Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19860107 (" , RECORD OP PRIV"RRDIlIIGS REGULAR MEETIlIIG PLAR1IIING 101m Z ORING COMIIISSIOR JAROARY 7. 1986 , I Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with Commissioners Jasmine Tygre, David White, Roger Hunt, Al Blomquist (arrived late), Ramona Markalunas (arrived late), and Mari Peyton (arrived late) present. COMIIISSIORBRS' COMIIBftS Hunt said the recent power outage led him to suspect that either false information had been given in response to growth management plan requests for adequate services available or there was some error in the system. Hunt suggested getting recertification from the water and power departments that there is sufficient services for additional grow.th, prior to looking at any other growth management proposals: Hunt also commented that the parking in front of the Hotel Jerome was a mess and should be corrected. There is no signage in front of the building. White asked what the status of the Aspen Mountain Lodge was, thinking the already cleared areas could be used for parking in the interim. Richman responded there was already a building permit issued on the property. MIRUTBS Rovember 19. 1985: Hunt moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 1985: Tygre seconded. All in favor: motion carried. PUBLIC BEARING MURICIPAL CODE AMERDMERT: LOT SPLIT PROVISIORS Steve Burstein, planner, explained the request. Burstein said there were pros and cons to the issue. The current requirement forces people to build a house, whether it is desired or not, just to enable them to apply for the GMP exception for a lot split. The main reason for developing the GMP exemption was to develop relief to small property owners when the merger of townsite lots was created so they would be able to do limited development and still restrain speculative development. Burstein reviewed and explained his memorandum dated January 3, 1986. Burstein said the Planning Office's recommendation was for the Commission to direct the Planning Office to draft a Resolution to City Council 1 r RECORD OP PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLAR1IIING ARD ZORING COMIIISSIOR JAROARY 7. 1986 recommending this change be accompl ished and that it only apply to townsite lots and lots that were subdivided prior to a certain date. Blomquist said he did not have a problem with limiting this to the townsite, within the main townsite platt. He thought amendments to the pI att should not be incl uded. Gideon Kaufman, applicant's attorney, said there were people in the community that own pieces of property and the only way they can avail themselves to the lot split procedure is to go ahead and build a house. If they can not afford to build a house then they have to sell it to someone el se who w ill build the house. Mr. Kaufman said he was not trying to change the lot split concept but it doesn't make sense if you want to split a lot you have to build a house. Richman said anything subdivided after 1966 was given approval by the City and those should not have the ability to be split through this procedure. Hunt said he was in favor of this concept in a restrictive sense. If Section 24-11.2 (d) 1 read: "The tract of land which was subdivided had a pre-existing dwelling unit QL merged before Section 24-13.6 idl". In this way it does not identify the townsite or anything else. Kaufman said that language would be acceptable to the applicant. Richman commented that that language did not address platted subdivisions which is a problem that needs to also be addressed. Hunt then suggested eliminating the words "dwelling unit" and instead using "lots merged before...". Kaufman said he would like to see this apply the same to a merged lot or a lot not in a platted subdivision. Blomquist said lot splits were invented originally so adjustments to lot lines could be made and subdivisions were to split land. He thought this should go back to the basics, taking out all of the fringe benefits with exemptions, and if something is to be subdivided then it should go through the subdivision process. If an adjustment is to be made to a lot line because of a tree in the way etc., then lot splitting could be allowed. White said he keeps hearing this should be changed but it will not apply to newly annexed land, platted subdivisions, and a specific date should be determined. If those areas are addressed then w ill the issue be covered? Richman repl ied yes. Kaufman said he had no problem with that. 2 r RECORD OP PROCEEDINGS lnmm.AR MEETING PLAR1IIING 101m ZORING COMIIISSION JAROARY 7. 