Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19870317 ..' o RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING MARCH 17. 1987 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Welton Anderson at 5:00 pm with Jasmine Tygre, David White, Jim Colombo and Roger Hunt in attendance. Ramona Markalunas and Mari Peyton were excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger Hunt: Regarding what is happening with the Roaring Fork Railroad,I would recommend they update their plans for the Rio Grande because of the change with the down valley terminal. The problem I have is that this is a community project with private funds and a stumbling block has been put in the way. Certainly it could be dealt with. For instance the public entities could be helping this plan. The Sewer Department is tending to put stuff like boxing, the inspection of the pipeline, things like that in the way. My recommendation to the Roaring Fork Railroad is that they update some of their support so that they could discuss what is going on that would keep the communication going. I advise them to contact Tom Baker. Alan Richman: There is a work session with P&Z and City Council on April 6th on code simplification. UTE MOUNTAINEER GNP EXEMPTION Glen Horn: This is a straightforward application. The applicants are applying for a GMQS for the purpose of expanding the store by 500 sq ft. It is a one time exemption. We do not see any problem in the GMP exemption in constructing this additional space. It is a really constrained store and everything is really tight in there. What they want to do is spread out their merchandise so it is a nicer place to shop. The only issue which requires your consideration is the question of the intrusion into the Wheeler Opera House viewplain. Right now the building presently intrudes in the viewplain a few feet. And the applicant is proposing putting an addition which would further intrude into the viewplain. From the Wheeler looking up towards the mountain you would find that the Golden Horn Building is really the thing that blocks the view and not the ute Mountaineer Building. In our opinion the addition of this gable on this structure won't have a significant impact. We are recommending that you recommend to the Building Department that the applicants be granted a variance from the viewplain requirements of the code. We are recommending that you give approval of the GMQS. Roger: I agree with the Planning Off ice completely here and it is ludicrous to me to say that it is in the Wheeler viewplain when the viewplain of the mountain is blocked off by the building right next to it. It is in the Wheeler viewplain but it is not in the viewplain of the mountain. Welton asked the applicant if they had any problems with the 2 conditions listed by the Planning Office regarding the relocation of the dumpster and any additional expansions of commercial space. Graeme: There is parking space in the alley and deliveries will be to the rear of the building whereas they are now to the front of the building. If we put the dumpster there we lose the parking space. There is a City dumpster right in next to the ute dumpster. Welton asked if there were any more questions from the Commissioners. There were none. Roger made a motion to approve the request for GMQS exemption and recommend that the Building Inspector grant the applicant an exemption from the Wheeler Opera House viewplain with the condi tions listed in the Planning Off ice memo dated March 17, 1987. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTIAL GNP CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION/REZONING/ STREE'.r VACATION CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING David Harrington: In case you weren't aware in the Roberts v. Commerce litigation which involves the property subdivision that is subject of this application, there was a hearing ordered by Judge Ossola which took place today. Notice of the hearing was given to us last Friday and it is impossible for Doug and the applicant to appear today. They are still there at the hearing. I am here to request that your action for the public hearing be continued so that any issues that might come up can be responded to or discussed by the applicant. Al though this may be unusual the litigation in this whole matter is unusual. Welton then reopened the public hearing in order to take public comments. David White: My concern is for rescheduling the hearing in May. 2, I don't mind rescheduling but I think that mid May is not the time to reschedule. This is an important hearing. We need people here who might want to speak. A tremendous amount of people are out of town at that time--not just Commissioners but the general public. Alan: Mid May puts this process 6 months into a process that requires being accomplished in 2 months. The longer this goes, the closer we get to 1987 submission date and there has not been action taken on the outstanding units. I find it to be inappropriate to table every month to another month. However the City attorney indicates that we should accept this table at this time so we will. But I would encourage you to try and deal with this application expeditiously. It is affecting other potential GMP applicants who are not aware of the status and the quota as a result of the now 6 month delay process that is put into effect by this applicant asking for delays from day one. I am talking about quotas for 87. I am talking about the effect on the 1001 Project which has an appeal which appeal cannot become effective. That applicant has been procedurally impaired by this application being third in the pecking order. There are people who are being adversely affected by this applicant's having tabled in February and now again in March. April is booked to the maximum. It is not fair to you. It is not fair to us to try to put it in April. You won't be able to do an effective job. Roger Hunt: I would like to comment that from what I have read in here, I agree with the Planning Department. Basically I have awfully scratchy information here. These are awfully poor schedules to know what is going on. I tend to agree with the Planning Department that we really need more detail here. I appreciate what has been done. It is an improvement but I don't know the details enough to say that is good or that is bad. Alan: If you are interested enough in pursuing that, that's something that could be done in the next 6 weeks and use the time profitably as opposed to this just being tabled. If the P&Z is receptive to this concept of conditions, we would like to know that tonight and we will work with this applicant accordingly. If you are receptive to the direction that Doug and we are suggesting, that is, withdrawing the rezoning, trying to work with him in the context of the