HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890117
~~e;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 17. 1989
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll
Herron, Mari
Anderson. Jim
call were Graeme
Peyton, Roger Hunt,
Colombo was late.
Means, Bruce Kerr,
Jasmine Tygre and
Michael
Welton
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Michael: I would
with what the
continuation of
like to see us, at least in principle, go along
City Council started last night--encourage
it. I think it is a step in the right direction.
Roger: I agree and maybe it is time for the city council to read
our Transportation and Housing plans. Maybe encompassed in what
Tom has to come up with is, in effect, just pulling it right out
of those plans because so much of what they were interested in
were covered in those plans.
Tom: Last night city council had a work session on auto-free
zones. The thrust of that meeting was to come up with ways to
allow the City to have the option to close off the downtown to
automobiles. In essence they are looking at Spring, Main, Durant
and Monarch as the perimeter streets to an auto-free zone.
Saying that they realized they can't do a lot of other things to
allow that to come to pass. And that primarily dealt with
transportation and housing. And things that we talked about last
night were cable systems at Snowmass, expanded service by RFTA
down valley, rail service down valley and expanded shuttle
service in the downtown and housing close into the City. Park
and ride lots down valley by RFTA.
In essence what they were talking about was essentially the
planning & Zoning commission's Transportation and Housing plans.
We can take those past efforts and combine them and tie up the
loose ends where needed.
That is what council wants to hear. But they also want to hear
how we are going to increase revenues to do some of this stuff.
I don't know what direction that is going to take. Staff is
going to have to take a look at that. We got direction from
Council last night to come back to them on or before April 1st.
(I don't know if there is some significance to that or not.)
PZMl. 17 . 89
MOTION
Michael: I move that we, in principle, encourage the City to
continue their efforts. I think that is the right direction to
develop and I think something has to be done. The one other
footnote that I would have to point out is--I don't think you can
solve the whole issue with one plan in one fell swoop. But you
have to start someplace. I think the step has to be taken and if
the step is to somehow block off the streets down here is the
first step, then I think that that should be done sooner than
later.
Alan: How about if we work with you guys between now and April
1st to bring you all into the process rather than us just taking
something to Council?
Roger: That is what I was going to ask you to include in the
motion and I will second it.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.
Mari: Just as a demonstration, I think it would be a good idea
to have an experiment maybe one day of street closings to see
what the town would be like.
Tom: council has asked us to come back to them with suggestions
for implementation. A suggestion is to around the 4th of July to
close off Galena and Cooper and see what happens.
Alan: We recommended that once before when we were looking at
the Volk property purchase. We had suggested closing off Cooper
and Galena in that area and see how many people use the Volk
property as a way of encouraging City purchase. So we agree with
you. I think it is a good idea.
Jon Bush: At the meeting last night Council did say that they
did not really see this happening until the parking building is
done. We should be careful in the experiment without anything to
offset the loss of the parking in the core area. If it turned
out to be a failure we are going to live with the failure for a
long time and if that all happened because we didn't have the
replacement parking in place it would be sad.
Jasmine: I just noticed in one of the papers today that the
Housing Authority is cracking down on units. They have actually
discovered a lot of units that were supposed to have been units
that were not employee housing units because they were being used
as offices or by people who no longer lived here etc. They have
turned up quite a few of them that are now actually back in the
inventory.
2
PZMl.17.89
Although I have a repugnance against this sort of police state
checking up on these things I think it is wonderful that these
units are back in the inventory and being used in the way they
should be used.
Tom: I think 172 is the number that Janet Raczak has--that
doesn't mean that they were out of the inventory but there was
some violation. I think the number of units that were brought
into the inventory brand new is more like 30 to 50 and that is a
lot.
Welton: That is much easier than actually building them.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
ZONING OF LONE PINE. WILLIAMS ADDITION
BLOCK 19 AND 0015 HARBOR LANE ANNEXATION AREAS
PUBLIC HEARING
Tom: I would like to request that we table the Hunter Longhouse,
Lone pine aspects of this item tonight. We have done additional
analysis today and Alan has discovered that the buildout
potential under the RMF zone for Hunter Longhouse and Lone pine
is fairly extreme. One of the primary guidelines of the
annexation in Alan's opinion that it is probably going to need a
zone district. What we request is that this be tabled to the
February 21st agenda when we can bring back this item along with
a suggestion for a new zone district.
