|
|
|
 |
January 19, 2005
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Bill Marino, Chair Tom Quinn
Charles Choi Bunny Malm
Rich Urbanowski John Plotkin
STAFF PRESENT
Paul Kennebeck, Deputy City Attorney Jay Hutchison, City Engineer
Vince Harris, Planning Manager Anne Heine, Lead Develop. Review Engineer
Chad Minor, Senior Planner Ken Hargrave, Civil Engineer II
Tina Dill, Planner I Shawn DeJong, Construction Documents Tech.
Dru Siley, Planner II John Padon, Traffic Engineer Technician
Vicki Kaufman, Planning Commission Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________________
The following are the minutes of the January 19, 2005 Lakewood Planning Commission
Public hearing. A permanent set of these minutes is retained in the office of
the City Clerk and a tape recording is located in the department of Community
Planning and Development, City of Lakewood.
____________________________________________________________________________________
INDEX
RZ-04-003: Request from Brunswick Bowling and Billiards to rezone from the 3-C* (Community Commercial District with conditions) zone district to the 4-C* (Regional Commercial District with conditions), for the purpose of adding twenty-three (23) arcade machines to the game area and formalizing the hours under which the Bowling Center has been operating. The property is located at 945 South Kipling Parkway.
SU-04-002: Request of David & Paula Glasscock to consider issuing a Special Use Permit that would allow the applicant to keep an existing structure in the floodway at 1849 Winfield Drive.
The roll having been called, a quorum was declared and the following business was conducted:
ITEM 1: _CASE NO. RZ-04-003
DON STETLER who is the Director of Operations for Brunswick Bowling and Billiards
for the State of Colorado and resides at 3154 Running Deer Drive, Castle Rock,
Colorado, 80108, appeared before Planning Commission on September 15, 2004 to
discuss the rezoning for additional bowling arcades. At that time the case was
approved to go forward to City Council however, it was brought to their attention
that Brunswick had been leaving the bowling alley open beyond the hours of the
original conditions and have been doing so for the last twenty years. They do
not want to continue violating the conditions of their hours even though they
have not heard of any complaints over the last twenty years. However two neighbors
came forward at the Neighborhood Meetings and said they have heard some noise.
Don said they have made "Hush" signs to post. Brunswick has also hired
a security company. They train their employees and will train the security company
to ask bowlers not to congregate in the parking lot and thereby reduce the noise
level after 11:00 p.m.
TINA DILL, PLANNER I, gave the Staff report entering into the record the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of rezoning to 4-C with conditions.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked if there was any type of monitoring system currently in place?
DON STETLER said not at this point because there have not been any previous problems. The new security company was hired to address the issue of noise in the parking lot.
COMMISSIONER MALM wondered if they still host the Special Olympics. Don said yes they do.
COMMISSIONER MARINO asked if there were amendments to the rezoning other than the discrepancy in time.
TINA DILL said no. The applicant wasn't even aware of conditions being violated prior to the first Planning Commission. The two neighbors who complained said they had called the police but nothing was done.
COMMISSIONER MALM said she has recently walked the property and taking into consideration comments and testimony from Staff and the applicant, and finding that the existing use meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the City, the Lakewood Municipal Code and the Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner Malm motioned to recommend City Council approve rezoning RZ-04-003 subject to conditions as set forth in the Staff report.
COMMISSIONER CHOI seconded the motion.
Motion carried by a vote of 6-0.
ITEM 2: CASE NO. SU-04-002
JACK REUTZEL of 9145 East Kenyon Avenue, Suite 301, Denver, Colorado, 80237,
is a Land Use Attorney who is representing Dr. & Mrs. Glasscock, the applicants.
He said three and a half years ago Dr. Glasscock replaced an unsafe pedestrian
crossing at his home regrettably without obtaining a Special Use Permit. Lakewood
Flood Regulations say there shall never be an encroachment of fill, new construction,
substantial improvements, or any other development within the above floodway
unless a Special Use Permit has been issued under the code. The ordinance does
not state that a structure can never encroach in a floodway. It specifies that
it can only be built if there is first a Special Use Permit issued. The factors
for consideration are found in the code 17-4-13 (5), which shows 11 factors:
A. Injury to downstream properties: In June of 2004 there was a five-year event
flood and the Glasscock's bridge remained intact, notwithstanding the Staff
report that said framing and decking did become dislodged and went downstream
at that time. Mr. Reutzel said it did not. Many downstream property owners signed
a petition in support of the bridge. There are aluminum crossings, one-piece
ladders, old footbridges that are all less stable than the crossing constructed
by Dr. Glasscock.
