HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900707
,
;/..'U
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 7. 1990
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll
Compton, Graeme
were excused.
call were Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre, Richard
Means. Mari Peyton, Bruce Kerr and Sara Garton
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Jasmine: Mari had brought this up a while back about the Dopkin
fence. The last time I walked by there it doesn't look as though
anything has been done as far as reducing the size of it.
Leslie gave an answer in mumble.
Jasmine: Then regarding the question of tree murders which has
happened on the Oblock property. When we put in conditions of
approval that require the maintenance of existing trees
especially nice big Blue Spruce-type of trees and the fact that
they are not supposed to be removed, I think a lot of people are
getting around this by deciding that they somehow are going to
have these trees become diseased. That is what happened on the
Oblock property. Ultimately the Blue Spruces which had been
around for like the last 2,000 years suddenly turned brown and
the next thing we knew they were cut down. And of course if
anybody ever asks them it is going to be a situation where "Oh
these trees were diseased and therefore we had to get rid of
them".
I was wondering if there is anything that we can do to prevent
tree murders.
Kim Johnson, Planning: There are problems associated with
construction around trees. But the point is if we don't have any
maintenance or "into perpetuity" kind of requirement then that
will keep happening. So I think whatever is approved landscaping
needs to be retained or replaced if it does happen to die. So
there is a financial incentive to keeping those existing ones
alive because it is expensive to replace.
Jasmine:
Oblock?
So would that have been a condition probably on the
Kim: I don't know. I will check.
Jasmine: I think what we need to do is make sure that the
language would be such that this wouldn't happen. That it would
"
PZM8.7.90
be to their advantage to keep the trees so that they wouldn't
have to replace them with very expensive trees.
Also we have all had a problem with enforceability of conditions
which always makes everybody on P&Z angry. I have mentioned in
the past that perhaps it would be a good idea to have something
in the code which states that a particular project, parcel or
however you would define it, if conditions have not been met that
they cannot--anybody connected with that parcel cannot come in
and apply for anything until those conditions are met.
If that were an absolute rule that we could not even accept an
application until this were taken care of I think that would
solve a lot of our enforcement problems and I would really like
to see something along that line done.
Roger: While we are on the subject of trees
victoria Square one of the new trees which is a
tree is absolutely dead. That is a Spruce of
believe it is a newly planted tree.
I noticed in
20 or 25 foot
some sort. I
Kim: And you think that that was part of the approved PUD
landscape?
Roger: I am pretty sure it is one of the approved trees.
And then I am wondering the status of the resolution we requested
by motion on the July 3rd meeting concerning the Midland ROW.
Welton: We discussed that there had been an easement granted
across that but we would like to make sure for the record that it
is very clear on our feelings concerning building on that ROW.
That is to be to the County Commissioners and the City Council.
Roger: Then I heard today from Suzanne Caskey that there is
apparently considerable movement around the Highlands as far as
units and things like that in the planning process. As a result
of the school meeting today I think county is going to be forging
ahead on masterplanning that area because it involves the
possibility of a land exchange between the old school sites and
something around the Iselin property.
Anyway I think it would be a good idea if this P&Z was at lease
advised of some of those things that are happening. It sounds
like significant number of units and it is in our extended
planning area as far as advisement is concerned.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
2
PZM8.7.90
None.
MINUTES
JULY 3. 1990
JULY 17. 1990
Roger: I move to adopt the minutes of July 3 and July 17, 1990.
Jasmine had a correction.
Roger: with correction I move to adopt minutes of July 3, and
July 17, 1990.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
ARUNDALE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW - REVISED PLAN
Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record.
T. Michael Manchester, Architect: Regarding the high water
This is the furthest one out which was the high water line.
one is the floodway line and that one is the 100 year flood
line.
line.
This
plain
So the high water line is basically the top of the bank. And
particularly at that end there is a pretty significant bank along
that edge.
This revised footprint is a product of several things. When we
were here before we had some problems with the FAR calculations
basically due to a mistake and we knew at that point in time that
we were going to have to do some revisions and then you had made
the comment to ask us to cease specifically at the south end of
the building what we could do to the deck to reduce the proximity
to the river.
Welton: After going over there and looking at it last week I
just feel like even with this new footprint that doing 100% of
the allowable FAR on the site that right now is heavily
vegetated, pristine and relatively natural and to change that so
drastically by putting basically a long wall of a house right
along the edge of the river--actually encroaching into what looks
like the 100 year flood plain isn't appropriate. It just isn't
appropriate. It just looks like it is too much house for such a
narrow piece of property.