MOTION
Roger: I move to table action and to continue the public hearing
on the Hunter Longhouse, Lone pine aspect of this plan until
February 21, 1989.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
WILLIAMS ADDITION
Tom: The City is in the process of annexing or has annexed
several areas and under state law once an area is annexed the
community has 90 days to zone those areas. The areas that we are
looking at tonight include the Williams addition which was
annexed on January 9th of this year, Block 19 which was annexed
on December 19 and Harber Lane which is a first reading scheduled
for the 23rd of this month.
As part of the comprehensive planning effort the P&Z completed an
annexation element and the guidelines that were developed that
3
PZMl. 17 . 89
were meant to help us in this effort of zoning newly annexed
areas. And briefly the guidelines that we are going to be
focusing on tonight include having the master plan that would
address the land use and capital facilities in the area. All of
these areas are fully developed so utilities are in place.
The other 3 are more to the point. We would like to maintain the
same development rights as existed in the County. We would like
to avoid making a conforming structure non-conforming. We would
like to maintain the FAR in areas that are comparable in the
county unless it is really too low in the county.
The Williams addition is located in the Smuggler area. The area
is primarily single family and duplex units on 7, 500sqft lots.
The existing County zoning is R-15.
Tom made presentation on Williams Addition as attached in
records.
Jasmine: county R-15 says single family on 7,500sqft lots and
City zoning R-15 is 15,ooosqft?
Tom: city R-15 is 15,OOOsqft.
15,000 as well.
I think the county zoning is
Jasmine:
already
district
So then what I was assuming was correct,
existing tremendous amount of non-conformity
as it is zoned currently in the County.
there is
in this
Tom: We have a need for locally oriented family type housing in
the community. This area provides for that need. It is somewhat
affordable. It is not as affordable as if it were deed
restricted but perhaps it would be affordable in the future as
things re-develop. But as it stands right now those are small
lots surrounded by a high density area that have perhaps the
prospect of remaining somewhat affordable in the future. And
certainly it is family oriented, locally oriented housing. And
it also broke up the density.
We really talked to the neighbors about that and they came down
on the side of RMF.
Roger: We have an R-15A zone. Why could we not have an R-6A
zone that allowed duplexes at 7,500sqft? That would allow this
to come in without any significant increase in development
rights. It would actually--where there are R-15 now and non-
conforming even in the County--it separates that problem. It
comes closest to our existing zoning with really very little
compromise. And actually it does in effect by making duplexes
4
PZMl. 17 . 89
conforming on 7,500sqft that is the only non-conforming problem
you would have.
Alan: That is an alternative we obviously have been trying to
avoid every time we do an annexation creating a zone district
apportionately. We are finding that just about every annexation
because of the unusual development circumstances that have
occurred over the years in the County, we don't have anything
that seems to fit. We thought that multi-family in the County
would fit under RMF and they clearly don't. And this one R-6
just didn't quite seem right. You have got an interesting idea
there. There is nothing inherently wrong with additional zone
districts. It makes the code a little longer but it is not a
problem.
Jasmine: I think Roger's solution is an excellent one because it
takes into account what is there and does clean up some of the
non-conformities and admits this with the kind of zoning which is
already in existence without making many changes. And I think
that that is much truer to the purpose behind the criteria for
annexation. I also would like to see that option pursued.
Welton: Now this land has to be zoned within 90 days but if we
are talking about zoning it to an R-6A zone district that doesn't
exist yet. Is that physically possible?
Alan: Yes. To the February 21st meeting we would expect to
bring back an RMFA if you will. This would require us to bring
back RMFA and an R-6A. You can recommend zoning the land to the
new district at the same time as creating the district.
Welton asked for public comment.