B. Flooding and erosion damage: Flooding or erosion following the 2004 storm did not damage the post and decking. There is some erosion around the supports but it's their engineer's opinion that they were not damaged or weakened. They propose to further protect the supports by installing riprap around each pier and at the railroad tie wall that supports the eastern concrete abutment. Staff in their report said this would reduce the potential for further erosion at the foundations.
C. Susceptibility of flood damage: The bridge was not inundated during the
June 2004 storm and it is their opinion that is because of the bridge's construction
that makes it less susceptible to flood damage than other pedestrian bridges
in the reach. To be sure, a 100-year event in this reach would cause damage
to structures. Their contention is that this bridge has been constructed with
far more stability than others in the reach. The Staff report says the engineers
have failed to certify that flood-proofing methods were adequate. But his understanding
when reading the ordinance is their engineers are not required to perform this
certification because the bridge is not a structure as defined by the flood
plain regulations 17-14-4 (34).
D. The importance of the bridge: The Glasscocks have a legal right to access
and maintain their property, which lies on both sides of the channel. The current
structure facilitates the crossing of lawnmowers across the gulch for purposes
of upkeep and enjoyment.
E. Alternative locations of the bridge: Staff supports a reasonable means of
crossing the low flow channel. He believes there are significant topographical
difficulties in relocating any sort of low water crossing. There are incredibly
steep banks on the home side of the property. That bank is somewhat stabilized
by the vegetation that has grown up over the last several decades. To get down
to the property using any sort of reasonable slope, you'd have to cut into that
bank and would undermine the stabilization of that wall causing even more erosion
potential. Immediately down from the Glasscocks is a property that they concur
would make perfect sense for some sort of low water crossing.
F. Compatibility of the bridge: Staff and the applicant agree the bridge is
compatible with the patio and yard.
G. Comprehensive Plan and Flood Plain Management Ordinance: There seems to
be dispute as to whether the floodway in a hundred-year flood increases by 1.3
feet or 1.8 feet at the structure. The ordinance calls for no more than 6 inches.
As you move upstream, away from the structure itself but still on the property
line, it starts to diminish. The increase is more or less contained within the
Glasscock's property and not upstream. The applicant is prepared to submit a
CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) or a LOMR (Letter of Map Revision)
to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). FEMA wrote a letter a week ago
to the City. It is very disturbing saying they would withdraw $84 million dollars
worth of flood insurance protection from the City. Mr. Reutzel called Mr. Carlson,
the FEMA representative who wrote the letter today and said he understood that
flood plains could be modified through the use of CLOMR's. Mr. Carlson agreed.
Does FEMA advocate removal of the structure? Mr. Carlson said FEMA only advocates
that City Ordinances be met. Mr. Reutzel then asked if there was a way in FEMA's
mind that you could take care of this issue. Mr. Carlson said sure, you could
widen the channel, you could over-excavate, you could trench a little deeper
but this has not been done yet. The CLOMR needs to be submitted by the City.
He is convinced after talking to the FEMA Representative that that is not the
case. A CLOMR must be done and Planning Commission is his last resort to make
Staff work with them to get a CLOMR signed by the City. They are prepared at
their cost to create CLOMR if Planning Commission will just help get Staff to
approve it.
H. The bridge does not affect access to the home from Winfield Drive.
I. Technical aspects to the bridge: The applicant thinks the water surface
elevation rises 1.3 feet at the site, Staff thinks it rises 1.8 feet. Either
way it is more than 6 inches. Can the flood plain be modified through a CLOMR?
Mr. Reutzel believes you can and he believes that should be done before action
is taken on this matter.
J. Applicant agrees to modify the handrails to allow for the passage of debris
over the top. Staff said the handrails would further increase the hazards of
debris in a flood. The applicant would make them breakaway rails. They would
also agree to modify the ramp to butt it straight into the ground instead of
making it turn, therefore reducing the amount of structure or man-made structure
that's in the floodway. Staff said that if there was a flood, debris would probably
stop at the 20th Avenue culvert and the City would have to go clean it out.
The applicant's Engineer suggests that the culvert at 20th Avenue is made up
of five cells that are 5x12 that carry a tremendous amount of water and would
not be a huge detriment to the water flow at 20th Avenue, even in a 100-year
flood.