Jasmine: That was my objection to the initial plan. I was
hoping that the reduction might make this less obtrusive.
Particularly because this site is so close to that Hopkins Street
foot bridge which does get a lot of traffic going across it. It
is a very, very noticeable site and the existing little old house
there is quite a bit farther back from the bank and even though
it is much smaller as you look on your original sketch you can
3
PZM8.7.90
see that there is quite a bit of distance between that and that
is even with a big 4ft deck outside of this small house.
I guess what I thought when we talked about doing some kind of a
modification of the floor plan I think I sort of envisioned
something pulled much further back from the river itself. I
wasn't happy with the first plan this one although it does
represent a slight improvement is really to me not at all where I
would like to see that that close to the river on that particular
site.
Graeme: It seems to me that we would have to study a lot of
elevations, sections. It is most difficult to tell which is
going to be better. But I think we went through this before and
I kind of agree that I don't find it an appropriate structure.
But I don't think we have anything to say about it. That is the
bottom line. So I would be in favor of approving what they want
and sending another note to the Planning Dept to try and speed up
something to put into the stream Margin Review that would address
what we want to address.
Richard: A thought is that it seems the City owns the adjacent
piece of property for use as affordable housing. Is there any
arrangement and setback variance that could be arranged to pull
the house further back from the river?
Arch: We have not ventured into any variances on the site. If
the City was not opposed to pull it back and do a 0 line setback
for example, we would pick up a few feet on that. I don't think
we would be opposed to that at all.
Welton: Except that other site is so tight as it is for the
density for what the City needs to put on it to make it at all
reasonable. The simplest thing to do would be to do a lot line
adjustment. Somehow trade property with the City property and
give more breathing space.
Arch: It could be time consuming. It doesn't affect the
building per se and we could proceed based on this footprint and
this building and this location simultaneously be investigating a
shift of the building location with a minimal effect on our
ability to submit to the Building Dept construction documents for
approval. If you will remember there is a condition in there for
August 10 or 15th so we are really hustling here trying to get
into the ground or we are a year away.
Glenn Horn: I made a conceptual planning work on the
door and we were pushed right to the side yard setbacks
get enough housing on that site to justify the price.
site next
to try to
There is
4
PZM8.7.90
really not much room to push. The elevation change is really
significant. It is really tight on both sides.
Richard: I voted against this before but apparently the question
before us tonight is simply which we prefer--the original plan or
the revised plan.
Kim: The way I looked at it is that they expanded portions of
the original existing footprint and you can either revise your
approval to accept this footprint or a variation of it or just
stick to the original footprint.
Welton: In a circumstance like this where there was a thorough
memo the first time around it would be helpful to have that in
the new packet. Because off the top of my head I just don't
remember what all the criteria are for stream Margin Review and
Graeme brought up the point that if you don't have the criteria
in stream Margin Review we can only do as much as what we can do.
And I am not sure at this point what it is--what we can and can't
do because I don't have the criteria. That is what we decided
the last time. We just didn't have the ammunition to say no.
Kim: You made a decision based on what you saw at the time. Is
this plan more acceptable to you in concept and in general terms
or does that closer distance to the river go further against
whatever grain it has already gone against the first time around.
Welton: To my mind it does. That is that the
going in the direction that we directed them
encroachment or infringement on the river edge.
being offset by the blue area shown on this plan
building into the flood plain.
green
which
But
which
area is
is the
that is
is more
Jasmine:
Welton:
Jasmine:
Graeme:
Jasmine:
I don't see that it is that much of a change.
I don't see much of a change either.
And it is certainly not what I was hoping we could see.
We don't have any basis to work on.
We can do one or the other.
Graeme: Right. But to do that intelligently we have to get out
all the sections, elevations. It is difficult to know how much
this saves and that. It is more than just an area. But I would
be willing to approve the new design.
MOTION
Graeme: I make a motion to approve the amendment to the original
Arundale stream Margin Review.
Richard seconded the motion.
5
PZM8.7.90
Richard: I would like to say that based on the information we
have I do think this is an improvement particularly in the area
of moving the house and the deck away from that one clump of
trees. I think that is significant in terms of the appearance of
the house from the ridge. The area we discussed the last time
was particularly the green area. That was too much into the
flood plain.