underlying requirements. We don't find that to be a problem procedurally. If that is all right with you, we will work accordingly. Roger: I am wondering if the applicant wouldn't be better off to withdraw this application and resubmit the application in the next GMP and come up with a lodge or residential project for that property in October or December. At that time come up with sufficient detail that we can say great, let's continue on with this. My problem right now is it just isn't sufficient for me to get much out of it. If we continue this process, are we going 3, to get anything out of it in sufficient detail that we can progress. James Colombo: It is not fair to the other applicants. I can certainly sympathize with the applicant's problems involved here but it is not affecting only himself but the other applicants. That with putting it in a convenient spot in May will give an unfair advantage with the majority of other people not being in town. This puts the other applicants at a disadvantage as well as being displaced. It is my recommendation that the applicant consider re-applying next year. You are getting close to the lead time for next year anyway. Jasmine: I agree with Roger and Jim on this. We like to see applications being modified if we think they are really approved but I think this application by the time we get done with it, there is no resemblance to the original GMP submission. As a matter of procedure I don't want to see that happen again because it is unfair to the other applicants. I think the way to go about it is to start fresh. Welton: Isn't there a condition in the code that states the application should not be substantially altered. Alan: Yes, there is but the thing is you are looking at the subdivision right now. The GMP application made the threshold which means that despite all the problems that you have, it still is OK by your scoring. So we are trying to work with you as we did with the Aspen Mountain Lodge when we said, you met the threshold but you have to move it back off Durant and you have to lower the height. We did a lot of things to the Aspen Mountain Lodge that are not procedurally that different until we saw the drawings. Then we realized this isn't modifying the same development. This is, as Jasmine is saying, real close to a new development. I don't know how you keep proceeding along indeterminately without finally saying you are half way to December 1st, keep your planning going, keep moving forward, we will meet with you, we will give you info and let's do something nice and clean next year. That certainly feels a lot better than to slowly work our way towards something that we won't understand. David White: I agree with another little legal part. are we putting them back so Jasmine and Roger. I guess there is It passed threshold. My concern is they can become competitive again. Alan: There really would be no need. What you did with the Aspen Mountain Lodge was when they got up to preliminary stage, we took them through a technical amendment process just to clean up all the niceties. But really I see an amendment being someone walking into you and saying remember I promised all this stuff, I really did not want to do all this stuff, this is what I want to do. That is very different from you and me working with the appl icant say ing your proj ect is acceptable but it needs to be +. changed positively the following ways. In other words, it is the the P&Z as the community asking for changes verses the applicant requesting amendments. I feel that is a very different process. We are trying to align the code in that manner. We are trying to get people more leeway to work with you to better their project to everybody's benefit. David W: With what little information I have it looks like a better project than before. That is the feeling of us right now. We would like to see the proj ect keep on going but with this sketchy information I have to be very careful about it. The information is too sketchy. Alan: It sounds like the direction the P&Z is glvlng--you do need to table at this point in time and the direction to go should be to table to a date to the first P&Z meeting in May which we can do. We will work with the applicant and decide the conditions which appear to be the direction you would like to proceed on the first meeting in May. You would have the original GMP application in front of you then. If you choose not to approve it and suggest the applicant come back next year, that is your prerogative. Jim Colombo: forfeit their go forward. Alan: Right now that is not an issue. The appeal is to be heard. It could become an issue. We have some concerns about applicants through their own negotiations changing their ranking. The code says Council allocates the order. There are more reasons than simply the two applicant's needs that are affected by that. We have only so many units which we give the projects in the order of their rank. As long as this one is ranked 3rd, the *4 is not eligible. If this one is not at *3 then 4 is eligible. We should also give the applicant the option to position so the other people who are behind could Welton then submitted for the record a letter from Mary Barbee and a letter from George Shaw. (Copies attached) Roger made a motion to table action and to continue the public hearing to May 5th. David seconded the motion. Welton asked if there was any further discussion. Jasmine: I want the appl icant to be aware of what the Commission's sentiments are regarding conditions of another application. I want to make sure that gets communicated officially to the applicant so there is no misunderstanding. Roger: What we are saying is if they build a lodge for this project, there would not be a problem with footprint. .!>-. Conceptually I don't have a problem with moving the boundaries in order that you keep the same amount of area to accommodate a footprint. Alan: It might be hard to construct a zoning to handle that kind of problem. You have to look at the zoning line to see if it makes any sense in its location. Roger: I was wondering if conceptually that might be a problem. For example in the SPA area I have no problems dealing with different zones as long as the areas are approximately the same. There was no further discussion and all voted in favor of the motion. COMMENDATION RESOLUTION / AL BLOMOUIST After complimentary discussion by Commission members regarding his contribution of time and effort to the Planning and Zoning Commission, a motion was made by Jim Colombo to enter into the record Resolution *3 Series of 1987 commending Al Blomquist for his service to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Roger with all members in favor. Meeting was then adjourned ,t _:~ (l,,4-"LeL mjlgdd1lfi=.__ Jan~~~~:rney~l!c~ty Deputt/Clerk