K. Staff acknowledges that the bridge does not affect the City water and sanitation systems.
Mr. Reutzel would like Planning Commission to consider the Glasscocks right to safe and reasonable access to their property. A better solution would be to work to get a CLOMR if Planning Commission will ask Staff to work with the applicant on helping achieve that goal.
DAVID GLASSCOCK, the applicant who lives at 1849 Winfield Drive, Lakewood, Colorado, 80215, thanked the commission for coming out and doing a site visit. He said they moved into this home sixteen years ago primarily because of the site. The bridge was replaced three and a half years ago because the old bridge that had been there for over forty years was unsafe. They needed to have safe access to the western bank. To look at a reasonable ramp of thirty-five feet or better would have put the ramp down lower than where the bridge is and would impact higher water flows frequently. If he put in a low water crossing from the house side across the creek it would have been basically a ladder with no access for lawn mowers and that sort of thing. He did look at a low water crossing downstream but if you make a ramp that's twice as steep as the ADA guidelines going north with a 10% grade and runs 73 feet to the northern border of the property, it would then have to be excavated and it would be destabilized. He feels he would have to build a 25-foot, 2½-story wall and he doesn't have the resources to do that. He said they do get high water flow intermittently but never as high as it was in June 2004. Or he could make a higher and longer span bridge of 90 to 100 feet that would go to the side of the house to the very southwest corner of the property, which is above the flood plain. If you go up the hill where the bridge would end up that would be a monstrosity to look at for the neighbors and almost impossible to build. He raised this bridge to open up the channel underneath compared to the old bridge. They separated the piers to open up the span, the flow. The new bridge is wider to give it more rigidity and it's anchored much better. There was erosion around the base of the ramp but it was the only significant issue after the flood of 2004. Dr. Glasscock and his wife went door-to-door with a petition and their neighbors did not express any problems or concerns. The petition has been entered into the record.
ANNE HEINE, Lead Development Review Engineer, gave the Staff report, entering the Staff Report into the record and saying the bridge was constructed without the required Building Permit or Flood Plain Supplemental Permit. Under the Flood Plain Management Ordinance, Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance, the bridge is not an allowed use unless a Special Use Permit is approved. A zoning violation was issued in August 2001. A letter from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District recommending denial is attached and a letter from FEMA indicating the bridge is in violation of the National Insurance Program is also attached. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the request. However, Staff is willing to work with the applicant to find an alternative means of crossing the low flow channel.
PAUL KENNEBECK, City Attorney, wanted to point out that Mr. Reutzel brought forward issues tonight that have not been raised before. One of those issues is his request for a CLOMR. This was not mentioned in his application. It is up to the property owner to take the necessary steps to comply with City Ordinances and Federal Ordinances. If there is a possibility that a CLOMR or a LOMR can be issued, we don't know how long that will take and the City does not want to be in violation of it's ordinances or FEMA regulations. Paul asked that Planning Commission not grant the SUP and the bridge be removed until a CLOMR or LOMR is approved.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked if it is true that the City must apply for a CLOMR?
ANNE HEINE said that the applicant is the one who applies for the CLOMR. There is a formal application process from FEMA and the City is required to sign one part of the application that says the City Staff has reviewed the application and it does not violate any ordinances. The City can also sign the application with an attached letter saying it does violate the local ordinances and explain the violation. At that point FEMA will probably decline the CLOMR.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked Mr. Reutzel if a CLOMR has been applied for and presented to the City?
JACK REUTZEL said it has not been applied for.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN said that if the City has not been asked to sign a CLOMR they could hardly be accused of having denied it or not been willing to work with the applicant.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN also said there is a disagreement between the engineer for the applicant and Staff over the increase in the amount above six inches in the water level of a hundred year event. Did the applicant have any idea how the bridge might be altered to not violate that water level?
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN stated that he thinks it is a wonderful structure but seems to be more than enough to achieve crossing over the gulch. It's a wonderful place for entertaining but in terms of crossing the gulch it is a bit extreme.
JACK REUTZEL said he does agree that it is in violation whether it is 1.3 or 1.8. Jack said he concurs that this structure is substantial and designed to be a permanent structure to be able to withstand a hundred year flood. It is unlike the aluminum structure a neighbor has. He cannot disagree with the commissioner's general consensus that it is a large structure, larger than it needs to be for pedestrian access.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN then said he assumes Mr. Reutzel is not saying the only option that happens to be the aluminum structure that appears to have been put down haphazardly.
