Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19881025 A RECORD_OF _~~OCE@ING~ PLANNING '_ ZONING COMMISSIQ1L-_________________QC~Q.l!ltlL~~.LUjJ8 Following a field trip/on-site inspection of 1010 ute Avenue at 4:30 pm, Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Answering roll call were Roger Hunt, Michael Herron, Jasmine Tygre, Mari peyton, Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr and Welton Anderson. Jim Colombo was excused. CO~ISSl.Q.liJ;;!t~~.J;Q.IYJI:NT~ Michael: I think that our field trip tonight was similar to "A picture is worth a thousand words". Actually seeing it is really totally different than seeing it in perspective. I represented a purchaser at 1010 ute and I went through the documents very carefully. Until I drove through there I had no idea that it really looked that way. The surveys are kind of distorted and you just don I t real ize it. I don I t know whether we should adopt a rule that we go through, especially PUDs that are lot splits, to actually visit the site. When the Gordon/Callahan Subdivision comes up, we are certainly going to have a lot more knowledge about it than we will in just looking at the surveys that they are going to prepare. Alan: The County actually has that rule. Welton: When we looked at 1010 the first time we met over on Ute Avenue right across from where the entrance was going to be. We also met exactly where we met today. Michael: Even for the other matter we looked at today. certainly helpful to be on the site. Roger: Especially that Lot 2-A. You see it on the survey, it looks like it is big enough to have a building site until you go down there and take a look at it. It was The City Council last night did approve the Conceptual for the Rio Grande parking Structure. Included in that is wording basically to tell the designers that they will accommodate the teen center on the top surface of the parking structure. So I think it is going to forge ahead on that basis. When it comes before us unless we can find a better place on the sit~recommend that is where it is going to be. Jasmine: Judging from the comments I heard from my fellow Commissioners, nobody liked what they saw at 1010 Ute. Are we going to pursue this? PZMIO.25.88 Roger: I don't think there is much we can do now that you look at the thing. Particularly with Lot 15. Literally what they did was plunk the footprint right down on the ridge and in effect taken the ridge down. From what they say it is not going to be more than 12 ft over the old ridge. But all you are going to see is house there because they basically cut the ridge off, stuck the house in there and they are going to backfill up to it. They are going to fill back to the old contour. Well, the old contour at the footprint of the house is substantially lower than the r id ge . Skip swore up and down that nothing was misrepresented there. Probably it wasn't. But my visualization of it was that the ridge was going to be there and the most you could see behind the ridge is 12 ft of house from that perspective. Now maybe that was error in communication in my reception part. Jasmine: It is odd to me that we all understood it to be a certain way. That was what we were relying on when we made our decision and then the developer saying "No that is not what we said". That is something we have got to be able to take care of in the future. Roger: As an example--12 ft above the ridge, to me, indicates that there is going to be a ridge there to measure 12 ft from. Welton: That is how I visualized it too but to play the devil's advocate, when they say that the height of a structure in the code is 25 ft. That is 25 ft measured from pre-existing grade. You can contour that grade any way you want to. So they were playing within the rules. Mar i: Could we have avoided this by speci fying that the ridge was not to be tampered with? Alan: If you will recall that was in our recommendation. We didn't think that the ridge could be saved by the method that they were proposing and to pull the building envelopes off the ridge entirely. Once the building envelopes got onto the ridge and the house was to be no more than 12 ft above it, we thought the ridge was lost. Mar i: We all visualized the house peeking out from behind the ridge. Jasmine: The footpath: There seems to be some dispute about whether or not that was ever a City Trail or whether that trail was going to continue. My impression was that it was going to 2 PZMIO.25.88 continue but then they put a house on top of it. I would really like to find out what the status of that is. Mari: The question is was the trail on city Property. If it is, the house is on City property. Alan: But you have got Stream Margin Review down there and that is usually the method by which we get trails. I thought we were getting that trail. Trails were a major issue in the PUD. Mari: I think I remember that it was discussed that the City owned that land but they would build a trail on the City owned land. We said that is not worth as much as getting a new easement. For the City to build its own trail on its own land is not nearly as valuable. I don't think they said they would re- construct that. But my feeling was that the city owned that easement. Alan: I have the same recollection. It was "We will put that trail in or do the other easement. But we are not going to be responsible for placing the trail back in". Jasmine: But they were not going to be responsible for putting a house in the middle of it either. Alan: Or obliterating the trail or making it no longer a trail seems to be totally contrary to what we are trying to do. Mari: My understanding was that it was an easement that the City owned. CONTINUED PUBLIC jlEARING DISPLACEMENT/AFFORDABLE HOUSING COQE A}JENDMENTS Welton re-opened the public hearing. Alan made presentation of this revised resolution as attached in records. Commissioners reviewed the amendments along with input from the public. MOTION Regarding remodel. Jasmine: 100% . I move to do starting at 25% to 75%. Going from 0 to 3 PZMIO.25.88 Alan: This does not apply just to condos. housing units. This applies to Frank: So if I want to remodel my house then I can do cash-in- lieu as opposed to building the employee unit. Alan: Yes. Wel ton: As it stand s right now with Graeme' s suggestion with Roger's amended suggestion, if it was 26% remodeled, then you would have to pay 2% of the fee. If it was 27% remodel then you would have to pay 4% of the fee. If it was 75% remodel, then you pay 100% of the fee. There was no action taken on the motion. Alan: We need to come bac k one mo re time to finish this off because of the demolition thing. We will have to go over that and we still really haven't hammered out the incentives on this thing. Wel ton then closed the meeting to be continued to November 1, 1988. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:15 pm. - - - _~ AUc~_lP1_ ~~r _ _ _ -- Jani~~jcarney,tcity DepCfty Clerk 4