Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19881122 ~xu RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 22. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 5:00pm. Answering roll call were Michael Herron. Jim Colombo, Mari peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Graeme Means and Bruce Kerr were excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Discussion regarding Planning Office having packets ready for the Commissioners by noon on Friday before meetings or some type of keyed mail boxes at the back door installed in order for Commissioners to get their packets on weekends. Commissioners agreed some sort of solution has to be met that would allow them to get packets by 1: 00 Friday or over the weekend. Mondays are just too late. Jasmine: Regarding our Demolition and Replacement Ordinance: The projects that were exempted because the moratorium would mean that they were covered until such time that the Ordinance is either adopted or not adopted. what happens to those parcels that were either exempted because of contracts-- what happens if the contract then doesn't go through? Cindy: If the contract doesn't go through by the time we've established new regulations, they are out. The exemption would no longer apply. You have got to have the plans into the Building Dept. by the time we have adopted the Ordinance or your exemption is lost. Mari: I thought Mill street was supposed to be open by the Winter season. (the Hadid Hole) It doesn't show any signs that it is going to be open. I thought part of the deal was it wouldn't be closed all Winter MINUTES OCTOBER 18. & NOVEMBER 1. 1988 Roger moved to approve minutes of October 18, 1988. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Roger moved to approve minutes of November 1, 1988. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. PZMll.22.88 516 EAST HYMAN COMMERCIAL GMP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AND GMP SCORING Cindy made presentation. (Attached in records) Mari: Allowing them to get increased FAR for employee housing-- does it specify a certain percentage of employee housing that they are generating? Cindy: If they did take the additional square footage that is allowed with employee housing, 60% of that additional square footage would have to be dedicated to employee housing. Mari: what I am saying is that they get the same FAR bonus whether they are housing 100% of their generation or 30% of their generation or whatever. Cindy: site. Right. It is just whether or not they have a unit on Welton: It is a ratio of the number of square feet of the employee unit. For every 6 square feet of additional of employee units, you get 4 extra square feet of additional commercial space if you take a bonus. Mari: Whenever we waive, we always seem to waive parking spaces for employee housing. AS far as I know, the price the buyer has to pay for the unit is the same with a parking space or without parking. That is not quite right. The price is set by square footage. I think we should discuss this with Housing Authority. Bill poss: We have no problem with Planning Office recommendations. We need to know how we are going to control the additional trash area which Planning has requested with regard to who uses our trash area. Cindy: The owner of that space can lease it however they prefer. Priority should be given to pre-existing buildings in the area that don't have the ability to put their trash on-site. Bill: We don't plan to lease it. We don't want a problem later on if some change happens in the building as a condition of our getting approval for growth management. Michael: Just add after the word "allowing" put in "unreasonable conditions imposed by the building owner". 2 PZMl1.22.88 MOTION Michael: I make a motion that we adopt the Planning Office's recommendation. Welton: We can adopt the Planning Office's scoring and we can also approve the other review criteria such as special review, approval to pay cash-in-lieu for the required parking spaces and the applicant receive approval for exemption from Growth Management for the employee unit as well as special review for approval to waive the required parking space for that unit and that the conditions be as listed in the Planning Office memo dated November 22, 1988 1 and 2 being the same, 3 being modified as per Michael's suggested change and #6 to read: The applicant shall install the additional insulation in the roof and basement insulation shall be R-19 both as indicated in RFEC memo dated November 15, 1988. Michael so moved. Roger seconded the motion. Bill: The basement is already installed. It is already there. We have insulation all the way down to the footings as the Building Department requested that we do. It is 2" of rigid insulation. Roger: OK. And also I will be willing to modify that condition because you are surrounded by buildings on both sides so you have the insulation of other buildings. Then--applicant shall install the additional insulation in the roof as indicated in RFEC memo daed November 15, 1988. Michael modified his second. All voted in favor of the motion. 1001 UTE AVENUE LOT SPLIT/POD welton stepped down at this time because of possible conflict of interest and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Jasmine Tygre. Cindy: This is a letter from John Nichol, an adjacent land owner at the Aspen Chance Subdivision who says that he thinks this is an excellent improvement over the previous application and urges approval of the lot split application. Cindy made presentation as attached in records. 