JACK REUTZEL said no, he thinks there are other options as discussed in his presentation.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked if there is any contention that removal of that bridge would result in the property owner not being able to access their property on the other side of the gulch?
JACK REUTZEL said there would have to be some structure built that would allow access to the other side.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN saw other structures across the bank. What is the status of the other structures? Are they conforming?
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked, for the record, if Mr. Reutzel feels even if the owners could not access the far bank that the substantial value and use of the property would be eliminated? Would the use of the property, as a whole would be effectively rendered useless
MR. REUSTZEL said he would contend that it does diminish the value of the property if he can't access his backyard. But it would not suggest that the house could not continue to be occupied but that the value of the lot could be diminished but not eliminated.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN asked about the status of other properties that have bridges
across the gulch.
So, in other words, Staff is working with other property owners along the gulch?
ANNE HEINE said there are several other structures in this reach of Lena Gulch. All were negatively affected by the June 2004 storm. Staff was in contact with all the property owners once they became aware of the potential violations of the Flood Plain Management Ordinance. One of the upstream bridges was swept downstream during the storm. That zoning violation has gone away and Staff is working with the property owner to approve a low flow structure. There is another structure upstream from the Glasscock's property that will be removed and replaced with a low flow structure as part of the City project in the gulch. There is also a single-unit decking bridge that was swept off the bank and ended up on the opposite bank and lodged itself in some of the vegetation. It was damaged and the owners have put it back recently. Staff is in discussion with that property owner to approve another low flow crossing on their property.
COMMISSIONER MALM asked Jack Reutzel why nothing has been done since the zoning violation brought this to the applicant's attention when it was issued in August 2001?
JACK REUTZEL said part of the problem was, during the same time, the Urban Drainage staff had proposed some modifications in Lena Gulch and Dr. Glasscock spent time working with the engineers trying to figure out if his property was in or out of the modified area. When the City filed a lawsuit Mr. Reutzel's law firm became involved.
DAVID GLASSCOCK explained that when he received notification of the violation, he did contact a water engineer who came out and did a GPS Survey that provided the information for a Special Use Permit to be applied for from the City. The engineer he hired left the firm and the company lost the Glasscock files. Dr. Glasscock provided information on the surrounding property owners to the City and the City lost those names. He felt the City was obligated to contact him. In the meantime he was working with Urban Drainage staff on the bank improvements that incorporate the bridge. That was with McLaughlin Water Engineers. He felt things were proceeding. For more than a year he waited for the City to get back with him.
COMMISSIONER MALM said she knows this is a difficult situation for him, having seen his home and the bridge but the applicant needs to acknowledge that this is in violation, it is creating a problem for the City with FEMA, it is a zoning violation that has been cited and stands uncorrected.
DR. GLASSCOCK said he would agree that the engineer drawings show the water rise greater than six inches but it doesn't have any significant impact on property outside of his home. He has offered a compromise and said he feels the letter from FEMA is disturbing and overstated.
DRU SILEY, Planner III, said that early in 2002 after Dr. Glasscock had received the zoning violation, the City received a preplanning application. A letter of response was sent back to Dr. Glasscock explaining that he would need to pursue getting a Special Use Permit. The City never received the notification information he discussed. There was never a Special Use Permit application submitted. It would not have been permitted to be submitted without the neighborhood meeting taking place first.
COMMISSIONER MALM said the one remedy available to the applicant immediately did not happen. We are here tonight simply to consider the appropriateness of a Special Use Permit.
DR. GLASSCOCK said he hand delivered the notification information himself and the engineering firm was to get them to the city.
COMMISSIONER QUINN asked if the bridge would be considered a structure within the flood plain regulation?
PAUL KENNEBECK said that is not correct and as a consequence of this statement, finding number nine in the Staff report needs to be deleted. That leaves nine findings still in effect.
COMMISSIONER QUINN said in the Staff report some of the boards of the bridge were dislodged during the flood. How do we know this happened?
ANNE HEINE showed a picture of the damage to the ramp from Staff's perspective and they did see the decking boards on adjacent properties downstream the day after the storm.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked if the water level exceeds the overall bridge height?
