Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900220 A <,IJ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll Kerr, Michael Anderson. Mari call were Graeme Means, Herron, Jasmine Tygre, Peyton was excused. Richard Compton, Bruce Roger Hunt and Welton COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Compton: Reported on the meeting of the neighborhood trails and pedestrian circulation. Roger: The aerial surveys we recently got on this thing are woefully old and inaccurate. After discussion-- MOTION Roger: I move that we have the Planning Office draft a resolution to go to City Council requesting that we update the aerial surveys insofar as they are readily available at a fairly economical price. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES DECEMBER 5. 1989 Minutes were approved. HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF 200 SOUTH MONARCH PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Roger: I move this application for designation be tabled to date certain of April 3, 1990. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton asked for public comments. There were none and he closed the public hearing. HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF 17 OUEEN STREET PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing PZM2.20.90 Roxanne presented affidavit of public hearing (attached) and made presentation as attached. What we are recommending for fear of setting a precedent in other ways is that only a portion of the parcel be designated. The applicant will still get what they need which is the benefit, the incentive of the FAR variation from us. However, the entire parcel would not be designated--just the land that would be immediately associated with the cottage which is not even 1/4 of the parcel. The reason we are recommending that the entire parcel not be designated is for future incentives that might go along with a non-historic building. The incentives have been developed specifically for preservation purposes. And if we are designating the entire parcel, the majority has a brand new structure on it, we don't find that that goes along with the spirit and the intention of the incentives. Lennie Oates, representative direction--that a portion historical. That is fine with for of applicant: the site We support be designated the as us. Graeme: Is there an accessory dwelling unit involved in this? Lennie: It will be employee housing unit within the primary structure. Graeme: Does the structure gain FAR because of that? Lennie: I don't think so. I think we would benefit by Ord #l if it were passed. And I would fully expect to get those benefits. I wouldn't want to label off on them. Roxanne: The parcel would only get one FAR bonus be smaller accessory dwelling unit or the FAR bonus consideration for a dwelling unit. it either a for an HPC Graeme: It could get both. Bruce: I am curious as to whether ultimately we may be looking at a lot split or some kind of subdivision action. Roxanne: Right now what they are proposing is allowed in this zone district. They can have their building on here as long as it is not a dwelling unit. A guest house or an office--some kind of detached structure. Bruce: A guest house is not a dwelling unit? 2 PZM2.20.90 Roxanne: Not if it doesn't have a kitchen. Lennie: In all fairness if we were to go through with the dwelling unit standpoint it is entirely possible that in order to finance the cost you might treat this as a townhouse in a 2 townhouse situation. That clearly would be something that you might consider. Timothy Murray: It seems to me that it is a contradiction of terms to be historically districting and then add onto it substantially and to move it. I think it would destroy the character of it. You might just as well tear it down and build a whole new building. The historic value is lost. Roxanne: They are not adding onto it. In removing--it has a number of additions onto removing the last--the addition that is in the that they can actually move it. fact it. worst they are They are shape so The HPC has considered that and losing some of it's historic value for relocation. However, since it is only relocated basically a few feet onto the original parcel, they felt that it retained enough of it's original setting that it would be appropriate. Welton asked if there were any other public comments. There were none and he closed the public portion of this hearing. Roger: I shared Murray's concerns and what convinced me in this particular case--rather than moving it and burying it and hiding it they have moved it and put it up in a more prominent space. That allows me to tolerate the movement of a landmark. A landmark is associated with a piece of geography. In this case it is within the same historic parcel and it has been given a more prominent spot. That makes the move of this structure more tolerable. Overall I think this plan is pretty good for saving that historic landmark. Compton: I don't like the idea of an FAR bonus for this type of project where you have an historic structure which is being just one part of a larger project. It makes a lot of sense to me if you are dealing with one house or one building downtown where somebody wants to remodel it basically and add on to it while preserving the basic structure. However this is a large residential lot and the bonus is not going to improve the