Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880906 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, Jim Colombo and Welton Anderson. Ramona Markalunas arrived at 4:45pm. Michael Herron was excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger: My problem has to do with transportation to the Meadows et al area during special events. What brings this up is the last event a week ago--Choices or something like that. Apparently they hired Aspen Limousine Service to do their bus service which I applaud in principle. The problem is Aspen Limousine Service has inter-City buses which are totally out of character for running up and down Bleeker Street, running up and down 3rd, 4th and 5th at roughly 10 minute intervals. Unfortunately when they are idling at the stop sign it sounds like they are going 40 miles per hour. So it brings the point that we are going to have to, when the Meadows comes up, look very carefully at what we do about people who run events there and hires a commercial facility to supply their bus service. I don't know if we can require that they use appropriate vehicles. Jasmine: I have 2 comments. Both of them derive from the same thing which is people who are stopping me in the street and saying "How could you let that happen?" The first "That happen" has to do with the Berko Bldg. Like others in the community I was a little concerned about the decisions of HPC. I am assuming from reports in the paper that HPC has the final authority to approve the move? Alan: That is correct. Jasmine: Aside from GMP I think there are other considerations. what happens in that neighborhood that do not get addressed by GMP and the pressure that is going to put on the little white house across the street and other buildings in that neighborhood? I think that should rightly be a concern of the Planning & Zoning commission which the general public perceives us as being responsible for. And yet we don I t have the methodology to address that very problem. Alan, head of Planning Dept: our perspective we recommend development. The staff is I very much agree with you. From denial very strongly of the re- completely against what the HPC PZM9.6.88 finally decided to do last week. What you just said is one of the main reasons. The effect on the neighborhood is a great concern for us. We were very surprised when HPC reversed itself from the prior week. I had a call today from the Mayor who also shares the concern. I will be down in council in about 15 minutes when he is going to make some comments about that at the beginning of the meeting and ask the Council members if they would like to have a joint work session with HPC to discuss these kinds of projects where economic interests seem to be winning out over regulations. I think they made a really poor decision--one that they did not have to make. Mari: From economic. board. what I If that read in the paper the only criterion was is the way it is, we don't need a zoning Jasmine: Regarding the moratorium which the city Council placed on demolition and re-construction. It was my recollection that the Commission did recommend that the Hamwi project be exempted but did not recommend that the CBS project be exempted from the Moratorium. And I saw in the Daily rag the whole list of projects that had been exempted. And there was no particular reason given. The thing that bothers me about it is we did see 2 of these projects and the ones that we see we specifically took recommendations on an--OK City Council can override our recommendations. But a lot of these other projects we will never see. And it seems to me that there should be some kind of criterion other than economic, other than people just coming in and saying "Well we spent all this money for this property". I just wondered if there is something like that. Alan: Yes. What happened with these exemptions--there were 14 projects that applied for exemption from the delay. Some were single family home owners and were asking for exemptions out of the fear that the delay might put a cloud on any potential sale. Council did not approve any that weren't active plans. Staff recommended denial of both CBS and Hamwi feeling that simply because they had spent a lot of time in the process was not enough that we have a vested rights rule and it works both ways. It means that once you are vested the city can do absolutely nothing to change a regulation to affect that property. But it also means that if you are not vested then the laws that are current don I t necessarily apply. The laws can change. 2 PZM9.6.88 council didn't buy that. They used as their criteria the project in the process. And they felt that if someone had expended time and money and reliance on the process and had an active application that it should be exempt. So both Hamwi and CBS were exempt. Welton: Just looking up at that map--the dotted line that goes down Hopkins and then goes around 3rd st and then goes down Hyman is the-bike route. We talked when we were Masterplanning about some kind of signage so that it was more user friendly to the biker than it was to the automobile. I nearly got hit a half hour ago coming into town because there are cars parked--big vehicles park so close to the corner that I couldn't see a car coming down Monarch st where the stop sign is against the biker and in favor of the motorist. What ever happened to our discussion about making the signage be in favor of the bicyclist? Baker: I guess we will have to ask Bill Efting to put some money in his budget for next year. Welton: I ride that at least twice a day going to the other end of town. Sometimes 4 or 6 times a day. And there is a hell of a lot of bicycle travel on Hopkins and Hyman that we want to promote and encourage. You have to stop at Garmisch, Aspen and Monarch Streets and the auto traffic is going pretty darned fast at all three of them. And the corners are by-and-large blind whether it is from vegetation or big vehicles. MINUTES Roger made a motion to approve minutes of July 5, 1988. