Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19870908 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8. 1987 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Answering roll call were Welton Anderson, Hunt, Mary Peyton and Ramona Markalunas. Colombo were excused. Jasmine Tygre, Roger David White and Jim COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Welton: It seems like the people who are doing the 1010 ute project are going out of their way to make things miserable for bicyclists along the ute Avenue Trail. They park construction trucks on the bike trail. They park other vehicles, earth moving equipment. They have graded it so that you have to pick up your bicycle and climb over a mound to get back on the bike trail again. I remember some representation to the fact that they intended to cause as little disruption to bicycle traffic as they could. STAFF COMMENTS Allan Richman: Brought Commission up to date on upcoming meetings. MINUTES JULY 21. 1987 Roger: I move to adopt minutes of July 21, 1987. Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor. GMOS CODE AMENDMENT Welton opened the public hearing. Richman, Planning Dept: Our recommendation is to table this - request. The applicant which is 1010 ute Avenue project represented by Gideon Kaufman is requesting a GMQS code amendment. It is an amendment to the section which requires which essentially says that a project expires if the building permit has not been obtained 33 months of the date of the original GMP submission. The hardship for this applicant and likely for other similar applicants in the future is the land subdivision that is creating lots and not intending to build all the houses in the residential development. That is something that happens frequently in the County. This is the first time that I am aware of it happening in .r the City. And it will probably happen again in the city. I am sympathetic with the applicant's problem in that people are not willing to purchase the lots if they are afraid that they may PZM9.8.87 lose their right to build on a lot and have to compete on single family lot which of course would be very difficult. However I am also sympathetic with the city's position which is that there ought to be some kind of a time frame within which if a project isn't moving forward it expires. That is the purpose of the growth management system. I have been trying to come up with some kind of compromise that if a project is in fact a real project that is non-speculative, the applicant moves forward with putting in improvements then we ought to be able to work with the applicant on that. Gideon Kaufman: We have experienced on land subdivision that when people buy a lot they cannot have a situation where in 2, 3 or 4 years down the line that if they haven't done something on it the right goes away. That is a very fundamental thing. It is like if you buy a lot in the west end, you can't have a situation where that disappears. So I see lot subdivisions as somewhat different than condominiumization process or hotel, lodge or residential. And it seems to me that there needs to be a definitive permanent time at which when you do something that someone knows forever after that is a lot that is available. Because otherwise who is going to buy a lot that if their life changes--they buy it today and things change, they spend $200,000 and tomorrow it is worth nothing without having to compete in GMP. So I think it is very important that there is some kind of permanence that goes on with a purchaser of a lot. I can understand a situation where a developer records a plat, never does anything. All the ownership is vested in that person. But once lots start to sell--think of the problems that you have in a homeowner's association. You split up the cost, the allocations and everything and then all of a sudden the lots are disappearing. It really has some very far reaching implications that I think are very important. Richman: It would make no sense here to come up with one solution for the land subdivision not thinking about what that will mean for the hotel, commercial project so we are going to come up with a solution that works for everybody that won't necessarily be the same solution for everybody. Welton: To me what was competed for were the lots. The building envelopes. And the representations made were we will put in sewer, water and all these site improvements. It is probably better if it dries o~f for 10 years. Richman: It would be the case if there was some kind of logical progression of happening every couple of years over a 10 2 PZM9.8.87 year period. The situation that I fear is building up a large inventory of these things--1 couple hundred lots--which is very unlikely in the city. It is a much bigger problem in the County. MOTION Roger: I move to table action and continue public hearing. on privately initiated GMQS Code amendment concerning expiration times of 1010 ute Lot Subdivision until date certain of September 22, 1987. Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor. ADOPTION OF TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Welton opened the public hearing. Tom Baker: My goal tonight is to get a clear understanding of any further changes that anyone wants in the plan so that everyone feels comfortable with it. I called Frank Meggit of Trailways in Denver and asked him if he could run down the level of service that his company is going to be providing to the valley. Frank said that he would rather wait until he came up at the end of this week when he is going to meet with some of us. At that time we will talk to him about the trans- portation center at the Rio Grande and how interested they would be in perhaps participating with the City in things like that. ?: We make arrangements with Greyhound last that they did utilize Rubey Park as a pick up/departure point. And we anticipate continuing that solely on an interim basis till such time as they are on a permanent basis. Baker: Ron Mitchel has formed a parking advisory committee. And based upon our discussions last week about the temporary use of the Rio Grande playing field putting that matwork down, there was some initial negative about the feasibility of a temporary purchasing that mat for a temporary use. What Ron and I are doing is investigating the cost of that matting to see if it is either remotely feasible before we even consider making a decision. And we bring Parks in to a decision about whether or what we need to do to the playing field to prep it for that kind of use. t"""'~ Additionally we are working with Jay Hammond in the Engineering Dept and there are a bunch of issues that revolve around the Mill and Main intersection. Whether it is a safe walk, a left turn lane, the signal configuration there and the timing of the signals. _. 3 PZM9.8.87 At a time that is convenient for you, Jay, Roger and I will get together and hash out the concepts that we want to present in a letter to the Dept of Hwys. The Council has directed staff to write a letter regarding the safe walk and we are going to piggy- back all the other concerns that we have. In terms of taxi cabs we have a meeting tomorrow at 2:30. I talked with David Hyman as asked him to tell me how his business operated. I told him some of the concepts that we had talked about in the P&Z and he is more than willing to discuss the concepts with us. One thing we did find out was that their airport to town business is only about 22 to 24% of their business. They do a lot of the in town to grocery store kind of thing already. In talking with De Born Ryerson of the Safety Committee he said that what they were interested in doing is identifying ways through town that avoid as much as possible the high traffic areas--Mill, Bleeker and the west end of Hallam. subsequent to putting this together I heard that Bleeker might be a candidate for the west end. I don't really have a preference although Hallam has continuity on the map. I am not sure that makes a lot of difference in reality. Roger: From my riding in the west end which hasn't been that much there is less of a hill on Bleeker than there is on Hallam. Baker: I think that Engineering is doing I know that is a concern for the west end. is trying to solve a problem in the plan. I will move the route to Bleeker in the west end. just bring it straight across to 8th down to the path from the villas on 8th Street. something about that. What I want to avoid And then we will Hwy. There is a Roger: OK. That might crossing Bleeker on 7th. and get it out on Hallam. onto Hwy 82. be an alternate but you have a problem It might be a good idea to jog it on 6th. Hallam is certainly the preferred entry Baker: The second item--of course the whole railroad issue is mute at this point. But we will include it as a concept simply because it is just easier to leave it in as to take it out. The Library seems to have their act together and they are going to pursue something. The timing could work out very well with the parking authority. 4 PZM9.8.87 The Performing Art Center is probably not going to happen. At least in the time frame which means that this whole parking area is going to be able to be shrunk. We talked about setbacks for a Library and in working with that I got to about a 25 foot setback and started running into problems with blocking the vista from the Performing Arts. Now if this never happens we can pull the Library back as far as we want-- maybe even 40 or 50 feet. We have conceptual shuttle corridors but neither one of these is one that we are saying should happen. What we are saying is we want shuttle corridor. Whether it is steel rail or whether it is rubber tire vehicles. The shuttle corridor is important. And whether we can hook something up to go down Hunter or whether it has to come up Spring or perhaps it is just a loop in and out on Mill. We don't know yet. A lot depends on how this is actually developed. The City/County Offices are taken off this site and put next to the Plaza building. As you know that was not a popular thing with the county people. But that is life. '",.