Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19830118 . .. ._,.' '.~ ~.."--,._-",~-,~.."", ~._.-~'-.-'-'-- ,-,,~.,.~,...._.=.~,.-., ., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission January 18,1983 FOR"'~ C_ F.IWECKEL B. B. a. L. co, Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with members Tygre, Anderson, Pardee, Hunt, Bloomquist, Fallin, and White present. COMMISSIONER' COMMENTS PARDEE/WE DUM SUBDIVISION (PARDEE STEPS DOWN) Harvey wished to call the attention of the members to a letter that was sent by Francis Whitaker in reference to a motor home parked on lot 1333 Snowbunny Lane. The motor home is backed up to the residence and is being occupied on private property. Harvey said that Bill Drueding wrote a memo to Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney, regarding regulations restricting "Mobile Homes". But, nothing in the code that controls the storage of "Motor Homes". It is one thing to store them and another thing to live in them. Esary stated that there are two things being considered at the moment for regulations, satellite dishes and "Motor Homes". Anderson presented and explained a map to the Commissioner's. In reference to the Smugglar area, road, green belt and open space. Blomquist added that the county has gone as far as they could in regards to getting the open space into the Phase 4 project. The trailor park is in the city. It would seem best that the P&Z ask the staff to work on the trailor segment of this, so that the Green system connected from the river into the Phase 4. Harvey asked the Commission if they would like to state it they support of pursuing the Green Belt along with the road align- ment. He asked who could get a presentation to the County Cowlissioner's. Someone from the committee should coordi- nate with Alan Richman before that in order to set it up. The meeting is the 22 February 1983, at 1:00 p.m. Richmand from the Planning Office said that the City has prepared a P&Z plan for the golf course. They are now going forward with final plat, they have Engineering Departments submission. The P&Z condition on the golf course has been complied with and will have a chance to review the landscaping plan. lie said they do see it coming forward to Council on final plat. Alice Davis from the Planning Office presents the following before the P&Z commission. The Request for Lot Line Adjustment and Stream Margin Review. The applicants are requesting approval for a lot line adjust- ment between properties owned by Lee Pardee and Randy Wedum and are also requesting approval to a Stream Margin Review. The results of the lot line adjustment will be to incorp- orate an existing 7,332 square foot lot owned by Wedum into the southeastern portion of Pardee's property while carving Wedum a new 7,449 square foot parcel out of the western portion of Pardee's property. Both the existing lot owned by Wedum and the proposed lot to be owned by Wedum are in the 100 year floodplain and are therefore subject to Section 24-6.3 of the Code, Steam Margin Review. -1- -'-~---^","-' The the are criteria listed for a Lot Line Adjustment are given in memo. They meet all of the criteria. Most of them straight forward. l. 2. Boundary changes must be consenting landowners; The adjustment cannot directly or indirectly affect the development rights or permitted density on the affected properties. Parcles affected must continue to conform to the under lying area and bulk requirements of the zone district. Existing nonconforming lots shall not in- crease their nonconformity as a result of the lot line adjustment. The applicants must comply with all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. 3. 4. The second review that is being requested is a Stream Line Margin Review, which is required for all development within 100 feet of high water level of the Roaring Fork R,i:ver. Both of the parcels are some what in the 100 year floodplain. Due to fill that was accomplished in 1976, it was adjusted, so a large part of the parcel is no longer in the floodplain. The review criteria in the code for the 100 year floodplain is as follows: 1. No building shall be located so as to be within a flood hazard area. The Engineering Department and the Planning Office agrees that even though the building is not within the 100 year floodplain in that they are putting it on pylons and taking it out of the floodplain. The pylons themselves are still in there. If you want to consider the pylons apart of the bu:i:ldi'ng, then they are in the floodplain. But the Planning Office thinks that there are definite advantages to the land switch, that it is an appropriate interpretation to say that the building is located within the floodplain. 2. Vegetation shall not removed nor any slope grade changes made that will produce erosion of the stream bank. 3. No activity shall be allowed which will increase stream sedimentation and suspension loads. The Engineering Department is dissatisfied that these also are going to be met and the situation improved because what the applicant has agreed to do. The Engineering Department has their comments listed in the memo and are as follows: 1. Submission and approval of detailed grading plan in- dicating the river's edge and proposed contours com- plimentary to the existing grades to the southeast and along the river. 2. The applicants should plant the regraded area adjacent to the river with species in keeping with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area. 3. The applicant should specify for review and approval any trees within or adjacent to the new building envelope which are to be removed. 