Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19881220 ~'yy RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20. 1988 vice Chairman Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Mari Peyton and Jasmine Tygre. Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Roger Hunt and Welton Anderson arrived shortly after roll call. Jim Colombo arrived at 4:45. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Jasmine: In the Daily Times there was an article about the Teen Center. A lot of the members of the Commission thought that there were better locations for the Teen Center than the one proposed by City Council on the Rio Grande property. A lot of us were particularly interested in a location close to or included in that ice rink building with the Hadid property. It was interesting to me to see that when they surveyed the kids who were actually going to be using it if they are not too old by that time--most of them wanted a location near the downtown malls or the Hotel Jerome. I am just wondering whether there is any point in bringing up the location of the Teen Center again. Alan: I think you should bring it up next week when you continue talking about the Rio Grande. There definitely were some incorrect statements attributed to the Planning Office in there where they said "We had picked this site". It is more accurate to say it was kind of forced upon us because we agreed with the Planning Commission that the ice rink was the appropriate location. My understanding is that the Council imposed it as a requirement at conceptual. Bruce Kerr: At the last meeting Roger made suggestion that we ask the City Council to have a joint session with them on displacement housing. I think they are planning to have us meet with them on Wednesday the 4th of January at 5: OOpm so that we will be there for the first part of that session. Alan: To reiterate Bruce's comment P&Z is invited to the public hearing on the Displacement Ordinance on January 4th. Roger: What concerns me is the dropping of the 75/100% schedule in the residential area. There is a new building going up at 306 East Bleeker. It is outrageous! If this has been built under the new code, something is wrong. We did not address bulk. It is the most prominent thing around. We are going to have to look at bulk again if we are not going to look at this 75% thing. PZM12.20.88 MINUTES NOVEMBER 15. 1988 Mari: I move to approve the minutes of November 15, 1988. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. BRAND BUILDING CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Welton stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. Jasmine opened the public hearing. Cindy Houben made presentation. (attached in records) Commission members, Andy Hecht, Brand Building, Harley Baldwin representing Harley Baldwin conditional use. representing Harley Baldwin of and Jane Ellen Hamilton also all discussed this issue of Request: Condition Use Amendment approval for residential dwelling units which are located above street level commercial uses J.n a historic landmark and which are not restricted to 6 month minimum leases. Jasmine: The request is to either grant or deny the amendment request. At this time I would like someone to move that we ei ther deny or approve the amendment request and then we can discuss. Bruce: I move to approve the amendment request subj ect to conditions 1 through 4 as previously approved on August 22, 1988 (attached in record) and not require the permanent deed restriction of the employee unit. Jim seconded the motion. Roger: So in effect the conditional use is not having the six month minimum lease? Cindy: Yes. Mari: I just wonder if the actual effect of this amendment is that there will actually be a housing unit that disappears. There is one there now that was represented as part of the original approval which is going to disappear. 2 PZM12.20.88 Mary Ellen: It is not there now. Mari: It would be there if the original approval was not amended. Roll call vote: COlombo, yes, Mari no. Bruce Kerr, Peyton, yes, yes, Michael Herron, yes, Jim Roger Hunt, no, Jasmine Tygre, Motion carried. Roger: The reason I voted against was that I think somehow or another we should have included in this thing basically stating that we had an orange and now we have an apple and it should be. Therefore in the future put in the short term inventory and then run as a short term project. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE RED ROOF INN CONCEPT PLAN Tom Baker: The Housing Authority and the Planning Office have been working together on the conceptual plans for the expansion of the Red Roof Inn. Tonight we would like to do 2 things with the P&Z. That is get input at a conceptual level of what could happen out there in terms of affordable housing and also to discuss with the P&Z potential options for a compressed review process given the nature of the project. Presentation by Tom as attached in records. P&Z members, Tom and Alan from the Planning Office, Jim Adamski, head of the Housing Authority and Wayne Ethridge went through the points of discussion as presented by Tom and Alan. (attached in record) MOTION Roger: I move to sponsor rezoning condition so that the Housing Authority is able to continue in this process. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. CONFLICT OF INTEREST/RECOMMENDED CODE REVISIONS Cindy Houben and members of the P&Z first discussed the number of times a member of the Board can appear before the Board representing a client. 3 PZM12.20.88 Jim: If you are going to limit the number of appearances that you are going to limit the stay of that person on the board. In one given year I may not have one appearance before the board. The next year I may have 7. But if I have to limit myself to 5 and that is all in one year, I will just quit the board if I have to make a living that year. Graeme: It seems to me that nobody has had a problem on this Board. So I don't see any reason to change. Welton: The discussion at City Council went along the lines that because so many HPC projects were being handled by Charles Cunniffe that people were going to him because he would have an easier time than the run-of-the-mill architect would. It was more an appearance question than anything else. I think it is kind of a good solution limiting it to 3 cases. Michael: That is like you can commit 3 murders but you can't do the 4th. Roger: Article 6 of the Bylaws concerning conflict of interest has worked for us very well. I understand the pressure being put upon us by City Council. I would prefer not defining a number. 3-is-good-but-4-you-are-dead type of thing is ridiculous. Jasmine: I agree with Jim. The problem has not occurred on this Commission. I also agree with Mickey that there is no rational way that we can come up with a magic number that would have any relationship to anything. If we can come up with language about reasonable number of appearances. Alan: How about "Members are discouraged from bringing in an excessive number of projects before the Commission in a given year". Bruce: My personal preference would be not to have members appear. I do agree with Mickey, however, that to try to pick some number out of a hat is crazy. Ei ther we allow them to appear or not allow them to appear. Rog~r: Words to the effect that the Board does have the right to revJ.ew if it seems like there is an inappropriate number of presentations by a particular individual in a year. Regarding the makeup of members sitting on the Board as to professional and non-professional: Roger: There the Board. professionals. should be a minimum of certain kind of talent on And that could be accommodated by different 4 _/"'~~ PZM12.20.88 Michael: What we have now works. City Council knows what they look for. If we want to codify what they look for then we should say "They shall have a mix" without percentages or numbers or anything like that. Jim: How many times has this come up as a community issue in the last 20 years? My point being that this has not been any kind of large community problem in the past. I foresee it not being any large community problem in the future and I think the more restrictive and the greater amount of rules we try to put on the situation the worse we are going to make the situation. What I think we should do here is keep it as a general guideline that we have always had and say that we should use good common sense and the Board has the ability to call any Board member who may appears to be presenting a problem. There being no further business: Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:10pm. Clp 5