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. HAMWI SUBDIVISION/PUD Welton opened the public hearing. Cindy Houben, Planning Dept: record. Made presentation as attached in Welton asked for public comment. There was none. Hamwi: My only comment would be on #l requirement that you are approving me under the condition that I supply you with approved plat for both 3 units and 4 units. I am presently still, in spi te of the City, trying to get a second affordable unit in there. This requires that I do this and it shouldn't require 3 PZM9.6.88 that I spend any more additional funds putting together a plat that is going to get wadded up and thrown out unless I can reach some sort of meeting of the minds with the Housing Dept. If the Housing Authority and I can reach an agreement it is going to be reached long before I go to city council. Jim Adamski, by the way, I want to thank him, has worked very well and very closely with me. He is running into some problems with his board now. They are treating this employee unit as if it is a required unit and are putting just as strict of guidelines as if it was a required unit. I won't be able to comply with their guidelines 100%. If they are totally unwilling to bend, we are not going to be able to do it. Because of this moratorium and all of this fiasco that has been going on these last few months it has just pulled more money out of the project. I am trying. I have got a meeting tomorrow morning with the Housing Dept again with a counter proposal to the original proposal but the whole bottom line is--I shouldn't be required to supply or spend the money to give a final plat for something that I am not required to do in the first place. I am trying to offer the City 4 units. If we do 4 time we will have to submit a plat for 4 units. because I have been stalled so bad on this proceeding full bore with 3 units for a building hopes we can plug the 4th unit in there. units, at that At the present project I am permi t in the I have been stair-stepping here so long trying to find out if I can put the 4th unit in there or not it has just gotten to the point of being ridiculous. My feeling right now is we are going ahead full bore on the 3 units. We can always put the 4th in if we are allowed to do that. And I will have a much better handle on it tomorrow to be honest with you. I have just quit spinning my wheels. I just don't feel that putting this into writing that I have got to supply you 2 final plats and all of the cost that entails and I am not required to do that. Welton: When are you going to know or do you have any idea when you are going to know. Hamwi: I don't know. And that is why I decided if they want it, they are going to have to catch up to me. I can't stall around any more. That is why I don't want anything at this point in time in my approvals referring to or requiring anything to do with that 4th unit. If the Housing Authority wants to catch up 4 PZM9.6.88 to me and wants to try and work with me to get it through, I am ready. And Jim Adamski has been wonderful. Your telling me I am going to have to spend the money to do 2 things when I shouldn't have to unless I have got the Housing Authority saying "Hey we are going to help you. We want to do this". I just don't need any more problems on this. I would just as soon make it a clean deal and if the city wants it bad enough, they will help the Housing Authority catch up to us. It is amazing how fast they can do something when they want something. Welton then closed the public portion of this hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend the exemption from mandatory PUD the approval of the request of exemption from GMP for optional employee unit applicable and approval of application as a preliminary submittal for the Hamwi Subdivision with the conditions as listed on Planning Office memo dated September 6, 1988 (attached in record) being the same as 1 through 6 listed with the exception that Condition #5 the comment will be prefaced "if applicable, the employee unit--and so on". And Condition #l with the addition of the clause at the end of the last sentence "if the developer so chooses this option". Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. BRAND BUILDING - SPECIAL TRASH IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Cindy Houben, Planning Dept: This is a very simple resolution which you requested I draft to take to city Council for a trash district on the alley between the Brand Bldg and for that whole block. Roger: I would suggest a WHEREAS indicating the willingness of the people in that area for such a trash district. Cindy: Actually the only willingness we have is Harley Baldwin. We haven't polled anyone. In talking with Jay Hammond of the Engineering Dept he said "Why would anybody want to do this? Why would the rest of the people on the block, if they have already got their trash situation taken care of, ever want to join in this district?" You need a majority vote for a district to be formed. 5 PZM9.6.88 So I think this is one of those kind of things that is not going to fly. Roger: Well, not everyone does have it solved though. Cindy: No they don't. If you really look at it Aspen Drug, Torro's and the Brand Bldg all have theirs right there behind the Brand Bldg. The rest of the alley I haven't surveyed that closely although they do seem to be off the public ROW more. And then the bldg on the end of the street when it was built it had a little indent for their trash. So there are some people who it wouldn't benefit at all. . Jim suggested an all inclusive trash and parking district. Ramona suggested the whole business improvement district. MOTION Jim: I make a motion to go ahead and send this through to Council as a recommendation including Roger's recommendation that upon the willingness of the tenants of the alleys to join such a district. And I would also like to see this referred to as an alley improvement district which would include trash, utility and parking problems. Roger: I suggest doing a telephone poll to get a sense to see if a willingness on more than just one or two to go ahead and look at this. If that poll is positive then go ahead and put that WHEREAS in there that there appears to be a willingness of a substantial number of people for this. Jasmine: I am not sure that when we are recommending that they investigate this problem that it is necessary to rely on the compliance of the owners. If city Council with it's authority determines that this is necessary for the public welfare, they can just go ahead and do it. Welton: I would entertain a motion to approve Resolution #88-9 with changes to be as alley improvement. Jasmine: I so move. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. PITKIN RESERVE PUD AMENDMENT Cindy of the Planning Dept discussed Planning Office (attached in record) and memo members of the dated September Commission 6, 1988. 6 PZM9.6.88 MOTION Jasmine: What do we have to say about #l then? Cindy: That you will allow the use of the subterranean space. Jasmine: OK. I would make a motion to that effect. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. FAR DETERMINATION Cindy: The bottom line on this matter is that there is a difference of about 400sqft that Michael wants to build in another house on one of the unfinished lots. Your motion is that you direct me to determine what square footage Michael has built on Lot 6. He is requesting a clarification that is a technical clarification that may come down to a decision by Council if they want to count that square footage or not. People use different methods to calculate. Michael: What I am asking is confirm that I have built a house within the 6,725 that was budgeted for that house and that that house that was originally designed for it and approved for it with a little garbage addition that came later given the originally approved drawings by Patsy would have been well within the FAR. Jim: It would be easy to say "OK. Done deal". But we don't have any drawings in front of us to go by. Would you agree to us approving something that says that we will leave the final determination up to the Planning Dept? Michael: Sure. Sure. MOTION Jim: I am willing to make a motion for approval of verification of the calculated FAR on Lot 2 that verification to be made by the Planning Office as a final verification of the calculated FAR. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Someone asked Jim to clarify his motion. Jim: What I am saying is that our motion is to verify the 7 PZM9.6.88 calculated FAR of existing home on Lot 2 as X square footage. That X number to be determined by the Planning Office. Jasmine: What does this mean in terms of the overall PUD square footage? Cindy: It means that I go in and determine after going through all of the records in the Building Dept that Michael actually has a 7, OOOsqft house, he is going to have to have to subtract 300sqft from another site to be built. Michael: The problem is I can't get any relian~e from anybody in the Building Dept. And every time I go 1n to have this conversation, the rules change and they say "Well, talk to Alan. Talk to the Planning Office". Jim: So this will finally determine for you where you are. Michael: Yea. It will give some rational person the authority to come up with a determination. USE OF GATEHOUSE AS OFFICE After discussion: Welton read from page #5--"The gatehouse may be used by a project manager as a residence and project office until the last house is completed, at which time it shall be occupied by a caretaker who meets Housing Authority guidelines, as was previously agreed to." Would somebody move to that effect? Jasmine: No. I don't think that is the issue. The applicant is requesting a PUD amendment to allow the Gatehouse to be used as a project office until April of 1990. That is the request that is before us. That is the request for a PUD amendment. MOTION Jasmine: I would move to deny that request. Mari seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Jim, no, Ramona, yes, Mari, yes, Roger, no, Jasmine, yes, Welton, no. MOTION Roger: I will move to deny the request. However allow them the use of the office for no longer than--in other words it's 8 PZM9.6.88 existing situation no longer than 3 months to allow a transition period to come into compliance and basically compliance is what Planning Office has stated. Jasmine seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Jim, no, Ramona, yes, Mari, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Welton, yes. DEHRING STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Cindy made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine: For the record: Based on what Alan said earlier about the moratorium the fact that these people applied for stream Margin Review is what has exempted them from the moratorium delay. That just seems to be a backwards way out of this moratorium. I really do not approve of this and I am going to vote against the stream Margin Review which is totally senseless. But just as a way of indicating the protest that I don't think stream Margin Review as a matter of having spent all this money being in the process and therefore being exempted. This is a typical example of what is going on in the east end of town which I think we are trying to stop. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Dehring stream Margin Review with the conditions # I, 1a and 2 being identical to Planning Office memo dated September 6, 1988 and #1b modified to read--- Cindy: "The setback on the river side of the lodge shall be shown as shown 5ft above the high water line and shall be in compliance with the setback of the setback requirements. Roger: I think I will re-state that. The lot setbacks shall be in compliance with the zone district with a minimum of 5ft setback from the 100 years flood plain on the river side. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:35pm. Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk 9