Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900605 u ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:35pm. (That's when the secretary was good and ready to do roll call) Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Richard Compton arrived shortly after roll call. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger Hunt: Regarding victoria Square: When we reviewed that project I think we sawall peeked roofs. And now all of a sudden this strange flat roof for this has come into existance in one of the units. Welton: The PUD representations that were presented for PUD approval indicate all pitched roof structures. The unit on the southwest corner of 6th and Hallam has their post box out on Hallam Street which happens to overhang the street. That house is numbered 626 and it is on the odd side of the street. Some of these things need to be corrected. Their entrance is on 6th Street. They have got an even number on the odd side of the street. Jasmine: I just got back from vacation in Hawaii. And it seems that the kind of booming real estate values and growth pressure that have been affecting the whole state are really obvious there. In Honolulu they are seriously talking about mass transit because the traffic on that one highway has gotten so bad. They have been very inventive about things like "contraflow"-things that we should consider. They are considering that they are going to have to absolutely have to get into mass transit because there is just no--they don't have room to put roads anyway even if they wanted to. And they have just come to realize that pollution is getting worse and that mass transit is definitely the way to go. It has gotten to the point where when you want to go to a place of scenic interest that if you don't get there by 9: 00 in the morning it is crowded. It is still nice and they are very good about keeping it clean but you are there with 600 other people. And it is making things very uncomfortable for the tourists who want to go there and see something beautiful and not be surrounded by people. I think there are should apply to necessarily with certain lessons to be learned from that that we our own road planning which has to do not just what is the capacity for the valley but PZM6.5.90 when do things get to the point where you don't want to be skiing with 15,000 other people no matter how many lifts you have and no matter how many trails you have. I would like to see us look into that more in our own planning. Mari: I have also just gotten back from vacation. As we were circling over Munich before landing I sawall of these little hamlets just outside of Munich surrounded by green fields that were under cultivation with cows and crops. We went to one of those little hamlets and talked to some people and I asked "How can you preserve something like this just a 30 minute drive away from the big city? Aren't there lots of people coming out here wanting to buy?" And they said "0h, it is very simple. You have to live here for 5 years before you can buy any thing. II Bruce: I haven't been on vacation at all. But I was playing golf the other day in our supposed off season. And this was the middle of the afternoon. It was not 4: 00 or 5: 00. And I absolutely could not get out of the parking lot at the golf course. This points up Jasmine's point. We have got some really serious problems even in our supposed off season. It is just crazy. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: When we talked about Smuggler PUD we had a discussion about stick built vs mobile homes up there and how some of the mobile homes are being transformed and don't look like mobile homes anymore. I got a call from Vince and Brooke. Vince is on the Board of Directors and he wanted me to add some clarifying language either in the memo to Councilor in the amendment itself just saying how the Building Dept deals with people who want to renovate their mobile homes. If you will recall what Brooke said that the Building Dept as long as you keep the floor and one wall of the mobile home then you can totally rebuild the rest of your mobile home within dimensional requirement. I probably will be inserting that language to go to Council. If he wants to all of a sudden totally build stick-built homes up there--in my discussions with Amy and Tom they thought that that might be a substantial change and you would want to bring that back to you for further discussion. Roger: I think agaJ.n and see houses. if it is totally stick build we should review it if everything is appropriate for stick-built 2. PZM6.5.90 Leslie: It will be something more involved than that. In the code in the MHP zone district it is a prefabricated homes. But I think the Building Dept is getting--not getting around that but kind of enabling people to do additions and upgrade by keeping one floor and one wall. If it is something beyond that we might want to discuss it a little bit more. Mari: I am curious what the argument would be to discourage a stick-built house instead of mobile home. Leslie: There probably isn't one. Mari: I can't imagine that there could be. Roger: I think we would have to address--mobile homes generally don't have basements. A modular home could be put on a basement. I think we should address it. Leslie: Regarding bike paths. First off the bike path that goes down to the Rio Grande will be open June 15. The problem of people parking on the bike paths: Bill Efting suggests you call the Parks Dept and they will go and ask people to get off the paths. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. MINUTES MAY 22. 1990 Bruce made a motion to approve these minutes. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. SANDERS STREAM MARGIN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Kim Johnson Planning Dept made presentation as attached in record. I inadvertently left Sunny's request to have the approval if it is granted vested for 3 years from today' s date which is 18 months over the automatic vesting as included in the Land Use Code. Wel ton asked sunny Vann if he had any concerns regarding the conditions of approval. Sunny: I want to go on record with objection to exaction of Fisherman's Easement. There is no criteria in stream Margin for '"",,,,,- 3 PZM6.5.90 this exaction. I suggest if you are going to do this that you modify the code. I don't have problem with the work that is being requested on the retaining wall. I am concerned about requiring basically what amounts to architectural review in the absence of any criteria. This particular wall will have no adverse effect on the river whatsoever. I do object to this type of condition with no criteria and basis for this exaction. Roger: . My concern here is the considerable change in the topography on this site. Apparently considerable fill under the house and considerable under one end of the pool. Basically changing the topography that much I am wondering who on the opposite side is going to be seeing this and I don't want to see an approval that will go through that will end up looking like our employee housing out by the hospital where we felt we had approved one thing and all of a sudden we end up with a hill half way cut off and another one that looks like it is half way filled up. And do we have any codes regarding that type of excavation? Sunny: We are going to submit plans on the grade changes to the Engineering Dept to insure there is no adverse affect on the river. The only changes occur in the area of the pool itself and at that point we are well out of the flood plain. And the far upper corner to accommodate the deck foundation for that wing of the house. We have indicated in our application that we will re- vegetate all of the disturbed slopes. Graeme: When I looked through the criteria I did not find anything to back up or to hang my hat on in my objections which are along the same lines as Roger's. But they have to do with the appearance from across the river. They have 1.8 to an acre. And yet they feel it necessary to push out over the river and expose everybody on the other side of the river to a fairly large rock wall. And yet there is nothing in here like there is in the Greenline Review about the visual impacts. So I personally am not comfortable with the visual impacts of the thing. Mari: Maybe we should explore putting something in the code that deals with visual impacts for Stream Margin Review. Graeme: It is a big impact because of the canyon there. There are a lot of people across the river who will see it. Mari: I agree with you. I think there should be criteria similar to the Greenline Review that mentions blending in with the natural terrain. Jasmine: I agree. 4 PZM6.5.90 Welton: There is going to be a code update this summer. Can you add that to the list of work items to be improved on. That along wi th sunny's concerns about Fisherman I s Easements that that be incorporated in a more solid way. Richard: I want to add my agreement to what Graeme and Mari have said about this and give my support to exploring some kind of visual criteria because it does impose itself upon the river and the environment both physically and visually. And while we don't have control over such things I do consider it an inappropriate use of the land. Roger: I think sunny should explain the 3 year instead of just the 18 month vested rights thing. Sunny: The standard 18 month--it doesn't really vest your rights. It ~imply says that if you don't build in 18 months your approval expJ.res. But if there is a code change during that 18 month period you are susceptible to that code change. The vested rights provision is designed to give you some sort of immunity from periodic code changes for a period of 3 years. If we don't request vested rights status and we don't build then with the code changes, I have to come back. Roger: So vested rights is for 3 years. Sunny: Exactly. If I don't request vested rights, I have no rights. I have approval that is good for 18 months but if something should change in the regulations then I would have to come back in and be in compliance with those regulations. The purpose of the vested rights ordinance is to give a grace period of 3 years in which to exercise the approval immune from changes in the code. Jasmine: In other words the vested rights approval is a 3 year approval. Sunny: Exactly. Jasmine: So you are not really asking for an extension. Sunny: Not at all. The code currently says that P&Z, when