3 PZMl1.22.88 I neglected to put in the memo that the applicants are proposing to do some landscaping and grading of the adjacent park which is the park that was donated as part of the 1010 ute PUD. As far as the site plan itself the density is appropriate for it given the lot. We have seen other proposals where the density was a lot greater on the site and was denied under the Growth Management Plan. It will be in keeping with the Aspen Chance subdivision houses. Mari: Is there anything to preclude it from becoming designated? Evidently the samples show that it was worse than the one that is designated. Cindy: I don't know what the designation process is. be that we could get into a lot of problems with that. Sunny: It has always been this applicant's intent to work with Environmental Health Dept. because we don't want any subsequent liability once the lots are sold. It could Roger: I think it will require full disclosure as to what those tailings are to the potential buyer. And with that kind of tailings, is there a radon problem as well? As long as they are willing to buy it fully informed I have no problem with it. Michael: I would go a step further with that. I would like to see that there be some covenants or restrictions placed upon the property that releases the City from any liability in the event the site is ever future designated or in the event that there is a problem and that there be an acknowledgement that any costs to remedy whatever it is has got to be born by the unit or based upon the value of the property. Sunny: A year ago this application received a recommendation of conceptual approval subject to a reduction in density. Council subsequently approved that conceptual approval but it never got enough points to make threshold. If you remember the road came in below and then there was 4 lots and 8 units. What we have done is bring the road around the back. By reducing the density and moving it back it reduces the amount of grading required and saves more of the vegetation. It is down to 2 lots. The remainder of the site and everything above the lots will be deed restricted against further development and is open space. 4 PZMl1.22.88 At the moment it is the applicant I s intent to provide lots for sale. We did not propose landscaping around the house because we did not know what the house footprint would be. To the extent that we can develop some landscape guidelines that would meet conditions of approval, that is fine. Michael: Is it possible to approve this without putting in a building envelope? Why don't we delay the imposition of a building envelope rather than approve a building envelope now subject to revoking it later. Sunny: In looking at the property we reached the following conclusions: If you look at the up slope conditions there are some historic avalanche paths. None of particular recent origin. In most cases as far as 8040 Greenline there has never been a prohibition in this development. what it normally requires is some techniques employed in the design of the house. We were not particularly concerned about it because of the dense vegetation above us. It is a solid Evergreen forest. There is a little historic evidence there that there are 2 breaks in the slope. That is the large Midland r-o-w and then the trail above it which will tend to stop any type of slide. with normal precautions in the design of the house the problem could be mitigated. At the time that we do the final grading plan it was our intention to comply with Chen and have them review that grading plan for potential unstable slopes in a regraded area. The drainage question I think we have done as much as we can to mitigate it. There has been a historic problem identified with water runoff in Spar Gulch. It tends to come down behind the Alps, the Chance, the Black Swan and us. The plan which has been adopted by the City recommends that the City construct a drainageway in the old Midland r-o-w that eventually connects to the Roaring Fork River. Toward that end Jay Hammond requested that we grant an easement across our property which we have agreed to do. We are going to produce the detailed drainage plan which is an engineering requirement at the next stage of review. We are proposing to have a small drainage swail in this area. We have a snowmelt system in the road. The other concern was erosion of the mine tailings after we graded. While this is part and parcel of the toxicity problem, we are going to cover that with top soil and it is going to be reseeded with grass to prevent erosion. The intent was not to 5 PZMl1.22.88 grass or sod this entire site but to leave it natural--the rocks, wild grasses and create a grassed envelope around the buildings. Jasmine: Do we want to adopt as a general thing in regard to this application parameters that defer the 8040 Greenline? Mari: I think so. I think we should defer the 8040 until we have a structure going on site. Roger: We could handle the landscaping review at that same time--again with parameters. Michael: I think we should recommend as a part of the code that we never have an 8040 without a structure. I don't see how you can possibly have an 8040 review without having some kind of a structure review. Jasmine: It seems that the consensus of the Commissioners would be to defer the 8040 Greenline Review to indicate parameters that would be acceptable. MOTION Michael: I make a motion that we give them preliminary approval in accordance with the conditions imposed by the City (attached in records) with a change to #6 that there be no requirement to install sidewalks at this time. But the developer be required to join an improvement district when one is formed. #7 with the word rights changed to heights. That a condition of approval is that the 8040 Greenline Review will not be granted until a specific building permit application is made at which time we will also review landscaping. And to require that the City Attorney come up with some kind of language that protects the City from any of the environmental impacts prior to the final approval. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Jim: I would like to make a request of the Planning Dept. to discuss amongst themselves and with Alan to give us a definition of the criteria by which we are scoring on 8040 Greenline. Especially in regard to the real oblique ones--architectural review, environment, etc. so that the applicant knows what we are going to be reviewing and what the criteria of that review is and we know what ability we have for review. If we are going to be an architectural review board then let's just come out and say we are an architectural review board. If 6 PZMl1.22.88 that is not our goal, which I do not believe it is, then let us make it specific what the criteria of special reviewing is. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:00 pm. J.~.!ty. eputy Clerk 7