Jon Bush, property owner in Williams Addition: There was an
argument which I heard long ago when we first submitted a
petition for annexation in the planning Office. That was that
the whole neighborhood is high density anyway so we might as well
let this go high density too. I think that there is still some
of that sentiment in the Planning Office.
The Mayor made the allusion to the last elephant. And since it
was the last elephant you might as well shoot it because there
weren't any more anyway. I don't like that argument. The
Williams Addition is a very old pioneer subdivision. It is here
from the mining days. I would like to see it stay that way.
Regarding the owners wishing to have RMF zoning. At that meeting
there were 7 people. 3 of the people who were there were 3 of
the 4 property owners who own more than 2 lots. That was Ella
Skufka owning 4 lots, Bob Kopf owning 4 and 1/2 lots, Tony
5
._.._-------"'-_._~-_._,~.,.---
PZMl. 17.89
Rutgers owning 3 or 4 lots as well. They all have the lots on
the road at the front of the subdivision.
Bob Kopf is the only one who was real straight forward and said
he wanted to build condos. But the remainder of the people there
were John Bennett, myself, Maggie Harris and Don Delice. Don
Delice did not take a position. Maggie Harris and I wanted to
keep the neighborhood as it is and John Bennett who has a non-
conforming duplex. It was a single family home. He voted with
the larger property owners wanting to have the RMF zone.
I would like to have it an R-6 zone. It is the appropriate
corresponding zone. It doesn't really give anybody any major
windfall profits over there that an RMF zone would. And most
importantly when you are talking about an R-6A or an RMFA,
Williams Addition is unique if you look at the map. On lots all
over Aspen--all the lots face north/south. The Williams Addition
lots face east/west. And in the present County R-15 zone we have
side lot setbacks of 10ft. That 10 foot setback which is
ultimately double what it is in the city R-6 zone will allow the
people who live internally in Williams Addition to keep some sun
in our yard no matter what is built in front of us.
In the case of RMF zone if you go with that you might as well
really blow it off because if you put a 3 story building in front
of somebody 10 foot setback or 5ft setback isn't going to make
any difference, it is still going to be a tunnel in between the
houses.
So I would like you also to consider while you are talking about
an R-6A in that subdivision you maintain the 10ft side lot
setbacks that are in there now. The city over the years has been
very conscious of view plain corridors and preserving sun in the
lots and I think it is the most critical of anywhere in town in
Williams Addition because of the way the lots are oriented.
Because most of the lots in Williams Addition are small--they are
60ft lots and 125ft long which is why they come out at 7,500sqft.
I would like to keep the 10ft side lot setback. It is not a
change. It is what is there now.
Stan Lauriski, property owner over there: I am not included in
the annexation for some reason. I am most effected by anything
that goes on in the neighborhood beings I am bordered by South
Avenue and Gibson. I live in this triangle here. I am not sure
why I was left out.
Tom:
case.
This map is in error. The hand outs show that as being the
The map should have been amended.
6
PZMl. 17 . 89
stan: I could not make the previous meeting. I am for the high
density--the RMF-6. The mega high density--whatever I can get on
it. That is the only way we can recoup any losses on our real
estate that we have. The high density has created massive
traffic problems.
Carl Wright, property owner: I more or less agree with Jon. I
would rather keep it duplexes at the most and also with the
setbacks on the sliding scale.
There were no further public comments.
Welton: Roger has made a suggestion that a new zoning district
R-6A be tailored to fit this property.
Bruce: I think it is appropriate. We
area outside the Williams Addition.
also Jon's comment about the setbacks.
might want to consider the
I like Roger's idea. And
Graeme: I think Bruce might have a good point in that maybe it
doesn't all have to be one thing or the other. I don't know how
you tell one guy you are going to do one thing with his land and
the guy next door something else.
Alan: There are all different conditions on his land. The
Williams Addition sits back off of that main turn. Mr.
Lauriski's property is literally right at the place where people
access both the mobile home park, Centennial and up towards
William Addition. This is a very uniquely situated piece of
property.
Graeme: I think Bruce's suggestion is a good one.
Roger's is a good one.