they have soul discretion as in a Stream Margin, grants vested rights status. In light of some of the recent legislative problems that have come up you are granting it but it is being forwarded to Council to be rubber stamped by ordinance. Graeme: In Criteria #3--is there anything in the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan that talks about preserving the natural environment 5 PZM6.5.90 of the river? If so then I think there might be reason to review the type of thing we are concerned about. Kim: The Greenway Plan addresses the River corridors as being opportunities for preserving open space, natural vegetation, natural habitat. When it does reflect design standards it is usually in reference trail systems, public facilities or public open spaces. It is mostly regarding not necessarily private sites or specific locations. I think we could use that as potential criteria and pick out items that we might be able to apply visually in site specific locations. sunny: We are moving no mature vegetation the Parks Dept has said is in fowl shape. beyond the acceptable setback requirements We are subject only to review because we feet of the river. except one tree which We have set back well of the zone district. are wi thin a hundred If you want to expand the criteria to include the areas beyond the 100ft setback criteria for Fisherman's Easements etc I think that is fine. But I think what you are looking at now goes beyond the criteria we currently have to work with. MOTION Bruce: I move to approve the Sanders Stream Margin Review and also recommend that City Council grant vested rights for the 3 years as requested by the applicant subject to the 5 conditions listed in the Planning Office memo dated June 5, 1990. Mari seconded the motion. Roger: I would suggest changing the wording about the vested interest portion of it as not the P&Z recommends--I really can't find myself wanting to recommend the Council approval of a vested interest but rather use the words forwarded to City Council--not indicating prejudice one way or the other of the vested interests portion of this. Bruce did not want to change his motion. Richard: I am unwilling to support the vested rights portion of the motion. Graeme: I am with Richard. Welton: Let the record show that Graeme, Jasmine, Roger and Richard voted against the motion. 6 PZM6.5.90 MOTION Bruce: I move to approve Sander's Stream Margin Review subject to the 5 conditions of the Planning Office memo. Mari seconded the motion with everyone in favor except Graeme. MOTION Roger: I move to forward to council the applicant's request for vested interests of the Sanders Stream Margin Review without comment. Bruce seconded the motion. Jasmine: I think if we are going to take that form of action it is important to put the reasons why. And since there is such an even split among members of the Commission as to why we are ei ther recommending or not recommending vesting, I think there should be some comment. Roger: Basically all I am doing is giving them a vehicle to go to Council. ,.....'....., Sunny: You either act or not act on it. You don' t give a recommendation regarding vested rights. The code says you grant vested rights. The city Attorney has advised as an applicant that if I want to be totally sure of what is correct in light of the current legal situation that I should also request an ordinance from Council. ""'~-> Jasmine: I share the concerns that have been expressed about vesting a project that nobody is really very happy with although we don't have the grounds to deny it based on the current code. I don't see why we should extend it beyond the normal life of what would be expected with an approval for something that we are not really all that excited to see get done in the first place which is exactly what you are trying to protect. I think that somewhere along the line somewhere there record of our rational for doing what we are doing. there are several people who feel that way I think important that it be on the record. has to be a And since it is very Sunny: My concern is that I don't think vested rights is discretionary action. I don't think you can say "Well, I am not going to vest you because I want to change the code. II That is the whole purpose of the vested rights is to give someone in the process ability to rely on the approval. "'-, 7 PZM6.5.90 Jasmine: There is probably going to be a legal point of view and I just think that whatever happens that it is important for us to put our viewpoints on the record. Glenn Horn: I have looked over the code and there is no basis for discretionary review when it comes to vested rights. It is a right of the applicant. There are no criteria that say the City can vest when they want to. It is just a basic right and when it comes to procedural action of the P&Z Commission and the City Council I don't think you have the right not to vest something that somebody asks vesting for. Mari: I guess I am just curious why we then have to vote on something which is not discretionary. Welton: It is just a formal action that has to be taken. Roger: The motion was to forward the applicant's vested interests to City Council without comment. that is necessary. It is a