-- In our discussion we talked about the potential of having the fire station relocated to the obermeyer site. Or perhaps some other community facility. Maybe it is the maintenance for the steel rail trolley. We just have this location here as a potential location for the future community facilities. That is going to be the element. Land use and community facilities. That is going to be the last element and we will have the plan complete--we will have a better feel for what the community facility needs are. In the non-railroad option one of the strong concepts that P&Z has raised is that the middle portion of the site should remain open so they don't preclude option in the future. The Library had tried to get this site down here and the P&Z said "No". The snow dump--We just don't have any answers for the snow dump. And we show the snow dump as being removed if the railroad came in in hopes they could help us get rid of it. Mary: What about the Sanitation District? Baker: That is still a potential. But they don't want to co- operate with us I don't know how hard the City is willing to push. That is really the only other option. What we show on this site is these detention areas and we show a snow dump there as well. I think what I should do is mention the Sanitation District site in the text for the snow dump--the alternate snow dump location. 5 PZM9.8.87 We have kept the open space passive open space corridor on the river with the trail paths along the river as well. The trail is going throughout the site with access--I am not sure how the access will be achieved. Roger: My only comment is the offset at Mill street. Getting the shuttle off of Mill street as soon as possible and getting it at a pedestrian shuttle corridor at that point. Baker: It seemed to me that worked well with the trolley. I am not sure it works so well if we have something other. Roger: It would work well with something else as well. Mary: I am just wondering if I was the only one that showed any interest in all these discussions about having the river front set up for some commercial uses as restaurants and cafes. Baker: My understanding was that that was a minority view. Although there were more than just you. I think Ramona as well. ~,-,.. ". Mary: I just don't understand having the river which is the only part of the river that runs right through town and just turning our backs on it. ""........' Ramona: We treat it like it was something that we shouldn't enjoy. Really it could be a whole new outlet for the commercial core. Baker: There is 2 ways to look at that. One way is that yes we are ignoring it now. But if we turn it into a passive park and trails are we ignoring it? The other is if we provide commercial space on public property that seems to always come into a heated discussion much like what happened at Rubey Park a couple of years ago when the commercial uses were proposed .to be done in conjunction with transit. Mary: If there no commercial aspects it won't ever really be used. That is my feeling. It will be used for transportation. It will be for people to get from one place to another or speed by on a bicycle. But as far as actually staying there and enjoying it-- you can't even really take a leisurely stroll along there because you get mowed over by the bikers. And if you can't get something to eat or have a place to sit-- Baker: I know exactly what you are saying. There are other feelings in the community that we have got a 1.3 million square feet of zonable space in the downtown. Mary: Not on the river. places. We don't have any riverside eating 6 PZM9.8.87 Roger: I think it is probably a very good idea to lease space to venders. Mary: Like a popcorn wagon-- Roger: Now as far as if you are talking about restaurants somewhere on the property basically I think it should be located where it can be serviced easily and properly. And that sort of limits it to the Mill street section of the property. with the exception of the Spring street area--but there is a grade problem there that is probably insurmountable for most trucks to get down to any riverside restaurant. Ramona: We have had the Greenway Study for 15 years or so now and that recommended it as well. It recommends a parkway atmosphere. I am inclined to agree with Mary that unless you have some refreshment stands of some kind there that you will have some use but it may not be-- Baker: Perhaps the uses that are in this location here are uses that can serve that roll. The Andrews/McFarrlan-- Mary: That's all FCI! Baker: You need to understand how much of what uses we have in town that are available. That's right. That FCI and we have minuscule amounts of FCI. And does that really function as FCI? Mary: I would not want to see a San Antonio type paved walkway with all solid shops. But at least a place where you can sit down and have like alfresco dining or even a Pour La France type thing. ?: I hear varying degrees of passive park. In showing that as snow dump and I don't know how one plan relates to another in the planning process in showing this in the transportation plan that snow dump--does that become the P&Z's implicit recommendation that the snow dump continue on that parcel? All members said "No". ?: I guess the question I am asking--is it going to be taken that way and is that an intention or is that something that the intention seems to be to try and steer clear of that? Roger: Maybe that should say "Snow dump. To be removed". _.......