Roger: I will probably vote for this. But what I would like to
see is in effect that green area on the up-side stream further
increased slightly and it looks like it can be done at least by
this drawing. But it looks like where you had a couple of feet
on the non-stream side of the house--if you took your FAR on the
non-stream side of the house that first protrusion into the flood
plain could be reduced just a little bit more. I would like to
see that upstream protrusion further reduced as much as possible.
Arch: I am happy to look at it again. But I can tell you that
we have--everything that we have tried to do is to pull that wall
back as far as possible. So in the regrouping we tried to pull
that end back and move some of that square footage back into the
center space. Because of the angle orientation it does go
slightly closer to the river.
The other thing that we were trying to do in the changes of the 2
decks from 2 decks to 3 decks in response to try and minimize the
impact on the vegetation. We cut back part of the deck that was
back in that nitch along with the building because of the clump
of trees right in that area. By moving that deck a little
farther upstream and modifying that shape we should be able to
save one more of the trees in that location and we well at the
other end there is a large clump of trees and by pulling this
back we will have less impact on the Cottonwood trees that are
along side of that bank.
Richard: Speaking of the trees--what
the owner that the trees will remain.
integri ty of the bank and appearance
most critical.
assurances do we have from
That to me as far as the
to the casual passerby is
Arch: We had in the original submission there were 4 trees that
we were taking out and are going to be replaced on a 2 to 1 basis
and we have been through the Park's Dept. Ken and Jim Gibbard
both are going to be regular site visitors as policemen to make
sure that we do as little impact as possible on that edge of the
bank.
Kim: The condition of approval states that the permits for
removal must be obtained by Parks and for the representation by
6
PZM8.7.90
the applicant no more than 4 trees may be removed from the river
bank. Those removed from the bank shall be replaced with similar
specimens at a ratio of 2 to 1.
Richard: In the bank area?
Kim: Well, I guess we can be more explicit in that. It is not
just trees that help stabilize a bank. It is shrubs also.
Arch: There is also another condition on the permit which gets
into bank stabilization as part of the whole process which we are
going through. There is a whole review process for bank
stabilization and will involve boulders and vegetation. That is
a condition of the approval.
Roll call vote: Graeme, yes, Jasmine, no, Richard, yes, Roger,
yes, Welton, no.
HALLAM LAKE BLUFF ESA CODE AMENDMENT
Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record.
Roger: What we are trying to do is get ACES or the developer to
work with ACES. with the P&Z process we can accomplish that
because if a developer gets with ACES and uses all 15 feet but
ACES completely support it because it is not interfering with
their goals that is what we are trying to accomplish.
Welton: I never want to do anything in my entire life ever to
make somebody go through a variance with the Board of Adjustment.
Jasmine: Why not? We keep getting all these people coming in to
get exemptions from things because of what they want. And I just
think there are certain circumstances--just the fact that they
want to have--to be closer to a particular thing is not adequate.
That is not enough of a reason.
Roger: I don't think this belongs in the variance process. What
we want to do is have something built that is compatible with
it's neighbor which happens to be ACES. And the Board of
Adjustment doesn't care about that. They only care about a very
limi ted or unique hardship of some sort and if you can't prove
you don't have some phenomenal hardship you basically don't get
the variance.
And what we are trying to do is have a neighbor have input into
the process of a development so it is beneficial for both. I
think P&Z is a better board to accomplish that than the Board of
Adjustment.
7
PZM8.7.90
Richard: When in #2 in your proposal--the area 15ft behind the
top of the slope the only development allowed shall be at
existing grade level. Does that mean patio type development or
could they excavate and do below grade say at garden level and
allow them to, under the special review process, to push a
building out or start 5ft below grade and 5ft above grade
potentially allow to get that up close to the--
Kim: I don't think it would be 5ft above grade but maybe--I was
thinking of just patio type use. But once you get the patio
there then you dig a big hole for 8x8 hot tub--
Roger: And then the fence around the hot tub.
Kim: That comes under the special review category.
Richard:
houses.
The question of lighting from the interior of the
Kim: It would be hard to regulate lighting that leaks out.
Richard: There are some creations
luxury liners coming into harbor.
if possible.
on Red Mountain which resemble
I would want to minimize that
Then on the encroachment into the 15ft setback: I think we need
,- to make it very clear in the special review process that it is
for reasons of extreme hardship and the lot shape and that kind
of thing rather than at the option of the builder.
Welton: My concern was #4 and that is the 75% screening.