existing structure but being added onto an entirely new development. And a very large one that changes the character of the neighborhood at that so that to me I think the zoning change to allow 2 dwellings on the site is about as much incentive on bonuses I want to grant in this case. 3 PZM2.20.90 Welton: We are not being asked to grant any FAR bonuses. That is entirely within the purview of the Historic Preservation commi ttee and not for us this evening. And if I understood Roxanne I s presentation properly, the house, the old cottage is 800sqft --500 of which is the bonus that is allowed by HPC in order to preserve an historic structure. The other 300sqft is coming out of the house. They have by right--the only thing they are asking for is landmark designation. They have by right the ability to tear that house down and build 300 more square feet than they are planning on building on the house that they plan on that property. So the net tradeoff as I can see it is a house at 300sqft less than what they could build plus the preservation of that historic building. So the bonus question isn't going to be addressed by us. It is by HPC. Roxanne: That is correct. Wel ton summed it up beautifully. Basically what we are getting is a preserved cottage or nothing. Welton asked if there were any further public comments. There were none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Bruce: I move for the recommendation to city council that they approve the Landmark Designation for 17 Queen street subject to the survey as requested by staff. Roger seconded the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. GORDON SUBDIVISION/PUD. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Leslie: The applicants have requested tabling of this application. Welton opened the public hearing. MOTION Michael: Is there a reason as to why we are tabling this? Leslie: They have some issues with my memo and rather than hash 4 PZM2.20.90 them out with you they would rather have the opportunity to talk about it with Planning staff. Michael: The only reason I ask is that we block off these dates and we put people on the calendar and other people come forward and can't get on the calendar. It seems to me that this is an application that has been here before and I don't know whether it has to be continued again. It seems to me unfair. It seems we have done this already and if we are taking space away or time away from somebody else who can't get on the calendar and people are turning around and doing this on a frequency basis--it isn't fair to somebody who couldn't get on until the end of March. Welton: This was a difficult and time consuming memo to try to get through and try to understand and try to put the pieces together. It was like studying for a graduate level exam. Herron: It was like a lawyer wrote it. Sunny: We feel the same way. There we things in the memo that we believe we could settle at a prior date. We did not get the memo until Friday afternoon that we felt could be more constructively resolved by sitting down with the Planning Office and try and reach some conclusion on these prior to coming to P&Z. There are things in there which I did not anticipate and the applicant asked that we table. Staff was amenable to it. Roger: I move to table the Gordon/Callahan PUD, stream Margin Review and conditional use public hearing to date certain of March 20, 1990. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton asked if there were any public comments. Timothy Murray: I am a neighbor of the Gordon/Callahan Subdivision. My Mother built the first house in that end of town and we are still there. We have seen the growth of 1010 ute across the river, the Aspen Club and now they are asking for another lot split on this Gordon/Callahan Subdivision. I don't understand whether they have gotten access or anything like that so it is hard for me to comment on it except that as far as I know the last lot split was lO years ago and they were allowed to build one house and aside from that I have no other comment. Larry Frederick: What I was primarily interested in is access and bicycle pathways and such in that area. ."..' 5 PZM2.20.90 VOLK STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Kim Johnson: Made presentation as attached in record. The requirements of the Engineering Dept for the building and construction document to be filed and the fisherman's easement and the flood plain elevation certificate are the basic conditions for approval. The Planning Dept recommends approval of this Stream Margin Review for both of those parcels. The applicant has offered that documents be filed with the County Clerk regarding the graphic depictions of those foundation requirements that SChmeuser/Gordon recommended. Also the construction techniques to insure against erosion and stream pollution. The landscaping plan will have to be reviewed by Parks Dept prior to development and the inclusion of a 5ft fisherman's easement. The Federal Emergency Elevation Certificate which what is require an Engineer to certify that the minimum 2 feet above the 100 flood level. that does at least sunny: That is to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. I am requesting these be attached so that when a prospective purchaser picks up the conditions of approval it doesn I t fall through the crack and the seller winds up with problems