And I think
MOTION
Roger: Basically the recommendation is for an R-6A very similar
in respects to the R-15A we have for bringing in R-15 County into
the City. So there is that precedence for that type of zone. It
is basically R-6 with respect to single family. with respect to
duplexes in the Williams Addition it would allow duplexes on
7,500sqft because that is an existing condition. And I don't
consider that a tremendous compromise of what is going on either
zoning code wise or in the City and in particular in the williams
Addition.
I certainly like the idea of maintaining the minimum of 10ft
setbacks and as far as the sliding scale aspect I am certainly
not against that. I think maybe the Planning Office should have
7
PZMl. 17 . 89
the opportunity to see what that does to the rest of the
property.
wi th respect to stan Lauriski' s I am very familiar with that
property and maybe it is appropriate to look at some form of RMF
for that particular property. It is in effect divided from the
rest of the Williams Addition by a very high utilized road now
with Centennial, Smuggler and all of that.
Alan: One of the reasons that we recommended the RMF is because
it has got the likely requirement that somebody will come in
under GMP and have to do at least a quarter of the project on
site as affordable. Through R-6A you are going to have single
family duplex type of development. Given the location it is more
likely to be resident oriented. But there is nothing to stop a
speculator from coming in and turning that neighborhood over and
displacing the residents.
Michael: I think we can accomplish what Graeme is looking to do
on that little piece by the higher density we put on it the more
available and the more attractive it is going to be for either
the Housing Authority or somebody else to come and do something
similar to it. Just on that one little piece. I certainly don't
think we should do that to the Williams Addition.
MOTION
Roger: I move to table the Williams Addition and continue the
public hearing to February 21, 1989 meeting with instructions to
the Planning Office to look at an IR-6A" type of zone wherein it
would allow--it would be basically like City R-6 but allow
duplexes on 7,500sqft. And looking at maintaining the existing
williams Addition side yard setbacks of 10ft. And also looking
into if it is appropriate to go to sliding scale setbacks above
that minimum.
For the Lauriski parcel the Planning Office look into an RMF type
of zoning whether it be City RMF or an RMFA as we develop this
process further.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
(corrections done to here)
BLOCK 19
Tom Baker: As I stated earlier that area was annexed on December
19th. Block 19 is located on Hopkins Street and 7th. The area
that is looking for annexation consists of approximately
12,OOOsqft. You will notice how the R-15 zone district is used
8
PZMl. 17.89
as essentially a buffer between the mountain and the city. And
you can see how the R-15 zone district goes along and travels in
that area except when it comes to 5th street. Then it goes up
across Hopkins and over then around this R-6 area and out to 7th.
Alan did some research, talked to Bill Cain and none could
determine why this area was zoned R-15 because what you have is
essentially multi-family structures all along that block with the
annexation area being vacant. It would make more sense and it
would be consistent with the zoning philosophy of the City
keeping a buffer for the mountain to take the R-15 line and draw
it straight to 7th street and then to look at re-zoning both
blocks the southern half blocks of 25 and 19 including the
annexation area as RMF given that the existing structures there
are RMF. And it is our hope or our intention to encourage
affordable housing in this Block 19 annexation area.
The recommendation that the staff would make is that this area
would be zoned RMF and that in conjunction with that we would
look at rezoning these two half blocks RMF given what is
happening on these blocks already.
We are recommending RMF for the annexation area and in
conjunction with that and as part of the process we would also
rezone the rest of this southern half block of Block 19 to RMF as
well as the southern half of block 25.
Hans Gramiger: The Scandia hasn't been annexed yet. I have
volunteered to the city that I probably could be instrumental and
do it for them. I have already approached him 2 or 3 times. And
I think they are agreeable to do it. The other ones next to the
Scandia going east, they have annexed and condominiumized. But
the Scandia has not.
Bruce: It seems to me that if we are using the R-15 as that
buffer along there, I have a problem with bringing somebody in at
an RMF and then sort of opening the floodgates to that other R-15
even though there is non-conformities there. I would rather see
us bring them in conforming to what is there and then go through
the process of changing the whole thing to RMF.