vehicle. request for That is all Bruce: Does the code say that the P&Z Commission grants the vested rights? Sunny: When legislature passed the vested rights last year they left it up to the jurisdictions to establish certain ways to ,- implement that legislation. There are reviews which Council has delegated to P&Z. Stream Margin Review is one of them. In those cases our code says that P&Z vest in one step appl ications. Because of some controversies that have come up regarding several suits involving the City the Attorney has advised us as applicants that if we want to be totally certain we will take the vested rights granted by P&Z to Council and have them rubber stamp them by adoption of an ordinance. So I am aSking as part of from the P&Z as part of think you have discretion my application this approval. to withhold it. for vested rights status As Glenn said I don't Bruce: It seems to me we voted 4 to 3 against vested rights and it is an item we don't have discretion on. Roger:. We do have a motion on the floor and that is to forward the application including the vested rights for a period of 3 years by Council action. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine. -" 8 PZM6.5.90 ARUNDALE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND VESTED RIGHTS CONTINUED Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record. She passed a summary sheet to Commission members in which Planning and Engineering recommend approval of this SMR with conditions as originally submitted to you as well as some amended conditions and new conditions. (attached in record) Planning and Engineering did have a lengthy meeting with the applicant this morning and we are satisfied with the information they have submitted as well as a few minor amendments to the plan of the house itself. Roger: The present building which is over the Greenline is right now cantilevered? Kim: No. (using model) The foundation will be in the flood plain. What they have to do as far as their finish floor elevation will be a minimum of 2ft above the 100 year flood elevation but what will actually be within the flood plain includes this much of the living room and upper floor and a sliver across in here and this deck will be cantilevered over and this deck and foundation will actually be partially in the flood plain. There cannot be a basement. Roger: Basically they have designed the foundation to withstand flood loads in that area? Kim: That is one of the criteria they demonstrate that the foundation itself will be strong enough to withstand the flow. Another aspect that we sought additional information was that their construction techniques how they actually intend to be excavating within 4 and 1/2 feet of the bank of the river and how do they plan to do that and maintain the integrity of the bank. Their letter submits that they will be excavating from the interior of the lot. That no machinery will be between the foundation line and river bank, that hand digging will complete what the machine cannot accomplish, that they will use adequate shoring to prevent cave-in to the inside. We have also discussed the timing of their construction and they feel that with all due speed that they will probably be in the excavation phase in August which is low water time and present the least amount of hazard as far as the water being high enough to create a problem while the hole is being dug. Roger: Right now how high above the river is the grade at which they will be excavating? 9 PZM6.5.90 Kim: How high above the actual water level? Roger: Yes--above our mean water level at this point. Glenn: This shows right here where the water is and so-- Roger: What I am wondering is are you going to hit water? Glenn: We anticipate that by not initiating excavation until August 15 especially this year with the low runoff, the water line is going to be down here and the foundation will be here. So given the scale of this map you are probably looking at about 9 or 10 feet to the water line when excavation occurs here and over here 8 or 9 feet above the water line when excavation occurs. Roger: Are you going to be striking water level when you are going to try to excavate that? Michael Manchester, architect for applicant: water 4 feet below the surface when we dug expect to have water in the crawl space. Probably. We found at 2 drillings. We ,..'? Roger: Is this going to require piles or something on that order? Michael: We don't expect to. We looked at a pile system which Chen said was a possibility for us. We think that the pile system will create a much worse disturbance of the ground near to there. We think we are in a better position to go to a spread footing. Jasmine: I think that the river probably has changed and one of the things I think SMR doesn't take into account--it seems to me that when we are going through the review of the criteria of the SMRs that somewhere along the line there has got to be attention paid to the accumulative effect of the encroachments into the 100 year flood plain. I think it is a matter of tremendous concern. Because all of the things that have been happening along the river are partly why the river is moving in addition to the fact that nature just does this. If everybody along