4. Locations of building pylons should be indicated as well as the mimimum elevation of the superstructure. 5. The site plan for the proposed parcel should indicate how on-site parking and access will be handled. 6. The applicant should submit a plat to indicate the traded parcels and to serve as an amendment to the Hill House Condominium Plat. The Attorney's Office has a comment on the major issue which will be, is that no building shall be located within the flood housing area. The Planning Office and Engineering Office felt that because of the different advantages that is be,ing accompl,ished, the Planning Office feels that one of the exchanges will cause less visual impact. Across the river is the Roaring Fork Greenway. The site that Randy Wedum current- '-'" -2- __'_.C~"_______'_'__"'~_"~'.""._'~__~ "...---. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F ORM ~O C. F.- HOECK EL B. B. a. L. Cd. .Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission January 18, 1983 ly has is very visual, there is no trees it is a very vacant parcel that would be highly visual from the Greenway. The other parcel could be developed in a way that you could be developed in a way that you couldn't see it from the Greenway and that would be a definitely positive aspect of the land swap in the Stream Margin Review. Also, the lot is a non- conforming lot in a R-15 zone district. So by increasing ,i~n hi's lot area, he is decreasing his nonconformity. Hunt said that he remembered considerable amount of public input on this subject brought up before. He asked that Ms. Davis either find the file or the P&Z should get the public ,input again because it was very crucial on this piece of property. Jay Hammond from the Engineering Department said that the d,iscussi'on he has had and looking at the site. Basically, any structure that is located in the floodplain, reduces the area of the floodplain by a footprint of that structure. By placing this structure on pylons the actual construction of the floodplain is minimized. By removing fill from the upstream area, it then increases the floodplain upstream from that loc- ation, which then reduces the restriction on the stream. The net affect is that the floodplain is increased. There as, by building outside of the floodplain on the existing parcel, the floodplain remained constricted. The net effect and reason the Engineering Department supports this is they see that a net effect on the floodplain in that area being an increase and that the water in the event of a flood in that area, would have more area to pool. Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney said tht since the new parcel to be created is entirely within the floodplain. By the language of the Stream Margin Review, the P&Z commission does not appear to have any authority to grant a building permit in the floodplain. One of two things has to happen. Either the Stream Margin Review has to be conditioned on getting a variance befor~ the Board of Adjustments to build within the Stream Margin~ Or, the p&Z has to construe as a matter of fact that the pylon structure of the building is not a building with,in the floodplain. That they are just py- lons within the floodplain. Esary also added that if the P&Z approves the Stream Margin Review that a additional condition that would read "Before a building permit is issued per suing to the Stream Margin Review, the applicant obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustments to build within the floodplain". Blomquist said that he has no problem with the land swap. His main concern is the Stream Margin Review. The ordinance says not to put a building there. That means you don't lay pylons down. The intent of the ordinance was that you don't build within the floodplain. He hopes that the ordinance says that you don't fill in the floodplain either. Blomquist said he did not know if that was true. Alice Davis replied that it is ,indirectly stated by no slope grade changes that will produce erosion, things like that. Blomquist said that the only thing he could see that would be done is to approve the lot split. But, not do a Stream Margin Review, because not enough facts are placed before the Board. Blomquist said that he just does not have enough information. David White said that he does not know anything about flood- -3- " plains. He said that he has looked at the places and has read it and it looks to be a good thing. MS.Tygre said that she agreed with certain things that Blom- quist presented. In that if the ordinance is clear that a building cannot be built in a floodplain. She thinks decid- ing that the building in fact, is not in a floodplain because of the pylons, is not an adequate justification. If the P&Z really thinks there is, based on what Engineering tells the Board, no problem because of the mitigation of the impacts. Hunt said once again, that without the previous document- ation, he does not feel the p&Z should pass it period. Harvey asked Mr. Pardee for some assistance in reference to this problem. Pardee said the problems that they had were with the entire neighborhood because Randy Wedum was once approved for twelve (12) units there. The units where then down zoned to six (6) units and finally ended up with three (3) units. Each of those hearings the neighborhood was present. Pardee stated he felt the neighborhood would probably be more pleased with a house they could not see, then one you could spit into the Roaring Fork River with no trees around it. Harvey asked Mr.Pardee if the p&Z acts on this