Michael: If we make this R-15 then it is a non-conforming lot in
R-15 because there is only 12,OOOsqft.
Tom: It would be non-conforming, yes.
Michael: So we are going to re-zone something and make it a non-
conforming by virtue of the zoning we are going to put on it if
we do that.
9
PZMl. 17 . 89
Tom: Right. It would be non-conforming lots.
Roger: I guess what has happened here is as a result of the down
zon1ng. Those RMF units have R-15 placed upon them. I sort of
like the idea of cleaning up the zoning. I like the idea of
preserving the buffer with R-15. And unless there is major
development windfalls I would tend to like the idea of going RMF
for that block and trying to clean that up with what is existing.
Jasmine: In some of the instances that we discussed earlier the
RMF zoning is recommended because of the requirement that if it
becomes developed according to RMF under the supposed new
ordinance that on site low cost affordable housing would be
required. That is not actually in place yet.
Alan: Council accepted it on the 9th and will adopt it on the
23rd. No it is not in place but they have verbally committed at
the meeting unanimously on in that case that the on site 25% is
acceptable.
Jasmine: And that is mandatory.
Alan: It is waivable but it is hard to imagine the City would
waive.
Jasmine: OK. Because my only concern is that I think that the
advantages to RMF in these various areas where you are
encouraging affordable housing only works if in fact that
ordinance is firmly in place. And that would certainly affect my
decisions in some borderline cases as to whether RMF is more
appropriate if we are guaranteed that there is going to be some
form of affordable housing redevelopment occurs on that parcel
then I would be much more likely to grant RMF.
Jim: Is there
tonight, Alan?
a reason why we have to make this
Rather than wait until that is in place?
adoption
Alan: No, except that this property was annexed on the 19th of
December which means we are a little behind with this one on
zoning and I would hate for the 90 days to lapse and not have
zoning on it. That would be not good. Council has to go through
first and second readings which takes approximately 4 to 5 weeks.
Welton: I am just a little uncomfortable zoning property to an
intensive use level or intensive zoning because somebody might--
without a concrete development proposal, I don't like doing that.
And I think as a half way point between RMF and R-15 that maybe
R-6 for that area would be appropriate with cleaning up the
zoning adjacent to it to--make the RMF stuff RMF but a middle
ground for this seems more appropriate to me.
10
PZMl. 17 . 89
Roger: The way I was thinking is that at tonight's meeting we
could adopt R-15. And then in a motion like that I would continue
it that you will pursue RMF and if things are in place by the
February 21st meeting that make RMF palatable then we will forge
ahead on that basis. Then if at that 21st meeting RMF is not the
way to go then we should look at adopting R-6. But for the
moment it is annexed as R-15.
Alan: You could at least get into the process with that.
Michael: Don't we create a lot of hardships if it ends up
staying R-15 with 2 6,OOOsqft lots? Wouldn't we be better off
making it R-6?
Roger: Maybe we should make it R-6 now and then continue
pursuing on that.
Alan: I don't see us going any lower than R-6 as an end result.
So putting an interim R-15 really doesn't make a lot of sense to
me. I am more comfortable with R-6.
Roger: OK. If we are all comfortable with R-6 now and are open
to the RMF then why not adopt the R-6 now as a recommendation.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend R-6 zoning to the southern half of
block 19 area and realizing that our February 21st deliberations,
we will be more sure of what the RMF status is and that we are
willing to re-Iook at that point depending upon the conditions of
what comes out of City Council.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
This is a public hearing and to be continued.
HARBOR LANE ANNEXATION AREAS
Tom made presentation as attached in minutes.
Welton asked for public comment.
There was none.
Michael: I am concerned about what happens when we take a
6,OOOsqft lot and put it in a zone that calls for 15,OOOsqft.
Tom: It is a non-conforming lot of record. It is non-conforming
now. We are not increasing the non-conformity.
11
PZMl. 17 . 89
Michael: I would be more comfortable if we had something that
fit with the city or if we create something.
Mari: What are the burdens of the non-conforming lot as compared
to a non-conforming structure?