down the road. Kim: And also Sunny offers as a condition that the Spring Street easement reservations be filed for future purchasers to be aware of that easement. Sunny: I would like to discuss the classic Fisherman's Easement. We continue to object to the conveyance of a Fisherman's Easement in the absence of the City'S willingness to take those easements under their control and provide liability. To expose potential purchasers to the liability as a result of those Fisherman's easements and impose what is basically a trail requirement along there when no trail is designated on the trail masterplan is excessive. So I ask you to reconsider the mandatory exaction of the Fisherman Easement until such time as those easements are identified on the trails masterplan and until such time as the maintenance and insurance on those easements fall within the auspices of the trails program itself. Roger: What ever happened to someone fishing at his own risk? MiChael: I have a question about condition #l--filing engineering documents with the Pitkin County Clerk. 6 PZM2.20.90 Sunny: Since it is the intent of the __mumble__ and that there are restrictions on the nature of the foundations and building envelopes we suggest that the Engineering Dept record the stream Margin Review plat which has the building envelope depicted on it and the limitations on the foundations on it so that it would be a matter of public record in addition to the minutes of the P&Z. We would also create deed restrictions which impose on those lots the foundation restrictions and references those building envelopes. It is not a subdivision plat so I can't file it as a subdivision plat. Michael: I would suggest that we clarify #1 a little bit so that we say what we are doing--that we are going to record a plat and I would think that the City Attorney should get involved in the chain to approve the restriction and the language on the plat. Sunny: If you want me to document subject to the approval, that is fine. re-word that we file the appropriate Engineering Dept and City Attorney Graeme: subject. Sunny has a good point on this Fisherman's Easement How do we justify doing that to people? Michael: Constitutionally for the City to be able to exact that somehow it has to be identified that that is an impact of building--that you are impeding access to the water. This is the exaction and I am not sure whether there is sufficient legal connections between all those to make the exaction worthwhile. I think there is a second issue. And almost more important that if the City is going to turn around and ask us to exact that from people that the City then should take the responsibility for the liability of it. If we are going to make a homeowner give that access to somebody the City then has the responsibility if they are going to exact that they are responsible for it. Sunny: My point is that there is a requirement under Stream Margin Review that if there is an identified trail across your property you are required to grant an easement. There is no reference anywhere in Stream Margin or Subdivision regarding Fisherman's easements. It just seems to be an idea that Engineering has decided it's time has come. Well, I am saying that if you are going to promote that as policy and to modify the regulations to require it and then to promote a program which the homeowner can be reasonably protected--fine. But just to pick one up here, pick one up there in the absence of doing your homework necessary to justify the program seems inappropriate. Michael: I think we could if we wanted to address that concern at least condition that condition with a requirement that the 7 PZM2.20.90 City, in order to exact it, has to agree to be responsible or assume the responsibility for any liability. Sunny: How about if the City should adopt a Fisherman's Easement program like a Trail's Easement program. Then we will convey it and be happy to do so. Michael: What would your objection be if the City turned around and assumed responsibility? Sunny: At that point we would say "Fine". Bruce: I agree with the point that Sunny and Mickey have made. However, I am concerned about the fact that we have made these exactions of other people and it doesn't make any sense to me to have done that with some others and you have got these fishing easements that may go along for one lot and then all of a sudden the next lot there is no easement. I don't know if that means the fisherman has to stay in the water until he gets past that lot line. They never know where the lot lines are anyway. I am a little concerned about fairness to other applicants that have been here over the last months and years as long as we have been doing it. Sunny: It is a recent issue. Just because somebody else acquiesced and didn't bother to obj ect to it doesn't j usti fy exacting something that is inappropriate. Welton: It does to the extent that if it is not exacted now, it never will be. I feel like, as Bruce has said, if people have acquiesced to it then--all we can do is sayan easement is appropriate or it is not. Michael: I am just not comfortable with saying that Sunny has got to pay the price because somebody else before him paid the price. I am more comfortable saying that we condition this particular provision with if the City wants to invoke the benefit of it that they have then got to assume the