Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960305GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 Joint City/County Planning & Zoning Present were George Krawzoff, David Gutherie, Suzanne Cassie, Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Timothy Mooney, and Steve Buettow. Excused were Marta Chaikovska and Robert Blaich. Shelley Harper and Steve Whipple arrived late and abstained from voting. George Krawzoff called the meeting to order at 4:3 5pm. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger Hunt stated that he did not have a conflict of interest however, he wanted to disclose the possible appearance of a conflict of interest. Steve Buettow stepped down because of a conflict of interest. HEATHERBED LODGE, INC. 1679 Maroon Creek Road STAFF COMMENTS Ellen Sassano, Staff, stated that the applicant is requesting a Metro Area Residential Growth Management Competition for one residential allotment to be used on the Heatherbed Lodge property. Garton asked for clarification on the competition if there were two allocations and two applications. Sassano replied that there were two allocations available, and only two requested. Technically there is no competition for these allotments, but an application does have to meet a certain threshold. The threshold is 3. Cindy Houben, Staff, stated that when the criteria for Growth Management for the Metro Area was redrafted, the Growth Management Commission was created to make sure the City is happy with the type of development that occurs even though it may be the Counties jurisdiction. Hunt asked whether the ADU is a new building or a change of an existing building. Sassano responded that the ADU is a change of an existing unit and the building will be fully deed restricted. Sassano stated the criteria: 1) Revitalizing the permanent community. Planning Staff recommended score: _3. The proposal is to provide housing on site, meeting one of the needs in the housing guidelines. GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MARCH 5~ 1996 2) Providing transportation alternatives. Planning Staff recommended score:_3. This site is relatively small and does not provide innovative transportation solutions however, the applicant has agreed to pay a pro rata share of any improvements made to the Maroon Creek Road. Traffic analysis has been prepared by an Engineer on this project. The County Engineer looks at the traffic generation and the analysis to come up with the pro rata share. 3) Promoting environmentally sustainable development: Planning Staff recommended score: 3. This development does avoid all of the hazards, including flood plains, steep slopes and high wild fire hazard on the steep slopes. 4) Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character: Planning Staff recommended score: 3. The proposed development on the lower bench will be out of the public view plane. The Maroon Castle caucus found the proposal acceptable and suggest that it may be an improvement to the sight and the Maroon Creek Road area. Summary: Total score of: 12. Garton asked if the right-of-way encroachment, height limitation of the residence, and water and sewage will all be dealt with by the County. Sassano agreed that those issues will be dealt with in the review of the Subdivision Conceptual Submission. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Curtis, public, representing the applicant, commented that they feel comfortable with the scores, and that the threshold has been met. MOTION: Tygre moved to recommend that the scoring be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Hunt. Motion carries, all in favor. MURRAY SUBDIVISION 1422 West Buttermilk Road STAFF COMMENTS Francis Krizmanich, Staff, stated that the applicant is requesting a Metro Area Residential Growth Management Competition for one residential allotment. Staff did not rate the project at threshold across the board. There were some legal issues, it was discovered that the subdivision was recorded without subdivision approval. Through the Planning Commission review, Staff and the Planning Commission supported the project. However, a decision was not made on Staff GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MARCH 5~ 1996 recommended denial of the lot separation because it was not a legally plated subdivision. The rezoning application is to go back to 2 acre zoning. The current AF zone is 10, but at one time was 2 acres. The subdivision application is to recreate the two lots that originally existed. Krizmanich stated that the applicant was trying to legalize what they thought they had purchased 20+ years ago. Staff recommends approval of the application with the exception of the Scenic Overlay View. During the scenic review, it was discovered that portions of the proposed home will be visible over the ridge line. Staff does not feel that complies with the Scenic Overlay Criteria. Krizmanich noted that last year the Planning Commission did not agree with Staff and supported the applicants Scenic Overlay. Krizmanich stated the criteria: 1) Revitalizing the permanent community: Planning Staff recommended score: _3. The applicant has committed to deed restrict an onsight dwelling unit which exists. The Staff and Housing Authority support the proposal. 2) Providing transportation alternatives. Planning Staff recommended score: _3. In Staff' s opinion, this is a small two lot subdivision on West Buttermilk Road, and does not have access to public transit facilities, nor could it create access to public transit facilities. 3) Promoting environmentally sustainable development: Planning Staff recommended score: 2. It is Staff' s opinion that the applicant was not in compliance with section J "completely avoiding "1041" hazard areas and ridge line development", and could develop a home site that will not be visible from the highway. 4) Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character: Planning Staff recommended score: 3. The area is primarily fully developed with lots in the 2 - 5 acre range. Staff's opinion is the development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Summary: Total score of: 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Young, public, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant is willing to amend the application to comply with Staff' s recommendations that the home not be visible from highway 82. The applicant would like to ask for the option of building a deed restricted Affordable Housing Unit on the new site, rather than upgrading the existing unit. The existing unit was built in 1972, and the applicant wishes to keep it in the current guest/caretaker house position. Krizmanich asked how big the existing unit is and whether it is free standing. Young, public, responded that it is 360 sq.ft, and is free standing. GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MARCH 5~ 1996 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt inquired whether or not the metal building spanning the new property line will be moved. Young, public, stated that the building will be moved eventually. Jim Curtis, public, representing previous applicant, stated that they would not oppose the amendment or the change in the application and hope for a win/win situation for both parties. Krawzoff inquired if given the applicants statements, whether Staff is willing to amend the recommended score of 2 to a 3 to meet the threshold. Krizmanich stated that Staff would amend the score to meet threshold. MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt Staff's revised scoring for the Murray Rezoning, and forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Gutherie. Motion carries, all in favor. Harper and Whipple abstain. Krawzoff adjourned the Growth Management Commission meeting at 5:15pm. Amy G. Schmid, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 5:25, present were Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Timothy Mooney, Steve Buettow. Excused were Marta Chaikovska and Robert Blaich. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt inquired about the article in the newspaper concerning the Trueman rezoning. Council was considering protecting 1500 sq.ft, of SCI. Mary Lackner, Staff, commented that the SPA amendment applied for last June did not go forward after P&Z's recommendation. The applicant had not paid their Planning and Zoning review fees, and Staff agreed that if the applicant paid the fees they would be taken forward to Council. The Planning Commission recommendation that came forward was "the square footage of the existing SPA uses", Staff understood that to be the lock shop and the commercial bakery which came out to 1500 sq.ft. With the NC zoning, the hardware store was not viewed as SCI use, but as NC use. Hunt felt the hardware store should be included in addition to the 1500 sq.ft. Garton inquired about the applicant including more uses by right. Lackner responded that the applicant is taking the same proposal P&Z had to Council. Staff took the same recommendation to Council as taken to P&Z, and forwarded P&Z's recommendation to Council as well. Council is leaning toward a few more uses. Garton asked if Council felt it would be detrimental to the commercial core by allowing more uses. Lackner said that issue was discussed and Council has asked for the P&Z minutes to be included in their next packet. Hunt stated that when the property was originally allocated, the sq. ft. of the basement was to be SCI and the sq. ft. area of the top was to be NC. Garton verified the ordinance 30 meeting on Tuesday, March 12 and recommended that the Commissioners walk, if the can, King Street to see an example of ordinance 30 working and not working. Dave Michaelson, Staff, stated that Staff is compiling photographs and buildings going up under ordinance 30, as well as designs reviewed that haven't been constructed but have full elevation. STAFF COMMENTS Michaelson commented that Staff and the City Attorney's office has begun a Code simplification process and would like to complete it by September. The intent is not to make substantive changes, but procedural changes. Michaelson noted that Suzanne Wolff is now full time City and have made an offer for a Planner position. Michaelson stated that GMQS conversations concerning Lodge Preservation has fueled concern and Staff would like to look at in broader PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5~ 1996 terms. City Council and Board of County Commissioners will tentatively be meeting on March 18, at 4:30. Staff encourages City and County P&Z to attend. There were no pubfic comments' on items not on the agenda. MINUTES MOTION: Tygre moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 1996. Second by Hunt. Motion carries, all in favor. 204 E. DURANT PUD/SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT STAFF COMMENTS Suzanne Wolff, Staff, stated this is coming forward from the Community Development Director, Stan Clausen. This has been proposed as an insubstantial PUD Amendment, Clausen wanted the Commissioner comments on whether they would deem it substantial or insubstantial. If it is deemed substantial it will go through a full PUD Amendment process, which would go to the Commission and then Council for final approval. The applicant has reconfigured the units, and the affordable housing has been moved to one end of the building thus changing the footprint and the appearance of the structure. Wolff stated that one of the criteria for amending the PUD is "if it creates a change inconsistent with the condition or representation of the original approval". Staff would like the Commission to determine if the changes in the footprint would be inconsistent with the original representation of the original approval. Wolff noted that the footprint is closer to Durant Street. The affordable units will be accessed next to the Aspen Manor Lodge. PUBLIC COMMENTS Sunny Vann, public, representing the applicant, stated that when the original review took place, P&Z gave permission to remove a large tree at the rear of the property to accommodate the building. This was an ord 1 project, in which existing multi-family units were torn down and the applicant was obligated to provide four on site Affordable Housing units. The Council decided to spare the tree and Vann stated he felt it was a good decision because the tree is a 60 ft. Blue Spruce. The footprint was modified to save the tree and Council granted a Zero Sideyard Setback Variance on Aspen St. The current owner decided to make modifications to the original approval and now has a new architectural design. The most notable changes are the Affordable Housing units, which have been approved by the Housing Office. All other conditions of the original approval are still being met, the only changes are the reconfiguration of the Affordable Housing units and the footprint. The new sideyard setback is around 12ft., the open space requirement is met with an additional 175 sq.ft., parking will still be provided in the same configuration. The four affordable housing units share a common entry area, the houses in the front have been maintained, but the building envelope has been moved closer to the front property boundary which still exceeds the minimum requirement for front yard setback. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 Buettow inquired how close the new footprint is to the dripline of the existing trees and the height of the new building. 6 Vann responded that the Parks department established a boundary to work with to preserve the trees and sidewalk perimeters. The height does not exceed the limit in the LTR zone district. John Galambos, public, Cunniffe Charles Architects, stated the original elevation had a higher and lower portion based on the slope of the site, so now the West side meets the height limit and the East is slightly under. Buettow asked about the pedestrian traffic and wall like section next to the Aspen Meadow Lodge. Vann responded that the wall like section has always been planned for that side, the issue that arose from Aspen Meadow Lodge was the extent of the windows on the East side and whether or not that would be a problem for the guests. The pedestrian traffic will largely be in the swimming pool area not the lodge guest rooms. Buettow asked if the access off the alley as well as the front. Vann stated that the access will be from the alley. David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney, asked if the Community Development Director, Stan Clausen had signed off on this as an Insubstantial Amendment. Wolff responded that Clausen did not feel comfortable signing off without the P&Z determining whether or not they would like to review the project from the beginning. Garton stated her concern that the neighbor from the East did not have a chance to comment on the project. Tygre noted that the question is whether or not P&Z felt the project was substantial enough to see it again. Tygre stated that she felt it is an improved project and the only changes to the original representations are in the form of improvement. Hoefer stated that his concern was whether or not P&Z had the jurisdiction to make this determination. Hoefer noted that it was up to Clausen to determine whether or not this is an insubstantial amendment. Vann responded that Clausen referred this back to P&Z for their input on the project to ask if the P&Z felt this was a substantial enough concern to warrant re-review. Vann stated that Clausen would make the final decision. Hoefer said that with that understanding P&Z may make their comments. Garton and Buettow stated that they would like the neighbor to be called. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 VICTORIANS AT BLEEKER 101 E. BLEEKER STREET Rezoning to AH1/PUD, Conceptual and Final PUD Hoefer stated that proof of notification has been provided and Garton opened the public hearing. STAFF COMMENTS Michaelson, Staff, commented that this is a request for rezoning to AH1/PUD, Conceptual and Final PUD approval. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing fourplex on the corner ofBleeker & Garmisch and replace it with a single structure, with two free market units, two resident occupied units, and three category 4 studio affordable housing units. Staff has granted the two step process, rather than the four step, based on three standards, 1) the project is small in scope, 2) rezoning is consistent with AACP, 3) recognize the existing unit is near its useful life. The project will go through ord. 30 review and follow all approvals. Michaelson said that the applicant has requested that two studio units be category 3 instead of category 4. Michaelson stated that the head-in parking has always been a problem, and that he has discussed the option of turning the head-in parking to parallel parking with Chuck Roth, City Engineering and Tim Ware, City Parking & Transportation. In addition, Staff is suggesting sidewalks be installed as well as replacing an existing street light mounted on a former utility pole with an antique street light. Michaelson noted that Staff has also suggested that the applicant incorporate the Housing boards suggestion that two studio units be category 3. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Hunt asked why one quarter block is being formed parallel parking where it is all head-in parking. Roth, City Engineering, responded that Staff would like P&Z's feedback on this proposal, it will be discussed with City Staff in more depth. Hunt asked if the local conditions warrant parallel parking. Garton stated that her concern about going to parallel parking is that P&Z cannot sign private parking on a public street. Roth stated that the applicant is not counting those spaces, and his initial concern was that the applicant would attempt to use the public right away as private parking. Michaelson commented that Staff intended, through the Design Review Committee process to walk the area. Michaelson also stated that he felt it was appealing from an urban design perspective, the parking is always hanging over the sidewalk, this would be an opportunity to not only soften the pedestrian flow through the area, but enhance the corner. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 8 PUBLIC COMMENTS Tim Semrau, public, representing the applicant, stated that in some ways switching to parallel will differentiate the corner as residential from the other commercial uses, adding to the neighborhood. Garton revised her comment, she agrees street parallel parking would be a nice transition into the residential. Roth stated that he would take the P&Z comments to the Design Review Development Committee. In the course of listening, Roth commented that from a traffic engineering point of view having a mixed parking program on one block needs to be reviewed. Garton asked if a private developer can designate, as long as they fit within the Housing guidelines, who goes in to the employee units. Dave Tolen, Housing, responded that in a privately developed AH project without any extra City substance, the developers are able to sell the units to the qualified buyers of their choice. In this case, the Housing board did review that concept. Semrau, public, stated that the Housing board asked him to approach Design Workshop to purchase these units, because they thought it would work great with the Workshop located next door. Garton asked the applicant how they felt about the conditions. Semrau, public, stated that there were no problems with the conditions, and if the City wanted to go to parallel parking, the applicant is willing to work with the City to transplant trees, ect... The applicant would like to discuss the studio apartments being changed from category 4 to 3. Semrau stated that the applicant assumed that they could build category 4 and could not afford to build category 1 or 2. The goal of the applicant is to create a high quality affordable housing project that would fit in the neighborhood and request that they stay category 4. Garton commented that P&Z can not ask to see an expense/profit sheet, but stated that she could not believe this project would not be very profitable if they all went category three, not just two out of three. Semrau responded that won't work. Larry Saliterman, public, applicant, replied that when the project was begun, in the initial meeting, it was agreed to do as upscale a project as possible knowing it would be category 3 or 4, naturally we chose 4. Saliterman stated that if he were forced to build category 3, the project would be chopped to a point that he would not be proud of it, and he would not build it. Michaelson stated that as proposed it is 3 category 4' s. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 Tolen, Housing, stated that in the original presentation it was 3 studio units, the Housing board advised that the units be reconfigured as 2 studios and 1 bedroom, with category 3 studios. Tolen said that the resident occupied unit is a new concept and the Housing board has had difficulty setting the standard for how many Resident Occupied units area appropriate and under what conditions. The 3 principal priorities that have been established are, 1) Family oriented sales units, 2) entry level ownership units and 3) rental units. These units are not Family oriented units, but could be entry level ownership units if category 3. Mooney asked whether or not $120,000 will make or break this project. Semrau responded yes and it would be $140,000. Garton asked for comments from the public regarding the Bleeker Victorians. Bill Cain, public, representing Design Workshop, replied that they are supportive of the project, and thinks it will be a substantial improvement to the neighborhood. Cain stated that it is a worthwhile proposal and Design Workshop is very interested in participating in acquiring some of the units for the purpose of housing Design Workshop staff. Garton read letters, in favor of the project, for the record, originals attached. Garton closed the public hearing. Hunt stated that the category designation will ultimately be up to Council. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve rezoning from R6 to AH1/PUD and the Conceptual/Final PUD approval for the Victorians at Bleeker with the following conditions: 1) All material representations of the applicant, either in the application or during the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2) The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement district which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public-right-of-way. 3) The building permit application must include a stormwater runoff mitigation plan for construction activities to ensure that no runoff enters the public-right-of-way. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 4) The existing utility pedestal shall be relocated onto an easement on the applicant's property at the time of development and that any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other 10 equipment be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public-right-of-way. 5) The final development plan must include trash/recycle storage areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. 6) The applicant shall obtain an easement from the adjacent property owner, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to ensure adequate access to the garage openings. 7) The Final Development Plan must indicate proposed landscaping in the public-right-of-way. 8) Sidewalks shall be required on both street frontages. 9) The existing street light mounted on a former utility pole at the corner of Garmisch and Bleeker shall be replaced with an antique street light. 10) The applicant shall discuss the application with the Development Review Committee prior to a hearing before the City Council hearing to define how the public-right-of-way adjacent to the development must be reconstructed by the applicant. 11) The final plat must indicate easements of record based on current title policy. 12) The applicant shall receive approval from City Engineering for design of improvements, including landscaping, within the public-right-of-way, park department for vegetation species, and street department for streets and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 with the public-right-of-way from the City Community Development Department. 11 13) The applicant shall incorporate the Housing Board's suggestion that two studio units be Category 3 instead of Category 4. Second by Tygre. Motion carries, all in favor. Tygre commented that under the old GMQS scoring, when employee housing was required, an applicant within the employee housing component had to be prepared for the worst, being Category 1 and that based on recommendations that category may change. 918 E. COOPER Conditional Use for an ADU Table to 3/19/96 Garton asked for proof of notification. Michaelson stated that it hadn't been provided. Hoefer replied that the public hearing could be opened with the condition that proof of notice will be provided in 5 days. Garton opened the public hearing with the condition that proof of notice be provided within 5 days. MOTION: Hunt moved to table action and continue the public hearing on 918 E. Cooper Conditional Use to 3/19/96. Second by Tygre. Motion carries, all in favor. Garton adjourned the regular portion of the meeting at 6:40pm. Work session on the ADU Survey was recorded, no minutes taken. Amy G. Schmid, Deputy City Clerk 12