Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20141111Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 11, 2014 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, and Ryan Walterscheid. Brian McNellis arrived at 4:35 PM. Also present from City staff; James True, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer wanted to congratulate Chris Bendon and the Community Development Department on a recent award. Ms. Phelan stated the department had received an award from a state chapter for planners for the Affordable Housing Credit Program. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated there are only three members available for the November 18th meeting. The applicant has requested to not be heard on the 18th. They would prefer to have more members. The meeting will be rescheduled for December 2nd. The November 18th meeting will be opened by Mr. Gibbs and continued until December 2nd. Ms. Garrow reminded the board there are meetings on November 12th to discuss lodging. She wanted to confirm attendance. For those not able to attend, she will send a separate survey. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – October 7, 2014 The board members were not able to view the meeting minutes, so the approval will be delayed until the December 2nd meeting. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. Other Business – 709 E Durant – Sky Hotel – Potential Public Hearing Mr. Erspamer opened discussion for the potential hearing for the Sky Hotel. Ms. Garrow stated at the public hearing held on October 21st when P&Z voted 4-1 to approve the Sky Hotel project, there were some shadow studies shown. These studies had some incorrect information as it relates to the elevation of the alley and the Chateaus Chaumont and Dumont. It appears the Sky Hotel east wing was a three story when in fact it is a two story building. Staff wanted to bring this back and give the board the option of reconsidering the project based on the additional information. Ms. Garrow then displayed the corrected shadow study alongside of the incorrect versions previously shown to P&Z. The studies represent the shadows at 9 AM, Noon and approximately 3 PM for different dates throughout the year including June, September, December and February. From Staff’s perspective, they don’t feel the correct study changes what was discussed. But out of abundance of caution, Staff wanted to bring this to P&Z. Ms. Garrow stated if P&Z wants to reconsider the project, someone who was in the 1 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 11, 2014 majority needs to make the motion. The majority members in the vote were Mr. Walterscheid, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. McNellis. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was another question regarding two vs. three story. Ms. Garrow stated the slope on the site and the alley was incorrect. The alley elevation is actually a few ft higher than what was previously modeled. Based on the slides shown the Sky Hotel does not change, but the alley moves up. Mr. Gibbs asked the error was made on both the existing and new Sky Hotels previously shown at which Ms. Garrow confirmed. The elevation of the hotel was correct. Mr. Erspamer asked the majority members if they wanted to make a motion to continue the hearing at which no one made a motion. Public Hearing – 506 / 530 E Main St – Pitkin County – Major Subdivision / Rezoning Hearing Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing for 506 / 530 E Main St. Ms. Phelan asked if Staff could have 24 hours to confirm proof of notice. Mr. True asked if Staff believes notice was provided but Staff does not have the affidavit at which Mr. Barker confirmed. Mr. True stated the City has traditionally allowed the applicant or Staff 24 hours to provide proper documentation on the representation it has been done properly. Mr. True stated P&Z could move forward. Ms. Phelan stated they did have the posting and mailing. Mr. Barker reviewed the application submitted by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Barker realized the electronic application was missing from the packet. He provided hard copies to P&Z Board. Mr. Barker stated there are two requests in the application including the major subdivision and rezoning. The two properties include the County Courthouse and jail buildings (506 E Main) which are zoned as Public zoned district. The other property is the Plaza building (530 E Main St) which is zoned as Commercial Core zoned district. The subdivision requests to merge the properties together and vacate a portion of the right-of-way that exists behind the Plaza building. The applicant wants to rezone the merged property as all public. There is an additional request brought up by Staff to define the historic boundary of the courthouse. Mr. Barker stated City Council will be the final review authority on of the decisions. P&Z will provide recommendations to City Council. In regards to the subdivision reviews, the application meets all the criteria in the land use code. The Utilities department recommends an additional requirement for the easements to be established or relocated to a line of existing utilities. Some of the utility lines do not line up with the current easement which used to be the alley way. In regards to the right-of-way, the entire alley behind the Plaza building was intended to be vacated in 1975 but never happened. This is reflected on a plat from 1982 and discovered when the applicant had a survey completed for the application. Staff is recommending a complete vacation for the alley way to memorialize the vacation. 2 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 11, 2014 For the rezoning, the property containing the Plaza building is zoned as Commercial Core. When the properties merge, the applicant would like all the properties to be zoned as Public. This property meets all the review criteria for rezoning as well. In regards to the designation, 506 E Main St was designated in 1981, intended for the courthouse building. At one point in time the courthouse and jail were on separate properties, but have been merged so there is one address for both properties. Staff is also looking for clarity regarding what land specifically is included in the historic designation. Potentially if a third address is being added, it has become very unclear. Staff is recommending the four Townsite lots the courthouse occupies (Memo p 61) be designated as the historic boundary. One additional item the applicant has requested that is not covered in the memo is the request to eliminate the 20 ft access easement on the east side of the lot along the Zupancis property line. Mr. Erspamer asked who had the easement and Ms. Phelan asked if there is a beneficiary of the easement. The applicant stated there is no clear beneficiary. Ms. Tygre asked if P&Z can act on the last item discussed since it was not part of the memo. Ms. Phelan stated it is not a noticing item. Mr. True did not think it was an issue since it is ancillary to the application. Mr. Barker stated it was a recommendation similar to the recommendation to align the utility easements. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Barker for the verbiage to be included in the resolution regarding the alignment of the utility easement. Ms. Phelan stated with the request to merge two lots, a new Subdivision plat will be required to show two lots becoming one. As part of this, the Utilities department requested the appropriate utility easements be identified as a clean-up issue. Mr. Gibbs identified this in Section 1 of the resolution. Mr. Erspamer asked for clarity on the three addresses. Mr. Barker stated the issue is clarifying the boundary where the courthouse is located. The original ordinance designation listed only an address, not a legal description. At the time, the courthouse was probably the only building on the property. Since then, there has been a merger of two properties and now possibly a third property. This would identify three address on one lot. There is no clear designation of the property. Ms. Phelan stated this is another clean up issue. Typically a historical designation includes both an address and legal description of the property. In this case, it is not clear a legal was defined. This is covered in Section 3, second paragraph of the resolution. Mr. Erspamer asked about the resolution language for the vacation of the access easement. Mr. Barker stated a third paragraph could be added under Section 1 of the resolution. Essentially, a second condition could be added which state the 20 ft access easement on the east side of the property is eliminated. Mr. Erspamer and Mr. Gibbs responded this would be an appropriate addition. Ms. Tygre asked if the revised plat should be included in the resolution as a requirement. Mr. Barker stated it will be designated appropriately in the ordinance as a requirement when the application is brought before City Council for final approval. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. 3 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 11, 2014 Mr. Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Associates is representing the applicant. He was joined by Jodi Smith and Dave Detwiler of Pitkin County. Mr. Rawley stated the initial purpose of the application has expanded as discussed previously by Staff. The County wishes to merge the Plaza building with the Courthouse parcel, vacate the alley way and rezone both parcels to Public. Mr. Rawley then displayed a map of the area to review the location of the buildings, lots, and alley way. He stated the application requests will enable efficient development if it were to occur in the future. It optimizes the use of the land and provides certain operational efficiencies to the County. The alley behind the courthouse was vacated in 1975. A small portion of it was not included. This alley way is not connected to any streets and not used as a thoroughfare. It’s a piece of land that has been occupied and maintained by the County. Mr. Rawley provided slides of the alley way. Mr. Rawley stated the rezoning would put all the lots under Public which is appropriate. Mr. Rawley and Mr. Detwiler then displayed and described the location of the utilities easement. Mr. Detwiler stated the easement appears on different maps and some utilities may be outside of the current easement. Regarding the historic designation of the court house, Mr. Rawley stated when it received the designation, it included Veterans Park and it was not intended. City Staff has stated it is not necessary. The change would be to designate the Lots K, L, M, and N. This would detach the park as a historic resource from the courthouse. Mr. Erspamer opened for questions. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicant has appeared in front of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Mr. Rawley replied no, they do not have to appear because there is no development associated with this case. Ms. Smith stated there have been discussions with Amy Simon, the City’s Historic Preservation Officer. Mr. Erspamer asked who owns Veterans Park. Both Ms. Smith and Mr. Detwiler replied Pitkin County. Mr. Erspamer asked if the park is part of the project. Mr. Rawley stated it is part of the project because it part of the parcel being merged. He stated there is no development being considered. Mr. McNellis asked what the historic use is for the park. Mr. Rawley stated is not aware of the historic use. Mr. McNellis asked if there were any buildings there in the past. Mr. Rawley stated he could not answer. Mr. Detwiler stated they met with both the City and County HPC to let them know what they were talking about including the ongoing discussion regarding windows in the courthouse. He stated everyone is up to speed and had no issues. He stated courthouse needed to be designated and it was a question if the park was historic or not. Mr. McNellis asked if there was a referral provided by Amy Simon regarding this application. Mr. Barker stated a referral was not included, but they did refer with Ms. Simon on the project. Mr. Erspamer asked if anything was written at which Mr. Barker replied no. It was discussion only. Mr. McNellis he was not satisfied and he considers it is all hearsay. 