1986 Anderson opened the public hearing. There were no comments so the public hearing was closed. Motion: Hunt moved to direct the Planning Office to draft a Resolution recommending that City Council amend the eligibility for the lot split GMP exemption: to be changed to allow splitting undeveloped townsite lots, but not lots in platted subdivisions: and along the lines of the discussion of this meeting, for annexed land: White seconded. All in favor: motion carried. NEW BUSINESS IRDEPERDENCE SOUARE LODGE CORDOMINIUIIIZATIOR Steve Burstein, planner, outlined the platt and reviewed what had been submitted, explaining this was a subdivision exception to condominiumize 28 lodge units and 8 commercial spaces. Burstein said most of the requirements of the condominiumization had been met. The Planning Office, however, raises the issue as to whether a conditional use review should have occurred before this review in that the hotel has substantially changed from what it had been as the Independence Lodge. Blomquist asked if there was anything in the law that states this should have had a conditional use review. It has been a lodge of some type for a number of years. Burstein replied that Section 24-3.3 (c) discusses whether an approved conditional use can be substantially modified, structurally enlarged, expanded, etc., stating it should go through another Commission approval. Burstein said the Planning Office recommends approval subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Office memorandum dated December 26, 1985. Ande r son asked the Commissioners if they fel t a publ ic hear ing was necessary. Blomquist replied no, this was a continuation of the old conditional use. Gretchen Greenwood, Historic Preservation Committee member, said she thought the building was maintaining its integrity and that this was not a full restoration. Ms. Greenwood al so fel t there was not enough historical information to require the applicant to go through a complete change in use procesL Hunt said he did not think this was a minor change, expanding in to the basement. Anderson said it may be a substantial change in square footage but not in the use of the building. 3 RECORD OP PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLARRING 101m ZORING COMIIISSIOR JAROARY 7. 1986 Hunt said there had been residential rooms added in the basement, expansion in to the mall area, and a fire escape in to the open space, all being expansions to the building. White agreed with Hunt. Motion: Hunt moved to find that this was a substantial expansion of a condi tional use and , the ref ore, would require a Conditional Use hearing, White seconded. Anderson asked for a roll call vote. Peyton no Blomquist no Tygre aye Hunt aye Whi te aye Markal unas no Anderson no Three in favor, four opposed: motion defeated. Motion: Blomquist moved to consider the minor changes not a substantial modification to the conditional use, Peyton seconded. Ander son asked for a roll call vote: Peyton aye Blomquist aye Tygre no Hunt no Whi te no Markal unas aye Anderson aye Four in favor, three opposed: motion carried. Herb Klein, applicant's attorney, had a problem with approval condition #2 because they will not have the ability to weigh whether or not they want to participate in special improvement districts as other owners do. Mr. Klein said he did not think condominiumizing this existing structure had any relationship to giving up the rights to make a decision as to whether they wish to participate in a particular special improvement district. Mr. Klein felt the language of the condition was too broad. Richman said the condition should read "any district to which the 4 r RECORD OP PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLARRING 101m ZORING COMIIISSIOR JAROARY 7. 1986 land would be subject". The proper language for the condition was discussed. Paul Taddune, City Attorney suggested the language: "applicant will agree to join a special improvement district, language to be included in the statement of exception shall be acceptable as to form by the City Attorney". Hunt said he found Exhibit E, outlining services for this project, inadequate. Hunt said in order for him to vote for approval of condominiumization the services offered, hours of operation, and everything that is required of other operating hotels would have to be defined. Mr. Klein replied that it was outlined in their Condominium Declaration document. Hunt asked if any transportation amenities were being offered. Mr. Klein replied not at this time, but would be considered later based upon what the traffic patterns become. Hunt said he saw a design flaw, in that guests will be required to carry their baggage downstairs to the elevat- ors. Mr. Klein said because of the lease held by the drug store on the first floor they could not encroach on the main floor for a hotel lobby. Tygre asked about room t006 outlined on the plans. Before there have been situations where you have an employee housing unit that is specifically deed restricted for employee housing and another adjoining area that is supposed to be part of the common elements. There was a designation that needed to be done to insure the area would remain a general common area and not be converted. Mr. Klein said they had chosen not to do that and the employee unit t012, as well as unit t006 are a common el ement and not separate condominium units. Hunt asked how many employees were going to be housed. Mr. Klein replied the requirement is 2 pillows, which will be complied with. Motion: Blomquist moved to recommend approval of the requested subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumizing the Independence Square Hotel subject to conditions #1 through #4 outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated December 26, 1985 with condition #2 being modified to read:"that the applicant agree to join a special improvement district, the precise language to be acceptable to the City Attorney": Markalunas seconded. Hunt and White abstained, all others in favor: motion carried. 