Alan: Very comparable. First you do the house within the FAR
level so that actually in some ways make the R-6' s a lot more
restrictive zone than R-15 which has got smaller FAR. Its
setback requirements are more difficult because of the sliding
scale.
Welton: It is a real difficult task to take a 6,OOOsqft lot that
is zoned R-15 and put a 25ft front yard setback and a 10ft side
yard setback and 10ft rear yard setback and come up with anything
that is vaguely buildable.
Alan: I think you are right about the setbacks but the FAR is in
fact--mumble.
Welton: For the time being but FARs change with the wind.
Tom: We are also looking at keeping a consistent approach to our
zoning in environmentally sensitive areas. So we want to keep
that precedent going even though there is the non-conforming
issue. In general the R-15 is a buffer for environmentally
sensitive areas which includes the base of the mountain, creeks
and rivers.
So what do you compromise? Do you try to make it OK from a non-
conforming standpoint for the person petitioning for annexation
or do you keep the continuity of the zoning policy throughout.
Welton: I think if you put overlays with the R-15 setbacks on it
you might not have any land left to build on.
Mari: But the PUD takes care of setbacks.
Welton: PUDs don't kick in unless it is a duplex or greater. It
doesn't kick in for single family.
Michael: For a 900sqft house though it is reasonable to assume
that he is going to want to come back in or somebody may to
expand it.
Welton: With an L shaped lot like that I bet you don't have
anything left.
12
PZMl. 17 . 89
Tom: I don't know that it is an L shaped lot. We are not
talking about the entire piece here. There are other structures
on both sides. This lot is out of scale here. And it is tucked
in the middle of 2 single family residences right now.
Jim: Is the owner here?
petitioning for annexation?
Are they aware that they
Are they aware of the zoning?
are
Tom: Roger Kerr is the gentleman we have worked with. We have
done a site visit with him and we informed him that the staff
recommendation was for R-15A.
Jim: And he still wants to petition to be annexed?
creating a useless piece of property.
He is
Tom: I don't think that he is creating a useless piece of
property. The non-conforming issue for the setbacks--he can't
increase the non-conformity in the setback but he can increase
his FAR.
Jim: You can't increase the non-conformance though. You can't
increase the non-conformance. You would be increasing the non-
conformance. The building is non-conforming.
Tom: Not if you go up.
Welton: You cannot go up in a setback. If you look at the
Mountain Forge Building, they wanted to build a second floor and
their west wall was right on the property line and they went for
a variance. Francis Whitaker couldn't get a variance at the
Board of Adjustments. The second floor is set back 5ft from the
property line and the first floor isn't.
Jim: The building is a non-conforming structure because of the
fact that the lot itself is non-conforming.
Welton: I am
project that I
15 lot but it
setbacks the
physically fit
on two floors.
particularly sensitive about this because I had a
went to the Board of Adjustment with. It is an R-
is 4,500sqft. By the time you took the side yard
front and back yard setbacks you could not
the FAR that you are allowed within that envelope
MOTION
Michael: Since they haven't even been annexed yet, I would like
to move that we table this--Iet's look at these problems with the
setbacks. I am concerned about that.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
13
PZMl. 17.89
Welton: I will continue the public hearing until the 21st of
February.
SMITH/ELISHA HOUSE GMOS EXEMPTION
Welton and Jim stepped down from this due to possible conflict of
interest.
vice Chairman Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing.
Roxanne made presentation as attached in record.
Jasmine: On GMP projects there was a time when it was
established that all applicants be prepared to provide for low
income or restrict any housing that they created to low income
guidelines until or unless advised otherwise by the Housing
Authority.
This is a different situation but in the absence of other
information as to what kind of--we don't really know what kind of
office it is going to be or what kind of employee generation. It
seems to me there should be some kind of standard way to apply
this for change in use. I think there should be some kind of
criteria established for this so that we are not just saying we
think they are going to be hairdressers or brain surgeons. We
really don't have any rational for making those decisions.
Roxanne: We pretty well know from the type of the project and
the renovation project that it is going to be professionals that
are going to be occupying the space.