4 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 11, 2014 Mr. Detwiler stated what is being discussed at the meeting doesn’t have any effect on the individual buildings. He stated if the development moves forward, it still has to be reviewed. Mr. Rawley stated there just needs to be a way to describe the designation. Mr. McNellis stated this will disjoint the designation associated with the park from the historic resource the applicant is defining as the courthouse. Mr. Detwiler stated they are not disjointing it, there wasn’t ever a historic designation to the park. Mr. Rawley stated when the historic designation took place, they needed an address to attach it to and the address includes Veterans Park but the intention of the historic designation did not include the park. His understanding is they were just looking for a description. Mr. McNellis stated he does not have any documentation regarding the historic designation and the intentions for the designation. He understands the courthouse should be designated but he does not have any background associated with the park next to the courthouse. He will advocate for certain historic designations of landscapes. He does not know the history behind this particular parcel. Mr. Rawley stated HPC has purview. Ms. Tygre noted what Mr. McNellis stated the opposite of what the applicant is proposing. Mr. McNellis stated he does not have the background to say it is okay to disassociate the landscape from the historic resource because he does not know what happened when the designation took place. All he has is what he is being told at the meeting. He wants to see documentation. Mr. Walterscheid stated he understands what Mr. McNellis is requesting but he is curious whys is it four and not six. Ms. Tygre believes Mr. McNellis has a valid question. Mr. Gibbs asked if the utility easements benefit the City but wanted to know if the County Commissioners weighed in on the project. Mr. Detwiler stated the easement were not part of the original application. The easement was a suggestion by Staff to Ms. Smith and Mr. Detwiler. Mr. Gibbs asked if this is a decision county staff can make or not. Ms. Smith stated the easement already exists, it is just incorrect. Mr. Gibbs feels the County Commissioners would have to grant the easement on County property. Ms. Phelan stated the county would have to sign the plat. Mr. Gibbs feels this is not a decision that County Staff can make. He did not initially hear the level of involvement by the commissioners. Mr. Erspamer opened for public comment. There were none. He then closed public comment. Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any staff rebuttal or clarification regarding evidence presented by the applicant. There were none. Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant for rebuttal to which there was none. Mr. opened for deliberation by the commissioners. Mr. McNellis stated he can support the resolution, but would like to see more information on the designation of the courthouse. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. McNellis if he wanted to add something to the resolution to make City Council look at it. Mr. McNellis stated he would prefer to recommend continuation with the P&Z until there is more information available regarding the historic resource. 5 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 11, 2014 Ms. Tygre stated she agrees with Mr. McNellis. She believes everyone is in favor of this in concept, but there are certain details that have not been addressed as thoroughly as required of a private developer. She does not want it to go forward based on those circumstances. Mr. Erspamer feels they can amend the resolution to include a statement for Council to resolve the issue first. Ms. Tygre feels Mr. McNellis would like to state an opinion on the issue but is unable to without the additional information. Mr. McNellis agreed. Ms. Tygre stated would also like to make a comment as well regarding if the park should or should not be included. Mr. Walterscheid stated he understands Mr. McNellis’s point. Mr. Gibbs doesn’t feel P&Z has purview over historic designations so he is not sure there is a decision to make. He does feel it would be appropriate to put this as of note in the resolution as a recommendation that Council clarify the process and status of the park in respect to its historic designation. Mr. McNellis agreed with Mr. Gibbs, but is uncomfortable without having the background of the property and believes there should be a referral from Ms. Simon or HPC. Mr. Erspamer stated he was surprised there was nothing from Ms. Simon included. Mr. Erspamer agreed with Mr. Gibbs but wants to place something in the resolution and the designation can be reviewed when development occurs. Mr. Gibbs stated it would be late in the day to wait until that point to determine what is historic. It should be clear what is and is not historic and feels Council should make the decision. Mr. McNellis stated he would feel more comfortable with information stating if the park was or was not part of the historic designation. He’d rather not disassociate the park from the historic resource since they are being asked to disassociate the park. Ms. Phelan suggested the review by Council to include background documentation on the designation from the HPC Officer. It sounds like the configuration may have morphed over time and perhaps plats can be located to show the original lot configuration prior to the jail property being merged. Mr. McNellis would like the opportunity to review, but he understands the limitation of the P&Z board. Mr. True agrees with Ms. Phelan’s suggestion to move forward. Mr. Walterscheid suggested they ask Council to review the historic designation of lots O and P along with lots K, L, M and N. Mr. Gibbs stated it could be added to section 3 of the resolution. Mr. Erspamer added that it should state “shall be clarified by Council”. Ms. Tygre suggested adding Veterans Park to make it clearer. Mr. True stated in a meeting with Ms. Simon and Mr. Barker, it was pretty clear the park was never designated and there was no evidence to support it was designated. He does feel it would be appropriate for P&Z to request this to be confirmed. 6 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 11, 2014 Mr. Erspamer, Mr. Gibbs, Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis discussed the amendment to the resolution should state “The historic status of lots O & P (Veterans Park) is unclear and shall be documented by Staff and reviewed by Council prior to approval.” Mr. Walterscheid asked how a historic lot split is approved. Mr. True stated it would go through HPC, then recommend to be approved by City Council. Mr. Walterscheid stated it seems P&Z is doing the opposite. Ms. Tygre moves to approve Resolution #16-2014 with the addition of the 20 ft access easement elimination under Section 1 and the additional recommendation previously discussed under Section 3. Mr. Walterscheid seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes, Mr. Erspamer, yes. The motion passes with a 5-0 vote. The meeting was adjourned. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 7