ANNE HEINE said in a hundred year flood the water depth is 11 feet from the bottom of the channel. The hundred-year flood depth without the bridge on a base model without any obstruction shows the water surface approximately at the middle railing. That is a model only. With the bridge in place that hundred-year floodwater surface raises approximately 1.8 feet and it would be just over the top of the railing.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said it struck him as odd that there is some question about the 1.8 feet versus 1.3 feet. The Staff report says that the applicant says it is 1.8 feet but then the applicant in testimony tonight said it is 1.3 feet.
ANNE HEINE said in the submittal from the applicant dated December 20, 2004 the applicant's engineer supplied a chart labeled 100-year water surface without the bridge and with the bridge. At the river station for the bridge the applicant's engineer is showing a change in the water surface from a condition without the bridge to with the bridge of 1.79 feet. That was supplied as the latest submittal made by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI wondered if other neighbors had been cited for zoning violations for their bridges that are in the floodway?
ANNE HEINE said Staff is working with all the neighbors that have structures. One other bridge was cited as a zoning violation at approximately the same time the Glasscock's bridge was cited. That bridge was swept off its abutment during the June 2004 storm and ended up on an adjoining property. The owner dismantled the bridge and Staff ended that zoning violation case.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked if Staff meant part of the bridge was missing by looking at the very end of the bridge where some scour is?
ANNE HEINE said yes. In the pictures of the bridge before and after the June 2004 storm the pictures show the end of the bridge (part of the ramp) is gone after the storm.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said his area of expertise is CLOMR's and private applicants could submit CLOMR's. There are areas where the City is expected to sign those applications and it is very unusual occurrences for FEMA to act in a positive way on submittals that come in without City signatures. It is very difficult to get them through when the local jurisdiction is hostile to the project but it can happen.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said he doesn't view this Special Use application as viable in its current state. He also understands Staff saying, "We have rules and we are going to stand by those rules." So now he wonders, if this goes into abeyance, can the applicant go to the trouble and expense of putting together a CLOMR or LOMR and submitting it to FEMA, the affected neighbors say ok and it is documented, is that the kind of situation where the commission can attach, as a condition, something to the application for the Special Use Permit?
PAUL KENNEBECK said he believes the applicant can come back in with different conditions and reapply for a Special Use Permit. On the issue of applying conditions, he would say that the commissioners are allowed to apply conditions to a Special Use Permit. However, the City is vehemently opposed to any conditions being tacked on to the Special Use Permit as it was applied for in this case.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked where 1847 Winfield Drive is because the commissioners received a letter this evening from a neighbor at that address who is in favor of this case. Is it adjacent to the property or further up on the cul-de-sac? Also where is 12430 Willow Lane, the neighbor at this address sent a letter opposing this case?
DRU SILEY said 1847 Winfield Drive is on the cul-de-sac and is not in the flood plain.
DR. GLASSCOCK said 12430 Willow Lane is actually upstream almost to Youngfield. Dr. Glasscock also said that no boards came loose from the bridge in the flood of June 2004 but the boards found downstream were old boards he had laying around his property and other neighbor's bridges.
COMMISSIONER CHOI asked if the engineer was instrumental in the construction of the bridge? If not, who was? Because he wondered how the columns were secured to the ground.
JIM JONES of 2120 West Littleton Boulevard, Suite 205, Littleton, Colorado, 80120, the applicant's engineer, said he was not.
DR. GLASSCOCK said the columns are buried about four feet deep in concrete. The base of the ramp is in a reinforced concrete footer, the base of the bridge on the east side is in a reinforced concrete footer about fourteen feet long and three feet by three feet and there are bolts that run through the three feet and up through the beams. There are seven of those ¾" bolts.
COMMISSIONER CHOI asked why the beams on the bridge are spliced in the middle?
DR. GLASSCOCK said they are overlapped. Trying to find beams of that length that were amenable to getting around the house and getting down into that area and managing them basically by hand, was why they are spliced in the middle.
COMMISSIONER CHOI said normally in simple spans like this bridge and in anticipation of becoming loaded, one winds up building it with a camber to start with so it is usually higher to start with. He noticed that this bridge actually already deformed.
DR. GLASSCOCK said they are pressure treated lumber. He was unsure of what type of lumber was used.