and in facts approves the lot split, does a Stream Margin Review condition upon the conditions in the memo, plus, Pardee's applying for and receiving a variance. Harvey asked Pardee if he would like to table this and then go for a variance first? Pardee then replied, no. He said that he would ge glad to stipulate that they would not go to Council with the P&Z recommendation for approval of a lot split until he proceeds a variance. Pardee asked the Board if they might consider this with the stipulation of title insurance showing the original size of the Hill House property. That it does not included Randy Weedum's lot. Pardee said he has this on file with the County. Hunt said that he would like to table this based upon the lack of information. He would like to see a site visit inspection. Blomquist said that he just wanted to see if the flow looks good. He said that the p&Z should have been presented with the maps and its an important thing. Harvey said that he agreed with Blomquist, but he also felt that this is why the Engineering Department reviews those things and gives the P&Z their recommendations. So that the p&Z does not have to sit and discuss every aspect of past approvals. That is why there is tl1e staff. Anderson said that by removing some of the fill, your are improving the situation from the flood from a stand point. Effectively you are altering it in a very benificial way. Anderson said that he would be inclinded to be very favor- able to the lot and its exhange. Given the information that the p&Z presented with that he is fairly comfortable with the exchange of new floodplain area upstream. He added that the Board of Zoning Adjustment would be appropriate for the final review, give the committee input and to give the staff more time to make sure that there are not more problems created, than solved. The Planning Office recommends that the p&Z recommend the approval of the requested lot line adjustment and stream margin review subject to the following conditions as listed: -4- _ _,_"~,_,,,___,~",^o.".,,, _. __.. _~_H'_.,",___"" ~___ .___ ...._r -..~~"'^-,-----~---- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ,0 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&l.ca, Planning and Zoning Commission January 18, 1983 Regular Meeting 1983 RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATIONS (DAVID WHITE WILL NOT BE SCORING) 1. Any deed restriction on the FAR be subject to approval by the City Attorney's Office. 2. A regrading/revegetation plan must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. plan must include all of the information listed in six items requested by Engineering which are given p~ge 1 of this memorandum. This the on 3. The applicant should indicate the locations of building pylons as well as the minimum elevation of the superstruc- ture. 4. The site plan must show how on-site parking and access to the parcel and structure will be handled. 5. The applicant must submit a plat to indicate the traded parcels and to serve as an amendment to the Hill House Condominium Plat. 6. If any of the conditions, of are of the Stream Margin Review, are altered, that the applicant come back be- fore the P&Z for reconsideration of the Stream Margin Rev,iew. welton Anderson moved the motion with the above conditions listed. Seconded by Pat Fallin. Tygre - Aye Anderson - Aye Hunt - Nay Blomquist - Nay Fallin - Aye White - Aye Harvey - Aye Motion Carried. Colette Penne from the Planning Office presents the following. The following are GMP residential applications; 111 W. Hyman- Snare/Baker Duplex, Snow Ridge - Riverside Addition, Whale of a Wash _ 415 E. Main Street. The quota available as of 01/01/83 is 104 units. The total request for allocation is as follows: l. 2.. 3. III W. Hyman Snow Ridge '\'"" Whale of a Wash 1 free market unit, 1 employee 5 free market units, 5 employees _ 1 free market unit, 2 Silver King - Employee Units Total 7 free market units, 6 employee All of the projects, should they receive a development allot- ment, will require additional review procedures. Specifically th.e additional reviews required for each project are as follows: 111 W. Hyman: Subdivision Exception Parking E~emption GMP Exemption for Employee Unit Rezoning to RBO -5- -_.~--.- .....--~",."--_......"',.""..,... .""''''''''-_.,,. Snow Ridge: GMP Exemption for Employee Unit Full PUD Hhale of a l1ash: Special Review for FAR Bonus HPC Approval Subdivision Exception Deed Restrict Employee Units The ratings that the Planning Office gave the in the January 18, 1983 Memorandum, Page two. w~re done by Alice Davis, Colette Penne, then the entire Planning Office Staff. projects are The ratings reviewed by All three projects meet the minimum thresholds within cate- gories 1, 2, 3 and 4, that being 30 percent of the possible points in each category. Only of the projects, however, meets the requirement of 60 percent of the total points available in the sum of categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, which is 43.8 points. That project is the Whale of a Wash with 45 points. The Planning & Zoning Commission Members evaluated and scored the following: l1ithout Bonus Points With Bonus Points III W. Hyman 42.5 42.6 Snow Ridge 37.71 39.29 Whale of A Wash 45.07 46.36 Whale of a Wash met the thresholds, the others did not. Hunt moved to allocate 1 free market unit out of this year's quota to Whale of a Wash. Seconded by Anderson. All in favor; motion carried. Ms. Fallin moved to ajourn the meeting. Seconded by Hunt. All in favor; motion carried. ~ [1.. f3r()OK~ Joy A. Brooks Deputy City Clerk -6-