Comments made earlier I think are appropriate. I have done 2
houses on the edge of Hallam Lake and they want to be there so
they can look at it and not plant trees that blocks 75% view of
the lake. I am wondering how we can preserve the lake, screen
the lake, how those conflicting goals can be resolved.
Cardamone: I recognize that as being a difficulty and to define
what a screen is even. One goal is to break up roof lines so
homes don't jump out. There are several homes around the lake
that conform quit well. The goal is to break up the outline of
the buildings and not putting 100% blackout on somebody's house.
Welton: And also to the point of whether that is what it is
initially or what it is in 20 years. I think as a development
guideline with a landscape plan to be approved with the intent
clear that ultimate screening is to be 75% screening. I don't
feel like I can give you the wording or I don't think anybody
else can. I think 75% is as vague as not having any percentage
at all.
8
PZM8.7.90
Kim: Basically then you are in agreement that some form of
scenario of A would be the best?
There was general agreement on this.
Graeme: I would think you would almost--the elevation is going
to change and create some real varied conditions on different
lots. I would think you would almost have to go out there and
figure out a line and use that.
Welton: We are talking about 2 different lines that are not
parallel. One is 30 feet from the top of the slope and the other
one is within the 100 feet up from--
Graeme: But if they could define that
everything that didn't intrude in that 45%
even have to go through anything, would it?
Kim: We considered establishing a line and drawing it on the
map. That would be a really large surveying project. And
basically it puts the burden of the development on the applicant
and review process on the applicant to have somebody at their
disposal do a site section and identify the top of the slope.
top line and then
angle that wouldn't
That way people that aren't planning anything don't have to deal
with it and we don't have to deal with establishing that line on
their property and then down the road having them determine that
then it impacts them negatively and then argue about it.
(And that was that)
WHITCOMB STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT
Kim made presentation. (attached in record)
Jasmine: Was the PUD designation placed on it recently because
of this slope reduction or was it always a PUD?
Kim: I don't know when the PUD overlay was established.
the existing duplex that is there is 52 years old.
suppose the PUD overlay was not established early on.
sure of the answer.
However
I would
I am not
Jasmine: I am just trying to figure why--was a PUD placed on
this because of this application?
Kim: No. The whole river corridor in that section of town has a
PUD overlay. It is because of the proximity of the river.
9
PZM8.7.90
Welton: Has the applicant any problems with the conditions of
approval?
Bruce sutherland, Architect: We have read the conditions of
approval and we are all agreeable with them. These are things
that we would like to do anyway so we agree with the conditions.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the Whitcomb stream Margin Review with
conditions 1 through 11 being the same as on Planning Office memo
dated August 7, 1990. (Attached in record.)
Graeme seconded the motion.
Jasmine: I am concerned about the--what looks to me like a
pretty straight facade coming down. I don't know how high this
is. This is not very clear to me and I--from this it looks to me
as though there is this gigantic wall along the river which may
not in fact be the case. But I don't have that information.
Welton: Here is the river and it is canted at 45% to the river.
The actual wall on the river looks to be very narrow.
Jasmine: Well, how do we know? How do we know how many feet
'- there are that way?
Richard: It actually is facing the river even though it is
canted to the street.
Jasmine: I am concerned about that and I don't feel that I have
enough information to be able to see exactly what that effect
would b e.
Sutherland: What we have basically is if you will look on your
site plan you will see a note that say patio. Patio is a covered
roof 1 story high. Then the building line steps back on the top
story an additional amount and so there is 2 deck levels, 2
building face levels and there is a bend. So there is a lot of
architectural play ont he river side of the building.
Jasmine: It is very difficult for me to figure it out. I really
feel I don't have enough information to be able to say the "Yes
this is fine".
Richard: Having walked through that area where you are looking
at the trail underneath the apartments on the other side of the
river, I find that natural bank to be a very important asset and
I am not inclined to give approval to pushing the ditch culvert
10
PZM8.7.90
out further over the river making that bank steeper and allowing
for a building on the opposite side to really push out over the
river area.
Olson: On the revised section the culvert was relocated back to
the original location and the berm was negated. We are now
keeping within the original contours of the natural grade and
revegetating the site.
Sutherland: There was a staff comment the same as yours and we
responded by keeping the ditch in the same plain and keeping the
bank as it was.
Kim: What they did is only move it away but down. They moved it
down below.
Wel ton then asked for a vote.
motion except Jasmine.
Everyone voted in favor of the
Richard: I have no problems with the treatment of the ditch.
However I still have problems with moving the building envelope
further out toward the river.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:15pm.
11