COMMISSIONER CHOI said in his opinion this is a structure. He said the Glasscock's do have a great deal of pride and a wonderful residence however there is an ordinance that is being tested here. The peak load test here is the hundred-year event. Has the doctor ever been in a hundred year event because Commissioner Choi has. It happens when you least expect it. The forces that come onto a structure are subjected to the forces of water. If the structure in and of itself is already broken down and spliced in the middle, it is going to move. He feels there is much more important issue here, which is the value of life. The reason for the ordinance being in place is to standardize a point of departure from which you can apply for SUP's. But as it stands right now he has not heard an adequate answer for the imminent danger in the two sectors that he has seen. One area has to do with what happens to the child who is in the way of - not floating water - but cascading debris that can catch some loved one or some pet. The second area is what happens if despite the ordinance being in place, the commission deals with special dispensation? The City basically penalizes 500 other homeowners by their losing their flood damage insurance.
COMMISSIONER CHOI said he heard City Staff offer to help the applicant in the formation of a CLOMR and get it right back in as quickly as possible. What we don't know is how long that process takes. The City cannot afford to wait. Commissioner Choi expressed his sympathy and acknowledges again the pride the Glasscocks have in their home.
COMMISSIONER MARINO asked if the applicant came forward with any other solution
to the problem?
Were there channel modifications that would allow the water to drop to the six-inch
level?
ANNE HEINE said the proposal Staff reviewed includes modifications to the bridges structure but those modifications do not bring the bridge into compliance with the ordinance. Staff reviewed three submittals from the applicant and none of them included channel modifications.
COMMISSIONER MARINO asked if the application had included modifications that would have brought it into compliance would Staff support it?
ANNE HEINE said she would respectfully suggest that if that process would have taken place before a structure was built, it would have given Staff the opportunity to make suggestions, to change the structure to bring it into compliance with the ordinance and with FEMA regulations. After-the-fact-approval leaves Staff no options.
COMMISSIONER MARINO said the reference to improvements upstream that will take place this spring; will they substantially change the flood plain in this area?
ANNE HEINE said the proposed channel improvements are maintenance level improvements to correct current erosion problems and to stabilize the sloughing banks. This level of construction will not modify the flood plain.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said based on the testimony tonight, the evidence, the Staff report, he moves the Planning Commission deny this Special Use Permit given that Staff has provided substantial evidence that it is not in compliance with applicable regulations.
COMMISSIONER MALM seconded the motion.
COMMISSIONER PLOTKIN said he is struck by the time frame from the time the zoning violation was issued in August 2001 until present. He feels the applicant replaced an existing structure that he thought was in compliance. He said the deck / bridge is a very attractive addition to the applicant's back yard. However, there are health and safety issues that FEMA, the zoning ordinance, and City Staff considered whether the hundred-year flood happens this year or much later. Commissioner Plotkin said it is too bad it has gotten this far because it sounds like Staff has offered to work with the applicant but there really is no other choice but to deny this request.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said he believes the Glasscocks had no idea they were not following rules and regulations when they built this bridge but there is a reason why these rules and regulations are in place. FEMA doesn't care about this bridge but they care that someone is violating the rules. If the steps were taken to do an Engineering study to redefine where the flood plains are, based on this bridge, to define the impacts on neighbors' flood plains and properties, and you get the neighbors acceptance, then it meets all the rules for a CLOMR. Until you get the neighbors whose property this would impact to say yes this is ok with us in this commissioner's mind it is not appropriate to continue.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI modified the motion to acknowledge the deletion of Finding Number 9 in the Staff Report, as requested by Staff.
COMMISSIONER MALM seconded the motion modification.
COMMISSIONER MARINO said there was a
COMMISSIONER MALM wanted the Glasscocks to know she reluctantly seconded the motion. She would like to see this problem resolved because she thinks the Glasscocks do have a beautiful place and she would like to see them continue to enjoy it. So she hopes the applicant will work vigorously with Staff to resolve the issue. She hopes they might be able to understand the Planning Commission position.
COMMISSIONER MARINO acknowledges too that the Glasscocks have a beautiful home with a lovely yard but sees this strictly as an issue of compliance. The issue becomes what happens when the beautiful running water is no longer trickling by but flooding?
Vote was 6-0 to deny case SU-04-002.
ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS
Meeting minutes for January 5, 2005 were extended to the next meeting for review.
ITEM 3: GENERAL BUSINESS
There being no general business to be discussed the meeting was adjourned at
9:35.
ADJOURNMENT
Secretary to the Planning Commission
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