~;~... ?: That is my question. If it is portrayed in this plan as being the snow dump, is someone going to say that is counter to your position that you have previously stated that it should be removed. 7 PZM9.8.87 Everyone said "Yes". Mary: It does seem strange that the map would say on it exactly what we have said we don't want. Baker: I would like to take up the detention plan too. The detention pond is a clean area. But it is not very attractive. I can pull the snow dump off altogether and say that this is the P&Z 's preference to see the snow dump removed to the sanitary district site. Mary: The other thing--I don't see anything on the plan that even indicates that there is a plan to put benches or picnic tables or anything along the river to make it more practical for people to enjoy it. Baker: I can draw picnic tables in. This is conceptual. I didn't get into details of that nature. /"""'''''- Jim: land have I think if you remove the snow dump and show that as park then when you get down to an implementation you definitely the conceptual direction. Baker: If the performing arts doesn't go in this whole thing comes back and we regain a lot of the parking adjacent to that right now. Probably retain all of it except for the 35 spaces. What I am looking for now is any clarifications or changes that you would like to see. Roger: Ramona and I mentioned before the meeting the concept in the residential area of no parking on one side of the street one day of the week for street cleaning. The biggest hassle as far as that concept is concerned is Puppy smith. The merits being that the residential areas are becoming the parking storage places for everyone who doesn't have parking. For instance we had a 35 foot semi trailer parked at the corner of 4th and Main for about 2 and 1/2 weeks. They did get out and move it about every 5 days in that period of time. In the winter time there are cars that will stay there in the block I have to walk my dog if given the choice people will leave their car their car for a month at a time without even attending it. Baker: We have nothing on the books in terms of enforcement. Ramona: Yes, we have a 72 hour law. They put stickers on the cars and whoever it belongs to they comes along periodically and rips 8 <~'- - PZM9.8.87 them off, never moves the automobile and nobody really follows through on it. It is an enforcement problem. Baker: So it is an enforcement problem. If we put another law on the books about no parking on one side of the street one day a week, if we don't have enforcement of that it is not going to get done either. Roger: I have already talked with the PD--Rocky--and he thinks it is a great idea. He would be perfectly happy with no parking on one side of the street one day of the week. That he would be able to handle. That has the benefit of people knowing that one day a week they are going to have to move their car. And right now with the 72 hour meatball system, John Q citizen lets the car sit there for 72 hours, calls the police, they meatball it, let it sit there for 72 hours. Already we are up to 6 days and the car hasn't been moved. So the law as it exist sit is not accomplishing anything. Baker: I can put it in the plan easily enough. I would like to follow through on something. My intention was to leave the possibility of closing off 4th Street. So that physically traffic cannot cut through. That would be the primary north/south pedestrian corridor. It connects the Meadows with the base of the mountain trail, Willow Cloud. It does a number of things there that I think work very well. This was just to allow us the flexibility to address in an extreme way that really promotes the pedestrian in a more traditional way with stop signs which is the way we are moving now and perhaps we will find out that that works great and we will leave it or it isn't enough and we will have to take another step further. Ramona: We haven't really addressed all the problems the music tent causes for that whole residential neighborhood out there. For blocks around it becomes a parking lot. Baker: What we have tried to do is define the travel corridors through the west end being 7th Street and 3rd Street. And do as much as we can to discourage the use of other streets as non local residential usage. If the Meadows develops then we have really got a problem if we don't try to control it. And I think that when we might want to r consider closing off some streets in the west end if the Meadows develops. 9 ",.,..... - r' -- PZM9.8.87 Welton then closed the public hearing. Baker: I will continue to work with Roger so the final draft is clean and add the stuff we talked about tonight as well as the stuff that Mary and I will be talking with High Mountain Taxi. MOTION Roger: I move to adopt Resolution #87-7. Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor. There being no further business Welton adj ourned the meeting. Time was 6:16 PM. 10