That is something that we recommend in here is that maybe we need
to look at the kinds of office space instead of as the Housing
Authority was suggesting what their income category as the type
of support staff. In other words they were looking at all of the
employees that would be generated by the project in the lowest
level income and basing their calculations on that. Since there
is no standard right now in place that is something we need to be
looking at.
Jasmine: There is also a difference between what happens when an
applicant provides employee housing and is going to deed restrict
it as opposed to when they are going to make a payment of cash-
in-lieu. Certainly we would want to get as much cash-in-lieu as
possible. But I am uncomfortable with the sort of opinions that
we are coming out with in these housing questions because I think
that unless we have a standard way of applying and every time we
come into change in use and I think we are going to be seeing
14
PZMl.l1.89
more of those also as part of new development it is an area of
concern that should be addressed.
Mari: I fail to see what the connection is really between what
kind of employees might be generated by this particular project
and what type of--it seems to me like if it is going to be cash-
in-lieu the question is what kind of housing is needed most in
the community not what is generated by this particular project.
If we have a greater need in the community for A but this project
might produce B--
Alan: Whose responsibility is the need? What they generate or
the community?
Jasmine: So you would like to see this as the approach for the
amount of cash-in-lieu.
Alan: You need to have a relationship between the requirement
imposed on the project and--
Michael: Well then we have a real serious problem because then
you are just adopting an arbitrary standard that you have adopted
just for this particular application.
Jasmine: That is what I am saying is that we have to adopt one
that is generally applicable.
Michael: That is what has been done already. The Housing
Authority is now creating anew standard that has never been used
before as part of the code. I think there is a great question as
to its legality and if we turn around right now and determine
that it is more appropriate to turn around and say that an
applicant has to pay the impact fees upon what the community
needs are then we are also adopting a new standard. I also think
that is a questionable legality.
When the applicant comes in and applies there has to be a
standard there that he applies by virtue of--not based upon what
the Housing Authority that day thinks or that day makes a
determination on nor what we make a determination on.
I am not saying that any of the determinations are inappropriate
but I don't know that legally any of them are appropriate without
some kind of advance notice to an applicant.
Alan: Unfortunately we never updated the change in use when we
adopted cash-in-lieu. We didn't think through the cash-in-lieu
could be use not only in GMQS applications but in GMQS
exemptions.
15
PZMl. 17 . 89
Jasmine: I think that this is a problem area and for all the
reasons that Mickey and Mari have pointed out. I am very
hesitant to say what we should do in this thing because it could
very well be appropriate but it could very well not. And until
we have some kind of a system that would apply to all change in
uses that we are going to be in this kind of limbo.
Alan: What we are suggesting to you because the building is a
historic landmark and there is a community interest in its
preservation that we establish a standard to not go to the most
restrictive but to go to the least restrictive. So we are taking
that step saying "Yea there isn't a guideline here but we are
willing to go out on a limb to try and preserve this building and
so go to the least restrictive which is certainly supportable.
They have a requirement to provide affordable housing. By taking
the least restrictive in the guidelines that appears to me to be
reasonable.
That is not following the exact language of the code but it is a
way to get through this particular issue.
Jasmine: So this is their incentive so to speak as opposed to
making them pay more money which would be a disincentive.
Roger: And that certainly fits with the attitude we had about
historic landmarks. All through this it was always supposed to
be a benefit to get the historic designation and this is a way of
enticing that.
Alan: Two weeks from tonight you will be hearing a code
amendment submitted by the Berko project to try and get at this
kind of an issue. How do you afford to pay for the housing and
parking. This has let us try to find ways to look at that issue.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ruth White: I live across the alley and I am very concerned
about the parking there. There is also a little incline right
between the properties. I have been noticing in the winter the
snowbank builds up and I have a carport that is very hard to see
cars and you have to gun it to get up there. So I don't look
forward to a lot of traffic up there. Hopefully there won't be.
I am hoping that everybody can feel the minimum number of parking
spaces up there. And right now there is some service trucks
still sticking out. I have not noticed trash but I am very
concerned. The other 2 properties are rental units that I rent
out to the locals here year around and some of them have children
so I am very concerned about the traffic from that property. I
hope you consider the neighbors.
