Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910806 ~p RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6. 1991 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were David Brown, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Sara Garton was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jasmine remarked that the footbridge for Arendale property---- going to make a pocket park. This is absurd because of the parking. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES JULY 16. 1991 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of July 16, 1991. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. "....,.,..~ 100 PARK AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PUD GMOS EXEMPTION AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION Kim, Planning Dept: Because of improper public notification we have to renotice this application and ask to be tabled to date certain of September 3, 1991. MOTION Roger: I move we table this hearing to date certain of September 3, 1991- David seconded the motion with all in favor. DEPAGTER MAP AMENDMENT REZONING LeSlie, Planning Dept: made presentation as attached in record. Roger: Was R-15A considered? We usually annex from the County to R-15A. Leslie: My understanding is the reason why those other Harbor Lane ones were done was that there was some difference in their existing zoning. The way the houses are on the property. But I can consider that, Roger. I can look into that. '- Roger: I think it has to do with the potential increase in development rights by virtue of annexing. That is why R-15A was established. PZM8.6.9l Leslie: I will look into that as to why there is the R-15A for Harbor Lane. Roger: It seems to me that wherever we have annexed it has always been R-15A. I think we have a B now too. Jasmine: It also had to do with duplexes and employee units. Roger: I am just looking for consistency more than anything else. Jasmine then asked for comment from the public. There was none. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend to Council rezoning of the depagter property and the official zoning map from R-15 County to either R- 15 PUD or R-15A PUD subject to the annexation approval or upon annexation approval by the City Council. David seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine then closed the public hearing. KREBS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Kim, Planning Office: Made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine asked for questions from members of the Commission. There were none. Jasmine then asked for comment from the public. Irving Harris: I live at 925 North. I am curious about the reference to the alley. Is there an alley there? Kim: There is a platted alley back there and actually what they are showing-- Harris: We received no notice, by the way. We only learned of this by driving by the lot. Kim: Are you within 300 feet of the subject property? Harris: My address is 925 North. It is right back of this property. If there is an alley we would share the alley I presume. I don't know of any alley. 2 PZM8.6.91 Kim: Looking at the site plan I was in error. I was thinking of a previous conditional use. They don't have an alley. What they have is a driveway that extends all the way around back and they are showing it. Harris: Neither we nor the Semples received a notice. Kim: Lorenzo Semple is on this list. Joan Harris: I am just curious about 916--the location of it. The lot which is immediately behind our house--from where we saw the notice--it is not clear to me where on that lot or if that house covers the whole lot or if the lot has been subdivided. We know nothing about this and since only by accident we learned of this, we came here. This is just not clear Jasmine: If this has not been properly noticed then we will have to table the item. Administratively I will table this item right now to later on in the meeting. Perhaps it can be cleared up by then. If not we will have to table to another date completely and it will have to be renoticed. ASPEN VILLAS PUD AMENDMENT MOTION Roger: At the request of the applicant I move to table this application to August 20, 1991. Bruce seconded the motion. David: How many times has this been tabled so far? Kim: I think this is the 3rd request. Staff wants to process this as a full PUD amendment because of the loss of parking space. We have requested official surveys so that we could verify that the space that they do propose is, in fact, on the property. We have reason to believe that the 8 and 1/2 foot space would be half on the property line and half in the City ROW of West Bleeker. To this date staff has not seen any information on this. CoIkN Richard 1: When we did the survey which just came in the other day, we thought that there was something wrong with the surveys as we had them and as things were laid out. And when surveys came in it did show that the land that we were going to dedicate as a parking space--with the new survey and the new lot lines is on the city property. It also showed a few other things that we will bring up to City Council on Monday. There are several encroachments that we could 3 PZM8.6.91 use for parking spaces that would--we can solve the problem. But I have a proposal to make to City Council that I am sure will get referred back to you. Kim: We have tried to explain to Richard that that is not standard procedure. That Council will get hit cold with this information and won't have any of the background specific to the PUD proposal as it is on the table now and that we feel that the standard procedure would be to address whatever proposals the Villas might have after you put forth your recommendation and it goes to Council anyway as a normal course of the PUD amendment. Richard: But Kim this goes beyond what started out as the approval for the trash recycling shed. Because now we have come to a problem that the City has made a very serious encroachment on our property which takes up a whole lot of our square footage and we would like to make a proposal to City Council that they would act on first before it would come down to something that P&Z can recommend or not. Jasmine: There is no problem as far as we are concerned. We can table your request. What you want to do with City Council is really not up to us to say. The only thing we have to decide is whether we are going to table this application or not. I see no reason not to table. After further discussion Jasmine called the question. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except David. MOTION Roger: I move encouraging the applicant to bring these other issues to the P&Z first in the course of their application. David seconded the motion. Richard: I am not entirely clear on what needs to be dealt with here on the survey. It is a nebulous thing we are asking to see before it goes to Council. I understand that--I don't know anything more about it than city Council at this point. Kim: The area of concern is right along West Bleeker and where they were showing a parking space apparently is not going to satisfy the requirements because it is not totally within the site. And what I would propose is that they submit their survey, show the areas of encroachment and whatever they propose--will be proposing to Council as how to deal with that encroachment and show that on their proposed plan, forward that and what P&Z would then do is make a recommendation to accept their proposal upon approval of 4 PZM8.6.91 license to encroach. Otherwise have an alternative parking space located on the site in case their request to council doesn't get approved and then they do have a fall-back option that has already been considered by the Commission and then process it as one recommendation. Jasmine: I think the point of all of this that obviously there are some issues according to the applicant that has to do with some kind of legal situation regarding the encroachment. Nonetheless this is going to have to be a negotiated settlement of some sort. It seems to me it would be appropriate for the Council to have the benefit of input from the P&Z in terms of a pure land use situation. Whatever the legal resolution may have to be is going to be separate but I would think that that would be appropriate for us to say that we would like to see at least the alternative possible land use resolution. That is if there were 3 different things that could be done certainly from our point of view or from a land use point of view one of them would be preferable. And I think it important for us to give that kind of input to council before they make their decision and negotiate a settlement without hearing from us and then refer it back to us to rubber stamp it. To that extent I think Roger's motion would be appropriate. Richard: I agree with that. David: I agree. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion except Bruce. Kim: So in effect you are telling the applicant to submit to staff their surveys which includes any encroachments and any counter proposals and that we would consider it all looking at whatever options were available. Jasmine: And just say to Council that P&Z has reviewed the various possible resolutions to this problem and P&Z would like to recommend plan A or plan B or whatever it is. And P&Z thinks that that is a more appropriate way to approach this problem. Then to applicant: You requested that you want this tabled. So we tabled it. You wanted to go to Council without coming to P&Z. We are saying OK, fine. If you want to go to Council without coming to P&Z that is fine. But we are also telling Council that we don't think that that is appropriate. 5 PZM8.6.91 MOTION Roger: I move to table the Krebs Conditional Use Review to date certain of August 20, 1991 because there may be an error in the notification which will have to be corrected. David seconded the motion with all in favor. WOLFTONE CORPORATION PRESENTATION Ellen Sassano, Planning Dept made presentation as attached in record. Roger: That area you are pointing to is sort of the toe of the mine dump isn't it? And if you look at the gradient that they have to build on. Ellen: The FAR in the R-15 zone allows the house about 8,400sqft on the site. The surrounding houses that were approved as part of the Little Cloud Subdivision were limited voluntarily by the applicants to the size of 6,000sqft which is big. Jasmine: I think that there should be a way that P&Z, Staff can alert the Building Dept to not allow a permit for a house when it is situated on what should be trail easement and there has to be a way for them to co-operate on this to make sure that this doesn't happen. You don't get a building permit when your building envelope is on top of a proposed trail easement. Ellen: The Board of County Commissioners approved the building envelope on top of the easement. Jasmine: think as this. Well, in that case we really can't do anything. But I a matter of principle in the City we should try to do Leslie: It was an issue that was discussed at length. Roger: I do have problems with the County being the developer in the city. And this is essentially in the city. And one of the reasons I have problems with the County being the approver here is their pensiant for allowing rather visual cuts in the side of the mountains. All we have to do is look over at Shadow Mountain to prove that. My worry here is that this piece of property--in order to get a house where someone is arguing for the building envelope- -the question is how will someone put a house in there without cutting the hell out of that ridge and that will be their way of imbedding it. 6 PZM8.6.91 The problem is they don't imbed the house in the ridge. They cut the whole piece of property to give them a level building site. And that is totally inappropriate for this piece of property. But my worst fears are that the county will go willy-nilly on approving that type of thing as they do on Red Mountain. My major problem #2 is this driveway access they are showing and it is the same problem I have. We are looking at 35ft difference between 2nd st and near the top end of that driveway. Obviously they are not going to run that driveway as a sign along the side of the mountain. They are going to cut into the mountain again. How much will they cut in? I would expect to see probably an 8 to 10ft cut in the side of the mountain just for that driveway. That, to me, is totally inappropriate. Now we have got 2 cuts to contend with. That is going to be quite visual because it is roughly 30ft above street level so it is going to be a horrible visual site. My recommendation would be for the driveway only. I don't think this is a good buildable site. My recommendation would be for whatever the driveway is that it stay relatively low and they bury their garage in the hillside and it just goes straight into their garage with no more than a turn- around to go back out again absolutely minimizing the cut into the mountain. They are playing the cut and fill game here. They have got a chunk of cubic feet of dirt that they have got to put somewhere. Well they are going to put it down here and make a dirt bridge. Ellen: Actually they are going to cut 5ft through lower right of way--to lower rather than fill. Roger: Yes and I don't like that either. That railroad ROW tends to make a nice visual barrier where the trail is up above it there. I would prefer not seeing the old ROW cut. It is negotiable as it is because I used to park on it when I lived there. So I know it is negotiable as is. And it seems to me that a lot more could be hidden in this project if we don't do a great big cut where it becomes blatantly obvious. We are not good at regulating cuts and it is about time we did regulate