant grading under the building envelope shall
take place.
#8. The driveway on the revised map dated 11/lS/88 (Exhibit AI
shall not show access to the northeastern portion of the parcel.
#9. Any land transfers with the Benedict Land Company must
comply with the regulations of the Land Use Code.
#10. There shall be no significant regrading of the site with
exceptions of that necessary for the driveway.
#11. No vegetation shall be removed outside of the building
envelopes.
#12. The applicant shall represent in a letter all changes
between the initial application and what we have heard tonight.
Jim seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine.
J;n~n~city V'P"l
9