responsibility for the liability. And it is not to be lost in the shuffle. I think the city then has to be counted to be responsible for doing that. Welton: Conversely if we pass the motion with the condition as it is stated then the ball will be in their court to resolve any problem that they have on their own rather than-- Michael: No. You are expecting that they are going to be able to go before City Council and find a sympathetic group that is going to say that they will be responsible for what we took from you. We are the planners. Maybe we should at least lay that foundation down. 8 PZM2.20.90 Welton: Does the City have liability insurance on all of the bicycle trails and the hiking easements? Baker: They do on the trail system. Leslie: When we get an easement and it is not connected up the idea is that we ultimately want them connected up. I have some fisherman's easements and trail easements across the property that says 'If within ten years it is not connected up it ceases to exist". So it gives the ability to try and work with---- Sunny: Once again it is not the presence of the easement that is problematic. We are not fighting against giving the easement. My concern is the exposure to a potential purchaser which results from the exaction in the absence of an administered fisherman easement program by the City which includes liability. That is the problem. Not the fact that somebody is going to stand on our property and fish. Graeme: I don't think it is fair to make a big issue out of this for one particular applicant and I agree with Bruce that it needs to be the same for everybody. Maybe what we could do is just forward something to either the Attorney's Office or somebody saying that there is a problem here and that there should be liability insurance for all fishing easements within the City. Buy that insurance like you do the trails insurance and if the City wants fishing easements enough to buy the liability, they ought to do it. Welton: A fisherman's easement program needs to be implemented the way they have done for trails. Are you suggesting eliminating #4 and just not-- Graeme: I would be willing to just pass it like it is but try and get the ball rolling to make it fair across the board. I don't think this one application should be part of this whole problem. Sunny: What happens if Council doesn't do anything? Then I am left with an easement that the public has a right to use and I am liable for it. Dunaway: This has been adopted so that fishermen can still use the streams. Otherwise house after house is going to be built and there would be no access. But every property owner is liable for anything that happens on their property whether they like it or not and whether there is an easement or not. ~- 9 PZM2.20.90 Michael: There is a difference though with the status that somebody gets who is a trespasser on your property. You owe him a different legal duty than you do so somebody who has the right to enter your property on an easement. So there would be different standard of care that would be legally attachable to the situation. Sunny: Right now the public has no legal right on that property whatsoever. What you are getting at this point is access which was not in existence before. Roger: I am in favor at this point of retaining the fisherman's easement, notifying the City Council that there is a potential problem here and they should have their legal department address it. Bruce: I was going to suggest that we take part of what Leslie said and put a very short life on this easement--a year or 2 years--thereby placing the burden on us or Council to get this masterplan of fisherman's easements covered. Leslie: You have to be patient with easements and trails-- looking to the future, connecting everything up. Sunny: The presence of it is fine and if it takes ten years to put it in--- Roger: Am I to understand that parcel #1, the building envelope is 8,900sqft on which a house the maximum floor area of 4,930sqft can be built? And on parcel #2, the building envelope is 3,630sqft on which a building of 4,150sqft can be built. Sunny: That is correct. As a practical matter one may not be able to achieve the allowable FAR on parcel #2 because of the height restrictions and the envelope restrictions. That is just the allowable FAR. MOTION Welton: I will entertain a motion to approve Stream Margin Review for both parcels of the Volk Stream Margin Review property with conditions 1 through 4 as listed on Planning Office memo dated February 8, 1990 and conditions 5 that the FIMA certificate for the elevation that the main level of the house be issued prior to the building permit and condition #6 that the Spring Street reservation be documented on the plat and recorded. (attached in record) Also with the modification to #1 as requiring City Attorney and Engineering approval. - 10 PZM2.20.90 Roger: I so move. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton: I will also entertain a direction from the Commission to direct the Planning Office to put on the medium range--not the short range or the long range--work schedule discussions leading to implementation of a Fisherman's Easement program similar to the Trail's Easement program. Everyone was in favor of this direction. MOTION Roger made a motion meeting be adjourned. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5:45pm. / ty Clerk 11