the river extends 5 feet then what happens? And we have no way of monitoring that. Roger: Somewhere upstream what happens is your flood plain starts expanding. Glenn: The backwater analysis stresses what happens if the building is constructed within the 100 year flood plain. The 10 PZM6.5.90 results analysis show that the impact on the river from this proposed building footprint would be negligible. The second major sedimentation and which may occur addressed that in concern of the SMR consideration would be erosion of the bank and damage to the bank as a result of construction. Michael has his letter. (attached in record) We asked excavation protection Jack Wilkie the contractor responsible for the on this site and will actually be there overseeing the of the bank. Roger: My only concern is the protection of the footings and foundations from saturation of water over the years. I would like to say that in effect the city approval does not guarantee that what they are going to try to do is going to survive even a hundred year flood. I am worried that by virtue of approving a SMR we are giving whoever in the future owns this property some form of guarantee that just by virtue of our approving it if something happens in the future and the house is swept away I just hope they don't try to hold the City liable. -'- Bruce. That is Attorney's Office? for approving this a question I had. Has this gone by the And is there potential liability to the city structure within the 100 year flood plain. Kim: No. It hasn't gone before the Attorney. But as long as they are mitigating or doing their construction techniques to withstand the calculated pressures and forces of the river you can beef anything up. It is a matter of is it sturdy enough. Jim Gibbard: We are on pretty safe legal footing. Given the fact that our SM regulations are much more strict than FIMA' s regulations. If we allow a foot raise in the BFE as FIMA does I think we would still be safe. But we don't. We don't allow any rise. Richard: Just to pick up on those calculations: The number you came up with--.03--which is not the same as saying there will be no rise. Your margin of error may be .1 but there is no scenario in which it would actually bring the water level down so then your margin of error could be as high as .13 so I don't think those calculations are really relevant. My concern is it does stick into the 100 year flood plain and while I am confident the engineers and the contractor can build it to withstand the water, what effect does this change in the stream bank have upstream of a house. It could create a 11 PZM6.5.90 backwater which could create erosion which will change the whole scenario. So I am not comfortable with that from a technical point of view and from the planning point of view. A house that sits right on the water and will have water against its foundations at certain times even in a normal flood and not in a 100 year flood. I am not comfortable approving it that way. Chuck, Engineering Dept: I think that the city's job and the P&Z's job is to identify the problems for the applicant and the public. Once we have identified the problem then it is up to their particular engineers and contractors to solve the problem. So I don't think you are having to approve those particular solutions to the problem. But as long as they are meeting the SMR criteria then you can approve it. But whoever the engineers who design the foundation, that is going to be his responsibility whether the building washes away is not our responsibility. Glenn: The applicant voluntarily suggested and offered a Fisherman's Easement within the high water mark of the river. Although it is not required by the code .he liked the idea of having fishermen accessing the river and he will grant the Fisherman's Easement within 3 feet of the high water mark. Mari: We have been granting these Fishermen's easements. How does a member of the public know where these easements are? Kim: Planning is going to be working on compiling all of this information on easements to see where we have continued easements and where we have gaps in easements with the intent to have this as public information. Graeme: The last time we had a Fisherman's Easement I think some of us asked the Planning Dept to investigate liability question and whether it was fair to force somebody to give the easement and then have them liable for people on that. I felt real uncomfortable with doing that. Did the Attorney look at that? Kim: I reported back that the City would assume responsibility and liability as what they have within the trail system. Richard: An existence of an easement does not comply safe passage at this point. There is not study saying that this part of the river is safe and this part isn't. Mari: Nor should it ever. Roger: My biggest problem is the projection out into the new 100 12 PZM6.5.90 year flood plain. Is there any way of moving this portion of the house back a little bit to reduce this area in the flood plain? Michael: It is our intent to do a bank stabilization with a series of rip rap which we intend to do from the upper end of the building all the way down past the corner of the garage which is where our building starts to come