16
PZMl. 17 . 89
Joe Wells: The first condition is fine as written. The Board
members have really touched on the issues in regard to the second
condition. Obviously we were concerned about the cost of
relocating the transformer. Apparently there is a need to
maintain at least 3ft of clearance all the way around the
transformer. The Engineering Department described one
alternative being a buried vault as a way to find a location for
the transformer. It seemed as if this could get to be a very
expensive kind of solution.
The minimum requirement with special review would be 4 spaces.
We think that at 5 spaces you may be able to find that. That
would be acceptable. #4 obviously we need the waiver given the
number of spaces that we have. And on #5 we would simply like to
strengthen the language to make it clear that if there is a code
amendment to grant exaction waiver on certain provisions for
historic landmarks. We would like to be eligible for it if it is
adopted up until the time that we get CEO for the project.
Alan: You are going to have to pay the fee. I don't know that
you couldn't get a rebate. I don't see any real problem with
that myself. But you would have to pay at the time the building
permit is issued. It is an administrative policy.
The key to you folks is to agree that they be eligible because
normally they would be subject to the rules in affect at the time
that they are approved at the time they that they get a building
permit this kind of retroactive provision I think is appropriate
here.
Roger: That should be included in
recommendation that is included
minimize the exactions.
your final paragraph. Or our
in your final paragraph to
Alan: By the action that we are
minimize in every way. It is
spaces, no cash-in-lieu of the
cash-in-lieu for housing that
accomplished that.
recommending that really does
the minimum number of parking
parking, the minimum level of
we can apply. So we have
Roger: But your final paragraph we recommend that the P&Z
commission include in this motion the statement that the
applicant shall be eligible for consideration in a reduction of
City exactions specific to and so on and so on.
Jasmine: We have already done that.
-
17
PZMl. 17 . 89
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the GMQS exemption for the change in
use of the smith/Elisha House and approving the special review
for parking reduction with the following conditions: #1 being
the same as in Planning Office memo dated January 17, 1989. #2
being deleted. #3 which will be the new #2. #4 which will be
the new #3 being the same as in the memo. #5 being the new #4
being the same with the addition of the notation that it is to
minimize the cost on the historic landmark. Then a final
paragraph including the sentiments of the final paragraph in the
Planning Office memo dated January 17, 1989 more or less
verbatim. (attached in record)
Michael:
there be
regarding
One suggestion that we
no requirement to go
the compact cars.
add to condition new #2 that
to the Board of Adjustment
Roger: Add to the new condition #2 which is that the 2 parking
spaces directly to the north of the main structure's rear stairs
be designated for compact cars only eliminating the need to
demolish this historic architectural feature and further that
there is no need to go to the Board of Adjustments in pursuit of
this.
Michael seconded the motion.
Jasmine asked for explanation of the final paragraph.
Alan: If the code amendment goes through and it turns out that
the project like this will be eligible to be 100% exempt from the
housing fee at all, normally since they have already gotten the
building permit, it is like "Well you should have waited. If you
would have waited for the code amendment to be processed then you
would have been eligible under that new code. II What we are
suggesting is because these things are kind of simultaneously
tracking then we recognize that this applicant should be eligible
in effect for a rebate. The Council would have to formally grant
that rebate because the applicant wants to go forward within the
next month or two. The code amendment won't go to Council until
the end of March.
Graeme: Asked Mrs White if she had any suggestions regarding her
concern about the parking.
Mrs. White: That there be as few as possible. It is very
difficult especially with the build up of snow to get in and out
of that alley. And now that it is designed to go straight
instead of at an angle, coming out of there at a straight angle
is just going to be--already I have had people knock down my
18
PZMl.l1.89
fence which I have had to repair. We have just had a lot of
problems and I would like to avoid it as much as possible.
Unfortunately the city has now eliminated some
Main street because of RFTA stopping out there.
that space on Main street.
parking on the
We just need
All voted in favor of the motion.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:15pm.
-"
Jani
:/
19