5 RECORD OP PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLARRING ARD ZORING COMIIISSIOR JAROARY 7. 1986 BOTBL- -JEROME POD AMERDMEft Steve Burstein, planner, explained this request, to amend the Hotel Jerome's PUD. The first change reflected is a change to make this a 2 phase project: renovation of the existing structure, and construction of a new addition. There are also a number of minor changes in the concept of the project to be considered at this meeting. The changes under consideration are: parking, curbs and gutters, landscape improvements, retention of the annex and a site plan change, employee housing, and a change of the name of ownership on the notice. Burstein said the Planning Office is recommending approval of this amendment with conditions, outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated January 7, 1986. Per ry Harvey, representing appl icant, said they were before the Commission because the PUD agreement deals only with the project and the addition. Since it has been segmented in to old and new we wish to cl ar ify all intentions. Mr. Harvey said the inter im parking plan was basically the same plan that has existed, with the addition of 4 spaces on Bleeker St. They do not have a format yet for the landscaping but will agree to what the City Engineer requires for the entrance area delineation. The exit on to Mill St. from the parking area will be signed for exit only. Mr. Harvey said changes are anticipated on the addition in order to retain the Hotel's historic designation. Mr. Harvey said the applicant had no problem with the conditions of approval with the exception of tl which requires a compl ete draft of a revised PUD Agreement. Mr. Harvey felt they should be doing an addendum to the PUD agreement which outlines the changes. The appl icant will have to come back before the Commission with the new design on the annex at a later date. Paul Taddune, City Attorney, said the amendment should tell the reader how the original agreement was amended. Blomquist asked why this was before the Commission rather than an administrative matter. Mr. Harvey responded because they are contemplating a major amendment to the PUD in terms of the footprint and design of the addition and the Planning Office thought the Commission should review the whole thing to be a part of the ongoing process. Hunt asked how a 35 foot truck trailer could be maneuvered in the proposed loading dock space. Additionally, there is a parking 6 RECORD OP PROCEEDINGS REGm.AR MEETING PLARRING 101m ZONING COMIIISSION JAROARY 7. 1986 space shown that would be impossible to use. Mr. Harvey said the parking space would be intended for an employees use and not used as heavily as a guests use. Mr. Harvey also said the loading dock is being used now and appears to work. Hunt said parking on Main St also needed to be addressed. Mr. Harvey said the platt would have to be amended in this area because the State Highway Department would not allow the entrance they had originally intended. Traditionally the area has been posted as a Loading Zone which is what it will remain. Hunt suggested the space adjacent to the crosswalk should become no parking. Motion: Tygre moved to recommend approval of the amendments to the Hotel Jerome PUD Agreement in the following areas: 1. Phasing of the project, with changes in the construction schedul e. 2. The interim landscape plan. 3. Employee housing program. 4. Site plan with regard to the Main St. curb line. 5. Notice to the owner. Subject to conditions #1 through #6 of the Planning Office memorandum dated January 7, 1986 with the exception that tl need not be a complete redraft of the PUD Agreement but an amendment subject to the approval of the City Attorney; Markalunas seconded. Discussion: White said he would like to add a 7th condition, that in exiting from the parking lot you can only exit to the right on to Mill St. Markal unas suggested adding that language to existing condition #2. White agreed. Harvey said it will be posted "Exit Only" on to Mill St. Hunt said he would like included in the site plan, with regard to Main St, curb 1 ines al so putting in the parking restrictions in that location. Burstein said that was addressed in condition #5. Hunt then asked that the parking restrictions be added to condition #5. 7 RECORD OPPROCBEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLAR1IIING 101m ZORING COMIIISSIOR JAROARY 7. 1986 Tygre amended her motion to reflect these changes, Markalunas amended her second. All in favor; motion carried. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. '#U~IA )J!iiJ{j- Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 8