them. If they cut just enough for a footprint of the house, that is fine. But to scarf the whole toe of the hill just to give them a flat building plane I am vehemently against. Maybe the solution is to get that house lower down in this complex and have them deal with the rock falls in a way that what comes down gets deflected in some way. 7 PZMB.6.91 Ellen: My inclination is to ask them to build lower. I need to get Nick Lampirus and Art Meers out to the site and see if there is a lower site. I think that is where I am heading towards. Roger: There actually is a lower site down in here just on the other side of the old ROW. Richard: I think it is more of an impact on a visual plain to have the house up there on the side of the hill when for the same money they could build it down lower with less excavation and deal with the rock fall and drainage. I would like to at least see an analysis of that possibility from Nick. Also on the driveway is there any way you can get them to re-grade it so it doesn't cut a hole in the Railroad? That effectually destroys the trail to give a 5ft drop. Ellen: That is something I will look into. Mr. Reeder has some ideas in that area for re-Iocating the trail up the slope. David: I was curious as to what the drainage is--snowslide, rockslide. Ellen: The swale was the greatest hazard area for rockfall and snowslide. David: Are there any historical indications of there having snowslides? Roger: Snowslide has not been a problem. Occasionally there has been maybe an inch of water or two in this lower area off the site. The site is actually elevated over this lower part down there. It tends to collect down here and it only matters in the Springtime. with a very heavy snow fall you might get an inch or two of water on the ground and it tends to settle out. It seems to be a good drainage area. David: You were saying that the County as part of this approval process has no means of exaction for the trail easement? Leslie: That is correct. Bruce: My biggest concern would be the access from 2nd Street and how the terminus of 2nd st is chained. Is there a gate that goes across? As it is now with the Ice Rink there is a traffic jam there all the time anyway. There are kids out there playing hockey in the street and alley. So I would be concerned about how that is to be dealt with there at the corner of the Ice Rink. Leslie: The city Engineer also raised the question with the B PZM8.6.91 concern that right now the Ice Garden uses that--the end of the street for parking. Some of that will be eliminated and they want to see some sort of replacement if possible. Bruce: Residents of the apartment complex also use that for parking. Jasmine: I would tend to agree with members of the Commission. I guess the 1041 is sort of like the 8040 in the city. Leslie: Similar, yes. Jasmine: One of the things that we have been thinking about on our ideal work list is revising the 8040 Greenline criteria to address the kind of things that we really under 8040 and 1041 should address but which we don't under the current criteria. Part of it is the properties that properties that fall within the boundaries of 8040 or 1041 are usually on slopes that are part of the mountain scenery and that therefore any development which occurs on these slopes should blend in as much as possible with the surrounding mountainside. We have been thinking for a long time that we can come up with criteria that addresses this so that you don't have these gigantic horizontal structures going across the side of the mountain blocking your view of them. I think Roger's point about the cut is particularly appropriate. I think there is nothing more ugly than to drive by mountains and see these gigantic road swats cut through there. The driveway on this parcel seems to me to be particularly inappropriate for that reason. I have lived in other places in the country where people are building in very hilly kind of areas. Admittedly there were high rises involved but in many instances elevators were used to have people drive into a lower portion of the project where the garage or the lowest floor was in the actual hill. There was no need to have these grades going up or down. There were no driveway problems because you just drove right in there and then you had stairs or elevators to take you to the upper level. They have even done something like that at 777 ute and at Aspen Chance where you don't have these huge long suburban driveways. The parking garage is handled through some internal lift system of some sort. I think that would be much more appropriate not only in this application but in other applications where there are slopes involved so that you could avoid having these kind of cuts. I would also like to see this as with Little Cloud that the reduction in the square footage of the house would be very 9 PZM8.6.91 important in terms of the visual effect. I would like to see the house be emphasizing the vertical rather than the horizontal to try to blend in with the verticality of the slope. I think that using the kind of slope reduction calculation that you would have used ordinarily would be appropriate. Bruce: I tend to agree with what you say. It might be pointed out that square footage may not be all that big a deal. Particularly if you are talking about building the type of house that would have a lift. If you stick that back in the house maybe you need to be able to build 8.400sqft so that you can build the price of the lift system into the house in order to sell it. I am not as concerned about the actual square footage as I am what is it going to look like up there on the hill. If it is 8,400sqft and it is built into the side of the hill right and they can put the lift system in so they don't have all the drives and cuts then that doesn't bother me especially. It would bother me a whole lot more to have a 6,000sqft or 5,000sqft house splattered across the side of the mountain up there. Richard: My concern is the shape of the building envelope and a suggestion that it be pushed further west. I see this long thing cascading down the side of the hill. In this location something structural like that would be highly visible. That is the reason I like the idea of having it back in the lower part of the lot as much as possible to avoid that visual facade. Ellen: Is there a consensus among the Commission that a lower site would be a better than a higher site. There were 4 votes in favor of this. Richard: On the assumption that it would reduce the visual impact and the road cut. David: My only hesitation is that--there are ways and techniques that you could build a really handsome building. Ellen: If you would like I will let Kim know what the County P&Z's recommendation to the Board is as a follow up. Everyone was very much in favor of this. Jasmine then adjourned the meeting. Time was 6:10pm. eputy Clerk 10