back away from there. We would like to go to the next level of insurance for ourselves and protection of the bank and stabilization of the bank. We are in big trouble if the bank disappears. ....... To move the building is not easy. To make the building smaller is possible and even probable because we have a problem with FAR. By raising the building out of the ground we lost some credit. If we have the opportunity to increase our distance away from the road and away from the edge of the bank we will do that. Welton: I would feel more comfortable with not so much encroachment into the 100 year flood plain and either reducing the width of that module of the house or cantilevering the upper levels out over the lower level. I am concerned that it is encroaching into the 100 year flood plain so much on that corner. Glenn: with respect to this issue of development in the flood plain: I have to call your attention to the criteria #1 on the second page of Kim's memo. This criteria states that development may take place within the flood plain as part of the SMR if it is demonstrated by the applicant that there will not be noticeable measurable impact upon the Roaring Fork River as a result of that construction. Michael has stated that he would like to move this building back and re-design as much as possible on the site to remove that protrusion into the 100 year flood plain. But we can't guarantee that that re-design can take place. And likewise I don't think the applicant could live with a condition that he had to re- design so that the building did not encroach into the 100 year flood plain. What is more I don't think that this Commission has the power to request that the applicant relocate the building outside of the 100 year flood plain based upon the criteria that are stated on the second page of this memorandum. Graeme: I have a lot feelings about this project that I had about the last one. But basically I agree with Glenn. If I had some place to hang my hat I would do it but I don't think we do. It is pretty clear that the kind of concerns we have are not addressed in the code. 13 PZM6.5.90 Kim: I think in many cases that is correct but this site is so small and so difficult that they had to extend parking to this side of the house. By virtue of this sketch it shows that the parking area would then be within the 100 year flood line. And so it is not a direct relationship to SMR but it is a function of this site and may have a bearing on it. Roger: I would just like to get that building to more closely approximate that building envelope that was approved and I would be very happy with that. . I am adding a condition that the applicant will work with the Planning Office to minimize as much as practical the projection into the 100 year flood plain of the southern end of the house or the up stream end of the house. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Arundale stream Margin Review and to forward to city Council the applicant's request for vested rights without comment subject to the following conditions: #1 through #8 being the same as on Planning Office memo dated June 5, 1990 with the addition of condition #9 being the applicant will work with the Planning Office to minimize as much as practical the projection into the 100 year flood plain of the southern end of the house. "'''-' This is the second of 2 memoranda dated June 5, 1990--the one that was distributed at this meeting. (attached in record) Graeme seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine and Richard. Bruce: Said something here about Fisherman's Easements but with the rattling of maps noise I could not hear what he said. Graeme: I think there should be a front burner effort to revamp the stream margin review criteria. But if this is the waive of the future I think we should do something real quick. Welton: Can SMR be included in the update that is going to be happening this summer? Leslie: Yes. We might want to do that. If it is something that is really important maybe we should do it. Sunny: The consultants would like you to do that because we try to submit based on the criteria. I have a part of a retaining wall next to a hot tub that is 100 feet from the river and have to submit a detailed landscaping plan on its impact and have got 14 PZM6.5.90 a retaining wall the full length of the river on a house that is acceptable other than moving the corner of it back. I mean there is no--I don't know what to come in with. I understand the SMR criteria has generally been to mitigate the impact on the river since the city has no liability with respect to erosion problems and environmental concerns etc. It seems if you wish to move it into an area where you also impose some kind of visual architectural control, that is fine but we ought to have some criteria. I should know what to have to submit. Technically speaking all I have to submit is a building envelope. And we have approved SMRs based simply a building envelope as relationship to the river. We are not objecting to the criteria. not knowing what the criteria is. It is hard coming in and Welton then adjourned the regular portion of the meeting. was 6:00pm. Time Meeting then continued with a .f"'-'-""'''' -....-- ""- 15